The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packets - 2003/06/23CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Monday, June 23, 2003 7:00 p.m. 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 7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Licenses for Approval B. Resolution No. 6034 Approving 2003 Business Licenses C. Resolution No. 6040 Approving a Contract Award for the Annual Sanitary Sewer Root Abatement Project 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. 7:05 P.M. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit Request by Dale Goettsch for an Oversized Garage at 5220 Edgewood Drive (Ericson) B. 7:08 P.M. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution No. 6042 Approving the Preliminary Feasibility Report and Ordering the County Road H Sidewalk Improvement Project (Lee) C. 7:10 P.M. Public Hearing, Second Reading and Adoption or Ordinance 716, an Ordinance Amending Section 1108.04 of the Zoning Code Pertaining to Conditional Uses within the R- 3 and R-4 Zoning Districts. ROLL CALL VOTE. (Ericson) D. 7:15 P.M. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6035 regarding an Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Network Liquors on Ten; 2345 West County Rd H2. E. 7:20 P.M. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6036 regarding an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Robert’s Sports Bar and Entertainment; 2400 County Rd H2. F. 7:25 P.M. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6037 regarding an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Jake’s Sports Café; 2400 Highway 10 G. 7:30 P.M. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6038 regarding an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for The Mermaid; 2200 Highway 10 City Council Agenda June 23, 2003 Page 2 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS (Continued) H. Resolution 6041 Establishing a Calendar for the Preparation and Adoption of the 2004 Budget (Hansen) I. Discussion Regarding Pawnshop Ordinances (Ericson) J. Consideration of a Development Review Request for LandCor Development (Ericson) K. Discussion regarding City Attorney Firm Interviews (Ericson) 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Minutes, June 9, 2003 11. REPORTS A. Reports of Mayor and Council B. Reports of Staff C. Reports of City Attorney 12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, July 7, 2003 Next Council Meeting: Monday, July 14, 2003 13. ADJOURNMENT Item No. 08A Type of Business: CA Meeting Date: June 23, 2003 City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council From: Barb Benesch Item Title/Subject: CONTRACTOR LICENSES FOR APPROVAL Please consider the following contractor licenses for approval. All contractor licenses will expire on December 31, 2003. 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 2002. Those companies renewing their license were licensed, at a minimum, in the year 2002. The type of license they are applying for follows the company name. All Poolside Service, Inc. – Swimming Pool Installation - New American Building Contractors – General (Commercial) – New Cool Air Mechanical – HVAC – New Cottonwood Construction – General (Commercial) - New Sharp Heating & Air Condition, Inc. – HVAC - Renewal Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested. .Item No. 08B Meeting Date: June 24, 2002 Type of Business: CA WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6034 Approving 2003 Business Licenses Date of Report: June 16, 2003 All City of Mounds View business licenses will expire June 30, 2003. Staff is recommending that the Council approve business licenses for the businesses listed in Resolution 6034 contingent upon the City’s receipt of the appropriate fees, applications, proof of insurance and satisfactory reports from the appropriate departments and organizations. Respectfully Submitted, ___________________________ Desaree M. Crane RESOLUTION 6034 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A Resolution Approving Business Licenses for 2003-2004 WHEREAS, all City of Mounds View Business Licenses expire June 30, 2003; and WHEREAS, all City of Mounds View business licenses must be approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, staff recommends approval of the business licenses for the businesses listed in Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does hereby approve business licenses for the businesses listed in Exhibit A contingent upon the City’s receipt of the appropriate fees, application materials, proof of insurance and satisfactory reports from the Ramsey County Health Department and the Fire Marshall. Adopted this 23rd day of June, 2003 Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: Jim Ericson, Interim City Administrator (seal) EXHIBIT A Local Company License Local Address SuperAmerica #4264 3.2 Malt Liquor License (Off-Sale) 2640 County Road I Holiday 3.2 Malt Liquor License (Off-Sale) 2732 Highway 10 Bridges Golf Course 3.2 Malt Liquor License (On-Sale) 8290 Coral Sea Street Jake's Sports Café Amusement Devices and Center License 2400 Highway 10 The Mermaid Amusement Devices and Centers License 2200 Highway 10 Wynnsong 15 Amusement Devices and Centers License 2430 Highway 10 Robert's Sports Bar and Entertainment Amusement Devices and Centers License 2400 County Road H2 Saturn of St.Paul Automobile Sales License 2375 Highway 10 The Mermaid Bowling License 2200 Highway 10 Budget Liquor Cigarette and Tobacco License 2577 Highway 10 Network Liquors on Ten Cigarette and Tobacco License 2345 West County Road H2 Snyder's Drug #5044 Cigarette and Tobacco License 2553 Highway 10 Fedor's Market Cigarette and Tobacco License 5491 Adams St. North The Station Cigarette and Tobacco License 2280 West County Road I ABC Liquor Cigarette and Tobacco License 2840 Highway 10 Stop-N-Go Cigarette and Tobacco License 2525 Highway 10 NE Jake's Sports Café Cigarette and Tobacco License 2400 Highway 10 NE Holiday Cigarette and Tobacco License 2732 Highway 10 Oasis Market #531 Cigarette and Tobacco License 2390 Highway 10 Oasis Market#355 Cigarette and Tobacco License 2155 Highway 10 SuperAmerica #4264 Cigarette and Tobacco License 2640 County Road I Robert's Sports Bar and Entertainment Cigarette and Tobacco License 2400 County Road H2 Walgreens #06447 Cigarette and Tobacco License 2387 Highway 10 The Mermaid Cigarette and Tobacco License 2200 Highway 10 View Market Cigarette and Tobacco License 2408 County Rd I Sham-O-Jets Kennels Commercial Dog Kennel 7700 Long Lake Road Twin City Refuse Garbage and Rubbish Hauler License Ray Anderson & Sons Co. Inc. Garbage and Rubbish Hauler License Randy's Sanitaton Garbage and Rubbish Hauler License Larry's Quality Sanitation Garbage and Rubbish Hauler License Keith Krupenny & Son Garbage and Rubbish Hauler License Ace Solid Waste, Inc Garbage and Rubbish Hauler License Veit Corporation Garbage and Rubbish Hauler Local Company License Local Address License BFI Waste Systems of North America Garbage and Rubbish Hauler License Waste M anagement of Minnesota Garbage and Rubbish Hauler License VASKO Solid Waste Garbage and Rubbish Hauler License 309 Como Avenue Onyx Waste Services Midwest, Inc. Garbage and Rubbish Hauler License 1375 7th Avenue Walter's Recyling and Refuse Garbage and Rubbish Hauler License Holiday Gasoline License 2732 Highway 10 SuperAmerica #4264 Gasoline License 2640 County Road I The Station Gasoline License 2280 West County Road I Stop-N-Go Gasoline License 2525 Highway 10 NE Oasis Market #531 Gasoline License 2390 Highway 10 Oasis Market #355 Gasoline License 2155 Highway 10 Mounds View Best Steak House Restaurant License 2555 Highway 10 Dominos Pizza Restaurant License 2548 Highway 10 Taco Bell #4039 Restaurant License 2219 Highway 10 Subway Restaurant License 2546 Highway 10 The Mermaid Restaurant License 2200 Highway 10 KFC #Y067042 Restaurant License 2213 Highway 10 Pink Flower Vietnamese Restaurant Restaurant License 2563 Highway 10 Donut Connection Restaurant License 2394 Highway 10 Jake's Sports Café Restaurant License 2400 Highway 10 McDonald's Restaurant License 2201 Highway 10 Robert's Sports Bar and Entertainment Restaurant License 2400 County Road H2 Burger King #4116 Restaurant License 2651 County Road I R.J. Riches Restaurant Restaurant License 2145 Highway Avenue Days Inn Amusement Devices and Center License 2149 Program Avenue Loads of Clothes Amusement Devices and Center License 2544 Highway 10 Item No. 8C Type of Business: Consent Meeting date: June 23, 2003 City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: Resolution No. 6040 Approving a Contract Award for the Annual Sanitary Sewer Root Abatement Project Background: On May 27, 2003 the City Council approved Resolution No. 6019, Awarding the Annual Sanitary Sewer Root Abatement Project, to Westco Environmental Services. Attached is a copy of the staff report and resolution. Discussion: As a requirement of qualification for performing the Annual Sanitary Sewer Root Abatement Project, the contractor must provide the City with a copy of its pesticide applicators license. After several weeks and several contacts by the City, Westco Environmental Services has not been able to produce a copy of the necessary license. The inability of Westco Environmental Services to produce a pesticide applicators license has disqualified them as a responsive bidder. The second low bidder was Duke’s Root Control, in the amount of $13,222.65. Staff recommends that the contract be awarded to Duke’s Root Control in the amount of $13,222.65. Duke’s Root Control has been awarded the Sanitary Sewer Root Abatement Project for the last three years and has met or exceeded the City’s specifications. The 2003 adopted budget has $15,000.00 allocated for root removal in the City‘s sanitary sewer system (account 730-4823-5160). Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 6040, rescinding Resolution No. 6019 and approving a contract award to Duke’s Root Control in the estimated amount of $13,222.65 for the Annual Sanitary Sewer Root Abatement Project. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Lee, Director of Public Works RESOLUTION NO. 6040 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING THE CONTRACT AWARD FOR THE ANNUAL SANITARY SEWER ROOT ABATEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, on May 27, 2003, the City Council approved Resolution No. 6019 awarding the Annual Sanitary Sewer Root Abatement Project to Westco Environmental Services Inc. in the estimated amount of $12,844.86 ($1.02 / foot); and WHEREAS, Westco Environmental Services Inc. has failed to provide the City with a copy of their pesticide applicators license and have been disqualified as a responsive bidder; and WHEREAS, the second low bidder was Duke’s Root Control in the estimated amount of $13,222.65. ($1.05 / foot); and WHEREAS, Duke’s Root Control has been awarded the Sanitary Sewer Root Abatement Project for the last three years and has met or exceeded the City’s specifications; and WHEREAS, the 2003 adopted budget has $15,000.00 in funds allocated for root removal in the City‘s sanitary sewer system (account 730-4823-5160). NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Mounds View City Council does hereby rescind Resolution No. 6019 and approve a contract award with Duke’s Root Control in the estimated amount of $13,222.65 for the Annual Sanitary Sewer Root Abatement Project. Adopted this 23rd day of June 2003. ______________________________ Jerry Linke, Mayor (ATTEST) _______________________________ James Ericson Interim City Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) Item No. 8E Type of Business: CA WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: Resolution No. 6019 Approving a Contract Award for the Annual Sanitary Sewer Root Abatement Project Meeting Date: May 27, 2003 Background: Annually, the City budgets funds to finance root removal in the City‘s sanitary sewer system. This program was started a few years ago to address problem areas where roots have grown into the sewer pipes and significantly reduced their capacity. Discussion: This year’s program will include sanitary sewer mains located under the following roadways: ROADWAY FROM TO LENGTH Knoll Drive Hillview Drive Lois Drive (w/ Lois Dr.) Hillview Drive Knoll Drive Jackson Drive (w/ Lois Dr.) Lois Drive Jackson Drive end 2745’ Oakwoood Drive Jackson Drive Quincy Street 1325’ Terrace Drive Jackson Drive Quincy Street 1180’ Pinewood Drive Jackson Drive Quincy Street 1290’ St. Stephen Street Co. Rd. 10 Bronson Drive 1223’ Jackson Drive Bronson Drive 335’ south 335’ Adams Street Bronson Drive Erickson Road (w/ Erickson) Erickson Road Adams Street 500’ north 865’ Lambert Avenue Quincy Street 545’ west 545’ Clifton Drive Co. Rd. H2 Bronson Drive 1255’ Raymond Avenue Co. Rd. H2 Bronson Drive 1240’ TOTAL 12,593 feet The City physically removes the roots by sawing them with a special circular saw. Bids are then received and a contractor is hired to chemically treat the inside of the pipe to prevent continued root growth (foam treatment). The Public Works Department solicited bids from several companies and set a May 21, 2003 deadline for submittal of bids. As of this date a total of five (5) bids have been received. A summary of the bids / quotes as follows: Company Total Bid Cost per lineal foot Duke’s Root Control $13,222.65 $1.05 / foot Gopher State Waterjetting $14,481.95 $1.15 / foot Mr. Rooter Plumbing $16,500.00 $1.31 / foot Visu-Sewer Clean & Seal $18,259.85 $1.45 / foot Westco Enviro. Services $12,844.86 $1.02 / foot The low bidder was Westco Environmental Services with a bid of $12,844.86 ($1.02 / foot). For the last few years the City has contracted with the second lowest bidder, Duke’s Root Control. This would be the first year Westco Environmental Services has done work for the City. The 2003 adopted budget has $15,000.00 allocated for root removal in the City‘s sanitary sewer system (account 730-4823-5160). Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council approve a contract award with Westco Environmental Services, Inc. in the estimated amount of $12,844.86 for the Annual Sanitary Sewer Root Abatement Project. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Lee, Director of Public Works RESOLUTION NO. 6019 APPROVING THE CONTRACT AWARD FOR THE ANNUAL SANITARY SEWER ROOT ABATEMENT PROJECT CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the City annually budgets and received bids for root removal in the City‘s sanitary sewer system; and WHEREAS, the Public Works Department solicited bids from several companies and set a May 21, 2003 deadline for submittal of bids; and WHEREAS, On May 21, 2003 a total of five (5) bids have been received; and WHEREAS, the low bidder was Westco Environmental Services, Inc. in the estimated amount of $12,844.86 ($1.02 / foot); and WHEREAS, the 2003 adopted budget has $15,000.00 in funds allocated for root removal in the City‘s sanitary sewer system (account 730-4823-5160). NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Mounds View City Council does hereby approve a contract award with Westco Environmental Services, Inc. in the estimated amount of $12,844.86 for the Annual Sanitary Sewer Root Abatement Project. Adopted this 27th day of May 2003. ______________________________ Jerry Linke, Mayor (ATTEST) _______________________________ James Ericson Interim City Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 09A Meeting Date: June 23, 2003 Type of Business: PH & CB City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View City Council From: James Ericson, Interim City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit Request for an Over-Size Garage at 5220 Edgewood Drive; Planning Case No. CU03-003 Introduction: Property owners Dale & Mildred Goettsch are requesting approval of a conditional use permit to construct a detached 1,148 square-foot garage on their property located at 5220 Edgewood Drive. The applicants indicate that the existing garage is too small to adequately meet their needs and that they would like to replace it with something larger. There is a 35- foot long RV that currently sits covered in the driveway that would be moved into the new garage, if approved. Discussion: The subject lot is 10,538 square feet, which is slightly less than the City’s current minimum lot size requirements. (Most of the lots in this subdivision, which was approved in 1967, are the same size as the Goettsch’s.) The existing garage will be demolished to make room for the proposed garage, which would be built in the same location in the rear yard, extending back an additional 13 feet toward the rear lot line. Section 1106.04, Subd. 6, lists the specific conditional use permit requirements for garages larger than 952 square feet. These requirements, such as setbacks and maximum square- footage would be met with this proposal. The Code sets an upper limit of accessory storage space on a property at 1,800 square feet, subject to a 20% rear yard coverage threshold. The Goettsch’s backyard is 5,772 square feet, twenty percent of which is 1,154 square feet. Thus the proposed 1,148 square foot garage satisfies this requirement, however no other accessory storage buildings could be constructed on the lot if this request is approved. The proposed garage would maintain the same five-foot sideyard setback and would be set back 17 feet from the rear property line. There is currently a shed behind the existing garage that will be removed in conjunction with the new garage. There is a ten-foot wide platted easement at the rear of the lot that will not be impacted by the construction. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 5220 Edgewood Drive, as low-density residential. The lot is typical for this area. Most of the homes in this subdivision were built with detached single or small two stall garages, which by today’s standards are too small for the typical multi-vehicle family. Some of the property owners in this area have already expanded or replaced the original garages. Goettsch Council Report June 23, 2003 Page 2 Specific Criteria - Code Consistency Subdivision 6 of Section 1106.04 lists the specific conditions under which a conditional use permit can be issued for an over-sized accessory building. These are as follows: a. The accessory building must conform to all related Code requirements. b. The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one (1) lot cannot exceed one thousand eight hundred (1,800) square feet. c. The building shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the dwelling unit. d. The width of the building cannot exceed thirty-five feet (35'). e. The building shall be a permanent structure. f. Should the use for which the permit was granted be changed, the permit shall be subject to reconsideration, revocation or other action regulated by Code. All of these requirements are satisfied. Specific conditions have been included with the resolution of approval addressing Items “C” and “F”. General Criteria for Granting a Conditional Use Permit In granting a conditional use permit, the City Council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission (see “Adverse Effects” on the next page), and the effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan and upon the health, safety and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands. Among other things, the City Council shall make the following findings where applicable: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. • The proposed garage would cause none of these identified problems. (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. • While the proposed garage would be 448 square feet larger than the existing garage, adjacent properties should not be negatively impacted. Quite possibly the impact on adjacent properties could be positive, especially if the RV parked in the Goettsch’s driveway is moved into the garage. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. • Again, the proposed garage should not impact any adjacent properties. Goettsch Council Report June 23, 2003 Page 3 (4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. • The property owners own multiple vehicles, multiple motorcycles and a 35-foot long motorhome, which is presently parked on the driveway. The request is reasonably related to their needs. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. • The Planning Commission and City Council encourage residents to make improvements to their properties. One such common improvement is to expand garage space to accommodate the needs of today’s multi-vehicle families. This proposal is consistent with all zoning requirements and the purpose of the R-1, Single Family zoning district. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. • As stated on the first page of this report, the proposed conditional use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. • There will be no added traffic or congestion resulting from the proposed garage. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. • All utilities and infrastructure have already been provided. No additional utilities are needed. Adverse Effects The Planning Commission reviewed the conditional use permit request and has considered the possible adverse effects of the proposed use based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: • Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. • The Geographical Area Involved • Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. • The Character of the Surrounding Area • The demonstrated need for such a use. Goettsch Council Report June 23, 2003 Page 4 Again, as stated on the first page of this report, the proposed request fully complies with the Comprehensive Plan. The neighborhood has many lots of this same size and the proposed garage satisfies the maximum rear yard coverage threshold, which was established to ensure that 80% of all backyard areas would remain greenspace. While the proposed garage will be 448 square feet larger than the existing garage, neither property to the north or south should be impacted by the proposal. A privacy fence buffers the property to the south and the property to the north has its garage along the common property line. The properties to the rear would be most visually impacted by the proposed garage however it will be less than three feet wider than the original garage so it should “appear” only slightly larger from a profile perspective. From the front view, relocating the RV that is currently parked on the driveway into the new garage would be an improvement everyone would notice. It is not anticipated that the garage would depreciate the area and in fact should bring added value to the property and should have a positive impact to the tax base. While many homes in the area still have the original, small garages, a growing number of properties in the area are making similar improvements. As for demonstrated need for such a use, I have visited the property and can personally testify as to the Goettsch’s need for the additional space. Section 1103.06 refers to the location of accessory buildings in side and rear yards. The proposed garage satisfies this requirement. Section 1106.03 refers to specific standards such as height, area, setbacks, coverage ratios, use requirements, total number of accessory buildings allowed and exterior siding requirements, all of which are satisfied with this request. All of the requirements addressed above would be satisfied. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the CUP. The Planning Commission’s resolution is attached for the Council’s review. Recommendation: Hold the public hearing and consider all testimony regarding the request. Based on the above information and the site plan presented for consideration, the Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the requested conditional use permit for a 1,148 square foot garage at 5220 Edgewood Drive, subject to stipulations. Resolution 6039 is attached for the Council’s action if it is concurrence with the recommendation. _____________________________________ James Ericson Interim City Clerk/Administrator Attachments: 1. Application 2. Site Plan 3. Zoning Map 4. Location Map 5. Photographic Documentation Site Plan N Zoning Map * Properties not indicated with a particular zoning designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. Photographic Documentation Front view, looking northeast Rear yard view, looking southwest at existing garage MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 731-03 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A 1,148 SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE AT 5220 EDGEWOOD DRIVE; PLANNING CASE NO. CU03-003 WHEREAS, property owner Dale Goettsch has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,148 square foot detached garage on his lot located at 5220 Edgewood Drive, which is legally described as follows: Lot 8, Block 2, Eigenheer Second Addition Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows garages in excess of 952 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,800 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Development Application b. Zoning Map c. Proposed Site Plan d. Photographic documentation e. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies the dimensional requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 the Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed garage would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved and the size of the subject property which is able to accommodate such a structure; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed oversized garage. Res. 731-03 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: 1. The garage shall not be used for commercial purposes, living space or other uses not allowed within the R-1 Single-Family Residential district or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall be considered null and void. 2. The building shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the dwelling unit. 3. The height of the garage shall be limited to 15 feet, as measured from the floor to the mid-point of the trusses. 4. Because the proposed garage would cover twenty percent of the rear yard, no other accessory buildings shall be allowed on the property. 5. The property owner shall ensure that overhead powerlines maintain proper clearance (min 3’) above the new garage. 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 18th day of June, 2003. _____________________________________ Jean Miller, Acting Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) RESOLUTION NO. 6039 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO FOR A 1,148 SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE AT 5220 EDGEWOOD DRIVE; PLANNING CASE NO. CU03-003 WHEREAS, property owners Dale & Mildred Goettsch have applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,148 square foot detached garage on their lot located at 5220 Edgewood Drive, which is legally described as follows: Lot 8, Block 2, Eigenheer Second Addition Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, consistent with Minnesota Statutes and the Mounds View Zoning Code, the Mounds View City Council held a duly noticed public hearing regarding this request on June 23, 2003; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Development Application b. Zoning Map c. Site Plan d. Location Map e. Photographic documentation f. Planning Commission resolution 731-03 g. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code conditionally allows garages in excess of 952 square feet in area with a maximum accessory building area not to exceed 1,800 square feet; and, WHEREAS, in addition, the Zoning Code limits the amount of accessory building coverage in a rear yard to 20 percent of the rear yard area; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council finds that the proposal satisfies the dimensional requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 the Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council finds that the request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general; and, WHEREAS , the Mounds View City Council finds that the proposed garage would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved and the size of the subject property which is able to accommodate such a structure; and, Res. 6039 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council finds that the proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council finds that the applicants have sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed oversized garage; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission reviewed the conditional use permit request at their meeting on June 18, 2003 and adopted a resolution in support of the request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council, based upon all testimony and evidence, does hereby approves a conditional use permit for a 1,148 square foot garage at 5220 Edgewood Drive, subject to the following: 1. The garage shall not be used for commercial purposes, living space or other uses not allowed within the R-1 Single-Family Residential district or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall be considered null and void. 2. The building shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the dwelling unit. 3. The height of the garage shall be limited to 15 feet, as measured from the floor to the mid-point of the roof trusses. 4. Because the proposed garage would cover twenty percent of the rear yard, no other accessory buildings shall be allowed on the property. 5. The property owner shall ensure that overhead powerlines maintain proper clearance (min 3’) above the new garage. Adopted this 23rd day of June, 2003. _____________________________________ Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, Interim City Administrator (SEAL) Item No. 9B Type of Business: Council Business Meeting Date: June 23, 2003 City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: Resolution No. 6042, County Road H Sidewalk Improvement Project; Hold a Public Improvement Hearing, Approve the Preliminary Feasibility Report, Order the Project Background: On January 27, 2003, the City Council approved Resolution No. 5936 authorizing the preparation of a preliminary feasibility report and plans and specifications for the County Road H sidewalk project – from Edgewood Drive to the West City Limits. A draft of the report was completed and was presented to the City Council on May 5, 2003 at a Work Session. At that time, Staff asked the City Council for direction on the following three issues: 1. Which scenario they preferred. Scenario 1 – Five (5) foot concrete walkway Scenario 2 – Six and one-half (6 ½) foot concrete walkway Scenario 3 – Eight (8) foot bituminous pathway The City Council indicated that they preferred Scenario 2, a Six and one-half (6 ½) foot concrete walkway. 2. Where the pathway / sidewalk should terminate (Silver Lake Road or the West City Limits). The City Council did not express a preference on this issue. 3. What the funding source will be. The City Council indicated that they preferred to utilize the Tax Increment Fund as a revenue source for this project. Discussion: Prior to seeking the City Council’s approval of the preliminary feasibility report, Staff organized and conducted a Neighborhood Meeting on June 10, 2003, to present and discuss the proposed sidewalk project. Owners of property located north of County Road H and south of County Road H2, a total of 762 properties, were notified of the meeting via direct mail. Staff also included a “Feedback Form” with the mailing. The Notice and Feedback Form are attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Owners of property along County Road H were also sent a copy of the draft preliminary feasibility report. This is attached as Exhibit C. In addition, the meeting notice and report were also sent to numerous government agencies. Attached, as Exhibit D, is the mailing list and cover letter. Neighborhood Meeting – The Neighborhood Meeting was conducted at 6:30 P.M. Tuesday, June 10, 2003, at the Mounds View Community Center. Twenty-eight people attended. Attached, as Exhibit E, is a copy of the sign-in sheet. Attached, as Exhibit F, is a map indicating the addresses of the property owners who attended the Neighborhood Meeting and signed in. Fifteen (15) of the eighteen (18) addresses on the sign-in sheet were from properties that would be adjacent to the proposed sidewalk. The purpose of the meeting was to conduct a brief presentation, followed by a question and answer session. Staff preformed the presentation. A copy of the presentation notes are attached as Exhibit G. The main question that was posed was, “Why construct a sidewalk on the north side when one already exists on the south side?” Staff explained the following three general reasons why the north side was been considered. School Issues – There are currently 44 elementary students who live north of County Road H and walk to Sunnyside School. However, a total of 122 elementary students live north of County Road H. Without the pathway, students walk south to County Road H and must make a decision to cross at the point, which may not have crossing guards, or walk along the shoulder of County Road H until they come to a crossing point controlled by crossing guards. Another consideration was the proximity of this proposed sidewalk to both Sunnyside Elementary School and Edgewood Middle School. County Road H Characteristics – The traffic volumes for County Road H increased nearly 50% from 4300 vehicles per day in 1997 to 6300 in 2001 (2003 data is not yet available). Neighborhood interconnections and the provision of safe pedestrian corridors – “Providing the highest level of safety possible to ensure the health and welfare of the pedestrian, bicyclist, and motorist” was a goal and objective in the Trailway Proposal, created by the Trailway Advocacy Group in 1992, and included in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Of the twenty-eight (28) people attending the meeting, Staff estimates that about twenty (20) were opposed to the sidewalk proposal or seriously doubted its need or cost- effectiveness. The remaining eight (8) (approximately) were in favor of the pathway. Representatives of the school district and Sunnyside Elementary School also attended the meeting. Comments received at the neighborhood meeting are included in the “Feedback” section below. Feedback – Feedback forms (Exhibit B) were included with the notice for the neighborhood meeting. They were also available at the meeting. As of 4:30 P.M. Thursday, June 19, 2003, City Staff has received a total of seventy-two (72) returned feedback forms, emails, letters, and voicemails. A summary of the Feedback forms are included as Exhibit H. Please note that this summary is based on Staff’s interpretation of the feedback forms received. It is recommended by Staff that the City Council read each and every piece of feedback received as part of this information campaign. This is attached as Exhibit I. As part of the summary, feedback forms were noted either in favor of or opposed to the proposed sidewalk project. This is somewhat subjective, since the feedback forms did not have a checkbox for being in favor of or opposed to the sidewalk as proposed. Staff also mapped out the addresses where these responses originated. This is attached as Exhibit J. The City has received feedback from several governmental agencies: City of New Brighton – Recommends that the segment from Silver Lake Road to Pleasant View be a higher priority. Segment from Edgewood to Silver Lake Road would be somewhat redundant. Suggests using a 5 foot sidewalk for two reasons: 1.) A five foot section is adequate for the volume of pedestrian traffic expected, and 2.) a five foot section would allow for a wider boulevard. Please read the actual letter from Les Proper in Exhibit I. Rice Creek Watershed District – No wetland impacts. Try to incorporate general infiltration practices where practical. May or may not require a permit. Please read actual letters from Karl Hammers and Lee Daleiden in Exhibit I. Ramsey County – Dan Solar, Traffic Engineer, responded verbally. County has few concerns. Place sidewalk ½ foot from property line if possible to provide the maximum space in the boulevard area. Does not foresee the reconstruction of County Road H east of Long Lake of many years. No plans at this time that would indicate additional widening, but no guarantees could be given. Sunnyside Parent Teacher Association – Concerned about the safety of the children. Support the proposed sidewalk. School District 621 – Children could walk to Sunnyside Elementary School safely on the sidewalk until they arrive at a crosswalk with a crossing guard. Support the proposed sidewalk. Considerations if the Project Proceeds – Should the Council wish to proceed with this project, the following previously posed questions will need to be addressed formally. In addition, Staff should be given direction regarding the issues. What scenario is preferred? Scenario 1 – Five (5) foot concrete walkway Scenario 2 – Six and one-half (6 ½) foot concrete walkway Scenario 3 – Eight (8) foot bituminous pathway *Staff would like to note to the City Council that selection of a scenario might set a precedent for the remaining approximately 12 ½ miles of pathways and sidewalks yet to be constructed, as reflected in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. In this particular case, the cost difference between a five (5) foot and a six and one-half (6½) sidewalk is over $38,000. This amount could be applied toward the purchase of a piece of equipment to plow and maintain a five (5) foot sidewalk (approximate total cost of $70,000). As the City’s sidewalk and pathway system grows, the City will need to consider the efficiency of maintaining this system. Regardless of the width of the sidewalk, or if this proposal is approved, the benefits and cost savings of maintaining all City sidewalks with a piece of equipment that operates faster and is more maneuverable will need to be considered. Another note on five (5) foot sidewalks is that they will have less impact on adjacent properties. Where should the sidewalk terminate? Silver Lake Road or the West City Limits What will the funding source be? Preliminary Report – As previously mentioned, a preliminary report has been prepared, based on the Council's authorization: however, the report has not been formally approved by City Council. Based upon this analysis, Staff feels the project is physically and financially feasible. The Preliminary Feasibility Report is attached as Exhibit C for the Council's review. Public Improvement Hearing – The purpose of the public improvement hearing is to provide interested parties an opportunity to learn more about the proposed improvements and to comment on them. Financing for the County Road H Sidewalk Improvement Project will be derived entirely from the City of Mounds View Tax Increment Fund. Since assessments are not a funding source, according to State Statute, a Public Improvement Hearing is not required. However, Staff believes that public input may be helpful and perhaps critical for the City Council to determine whether this project should proceed. A Public Improvement Hearing Notice was sent via direct mail to all owners of property located north of County Road H and south of County Road H2. The hearing was also advertised in the City’s official newspaper, The New Brighton-Mounds View Bulletin, on June 18, 2003. See Attached Exhibit K. Order the Project – Should the Council wish to proceed with this project, the next step in the public improvement process is to order the project. Authorize Plans and Specifications – The City Council ordered the preparation of plans and specifications on January 27, 2003. Should the Council wish to proceed with this project, the plans and specification will be presented to the City Council on July 14, 2003 for approval. What’s Next – Should the Council wish to proceed with this project, the following is a tentative schedule: July 14, 2003 Approve plans and specifications July 14, 2003 Set a bid date July 16, 2003 First advertisement for bids August 7, 2003 Receive bids August 11, 2003 Award contract August 18, 2003 Start project Recommendation: If the City Council wishes to proceed with the County Road H Sidewalk Improvement Project, it is recommended the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6042 approving the preliminary feasibility report and ordering the project. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Lee, Director of Public Works List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Neighborhood Meeting Notice Exhibit B – Feedback Form Exhibit C – Preliminary Feasibility Report Exhibit D – Cover Letter to Government Agencies Exhibit E – Neighborhood Meeting Sign-In Sheet Exhibit F – Map of Property Owners who Attended Neighborhood Meeting Exhibit G - Neighborhood Meeting Presentation Notes Exhibit H – Feedback Form Summary Exhibit I – All Feedback Forms and Emails Exhibit J – Map of Properties who Responded Exhibit K – Public Hearing Notice RESOLUTION NO. 6042 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ORDERING THE COUNTY ROAD H SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, on January 27, 2003, the City Council authorized the preparation of a preliminary feasibility report for the installation of a sidewalk on the north side of County Road H from Edgewood Drive to the west city limits; and WHEREAS, a draft of the report was completed and was presented to the City Council on May 5, 2003 at a Work Session; and WHEREAS, Staff organized and conducted a Neighborhood Meeting on June 10, 2003, to present and discuss the proposed sidewalk project; and WHEREAS, a Public Improvement Hearing was not required, according to State Statute: however a hearing date was set for June 23, 2003, to provide interested parties an opportunity to learn more about the proposed improvements and to comment on them; and WHEREAS, a Public Improvement Hearing Notice was sent via direct mail to all owners of property located north of County Road H and south of County Road H2. The hearing was also advertised in the City’s official newspaper, The New Brighton- Mounds View Bulletin, on June 18, 2003; and WHEREAS, the financing for this project will be derived entirely from the City of Mounds View Tax Increment Fund and that assessments are not a funding source; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows: 1. The preliminary feasibility report for the County Road H Sidewalk Improvement Project was submitted to the City by the engineering firm of Short, Elliot, Hendrickson Inc. (SEH). The report finds the improvements to be necessary, cost effective, and feasible and is hereby approved. 2. Said improvements are hereby ordered and shall hereafter be known and referred to as the County Road H Sidewalk Improvement Project. Said ordering of the improvements shall be valid for a period of eighteen (18) months from the date of adoption of this resolution. 3. The entire cost of said improvements shall be funded through the City of Mounds View Tax Increment Fund. Adopted this 23rd day of June 2003. ______________________________ Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ James Ericson Interim City Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 9C Meeting Date: June 23, 2003 Type of Business: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Mayor and City Council From: James Ericson, Acting City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 716, an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Code to Require a Conditional Use Permit for Expansions to Existing Multi- Family Developments (Roll Call Vote) Introduction: This is the second reading of Ordinance 716, an ordinance amending the Zoning Code to require a conditional use permit for all expansions of multi-family residential developments. First Reading for the ordinance occurred on June 9, 2003. Discussion: The following language, similar to what was proposed by the Planning Commission, would be inserted into Section 1108.04 of the Zoning Code pertaining to conditional uses with the R-3, Medium Density Residential zoning district. Multiple Family Expansion: A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) shall be required prior to any proposed multiple-family residential expansion. (For the purposes of this section, expansion shall mean an increase in the principal building footprint or an increase in the number of dwelling units in the building.) Developments having already obtained a CUP shall go through the amendment process as identified in Section 1125. In addition to the criteria outlined in Section 1125, all proposed expansions shall satisfy all relevant zoning, building and parking code requirements. While this language is somewhat different from the language proposed in the first reading of the ordinance, the intent remains the same. The difference between the two is that now all multiple-family residential developments, regardless of when they were constructed, would need to obtain a CUP to expand. Developments having already obtained a CUP would need to go through the amendment process to expand. Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend second reading and adoption of Ordinance 716, an ordinance amending the Zoning Code to require a Conditional Use Permit for Expansions to Existing Multi-Family Developments. _____________________________________ James Ericson Interim City Clerk/Administrator ORDINANCE NO. 716 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE SECTION 1108.04, PERTAINING TO CONDITIONAL USES WITH THE R-3 ZONING DISTRICT THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1: Section 1108.04 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to conditional uses within the R-3 Zoning District is hereby amended by adding new language underlined to read as follows: 1108.04: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an R-3 District (requiring a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title): All conditional uses allowed in an R-2 District. Multifamily dwelling structures containing six (6) or less dwelling units. Multifamily Dwelling Expansion. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) shall be required prior to any proposed multiple-family residential expansion. (For the purposes of this section, expansion shall mean an increase in the principal building footprint or an increase in the number of dwelling units in the building.) Developments having already obtained a CUP shall go through the amendment process as identified in Section 1125. In addition to the criteria outlined in Section 1125, all proposed expansions shall satisfy all relevant zoning, building and parking code requirements. SECTION 2. 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 9th day of June, 2003. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 23rd day of June, 2003. Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ James Ericson, Interim Clerk Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ City Attorney Item No. 9D Type of Business: PH & CB City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6035, a Resolution Approving An Intoxicating Liquor Business License (Off-Sale) for Network Liquors on 10 Date of Report: June 23, 2003 Section 502.08 of the City Code requires that a public hearing be held prior to the renewal of any intoxicating liquor license. The City of Mounds View issued an intoxicating liquor license for Network Liquors on 10 on June 24, 2002, and their renewal is before the Council for consideration. Network Liquor on 10’s Intoxicating Liquor License will expire June 30, 2003. Network Liquors on 10 has submitted their city liquor license application materials and the applicable fee. The following investigations and inspections have been conducted to determine whether there is cause for the City to deny any of the above referenced intoxicating liquor license application: Health Inspections (St. Paul-Ramsey County Department of Public Health) The Department of Public Health conducts annual inspections of all restaurants and liquor establishments. The Department of Public Health has issued a satisfactory report for Network Liquor on 10. Police Inquiry and Investigations (Mounds View Police Department) The Mounds View Police Department has issued a satisfactory report for Network Liquor on 10 Liquor Utility Billing Inquiry (City of Mounds View) The Finance Department has issued a satisfactory report for Network Liquor on 10. Fire Inspection (City of Mounds View Fire Marshal) The Fire Marshal has inspected the premises and recommends approval of the license subject to minor code corrections being accomplished. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve Network Liquor on 10’s application for Intoxicating Liquor License with the condition that the Fire Marshal issues a satisfactory report on their Fire Inspection. Respectfully Submitted Desaree M. Crane RESOLUTION 6035 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA Resolution Approving an Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Network Liquor on 10 WHEREAS, Network Liquor on 10’s Intoxicating Liquor License expires June 30, 2003; and WHEREAS, all City of Mounds View business licenses must be approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, staff recommends approval of Network Liquor on 10’s Intoxicating Liquor License; and WHEREAS, this Intoxicating Liquor License approval is subject to a satisfactory fire inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does hereby approve an Intoxicating Liquor License for Network Liquor on 10. Adopted this 23rd day of June, 2003. ________________________________ Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Jim Ericson, Interim City Administrator (SEAL) Item No. 9E Type of Business: PH & CB Meeting Date: June 23, 2003 City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6036, a Resolution Approving An Intoxicating Liquor Business License (On-Sale) for Robert’s Sports Bar and Entertainment Section 502.08 of the City Code requires that a public hearing be held prior to the renewal of any intoxicating liquor license. The City of Mounds View issued an intoxicating liquor license for Robert’s Sports Bar and Entertainment on June 24, 2002, and their renewal is before the Council for consideration. Robert’s Sports Bar and Entertainment’s Intoxicating Liquor License will expire June 30, 2003. Robert’s Sports Bar and Entertainment has submitted their city liquor license application materials and the applicable fee. The following investigations and inspections have been conducted to determine whether there is cause for the City to deny any of the above referenced intoxicating liquor license application: Health Inspections (St. Paul-Ramsey County Department of Public Health) The Department of Public Health conducts annual inspections of all restaurants. The Department of Public Health has issued a satisfactory report for Robert’s Sports Bar and Entertainment. Police Inquiry and Investigations (Mounds View Police Department) The Mounds View Police Department has issued a satisfactory report for Robert’s Sports Bar and Entertainment Liquor Utility Billing Inquiry (City of Mounds View) The Finance Department has issued a satisfactory report for Robert’s Sports Bar and Entertainment. Fire Inspection (City of Mounds View Fire Marshal) The City’s Fire Marshal has inspected Robert’s Sports Bar and Entertainment and issued a satisfactory report regarding the establishment pending correction of minor Code issues. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve Robert’s Sports Bar and Entertainment’s application for Intoxicating Liquor License to include selling on Sundays. Respectfully Submitted Desaree M. Crane RESOLUTION 6036 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA Resolution Approving an Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Robert’s Sports Bar and Entertainment WHEREAS, Robert’s Sports Bar and Entertainment’s Intoxicating Liquor License expires June 30, 2003; and WHEREAS, all City of Mounds View business licenses must be approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, all necessary inspections for the establishment have been conducted and with the exception of minor issues associated with the Fire Marshal’s inspection, the establishment satisfies all requirements; and WHEREAS, staff recommends approval of Robert’s Sports Bar and Entertainment’s Intoxicating Liquor License. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does hereby approve an Intoxicating Liquor License for Robert’s Sports Bar and Entertainment subject to satisfaction of pending Fire Marshal orders. Adopted this 23rd day of June, 2003. ________________________________ Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Jim Ericson, Interim City Administrator (SEAL) Item No. 9F Type of Business: PH & CB Meeting Date: June 23, 2003 City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6037, a Resolution Approving An Intoxicating Liquor Business License (On-Sale) for Jake’s Sports Cafe Section 502.08 of the City Code requires that a public hearing be held prior to the renewal of any intoxicating liquor license. The City of Mounds View issued an intoxicating liquor license for Jake’s Sports Cafe on June 24, 2002, and their renewal is before the Council for consideration. Jake’s Sports Cafe’s Intoxicating Liquor License will expire June 30, 2003. Jake’s Sports Cafe has submitted their city liquor license application materials and the applicable fee. The following investigations and inspections have been conducted to determine whether there is cause for the City to deny any of the above referenced intoxicating liquor license application: Health Inspections (St. Paul-Ramsey County Department of Public Health) The Department of Public Health conducts annual inspections of all restaurants. The Department of Public Health has issued a satisfactory report for Jake’s Sports Cafe. Police Inquiry and Investigations (Mounds View Police Department) The Mounds View Police Department has issued a satisfactory report for Jake’s Sports Cafe Liquor Utility Billing Inquiry (City of Mounds View) The Finance Department has issued a satisfactory report for Jake’s Sports Cafe. Fire Inspection (City of Mounds View Fire Marshal) The City’s Fire Marshal has inspected Jake’s Sports Café and issued a satisfactory report regarding the establishment pending correction of minor Code issues. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve Jake’s Sports Cafe’s application for Intoxicating Liquor License to include selling on Sundays. Respectfully Submitted Desaree M. Crane RESOLUTION 6036 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA Resolution Approving an Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Jake’s Sports Cafe WHEREAS, Jake’s Sports Cafe’s Intoxicating Liquor License expires June 30, 2003; and WHEREAS, all City of Mounds View business licenses must be approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, all necessary inspections for the establishment have been conducted and with the exception of minor issues associated with the Fire Marshal’s inspection, the establishment satisfies all requirements; and WHEREAS, staff recommends approval of Jake’s Sports Cafe’s Intoxicating Liquor License. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does hereby approve an Intoxicating Liquor License for Jake’s Sports Café subject to satisfaction of pending Fire Marshal orders. Adopted this 23rd day of June, 2003. ________________________________ Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Jim Ericson, Interim City Administrator (SEAL) Item No. 9G Type of Business: PH & CB Meeting Date: June 23, 2003 City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree Crane, Administrative Assistant Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6038, a Resolution Approving An Intoxicating Liquor Business License (On-Sale) for The Mermaid Section 502.08 of the City Code requires that a public hearing be held prior to the renewal of any intoxicating liquor license. The City of Mounds View issued an intoxicating liquor license for The Mermaid on June 24, 2002, and their renewal is before the Council for consideration. The Mermaid’s Intoxicating Liquor License will expire June 30, 2003. The Mermaid has submitted their city liquor license application materials and the applicable fee. The following investigations and inspections have been conducted to determine whether there is cause for the City to deny any of the above referenced intoxicating liquor license application: Health Inspections (St. Paul-Ramsey County Department of Public Health) The Department of Public Health conducts annual inspections of all restaurants. The Department of Public Health has issued a satisfactory report for The Mermaid. Police Inquiry and Investigations (Mounds View Police Department) The Mounds View Police Department has issued a satisfactory report for The Mermaid Liquor Utility Billing Inquiry (City of Mounds View) The Finance Department has issued a satisfactory report for The Mermaid. Fire Inspection (City of Mounds View Fire Marshal) The City’s Fire Marshal has inspected The Mermaid and issued a satisfactory report regarding the establishment pending correction of minor Code issues. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve The Mermaid’s application for Intoxicating Liquor License to include selling on Sundays. This approval is pending the receipt of their insurance certificate. Respectfully Submitted Desaree M. Crane RESOLUTION 6038 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA Resolution Approving an Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for The Mermaid WHEREAS, The Mermaid’s Intoxicating Liquor License expires June 30, 2003; and WHEREAS, all City of Mounds View business licenses must be approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, this Intoxicating Liquor License approval is pending the receipt of The Mermaid’s Insurance Certificate; and WHEREAS, all necessary inspections for the establishment have been conducted and with the exception of minor issues associated with the Fire Marshal’s inspection, the establishment satisfies all requirements; and WHEREAS, staff recommends approval of The Mermaid’s Intoxicating Liquor License. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does hereby approve an Intoxicating Liquor License for The Mermaid pending the receipt of their Insurance Certificate and subject to the satisfaction of pending Fire Marshal orders. Adopted this 23rd day of June, 2003. ________________________________ Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Jim Ericson, Interim City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 9I Meeting Date: June 23, 2003 Type of Business: Discussion City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: James Ericson, Acting City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Pawnshop Regulation Discussion Introduction: The City Council adopted an Interim ordinance on February 27, 2003, which directed the Planning Commission to review the licensing and zoning implications related to pawnshops and to recommend applicable provisions. The Planning Commission discussed this issue at meetings in March, April and May of this year, reviewing State statues, ordinances from adjoining communities and ordinances from communities where pawnshops currently operate. The Commission also heard testimony from representatives of the Mounds View Police Department who did research on their own, discussing the potential impacts of a pawnshop with other police departments. After significant discussion and input from interested parties including residents and tenants from Moundsview Square, the Commission adopted a resolution forwarding two ordinances on to the City Council for their consideration. Background: Pawnshop regulation is a contentious, emotional issue for most communities. And while there have been major advancements and improvements in the pawn industry with the proliferation of new Pawn Americas and other pawn chains designed to look like any other retail establishment, there still remains negative connotations and images associated with such businesses. The adoption of ordinances to regulate such a business is imperative to protect and preserve local control over the siting and operation of such a business. Without such controls, a Pawnshop could operate unregulated in a city, locating in an area that would otherwise be deemed inappropriate. Adoption of requirements is not an invitation for such a use, it is a proactive measure as opposed to a less effective and more expensive reactive response. The last point which needs to be emphasized is that the City cannot prohibit a Pawnshop from locating here if there are other commercial uses present and zoned for in the City. The City can, however, regulate WHERE in the community such a use would be appropriate and can adopt regulations and licensing requirements to control the operation and to protect the health, safety, well-being of the community. Regulations should not be so unreasonable as to effectively prohibit the use, especially if it can be proven that the underlying intent of the regulations is exactly that. Discussion: The City Council held a public hearing on May 12, 2003 at which time public comment was accepted. The Council chose to delay action until they had an opportunity to discuss the proposed ordinances at the next worksession, June 2, 2003. At the worksession, the Council discussed the possibility of creating an overlay zoning district that would allow for a pawnshop outside of the central business district of the City. Two potential overlays were Pawn Report June 23, 2003 Page 2 identified—either north of Highway 10 or south of County Road H in the Mustang Drive/Circle industrial area. To establish an overlay district, all that would be needed is to revise proposed Ordinance 711 to reflect the creation of the new “Pawn Overlay District” with associated supporting language. There was some question at the worksession as to whether or not the Planning Commission should review and make a recommendation regarding the overlay provisions if the Council does in fact determine an overlay is the preferred approach. My response was and is that the Planning Commission had considered the possibility of an overlay district prior to making their recommendation and no further review is necessary, unless the Council feels additional Commission input would be beneficial. At the worksession the City Council also discussed the proposed fee structure for Pawnshops, referring to the recommendations made by the Planning Commission, which proposed a $5,000 annual license fee, a $10,000 operations bond, a $750 investigation fee and a $1.50 per-transaction fee. There was some concern however that the fees as proposed by the Planning Commission would not be enough to cover the added administrative and potential investigative costs to the police department. The Council examined fees charged by other communities and indicated a preference to be more in line with communities such as Spring Lake Park, Columbia Heights and Blaine, which charge an annual fee of $10,000, $12,000 and $15,000 respectively. While Blaine’s fee is the highest of those communities polled, they do not charge a “per transaction” fee. One other issue discussed at the June worksession was the possibility of requiring background checks on ALL pawn employees in addition to the license holder and manager(s). I contacted the City Attorney regarding this question and his response was that such a requirement could be considered a violation of one’s human rights and civil liberties. The Attorney recommends against imposing such a requirement. Last, Mr. David Przetycki, the individual currently interested in opening a pawnshop at Moundsview Square, has drafted a letter dated June 16, 2003, which I am including for your reference. Recommendation: Review and discuss all of the issues associated with Pawnshops and direct staff to provide more information or to place the item on the agenda for further discussion or consideration. _____________________________________ James Ericson Interim City Clerk/Administrator Attachment: 1. Letter from Mr. Przetycki 2. Draft Ordinances 711 & 712 ORDINANCE NO. 711 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE SECTIONS 1102.02, PERTAINING TO DEFINITIONS, AND 1115.02, PERTAINING TO PERMITTED USES IN B-4 ZONING DISTRICTS THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1: Section 1102.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to definitions is hereby amended by adding new definitions as underlined to read as follows: Subd. 86. PAWNBROKER: (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) , "pawnbroker" means a person engaged in whole or in part in the business of lending money on the security of pledged goods left in pawn, or in the business of purchasing tangible personal property to be left in pawn on the condition that it may be redeemed or repurchased by the seller for a fixed price within a fixed period of time. (b) The following are exempt from the definition of "pawnbroker": any bank regulated by the state of Minnesota, the comptroller of the currency of the United States, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System, or any other federal or state authority and their affiliates; any bank or savings and loan whose deposits or accounts are eligible for insurance by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or any successor to it and all affiliates of those banks and savings and loan associations; any state or federally chartered credit union; any industrial loan and thrift company or regulated lender subject to licensing and regulation by the department of commerce. Subd. 87. PAWNSHOP: “Pawnshop” means the location at which or premises in which a pawnbroker regularly conducts business. All existing subsequent subdivisions within Section 1102.02 are hereby renumbered as appropriate. SECTION 2: Section 1115.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to Permitted Uses within the B4 Zoning District is hereby amended by alphabetically inserting the following underlined uses: Pawnshops, as regulated and licensed according to Chapter 516 of the City Code. SECTION 3. This Ordinance becomes effective thirty (30) days after its publication in the official City newspaper. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this ____ day of _____, 2003. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this _____ day of _________, 2003. Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ James Ericson, Acting Clerk / Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. 712 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE INDEX AND TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING THE TABLE OF CONTENTS OF TITLE 500, BUSINESS LICENSE REGULATIONS, AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 516, ENTITLED “PAWNSHOPS” THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1: The Mounds View Municipal Code Index is amended by alphabetically inserting the following underlined text: Pawnshops ………………………………………………………….………………………516 SECTION 2: The Mounds View Municipal Code Table of Contents is amended by inserting the following underlined text: Pawnshops ………………………………………………………….………………………516 SECTION 3: The Table of Contents for Title 500, Business License Regulations, is amended by inserting the following underlined text: Pawnshops ………………………………………………………….………………………516 SECTION 4: A new Chapter 516 entitled “Pawnshops” is hereby added to Title 500, Business License Regulations: D R A F T – REVISED 5-29-03 Ordinance 712 Page 2 CHAPTER 516 PAWNSHOPS SECTION: 516.01: Purpose 516.02: Definitions 516.03: License Required 516.04: Application for License 516.05: Investigation by Police Department 516.06: Term of License and Renewals 516.07: License Fees 516.08: Billable Transaction Fees 516.09: Bond Requirement 516.10: Ineligible Persons and Locations 516.11: General License Requirements 516.12: Alarm System Requirement 516.13: Suspension or Revocation of License 516.14: Prohibited Acts 516.15: Adoption of State Statute by Reference 516.16: Separability 516.01 PURPOSE: The City Council of the City of Mounds View finds that pawnbroker regulation is appropriate because such activities provide an opportunity for the commission of crimes and their concealment because such businesses have the ability to receive and transfer stolen property easily and quickly. The City Council also finds that consumer protection regulation of such activities is warranted because customers of such businesses frequently seek their services during times of desperate financial circumstances. To help the City of Mounds View to better regulate current and future pawn businesses, decrease and stabilize costs associated with the regulation of the pawn industry, and increase identification of criminal activities in the pawn industry through the timely collection and sharing of pawn transaction information, this chapter also implements and establishes the required use of the Automated Pawn System (APS). 516.02 DEFINITIONS: As used in this Chapter, the following words and terms shall have the meanings as follows: ACCEPTABLE IDENTIFICATION: Acceptable forms of identification are a current valid Minnesota driver's license, a current valid Minnesota identification card, or a current valid photo driver's license or identification card issued by another state or province of Canada. Ordinance 712 Page 3 AUTOMATED PAWN SYSTEM (APS): A computerized data collection system that mandates the collection of data and digitized images via modem for the purpose of regulation and review of licensed pawn dealers by city officials and authorized subscribers. BILLABLE TRANSACTIONS: Every reportable transaction conducted by a pawnbroker, except renewals, redemptions, or extensions of existing pawns on items previously reported and continuously in the licensee's possession. CONSIGNMENT: Acting as a sales agent for another, selling another person’s goods without having to first purchase said goods. ISSUING AUTHORITY: The City of Mounds View. ITEM CONTAINING PRECIOUS METAL: An item made in whole or in part of metal and containing more than one percent (1%) by weight of silver, gold or platinum. MANAGER: A person or persons designated by the licensee to operate and supervise the pawnshop under the provisions of this Chapter. MINOR: Any natural person under the age of eighteen (18) years. PAWNBROKER: A person engaged in whole or in part in the business of lending money on the security of pledged goods left in pawn, or in the business of purchasing tangible personal property to be left in pawn on the condition that it may be redeemed or repurchased by the seller for a fixed price within a fixed period of time. The following are exempt from the definition of "pawnbroker": any bank regulated by the state of Minnesota, the comptroller of the currency of the United States, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the board of governors of the Federal Reserve system, or any other federal or state authority and their affiliates; any bank or savings and loan whose deposits or accounts are eligible for insurance by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or any successor to it and all affiliates of those banks and savings and loan associations; any state or federally chartered credit union; any industrial loan and thrift company or regulated lender subject to licensing and regulation by the department of commerce. PAWNSHOP: The licensed location in which a pawnbroker conducts business. PERSON: One or more natural persons; a partnership, including a limited partnership; a corporation, including a foreign, domestic or nonprofit corporation, a trust, a political subdivision of the state; or any other business organization. PRECIOUS METAL DEALER: Except as exempted by MN Statutes Section 325F.732 Subd 2, any natural person, partnership or corporation engaging in the business of buying, selling or pawning secondhand items containing precious metal, including, but not limited to, jewelry, watches, eating utensils, candlesticks, and religious and decorative objects. PRECIOUS METALS: means Silver, gold or platinum. Ordinance 712 Page 4 REDEMPTION PERIOD: The date by which an item of property that has been pawned must be redeemed by the pledger without risk that the item will be sold. Such date must be a day on which the pawnbroker or precious metal dealer is open for regular business. REPORTABLE TRANSACTION: Every transaction conducted by a pawnbroker in which merchandise is received through a pawn or purchase, or in which a pawn is renewed, extended, or for which a unique transaction number or identifier is generated by their point of sale software, is reportable, except: A. The bulk purchase of new or used merchandise from a merchant, manufacturer, or wholesaler having an established permanent place of business, and the retail sale of said merchandise, provided the pawnbroker must maintain a record of such purchase which describes each item, and must mark each item in a manner which relates it to that transaction record. B. Retail and wholesale sales of merchandise originally received by pawn or purchase, and for which all applicable hold and/or redemption periods have expired. 516.03 LICENSE REQUIRED: No person shall exercise, carry on or be engaged in the trade or business of pawnbroker within the city unless such person is currently licensed in accordance with this chapter to be a pawnbroker. Pawnbrokers shall also maintain and display at all times a current and valid Precious Metal Dealer License issued by Ramsey County. 516.04 APPLICATION FOR LICENSE: Every application for license under this chapter, whether for a natural person, partnership, corporation or other organization, shall be made on a form supplied by the City and shall contain all information as required on that form by law. Subd. 1. All applications for a license under this chapter shall be signed and sworn to under oath or affirmation by applicant. If the application is that of a natural person, it shall be signed and sworn to by such person; if that of a corporation, by an officer thereof; if that of a partnership, by one of the general partners; and if that of an unincorporated association, by the manager or managing officer thereof. Subd. 2. Any falsification on a license application shall result in the denial of a license. Subd. 3. No Pawnbroker License will be issued, renewed or transferred without a public hearing conducted by the City Council after a notice has been published in the official City newspaper at least ten (10) days in advance of the hearing. Ordinance 712 Page 5 516.05 INVESTIGATION BY POLICE DEPARTMENT: Subd. 1. Investigation and Report: All applications shall be referred to the police department for verification and investigation of the facts set forth in the application. The police department shall make a written report and recommendation to the City Council as to approval or denial of the license. The City Council may order and conduct such additional investigation that it deems necessary. Subd. 2. Cost of Investigation: An investigation fee shall be collected with each application for a Pawnshop license to cover the expense of any investigation needed to assure compliance with this chapter. The investigation fee is established by resolution of the City Council. If the investigation and verification process is conducted outside the state of Minnesota, additional fees may be required. Subd. 3. When a licensee places a manager in charge of the business, or if the named manager(s) in charge of a licensed business changes, the licensee must complete and submit the appropriate investigation application within fourteen (14) days. The manager shall be subject to the investigation required herein and to paym ent of the investigation fee required by this chapter, which shall be paid in advance. The designation of a new manager shall not cause the license to become invalid before a decision is rendered, provided proper notice and application are made by the applicant. A proposed new manager shall be referred to as the interim manager. In the event an interim manager is rejected, the licensee shall designate another interim manager and make the required application within fourteen (14) days of the decision. If a proposed manager is rejected, the decision may be appealed to the city council by filing a written notice of appeal with the city clerk/administrator within ten (10) days after being notified of the rejection. 516.06 TERM OF LICENSE AND RENEWALS: Subd. 1 Term: Licenses expire annually on December 31. The license fee will be prorated in thirty (30) day increments for licenses issued after June 30. Subd. 2. Renewal: A license under this section will not be renewed if the City Council determines that the licensee has failed to comply with the provisions of this chapter in a preceding license year or if there would be sufficient grounds not to issue a license in the first instance. 516.07 LICENSE FEES: To defray administrative and other costs of processing applications for Pawnshop licenses, a nonrefundable fee shall be paid at the time an application is filed with the City. The minimum fee shall be established by resolution approved by the City Council. Ordinance 712 Page 6 516.08 BILLABLE TRANSACTION FEES: Licensees shall pay a monthly transaction fee on all billable transactions. The minimum fee shall be established by resolution approved by the City Council. Such fee shall be due and payable within thirty (30) days. Failure to timely pay the billable transaction fee shall constitute a violation of this chapter. 516.09 BOND REQUIREMENT: At the time of filing an application for a license, the applicant shall file a bond in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) with the City. The bond, with a duly licensed surety company as surety thereon, must be approved as to form by the city attorney. The bond must be conditioned on the licensee observing all ordinances of the City and all laws relating to the business of pawnbroker or precious metal dealer, and the licensee accounting for and delivering to any person legally entitled thereto any articles which may have come into the possession of the licensee as pawnbroker, or in lieu thereof such licensee paying the person or persons the reasonable value thereof. The bond shall contain a provision that it may not be canceled without thirty (30) days advance written notice to the licensing authority. 516.10 INELIGIBLE PERSONS AND LOCATIONS: Subd. 1. Ineligible Persons: No licenses under this chapter shall be issued to an applicant who is a natural person, general or managing partner, manager, proprietor or agent if such applicant: a. Is a minor at the time the application is filed; b. Has been convicted of any offense related to the occupation licensed or involving moral turpitude; c. Is not a citizen of the United States or a resident alien; d. Is not of good moral character or repute; e. Has misrepresented or falsified information on the license application; f. Holds an intoxicating liquor license under this code; g. Has had a pawnbroker or precious metal dealer license revoked elsewhere; or h. Other good and sufficient reason at the sole discretion of the City Council. Subd. 2. Ineligible Locations: The following locations shall be ineligible for licenses under this chapter: a. No license shall be granted or renewed for operation on any property on which taxes, assessments or other financial claims of the state, county, school district or city are due, delinquent or unpaid. Ordinance 712 Page 7 b. No license shall be granted or renewed if the property on which the business is to be conducted is owned or controlled by a person who is ineligible for a license. c. The property is not properly zoned. d. A location within one thousand (1,000) feet of an existing pawnshop. e. No license shall be granted for a premises in excess of 5,000 square feet. Subd. 3. Multiple Brokers Or Dealers Prohibited: No license shall be issued for multiple pawnbrokers at one location. 516.11 GENERAL LICENSE REQUIREMENTS: Subd. 1. Record Keeping: All licensees shall utilize the Automated Pawn System (APS) for the creation, maintenance, and storage of transactional records regarding licensed activities. At the time of a receipt of an item of property, whether purchased or pawned, the pawnbroker shall immediately record, on computer disc or if the computer is temporarily unavailable in a book or journal which has page numbers that are preprinted and in an indelible ink, the following information: a. Description Of Item: An accurate description of the item of property including, but not limited to, any trademark, identification number, serial number, model number, brand, brand name or other identifying mark on such item; b. Date And Time: The date and time the item of property was received by the licensee, and the unique alpha and/or numeric transaction identifier that distinguishes it from all other transactions in the licensee's records. Transaction identifiers must be assigned consecutively; c. Description Of Person: The name, address, residence phone number, date of birth, and accurate description including: sex, height, weight, race, color of eyes and color of hair of the person from whom the item of property was received; d. Identification Number: The identification number and state or nation of issue from any of the following forms of identification of the person from whom the item of property was received: (1) A valid driver's license; (2) A valid state or national picture identification. e. Price: The price of the item paid and whether the item was purchased or pawned; f. Fees: A list of all fees and charges that the transaction may be subject to; Ordinance 712 Page 8 g. Statement: A signed statement from the person from whom the item of property is received that there are no liens on the item, that it is not stolen and that the person has the right to sell it. h. Photograph or Video Recording: The licensee must take a color photograph or color video recording of each customer involved in a billable transaction and every item pawned or sold that does not have a unique serial or identification number permanently engraved or affixed. (1) Photo Provisions: The photograph taken must be at least two inches (2") in length by two inches (2") in width and must be maintained in such a manner that the photograph can be readily matched and correlated with all other records of the transaction to which they relate. Such photographs must be available to the chief of police, or the chief's designee, upon request. The major portion of the photograph must include an identifiable front facial close up of the person who pawned or sold the item. Items photographed must be accurately depicted. The licensee must inform the person that he or she is being photographed by displaying a sign of sufficient size in a conspicuous place on the premises. (2) Video Provisions: If a video photograph is taken, the video camera must zoom in on the person pawning or selling the item so as to include an identifiable close up of that person's face. Items photographed by video must be accurately depicted. Video photographs must be electronically referenced by time and date so they can be readily matched and correlated with all other records of the transaction to which they relate. The licensee shall display a sign of sufficient size in a conspicuous place on the premises informing patrons that all transactions are video-recorded. The licensee must keep the exposed videotape for four (4) months, and furnish it to the police department upon request. (3) Digitized Photographs: Digital images shall be provided in a format specified by the issuing authority, electronically cross referenced to the reportable transaction with which they are associated. i. Renewals, Extensions And Redemptions: For renewals, extensions and redemptions, the licensee shall provide the original transaction identifier, the date of the current transaction, the type of transaction, interest charges accrued, and any amount paid for the transaction or the article. When an article of purchased or forfeited property is sold or disposed of by a licensee the records shall contain an account of such sale with the date, the amount for which the article was sold, and the full name, current address, and telephone number of the person to whom sold. Ordinance 712 Page 9 Subd. 2. Inspection Of Records: The pawnbroker shall make available the information required in subdivision 1 of this section at all reasonable times for inspection by the police department or other representatives of the licensing authority. Subd. 3. Retention of Records. The pawnbroker shall retain the information required in this section for at least five (5) years. Subd. 4 Daily Reports To Police Are Required: The pawnbroker shall submit daily to the police department all information required by this section regarding every reportable transaction by transferring it from their computer to the Automated Pawn System. All required records must be transmitted completely and accurately after the close of business each day in accordance with standards and procedures established by the issuing authority using procedures that address security concerns of the licensees and the issuing authority. The licensee must display a sign of sufficient size, in a conspicuous place in the premises, which informs all patrons that all transactions are reported to the police department daily. Subd. 5. Data Transfer Failures: a. If a licensee is unable to successfully transfer the required reports by electronic means, the licensee must provide the police department printed copies of all reportable transactions along with the videotape(s) for that date, by twelve o'clock (12:00) noon the next business day; b. If the problem is determined to be in the licensee's system and is not corrected by the close of the first business day following the failure, the licensee must provide the required reports and shall be charged a fifty dollar ($50.00) reporting failure penalty, daily, until the error is corrected; or c. If the problem is determined to be outside the licensee's system, the licensee must provide the required reports and resubmit all such transaction electronically when the error is corrected. d. If a licensee is unable to capture, digitize or transmit digital photographs required by this chapter, the licensee must immediately take all required photographs with a still camera, cross reference the photographs to the correct transaction, and make the pictures available to the police department upon request. e. Regardless of the cause or origin of the technical problems that prevented the licensee from uploading their reportable transactions, upon correction of the problem, the licensee shall upload every reportable transaction from every business day the problem had existed. f. The police department may at their discretion, upon presentation of extenuating circumstances by the licensee, delay the implementation of the daily reporting penalty imposed by this section. Ordinance 712 Page 10 Subd. 6. Police Order To Hold Property: Whenever the police department notifies the pawnbroker not to sell an item, the item shall not be sold or removed from the licensed premises until authorized to be released by the police department. Subd. 7. Holding Period Of Pawnbrokers: a. Any item pawned to a pawnbroker for which a report to the police is required under this chapter shall not be sold or otherwise transferred for ninety (90) days after the date of the pawn. However, an individual may redeem an item pawned seventy two (72) hours after the item was received on deposit by the pawnbroker, excluding Sundays and legal holidays. b. Any item sold outright to a pawnbroker for which a report to the police is required under this chapter shall not be sold or otherwise transferred for thirty (30) days after the date of the initial purchase. Subd. 8. Receipt: The pawnbroker shall provide a receipt to the seller or pledger of any item of property received, which shall include: a. The name, address and phone number of the pawnbroker or precious metal dealer business. b. The date on which the pawnbroker or precious metal dealer received the item. c. A description of the item received and amount paid to the pledger or seller in exchange for the item pawned or sold. d. The signature of the pawnbroker or precious metal dealer or agent. e. The last regular business day by which the item must be redeemed by the pledger without risk that the item will be sold and the amount necessary to redeem the pawned item on that date. f. The annual rate of interest charged on pawned items received. g. The name, address, and signature of the seller or pledger. Subd. 9. Hours Of Operation: No pawnbroker shall be open for the transaction of business on any day of the week before eight o'clock (8:00) A.M. or after eight o'clock (8:00) P.M. Subd. 10. Minors: The pawnbroker shall not purchase or receive personal property of any nature on deposit or pledge from any minor. Subd. 11. Inspection Of Items: The pawnbroker shall at all times during the term of the license allow the police department to enter the premises where the pawnbroker business is located, for the purpose of inspecting s uch premises and inspecting the items, wares and merchandise therein for the purpose of locating items suspected or alleged to have been stolen or otherwise improperly disposed of. Ordinance 712 Page 11 Subd. 12. License Display: A license issued under this chapter must be posted in a conspicuous place in the premises for which it is used. The license issued is only effective for the compact and contiguous space specified in the approved license application. Any additional required county and state licenses shall be similarly posted. Subd. 13. Maintenance Of Order: A licensee under this chapter shall be responsible for the conduct of the business being operated and shall maintain conditions of order. Subd. 14. Prohibited Goods: No licensee under this chapter shall accept any item of property which contains an altered or obliterated serial number or "operation identification" number or any item of property whose serial number has been removed. Subd. 15. Payment By Check: Payment of more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) by a licensee for any article deposited, left, purchased, pledged or pawned shall be made only by a check, draft, or other negotiable or nonnegotiable instrument that is drawn against funds held by a financial institution. This policy shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the premises. Subd. 16. Storage: All items shall be stored within the licensed premises. Subd. 17. Prohibited Items: Licensee shall not accept for pawn or purchase or offer for sale firearms or handguns. Subd. 18. Signage: L icensees shall by adequate signage and separate written notice inform persons seeking to pawn, pledge, sell, leave, or deposit articles of property with the licensee of the foregoing requirements: TO PAWN OR SELL PROPERTY: ??YOU MUST BE AT LEAST 18 YEARS OF AGE ??YOU MUST BE THE TRUE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ??THE PROPERTY MUST BE FREE OF ALL CLAIMS AND LIENS ??YOU MUST PRESENT VALID PHOTO IDENTIFICATION ??VIOLATION OF ANY OF THESE REQUIREMENTS IS A CRIME. For the purpose of this Subsection, “adequate signage” shall mean at least one sign of not less than four (4) square feet in surface area, comprised of lettering of not less than three-quarters (3/4) of an inch in height, posted in a conspicuous place on the licensed premises. Ordinance 712 Page 12 Subd. 19. Disposition of Articles: When any article is sold or disposed of by the licensee, the records shall contain an account of such sale with the date thereof, interest and charges accrued, the amount for which the article was sold and, in the case of items sold for more than $100.00, the name, address and telephone number of the purchaser. Subd. 20. Managers: In the event the Licensee places a manager or managers in charge of the operation (subject to the requirements of Section 516.04), the manager or managers shall work on average a minimum of 80 hours per month during a six-month time period. 516.12 ALARM SYSTEM REQUIREMENT: An alarm system, professionally installed and approved by the Police Chief shall be installed at the licensed premises. 516.13 SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF LICENSES: Subd. 1. Violation: The City Council may suspend or revoke a license issued under this chapter upon a finding of a violation of: a. Any of the provisions of this chapter b. Any state statute regulating pawnbrokers or precious metal dealers c. Any state or local law relating to moral character and repute. Any conviction by the pawnbroker or precious metal dealer for theft, receiving stolen property or any other crime or violation involving stolen property shall result in the immediate suspension pending a hearing on revocation of any license issued hereunder. Subd. 2 Notice; Hearing: Except in the case of a suspension pending a hearing on revocation, a revocation or suspension by the City Council shall be preceded by written notice to the licensee and a public hearing. The written notice shall give at least ten (10) days notice of the time and place of the hearing and shall state the nature of the charges against the pawnbroker or precious metal dealer. The Council may, without any notice, suspend any license pending a hearing on revocation for a period not exceeding thirty (30) days. The notice may be served upon the pawnbroker by United States mail addressed to the most recent address of the business in the license application. Ordinance 712 Page 13 516.14 PROHIBITED ACTS: Subd. 1. No pawnbroker licensed upon this chapter shall: a. Lend money on a pledge at a rate of interest above that allowed by law; b. Possess stolen goods; c. Sell pledged goods before the time to redeem has expired; d. Make a loan on a pledge to a minor or purchase property from a minor; e. Accept consignments or sell consigned goods or items. f. Keep, possess or operate, or permit the keeping, possession or operation on the licensed premises of dice, slot machines, roulette wheels, punchboards, blackjack tables or pinball machines which return coins or slugs, chips or tokens of any kind, which are redeemable in merchandise or cash. Gambling of any kind, except as noted herein, is prohibited. No gambling equipment authorized under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 349, may be kept or operated and no raffles may be conducted on the licensed premises and/or adjoining rooms. The purchase of lottery tickets may take place on the licensed premises as authorized by the director of the lottery pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 349A. 516.15 ADOPTION BY REFERENCE: Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 325J is hereby adopted by reference. Wherever this chapter is more restrictive than said statutes, this chapter will control. Wherever said statutes are more restrictive than this chapter, said statutes shall control. 516.16 SEPARABILITY: Should any section, clause or other provision of this chapter be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid such decision shall not effect the validity of the ordinance as a whole or any part other than the part so declared invalid. Ordinance 712 Page 14 SECTION 5. This Ordinance becomes effective thirty (30) days after its publication in the official City newspaper. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this _____ day of _____, 2003. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this ______ day of ________, 2003. Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ James Ericson, Interim Clerk / Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ City Attorney (SEAL) Item No: 9J Meeting Date: June 23, 2003 Type of Business: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Mayor and City Council From: James Ericson, Interim City Administrator Item Title/Subject: RE-Consideration of a Development Review Request for Properties Located at 2436 and 2442 County Highway 10, Planning Cases DE03-001 and DE03-002 Introduction: The applicant, LandCor Development of Maple Grove, has requested a development review on two separate parcels within the Anthony Properties / Theater Planned Unit Development to construct a two-story office building at the corner of Long Lake Road and County Highway 10, and a multi-tenant food / retail building next to the theater at the corner of Edgewood Drive and County Highway 10. The purpose of a development review is to allow the City to evaluate proposed development in terms of its consistency with City Codes and other requirements and to ascertain and mitigate any potential impacts to the adjoining properties and the community as a whole. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council, which then acts upon the request. On May 21, 2003, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 728-03, a resolution recommending approval of the development review request. On June 9, 2003, The City Council considered LandCor’s development review request and the motion to approve failed on a two-to-two vote. As a result, no action was effectively taken by the Council. Attached to this report—which contains the same information as was presented June 9 – is Resolution 6033. If the Council should determine denial is the appropriate action, staff would need to draft such a resolution with findings of fact to support the denial. Discussion For the purposes of this report and discussion, I will refer to the lot at the corner of Long Lake Road and County Highway 10 as “Outparcel A” and the lot at the corner of Edgewood Drive and County Highway 10 as “Outparcel B”. Outparcel A: This parcel is an irregularly shaped lot zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. The only permitted uses for this lot are “office” and “restaurant.” (The City Council added “office“ as a permitted use on May 12, 2003.) LandCor Report June 23, 2003 Page 2 1A. Dimensional Requirements Building Setbacks Required Proposed: Compliance Front (Co. Hwy. 10): 30 feet 30 feet Yes Front (Long Lake Rd.): 30 feet 120 feet Yes Rear (south): 20 feet 140 feet Yes Parking Lot Setbacks Front (Co. Hwy. 10.): 30 feet * 30 feet Yes Front (Long Lake Rd.): 20 feet * 20 feet Yes Rear (south): 30 feet * 175 feet Yes * It is unclear what the intended parking lot setbacks are. 2A. Parking The PUD establishes the parking requirement for an office use at one space per 250 square feet. The proposed office would consist of a maximum 15,000 square feet of gross space. With that much area, a total of 60 parking spaces would be required. ADA requirements indicate that of the 60 spaces, three need to be handicap accessible. The plans show a total of 64 spaces, three of which are marked handicapped. The plans are consistent with the PUD and with City Code. 3A. Access & Circulation There is one access driveway shown from Long Lake Road; no access is shown onto County Road 10. The absence of an access onto County Highway 10 is consistent with the goals established in the corridor redevelopment and revitalization plan adopted by the City Council. The Long Lake Road access is offset to the north of Moundsview Drive by about 100 feet. No traffic conflicts would be anticipated because of this. The circulation within the development is good and there is sufficient space in the drive aisles and adequate space provided to back out of all parking spaces. 4A. Lighting The applicant has submitted a photometric analysis of the site and the foot-candle readings comply with Code requirements. The plans do not, however, indicate pole height or provide a graphic of the fixtures to be used. These should be added to the final plan set provided to staff upon City Council approval. The attached resolution includes this provision. 5A. Drainage The plans indicate that the site would be serviced by a series of catch basins linked together by a storm sewer which empties into the existing NURP pond at the rear of the property. (The existing pond was constructed with the original development to accommodate the future build-out of the site. Permits do however need to be obtained from Rice Creek Watershed District before the City will issue any building permits for the project. The applicant and any utility subcontractors shall meet with the Public Works department for final utility plan approval. LandCor Report June 23, 2003 Page 3 6A. Garbage Enclosure As shown on the site plan, the garbage enclosure would be located on the south side of the property. No details were provided regarding the enclosure’s construction, however the PUD indicates that the enclosure shall be of the same construction as the building with solid, opaque, latching gates. The developer confirms that this is their intent. Chain link is not an acceptable gate material. The details should be added to the final plan set provided to staff upon City Council approval. The attached resolution includes this provision. 7A. Landscaping A Landscaping Plan has been submitted with the plan set and the City Forester has had an opportunity to review them. On May 19, 2003, the Forester approved the landscape plans, commenting that the developers are making a significant investment into the landscaping which will help blend this addition into the surrounding heavily wooded natural areas. Snow storage areas are noted on the landscape plan to ensure that plowed snow will not damage plantings. 8A. Signage No sign plan has been submitted for the site however staff has communicated the PUD requirements to LandCor representatives. While not specifically addressed, no pylon sign will be allowed, as the intent of the PUD is to establish a consistent design theme throughout the development, using similar construction, color and materials. The Theater sign has a masonry, monument styled base and the same would be required on this site. 9A. Building Construction As noted earlier, the proposed office building would be two stories with a 7,500 square-foot footprint. The materials used would consist of a colored split face block base, brick, and a upper level EFIS treatment. (EFIS is “Exterior Finish Insulation System”.) A colored rendition has been provided for this building which is attached for the Council’s review. The proposed colors are consistent with the Theater. A patio area is shown off the back of the building. The building elevations are shown on plan sheet A100, however building heights are not indicated. This information should be added to the final plan set provided to staff upon City Council approval. The attached resolution includes this provision LandCor Report June 23, 2003 Page 4 Outparcel B: Located adjacent to the Theater at the corner of Edgewood Drive and County Highway 10, this parcel is an irregularly shaped lot zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. The permitted uses for this lot include restaurant and/or retail uses. 1B. Dimensional Requirements Building Setbacks Required Proposed: Compliance Front (Co. Hwy. 10): 30 feet 75 feet Yes Front (Edgewood Dr.): 30 feet * 145 feet Yes Side (south): 20 feet * 105 feet Yes Rear (west): 20 feet * 95 feet Yes Parking Lot Setbacks Front (Co. Hwy. 10.): 30 feet * 30 feet Yes Front (Edgewood Dr.): 20 feet * 20 feet Yes Rear (south): 30 feet * 60 feet Yes * It is unclear what the intended parking lot setbacks are. Based upon reasonable assumptions, staff believes all setbacks to be satisfied. 2B. Parking The PUD establishes the parking requirement for the restaurant / retail uses as one space per 100 square feet. The proposed multi-tenant building would consist of a maximum 7,785 square feet of gross floor area. With that much area, a total of 78 parking spaces would be required. ADA requirements indicate that of the 78 spaces, four need to be handicap accessible. The plans show a total of 93 spaces, three of which are marked as handicapped. The amount of parking provided complies with the PUD however one additional handicap accessible stall should be shown on the plans. The Site Plan shall be revised to show the one additional handicap stall on the final plan set provided to staff upon City Council approval. The attached resolution includes this provision. 3B. Access & Circulation There is one access driveway shown from Edgewood Drive; no access is shown onto County Road 10. As with Outparcel A, the absence of an access onto County Highway 10 is consistent with the goals established in the corridor redevelopment and revitalization plan adopted by the City Council. The site has good circulation and drive aisle widths are sufficient. 4B. Lighting The applicant has submitted a photometric analysis of the site and the foot-candle readings comply with Code requirements. The plans do not, however, indicate pole height or provide a graphic of the fixtures to be used. These should be added to the final plan set provided to staff upon City Council approval. The attached resolution includes this provision. LandCor Report June 23, 2003 Page 5 5B. Drainage The plans indicate that the site would be serviced by a series of catch basins linked together by storm sewer which terminate into the existing storm sewers under Edgewood Drive. Permits would need to be obtained from Rice Creek Watershed District before the City will issue any building permits for the project. The applicant and any utility subcontractors shall meet with the Public Works department for final utility plan approval prior to construction. 6B. Garbage Enclosure The site plan indicates that the garbage enclosure would be located at the rear of the building. No details were provided regarding the enclosure’s construction, however the PUD indicates that the enclosure shall be of the same construction as the building with solid, opaque, latching gates. The developer confirms that this is their intent. Chain link is not an acceptable gate material. The details should be added to the final plan set provided to staff upon City Council approval. The attached resolution includes this provision. 7B. Landscaping A Landscaping Plan has been submitted with the plan set and the City Forester has had an opportunity to review them. On May 19, 2003, the Forester approved the landscape plans, commenting that the developers are making a significant investment into the landscaping which will help blend this addition into the surrounding heavily wooded natural areas. Snow storage areas are noted on the landscape plan to ensure that plowed snow will not damage plantings. 8B. Signage No sign plan has been submitted for the site however staff has communicated the PUD requirements to LandCor representatives. While not specifically addressed, no pylon sign will be allowed, as the intent of the PUD is to establish a consistent design theme throughout the development, using similar construction, color and materials. The Theater sign has a masonry, monument styled base and the same would be required on this site. At a minimum, the plans should indicate where on the site the monument sign is proposed to be located 9B. Building Construction The proposed retail / restaurant building would be a single story building with a 7,785 square- foot footprint. The design is very appealing and the materials would match the proposed office building. Most of the building would be brick; with brick columns and an EFIS roof detail. Fabric awnings are shown adding more character to the building. The entryways would have a tall arched design very similar to the Abbey Carpet building currently under construction. The building is shown partitioned for three users with drive-up windows at either end of the building. There is an outdoor patio / eating area adjacent to Tenant 3’s space, however it appears as though Tenant 2 also has access to the patio area. The building elevations are shown on plan sheet A100, however building heights are not indicated. This information should be added to the final plan set provided to staff upon City Council approval. The attached resolution includes this provision LandCor Report June 23, 2003 Page 6 Summary The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed development plans and suggested some changes to ensure compliance and consistency with the Code and PUD. Upon final review of the amended plans, the Commission adopted Resolution 728-03 which recommended approval of the requested development review for Outparcels A and B of the Anthony Properties / Theater Planned Unit development. The City Council reviewed the request on June 9, 2003 and a motion to approve the request failed on a tied vote. Failure to approve a planning request however is not equivalent to a denial and thus no action was taken. The Council will have another opportunity on June 23rd to act on the request. Recommendation: Adopt the attached Resolution 6033 approving the development review request to construct a two-story, 15,000 square-foot office building on Outparcel A and a one story, 7,785 square- foot multi-tenant retail building on Outparcel B, with conditions and stipulations as identified herein. If denial is the preferred response, direction should be given to staff to draft such a resolution with the appropriate findings of fact. _____________________________________ James Ericson Interim City Clerk/Administrator Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Architectural Building Renderings 3. City Council Resolution 6033 ZONING MAP THEATER OFFICE RETAIL WALGREENS JAKE’S “A” “B” OFFICE RENDERING RETAIL RENDERING RESOLUTION NO. 6033 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT 2442 COUNTY HIGHWAY 10 AND A MULTI-TENANT RETAIL BUILDING AT 2436 COUNTY HIGHWAY 10; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASES NO. DE03-002 AND DE03-003. WHEREAS, LandCor Development of Maple Grove has applied for a development review to construct a 15,000 square foot, two-story office building at 2442 County Highway 10 and a 7,785 square foot single story multi-tenant retail building at 2436 County Highway 10; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned PUD, Planed Unit Development, is designated as a “Mixed Use PUD” use on the Comprehensive Plan and is legally described as follows: Lots 1 & 2, Block 2, Anthony Properties Addition, Ramsey County, State of Minnesota WHEREAS, according to Section 1006.06 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, any new construction or expansion of existing facilities requires the approval of a development review; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Site Plans d. Architectural Building Renderings e. Staff Report f. Planning Commission Resolution 728-03 WHEREAS, the Fire Marshal has reviewed and approved the site plans in terms of access, drive aisle width and other Fire Department requirements and considerations; and, WHEREAS, the City Forester has reviewed the landscape plans and recommends approval; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted resolution 728-03 on May 21, 2003 which recommended approval of the proposed development subject to revisions being made to the site plans; and, WHEREAS, with the exception of items noted below, the site plans have been revised in according to the Planning Commission’s direction and are consistent with the Mounds View City Code and approved Planned Unit Development. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council, finding that all of the requirements of the Zoning Code and PUD Document have been met, does hereby approve the development review request for the construction of a two-story, 15,000 square foot office building on Outparcel A and a 7,785 square foot, single-story multi- tenant retail building on Outparcel B, subject to the following stipulations: 1. The applicant shall submit plans to Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD). No building permits shall be issued without a valid watershed permit. 2. All disturbed pervious area shall be sodded or landscaped. Silt fencing shall be installed and maintained in accordance with Rice Creek Watershed District specifications. 3. All exterior lighting shall be hooded and downcast to prevent glare in accordance with City Code requirements. Height of light standards and fixture details shall be indicated on Lighting Plans E1-1 and E1-2. 4. Plan Sheet A100 shall be revised to indicate building heights. 5. Plan Sheet C2-2 shall be revised to show four (4) handicap accessible stalls. 6. The Site Plans shall be amended to reflect garbage enclosure details. 7. Grading Plans shall show boundaries of delineated wetlands. 8. All utilities to the building shall be installed underground. 9. Detailed signage plans shall be submitted prior to installation. Ground signage shall be monument style of masonry construction -- no pylon signage permitted. 10. All architectural features and building treatments shall be consistent along all building elevations. 11. A development agreement which sets forth all of the terms, conditions, requirements, guarantees and plans for the orderly development of the parcels shall be executed and recorded with Ramsey County as required by Section 1006.06, Subd. 4 of the City Code. 12. The applicant shall obtain a permit from Ramsey County for the Long Lake Road curb cut and for any work performed within the County right of way. 13. The applicant and any utility subcontractors shall meet with the Public Works department for final utility plan approval. 14. The Applicant shall submit two complete revised plans sets for final plan review along with the construction plans submission for the building permit application. Adopted this 23th day of June, 2003. ________________________________ Jerry Linke, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ James Ericson, Interim City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 9K Meeting Date: June 23, 2003 Type of Business: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: James Ericson, Acting City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Review of Legal Services Interviews Introduction: You may recall that thirteen firms responded to the City’s request for legal services proposals, ten of which submitted proposals to provide the City with civil representation. Two firms (Frank Madden & Associates and Krass Monroe) offered to provide only a subset of services and were not considered. Three of the ten forms also offered to provide the City with prosecution services while a fourth firm, Hughes & Costello, offered only to provide prosecution services. At the June 2, 2003 City Council worksession, six firms were chosen for interview from the ten firms having submitted civil representation proposals. Discussion: On Thursday, June 12, 2003, Greg Lee, Mike Sommer, Charlie Hansen and I interviewed the following six law firms that were identified from the June 2, 2003 worksession. Firm Retainer Amount Depth of Firm Response Depth Kelly & Fawcett $2,800 Low (7) Adequate Winthrop & Weinstine $2,900 High (70) Adequate Barna, Guzy & Steffen $3,000 High (26) High Kennedy & Graven $3,000 High (26) High Halleland Lewis Nilan $4,000 High (50) High Campbell & Knutson $4,000 Medium (10) High The firms were asked the same questions (see attached list of questions) and were ranked based upon their responses, their presentation, their experience in specific identified areas and also on less tangible aspects such as motivation, professionalism and attitude. At the end of the day, the interview panel reviewed the six firms and ranked them as indicated above. Two firms—Winthrop & Weinstine and Campbell & Knutson—were eliminated from consideration due to a relative lack of experience (Winthrop) and a general lack of motivation in their presentation (Campbell). That left four firms for consideration. Not surprisingly, the interview panel was split on the remaining firms. Kelly & Fawcett was identified as the top firm by two of the interviewers with Barna Guzy chosen by the other two interviewers. The full rankings are as follows: Legal Services Report June 23, 2003 Page 2 Firm Interviewer #1 Interviewer #2 Interviewer #3 Interviewer #4 Kelly & Fawcett 2 1 1 2 Barna, Guzy & Steffen 1 3 4 1 Kennedy & Graven 4 4 2 3 Halleland Lewis Nilan 2 2 3 4 Based on the table above, if the firms were ranked in order of least points to most points, the firms would come out as follows: Rank Firm Score 1 Kelly & Fawcett 6 2 Barna, Guzy & Steffen 9 3 Halleland Lewis Nilan 11 4 Kennedy & Graven 13 One of the questions that was asked of all firms related to “timeliness” of firm response and how quickly the City could expect to receive a response to an e-mail or phone call. Related to that question was a follow up question which asked how “accessible” the attorneys were. Both Barna Guzy and Kelly & Fawcett answered that the City should expect an immediate response, if only to respond that they had received the City’s message. The attorney representing Barna Guzy indicated that he checks voice mail and e-mail on the hour even if not in the office and would return calls and messages immediately. Patrick Kelly, representing Kelly & Fawcett, indicated that the City would be put on a “hot list” and he would get the message and respond whether he was in the office or not. While the attorney representing Halleland Lewis indicated that the client would dictate the appropriate response time, it seemed less evident that responses would be immediate unless coded as a high priority or emergency. The most interesting discussion regarding response time occurred with Kennedy & Graven. Perhaps lending some explanation to what we have considered “less than desirable” response times over the last two years, Mr. Riggs indicated that the former administrator had established a hierarchy of matters and that certain City matters would take precedence over all other matters, which often meant delayed responses for non-administrative requests and questions. Mr. Riggs also indicated that he had suggested to the former administrator that City staff could contact another member of the Kennedy & Graven firm if he were unavailable and a response was needed immediately. The former administrator, it seems, was opposed to having another attorney assist for general legal questions, preferring all communication go through Mr. Riggs. Certainly it would have been beneficial having another attorney to call in the event the City Attorney was unavailable. Whichever firm the City decides to contract with, it will be imperative to have such a back-up attorney to avoid similar issues in the future. In the case of Kennedy & Graven, that person would be Bob Vose. In closing his remarks regarding availability and response times, Mr. Riggs said they would be willing to meet the City’s response expectations if chosen to be the City Attorney. Legal Services Report June 23, 2003 Page 3 After the Kennedy & Graven interview, we talked about Mr. Riggs’ comments and explanation regarding timeliness and availability and what we could expect in the future. While I think we all had a better opinion of Kennedy & Graven after the interview, the firm did not receive a number one ranking although it did receive a #2 and #3. It was agreed that Kennedy & Graven has an obvious upper-hand regarding experience with Mounds View and that there would be a significant benefit in retaining the firm for continuity purposes. However one of the objectives for sending out the legal services RFP was to reduce the City’s annual legal fees and the retainer agreement submitted by Kennedy & Graven appears to be no different from what we have had in the past, although the dollar amount of the retainer has not increased which could be viewed as a relative savings. Prosecution Services: Chief Sommer and I reviewed the responses for prosecution services and it is our recommendation to continue with the firm of Hughes and Costello under the terms they propose. No responding firm proposed a retainer amount less than that of Hughes & Costello and no firm had any significant prosecution experience in Ramsey County. Recommendation 1. As for the firms proposing to provide City attorney services, staff recommends that the City Council invite the two top scoring firms—Kelly & Fawcett and Barna Guzy-- back for a follow-up interview with the Council at the July 7, 2003 worksession meeting. If the Council is interested in hearing more from Kennedy & Graven, rather than invite that firm back for additional comment at the worksession, perhaps a general discussion at the June 23rd meeting would be in order. 2. Regarding prosecution firms, staff recommends that we continue to retain the services of Hughes and Costello through December of 2005 at a proposed monthly rate of $3,875 through 2004 and $4,000 through 2005. (Staff will inquire about the possibility of a rate reduction if the number of Administrative Offenses issued lessens the number of cases handled by the firm.) __________________________________ Jim Ericson, Interim City Administrator \\Ntserver\MasterFiles\2003\City Council\Council Packets\06-23-03\Item 09K - Attorney RFPs.doc City Attorney Interview Questions June 12, 2003 1. Please identify the other cities you represent, who in your firm represents those cities, and what types of legal services do you provide your other municipal clients. 2. If you were appointed the Mounds View City Attorney, how would the firm make sure that the specific attorneys dedicated to the that function would have sufficient time to meet Mounds View’s needs? 3. Please describe your legal approach toward Data Practices Act questions. What is your standard legal analysis of these questions? 4. Please describe your familiarity with Collective Bargaining agreements. What cities have you represented in Collective Bargaining proceedings and what has your role been? 5. Please describe your involvement in public employee disciplinary matters. How much of your municipal legal practice involves legal advice and representation on disciplinary matters? 6. Please describe your involvement in municipal litigation matters. Do the persons you propose to serve as City Attorney also do municipal litigation, or do other members of your firm specialize in litigation? What kind of municipal litigation does your firm handle? 7. Describe your firm’s policy on response times and how quickly the City could expect you to respond to specific requests. How much of a delay should be anticipated? 8. If three Council members happen attend a birthday party together, is that a violation of Open Meeting laws? What if the same three council members talk about some city personnel problems while at the party? 9. How often do you or your firm notify your municipal clients about recent Court decisions or actions that could be relevant to the City? 10. Explain how you have handled or would handle a situation where you are asked at a public city council meeting to provide legal advice about a particular city issue, you provide that legal advice, and then a Councilmember makes a motion that is directly contrary to your legal advice. 11. Explain your legal approach toward Conflicts of Interest issues. Briefly, give us your legal impression of whether the following situations constitute a legal conflict of interest: A. A Councilmember lives in a mobile home park that is seeking Council approval of a Planned Unit Development zoning designation. B. A Councilmember owns a business similar to the type of business that is seeking a Council permit to operate that business. C. A Councilmember offers to provide goods or services to the City whose Council he serves on. 12. According to Robert’s Rules of Order, when can a Council “reconsider” a motion or vote on a resolution? 13. Again, according to Robert’s, please explain the difference between a motion to table and a motion to postpone. 14. How would you handle a situation where you are asked to render a legal opinion to an individual Councilmember and to the City Council as a body, yet you perceive the interests of the City Councilmember to be different from the interests of the Council as a body? 15. Describe your experience in drafting ordinances, contracts, personnel policies, legislation and easements. 16. Is there anything you would like to add or share with the panel that you have not touched upon that is important to our decision? PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2 RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 4 Regular Meeting 5 June 9, 2003 6 Mounds View City Hall 7 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8 7:16 P.M. 9 10 11 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12 13 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14 15 3. ROLL CALL: Linke, Quick (absent), Marty, Stigney, and Gunn 16 17 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 18 19 A. Monday, June 9, 2003 City Council Agenda. 20 21 Mayor Linke requested that items 5 and 6 on the agenda be heard in reverse order. 22 23 MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve the Monday, June 9, 2003 Agenda as 24 Amended. 25 26 Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 27 28 5. PUBLIC INPUT 29 30 Dennis Haames addressed Council and indicated he lives at the corner of Quincy and County 31 Road I and asked for assistance with reimbursement for the damages done to his garage by snow 32 removal last winter. 33 34 Mr. Haames provided earplugs to Council Members and asked that they all try sleeping in them 35 at night because that is what he has to do in order to get to sleep due to all the noise. 36 37 Mayor Linke indicated that he has been working on the issue but, unless there is clearly 38 something illegal, there is not much the City can do. He then indicated that he talked to MNDOT 39 about the Jake braking but it is a county road. 40 41 Mr. Haames indicated there is a town in southern Minnesota where the businesses could not 42 conduct business because of boom boxes and loud music so the Mayor, City Attorney, Chief of 43 Police and County Sheriff met and instituted an ordinance charging a $100.00 fine if the music 44 could be heard 25 feet away from the vehicle. That did not work so they started tagging them for 45 Mounds View City Council June 9, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 2 inattentive driving and, to anyone under the age of 18, that is an automatic license suspension 1 and that worked. 2 3 Mayor Linke indicated that may work in a small community but Ramsey County is large and has 4 proven itself not to be Mounds View friendly so he does not think something like that would 5 work in this City. 6 7 Mr. Haames indicated an officer was sent to his house to discuss the noise with him and, while 8 the officer was there, a pick up truck that is a chronic offender went by and the officer did 9 nothing because the truck went by quietly due to the patrol car in the driveway. He then 10 indicated the officer suggested that he move if the noise is affecting his sleep. 11 12 Mr. Haames indicated he did not like the suggestions of the police officer to move as he pays that 13 officers salary and he would like something done about the noise. He then said he cannot sit 14 down at his dinner table with the doors or windows shut and have a conversation and could not 15 consider attempting to sit on the patio and asked that something be done. 16 17 Mayor Linke indicated the City would continue to look into the noise but there is not much that 18 can be done. 19 20 Council Member Marty suggested looking into an administrative violation. 21 22 Dan Hall representing the Mermaid at 2200 Highway 10 addressed the Council and provided a 23 handout concerning the situation he is having with the fire inspector/building inspector. 24 25 Mr. Hall indicated that he feels that Kathy is a nice person and has her heart in the right place but 26 seems to need help interpreting the City’s Code as there is confusion with some of the rules she 27 is attempting to enforce upon him. 28 29 Mr. Hall indicated he was told the maximum occupancy should be 240 but the number is 280 so 30 he obtained the doors required spent the money having them installed and then received a letter 31 indicating she had reinterpreted the Code and he can now have 900 people in the tent but needs 32 to redo the doors he just did. He then indicated it confuses him and he is not sure what the actual 33 requirement should be. 34 35 Mr. Hall reviewed Section 2402 concerning tents and canopies and indicated he has a clear span 36 membrane structure and asked for clarification as to how his structure fits into this definition. 37 38 Mr. Hall indicated this structure is not a tent as it does not have poles or cables, it is a structure 39 that has membranes that slide in between the structure pieces and is bolted together and anchored 40 to the ground. 41 42 Mr. Hall indicated that Kathy has indicated to him that there are land use issues that also must be 43 satisfied and asked whether Council discussed these items with her and authorized her to deal 44 with him on the matter. 45 Mounds View City Council June 9, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 3 1 Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated there were outstanding land use issues associated 2 with the use of the tent. 3 4 Mr. Hall indicated his point is that he is not sure why the fire inspector would be questioning him 5 about land use issues as that is the job of the City Council. 6 7 Mr. Hall indicated there were questions about how the structure was anchored and then read 8 portions of Section 2404. 9 10 Mr. Hall indicated that he understands that Kathy would like the structure to be safe so no one 11 gets hurt but so does he and he intends to follow the Codes but everything is confused and he 12 needs clarification. He then said it seems that she is taking guidelines from the permanent 13 construction section and applying them into areas that should not be. 14 15 Mr. Hall indicated that he finds not guidelines in any ordinance that states he has to have air or 16 heating in the tent but the letter he received from her seems to further indicate her confusion and 17 attempt to apply information for permanent construction to this tent because she asks for 18 documentation signed by a mechanical engineer that the entire system is in compliance with all 19 the required codes for ventilation for an acceptable indoor air quality. 20 21 Mr. Hall indicated he brought in rooftop air conditioners, set them on a slab and installed plastic 22 fire rated ducting in an attempt to cool the tent for comfort but she says this is a permanent deal 23 and wants engineering information. He then said he is not trying to be trivial or mean but these 24 issues are costing him money and he would like some help clearing up the confusion. 25 26 David Jahnke of 8428 Eastwood Road indicated that the Mermaid is not the only business in 27 town that has had serious problems with Kathy. He then said Council hired her and should be 28 aware that a very big business had some serious problems with Kathy. 29 30 Council Member Stigney indicated the last sentence of her letter indicates that if there are any 31 questions to contact her. 32 33 Mr. Hall indicated he contacted her after the first letter but the next time he talked to her she sent 34 another letter and threatened him with non-renewal of his liquor license if he did not get these 35 things done. He then said he has been in this City for 30 years and complied with every law in 36 the City and, even though he has gone above and beyond what is required, he has someone 37 threatening him with his liquor license over a tent. He further commented that he is done 38 contacting her because he cannot get valid information from her. 39 40 Mr. Hall indicated that not only will he not discuss this matter with her any longer, he intends to 41 ban her from his property unless she makes an appointment with him for an inspection as it 42 seems she comes over to his establishment and searches for things to bust him over. He then 43 commented that, if she needs something to do, she should look into some things he sees at City 44 Hall that are violations. 45 Mounds View City Council June 9, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 4 1 Council Member Stigney indicated he understood why Mr. Hall did not want to contact her but 2 asked if he had contacted Mr. Ericson who is her boss. 3 4 Mr. Hall indicated he spoke with Mr. Ericson but was told that this is Kathy’s job and was to get 5 back to him with more information and he has not done that. 6 7 Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated there are building code issues and fire code issues. 8 He then indicated that Mr. Hall was made aware of the proper procedure for appealing building 9 code issues and fire code issues but the response was that he did not feel he would be given a fair 10 shake at that hearing. He further commented that the fire code issues are out of the City’s hands. 11 12 Council Member Marty indicated that the City needs to find out what is going on and determine 13 what the actual requirements are. 14 15 Mayor Linke indicated that Mr. Hall called him last week to discuss it and he met with him at the 16 Mermaid and provided the information to him. He then indicated he is doing some research and 17 will continue working on it. 18 19 Mr. Hall also asked for clarification on how often and for how long the tent can be used because 20 he is receiving mixed information from Kathy. He then said that it seems that Kathy is 21 interpreting the Code to the most severe complicated way possible for him and he does not feel 22 that is good for the City or for him. 23 24 Mayor Linke indicated that he and Mr. Ericson would work on the matter. 25 26 David Jahnke of 8428 Eastwood Road indicated he has the book, Death of Common Sense at 27 home and suggested someone maybe could use it. He then said that something should be done 28 about that situation and moved on to comment that with all the budget cuts from the state he has 29 not seen this City make any attempts at cutting or looking at ways to reduce the budget. 30 31 Mayor Linke indicated that Council has not worked on next years budget. 32 33 Mr. Jahnke indicated he watches the work sessions and has seen nothing yet for cutting and, at 34 the same time, raises were given. He then said that other cities are freezing wages and making 35 cuts and he sees this City doing nothing to deal with the budget issues before it. 36 37 Mr. Jahnke asked if anyone had seen what New Brighton did because they have made some 38 drastic moves in an attempt to make up their budget deficit. 39 40 6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 41 42 A. Senator Betzhold and Representative Connie Bernardy Presentation 43 44 Mounds View City Council June 9, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 5 Senator Betzhold indicated he and Representative Bernardy had come to Council to provide an 1 update on the legislative session as they had promised at the start of the session. He then 2 reviewed with Council some of the things that were accomplished as well as things that did not 3 pass during the last session. 4 5 Senator Betzhold reviewed some of the policy changes that were made such as the 2:00 a.m. bar 6 closing, changing the precinct caucus date, etc. He then reviewed some bills that were presented 7 as something and ended up something else. 8 9 Senator Betzhold indicated he has had better years and commented that this was an especially 10 brutal session. 11 12 Representative Bernardy indicated it is an honor to represent the City of Mounds View and 13 indicated she received many emails and calls from concerned residents and she is impressed with 14 the involvement of the residents in state politics. 15 16 Representative Bernardy indicated she wanted to make sure people understand that a lot of one 17 time money was used to take care of this budget but the hole still exists for next time as $1.7 18 million of one time money was used to fill the hole. She further commented that the theme was 19 no state wide tax raises but all fees were increased and residents can expect that the cities will 20 have to raise taxes to make up the difference. 21 22 Representative Bernardy invited residents to contact her by telephone or email at 23 rep.connie.bernardy @house.mn or at 763/571-0015. She then said that there are ways to solve 24 the problem such as making the taxes that those making more than half a million pay as they only 25 pay 7 to 9 percent where the average person pays 12 percent. Making a change to that would 26 have helped a lot. She also indicated that education suffered with this session and schools will 27 just be making their payments but getting nothing new. 28 29 Mayor Linke indicated that later in the meeting he would be asking Council to consider 30 indicating that guns are not welcome on public lands within the City of Mounds View similar to 31 what Duluth and other cities have done. He then said that Council is on the front lines of where 32 the anger is when something happens and it concerns him that residents can bring guns into City 33 Hall. 34 35 Senator Betzhold indicated he did not support the bill at all and people disagree but the original 36 issue came about because some law enforcement officials were issuing permits like candy and 37 others were refusing to do so. He then said that the votes were there to pass any bill the 38 proponents wanted and now the State of Minnesota has a bill that even Texas would not dream of 39 passing and now some officials are beginning to realize there are flaws in the bill and he saw that 40 before it was ever passed. 41 42 Representative Bernardy indicated that right now there are no restrictions for public buildings in 43 the bill and she has already introduced a bill that would allow cities to decide if they want guns in 44 Mounds View City Council June 9, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 6 their buildings. She further commented that accommodations were made for state and federal 1 buildings but not for local government buildings. 2 3 Senator Betzhold indicated it was a technical bill and a technical bill cannot be substantively 4 changed even though businesses wanted changes. 5 6 Mayor Linke indicated that LGA got cut to the City of Mounds View in the amount of $380,000 7 this year and more than $400,000 for next year and the one thing he discussed prior to session 8 and something he would like the representatives to consider and lobby for is allowing the cities 9 to use MSA funds for other roads within the City. He then said that the original intent of the 10 MSA funds was to establish primary roads but those are established and things have changed to 11 where there is a need for upkeep of all the roads within the City and the MSA funds could be 12 utilized for that. He further commented that the City can use the funds for other roads but is 13 penalized and he would like to see that penalty removed. 14 15 Senator Betzhold indicated he brought it up but there was such a fight to keep LGA, prevent the 16 reverse referendum and the levy limit from being worse that, as bad as it was, it could have been 17 much worse. He then said he would keep it in mind for next year. 18 19 Representative Bernardy indicated that in this community LGA was cut 40 to 60% and the 20 residents will see that when cities have to levy that amount back to the residents. He then said 21 that someone had commented that the Governor was playing godfather by letting other people do 22 the dirty work of raising taxes. 23 24 Mayor Linke thanked them for coming and for their efforts on behalf of the City. 25 26 7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 27 28 A. Just and Correct Claims 29 30 Council Member Marty asked for clarification on Check Number 111006 for custom canvas. 31 32 Golf Course Manager Burg indicated that it was for a repair to the canvas that covers the patio as 33 it was damaged during a spring wind storm. 34 35 Council Member Marty asked what the charge from Days Inn for room and tax was for. 36 37 Finance Director Hansen indicated that the City has funds received from the Lions to provide 38 emergency shelter in the event of a domestic situation until those involved can make contact with 39 the appropriate agencies for assistance. 40 41 Council Member Stigney asked why the City is paying for score cards if there is a contract on the 42 agenda for receiving score cards at no charge. 43 44 Mounds View City Council June 9, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 7 Golf Course Manager Burg indicated that the charge is for special score cards for the junior 1 programs and said that she hopes to make them in house for next year but that is a winter project. 2 3 MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve Just and Correct Claims as Presented. 4 5 Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 6 7 8. CONSENT AGENDA 8 9 A. Licenses for Approval 10 B. Resolution 6031 Supporting Arden Hills in their Opposition to a Proposed Postal 11 Distribution Facility 12 C. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, June 23, 2003 at 7:05 p.m. to Consider a 13 Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 5220 Edgewood Drive 14 D. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, June 23, 2003 at 7:10 p.m. to consider the 15 Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 716 Amending the zoning Code 16 E. Resolution Authorizing Support of the Mounds View Community Theatre 17 F. Resolution 6025 Approving Purchase of a Replacement Police Radar Unit 18 G. Resolution 6028 Authorization to Add a Fax Option to the Police Department 19 Copy Machine 20 H. Resolution 6020 Approving the Contract with Golf Score Cards 21 I. Resolution 6030 Authorizing Contracts for Employee Disability Insurance 22 23 Council Member Stigney requested that Item H be removed for discussion. 24 25 Council Member Marty requested that Item G be removed for discussion. 26 27 Mayor Linke requested that Item B be removed for discussion. 28 29 MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Gunn. To Approve Consent Agenda Items A, C, D, E, F, and I as 30 Presented. 31 32 Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 33 34 Mayor Linke asked whether the City needs to approve Resolution 6031 as the issue of a postal 35 facility in Arden Hills has gone away. 36 37 Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated that appears to be the case but he does not feel it 38 would hurt to show support to Arden Hills on this matter. 39 40 MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6031, a 41 Resolution Supporting Arden Hills in their Opposition to a Proposed Postal Distribution Facility. 42 43 Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 44 45 Mounds View City Council June 9, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 8 Council Member Marty asked whether the expenses for the added fax feature were justified. 1 2 Chief Sommer indicated the police department has a high speed fax machine that is not 3 functioning and to replace it would cost $2,000 whereas the monthly fee for adding the fax 4 option to the copy machine is only $20.41 and that includes cartridges and maintenance. 5 6 Council Member Stigney asked if the machine could receive or send a fax while copying is going 7 on. 8 9 Chief Sommer indicated that the fax would be held and sent or received when copying stops. 10 11 Council Member Stigney asked whether repair is responsive. 12 13 Chief Sommer indicated that repair is usually available the same day called. 14 15 MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Gunn. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6028, a 16 Resolution Authorizing the Addition of a Fax Option to the Police Department Copy Machine. 17 18 Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 19 20 Council Member Stigney asked whether it would be possible to include some free advertising for 21 the Community Center with this. 22 23 Golf Course Manager Burg indicated she could ask but felt it would be possible. 24 25 MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6020, a 26 Resolution Approving the Contract With Golf Score Cards. 27 28 Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 29 30 Council Member Marty asked whether Staff solicits advertising from local businesses. 31 32 Golf Course Manager Burg indicated that the person providing the score cards does the soliciting 33 but is responsive to suggestions she may have for advertisers. 34 35 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS 36 37 A. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Requested Appeal of the Planning 38 Commission’s Denial of a Variance at 7622/7624 Woodlawn Drive 39 40 Mayor Linke opened the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. 41 42 Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated that this item was before the Planning Commission 43 in October of 2002 when a request was made for a driveway and curb cut to be wider than what 44 is allowed by City Code. The Planning Commission analyzed and examined the request and, 45 Mounds View City Council June 9, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 9 based on information provided and the recommendation of Staff, recommended that the variance 1 request be denied. The property owner was not at that meeting but was notified by mail of the 2 denial. 3 4 Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated that the property owner has since requested an 5 appeal as she has said she never received a letter indicating that her request had been denied. 6 7 Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated that Council could act to overturn the decision of 8 the Planning Commission and Staff does not feel it would have an adverse impact to the Code or 9 adjoining properties but does not feel that the hardship requirements have been met and are 10 recommending upholding the Planning Commission’s denial. 11 12 Violet Woods addressed Council and indicated that there were issues with people using that 13 piece of grass and dirt as a turnaround and dragging dirt out into the street and making a mess so 14 she decided to handle it by paving that portion but did not know she needed a permit. She further 15 commented that she did not receive notification that her request was denied. 16 17 Ms. Woods indicated that she applied for a variance to widen the curb cut at 7720 and the 18 driveway was measured and that was months ago and she never got a reply. She then indicated 19 that it appears that the tenant received the letter at his house and she was not aware of the denial 20 of the request. She further commented that she works evenings and had to take the day off to be 21 at this meeting. 22 23 Jordan Nelson of 7622 Woodlawn Drive indicated he had received the letter and passed it on to 24 Ms. Woods. He then asked that Council allow the pavement to stay because it eliminates a lot of 25 issues with the property. He further commented that Ms. Woods has done a good job of cleaning 26 up the property. 27 28 Ms. Woods indicated she cannot stand out there and tell people not to turn around there and she 29 felt that what she did was a good thing to clean up the area and make it look better and she would 30 like to keep it because it cost her money to do. 31 32 Interim City Administrator Ericson asked whether Ms. Woods was asking to have the other 33 property appealed as well. 34 35 Ms. Woods indicated she wanted to forget about enlarging the other driveway. 36 37 Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated he could not explain why Ms. Woods did not 38 receive the letter but his records indicated that the day after the Planning Commission meeting 39 the letter was sent out. He then apologized if it was not received. 40 41 Council Member Gunn asked if there would be any other recourse other than ripping out the 42 concrete. 43 44 Mounds View City Council June 9, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 10 Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated that the concrete either stays and is too wide or is 1 removed to meet the Code. He then suggested that the removed area could be covered in 2 landscaping rocks and used as a driveway and prevent dirt being tracked onto the street. 3 4 Council Member Marty indicated that he has reviewed the matter and he does not find that the 5 hardship requirements have been met. 6 7 Mayor Linke closed the public hearing at 8:38 p.m. 8 9 MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6032, a 10 Resolution Upholding the Planning Commission’s Denial of a Variance at 7622/7624 Woodlawn 11 Drive. 12 13 Council Member Stigney asked why the Commission wished to stay with the driveway width and 14 denied the variance. 15 16 Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated that the Planning Commission did not feel that 17 there was sufficient hardship to justify granting the variance. He then said that the applicant was 18 not there and there was no letter in support from the resident of the property. 19 20 Council Member Gunn indicated that other driveway variances have been denied for multi-21 family dwelling units. 22 23 Mayor Linke indicated he did not feel that hardship could be met in this case but said he 24 sympathizes with the applicant. 25 26 Interim City Administrator Ericson asked whether Council felt that having people driving over 27 your front yard could be considered a hardship. He then said that the property owner acted to 28 make an improvement. 29 30 Ms. Woods indicated she pays high taxes in this City and she has another property that she 31 cannot live in because she was robbed and she feels that it is time to move from this City. 32 33 Council Member Marty commented that the guy down the street from him put large rocks in his 34 front yard because people were driving across his lawn. 35 36 Ms. Woods commented that she has another property two houses down and the renters are 37 complaining that the water bill is too high but she discovered that they are charging to wash cars 38 so she said if they are doing that they need to pay the water bill but now she has had to fill holes 39 from wash outs and she told them if the housing inspector comes out it is another violation for 40 her. She then said that she would really like to keep the pavement there because it eliminates a 41 lot of issues for her. 42 43 Mayor Linke indicated that he agreed with her but said the City cannot let her do this and not let 44 others. 45 Mounds View City Council June 9, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 11 1 Council discussed whether putting big rocks or landscape rocks in that location would work. 2 3 MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Gunn. To Amend the Language of Resolution 6032 to Allow the 4 Removal of the 9 Feet at the Curb to bring the Driveway into Compliance. 5 6 Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 7 8 Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 9 10 City Attorney Riggs indicated it would be illegal to put an unlawful obstruction in the City’s 11 right-of-way without a valid permit and said there could be a liability issue 12 13 B. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6026 Regarding an Off Sale 14 Intoxicating Liquor License for Budget Liquor; 2577 County Highway 10 15 16 Mayor Linke opened the public hearing at 8:58 p.m. 17 18 Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated that all requirements have been met with the 19 exception of the fire inspection as there are a few items needing to be addressed. He then read 20 the issues needing resolution. 21 22 Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated the City Attorney had asked that language be added 23 that the approval is pending a satisfactory fire inspection. 24 25 Mayor Linke closed the public hearing at 8:59 p.m. 26 27 MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6026, a 28 Resolution Regarding an Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Budget Liquor; 2577 County 29 Highway 10. 30 31 Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 32 33 C. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6027 Regarding an Off Sale 34 Intoxicating Liquor License for ABC Liquor; 2840 County Highway 10 35 36 Mayor Linke opened the public hearing at 9:01 p.m. 37 38 Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated that all requirements for license renewal have been 39 met with the exception of a few fire inspection issues. He then reviewed those with Council. 40 41 Mayor Linke closed the public hearing at 9:02 p.m. 42 43 Mounds View City Council June 9, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 12 MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6027, a 1 Resolution Regarding an Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for ABC Liquor; 2840 County 2 Highway 10. 3 4 Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 5 6 D. Resolution 6023 Accepting the Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended 7 December 31, 2003 8 9 Council Member Stigney asked why the report did not list the loans that are being made from the 10 different funds to the golf course to make it easier to follow. 11 12 Finance Director Hansen indicated that the loans are clearly spelled out in the financial report. 13 14 Council Member Stigney indicated he would like the Auditor’s report to list them. 15 16 Finance Director Hansen indicated the Auditor picks certain things that they choose to highlight 17 in their management letter and the financial report has all the information. 18 19 Council Member Stigney indicated he would like the information included in the auditor’s report. 20 21 Finance Director Hansen indicated he would pass that comment on to MMKR as the originator 22 of the report. 23 24 MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Gunn. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6023, a 25 Resolution Accepting the Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended December 31, 2002. 26 27 Council Member Stigney indicated he would like to have the information on loans be reflected in 28 the management report. 29 30 There was consent to have the information next time. 31 32 Council Member Marty asked about delinquent utility bills. 33 34 Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 35 36 Council Member Marty indicated there had been a different procedure for delinquent water bills. 37 38 Mayor Linke indicated the City used to put the water bills on the tax bill delinquent bills. 39 40 Council Member Stigney indicated that the discussion was that the tenant is causing the bill and 41 the owner would be stuck paying it if it was placed on the tax bill. 42 43 Mayor Linke indicated the City is billing against the property so it does not matter who causes 44 the bill. 45 Mounds View City Council June 9, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 13 1 Council asked Staff to present a policy for handling delinquent water bills. 2 3 Council Member Stigney asked whether the owner or the renter gets the water bill. 4 5 Mayor Linke indicated it would depend upon how the lease is written. 6 7 Finance Director Hansen indicated that under state law services to the property for water and 8 sewer are the responsibility of the property owner unlike electricity or gas which is a service to 9 the customer. 10 11 E. Police Department Quarterly Report 12 13 Chief Sommer summarized his report for Council. 14 15 Chief Sommer indicated that the Police Department was selected to receive a locator system 16 from the Center for Missing and Exploited Children. 17 18 Mayor Linke commented that the MDT’s would be obsolete when the 800 megahertz system 19 comes online. 20 21 Council Member Gunn asked for a definition of DAC, DAS and DAR. 22 23 Chief Sommer indicated that they are driving offenses one is driving after cancellation, one 24 driving after suspension, and the last is driving after revocation. 25 26 Mayor Linke asked Chief Sommer to do whatever can be done about the noise issues. 27 28 Chief Sommer indicated he has received no other complaints from any other citizens and noted 29 he had talked to the school and they do not see an issue. 30 31 Mayor Linke indicated there are ways to soundproof the house or bedroom to reduce noise but 32 the City cannot stop the noise. He then said that the only thing that can be done is to enforce the 33 noise ordinance if there are violations. 34 35 F. Golf Course Quarterly Report 36 37 Golf Course Manager Burg provided an overview of golf information and a statistics report. 38 39 Golf Course Manager Burg showed pictures of the number 9 green and indicated that its 40 conditions are improving. 41 42 Council Member Marty asked if there was something in the soil. 43 44 Mounds View City Council June 9, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 14 Golf Course Manager Burg indicated there was some testing done but it appears the only issue 1 was with poor root establishment. 2 3 Golf Course Manager Burg indicated that she had discovered that where the carts and mowers 4 are washed there was no catch basin and the water was running into the creek so they removed 5 the old small pipe and put in a new 12 inch pipe and catch basin. She then indicated that Staff 6 did all the work in house to solve the problem and save the City money. 7 8 Golf Course Manager Burg reviewed future plans for the course and suggested ways to grow the 9 business. She then indicated that the cart paths used street sweepings and contain many sharp 10 objects leading to numerous flat tires every day and suggested that the City may wish to consider 11 paving the cart paths to eliminate that issue as well as the dust. 12 13 Council Member Marty indicated that Mr. Hammerschmidt had brought up the issue of only 14 allowing foot traffic on the bridge and routing carts around it to extend the life of the bridge. 15 16 Golf Course Manager Burg indicated that she would keep an eye on the situation and provide 17 further information on the bridge at a later date. 18 19 Council Member Stigney indicated residents have asked him to ask whether the golf course 20 would ever be able to break even without the billboards and, if so, when. 21 22 Golf Course Manager Burg indicated she did not have enough information to make that kind of a 23 statement at this point. She then said that she feels that with careful spending and refinancing of 24 the bonding that it is possible. She further commented that the billboards would help. 25 26 Finance Director Hansen indicated the bonds go out to 2013 and, if paid off, that would be 27 $500,000 per year in income. 28 29 Finance Director Hansen indicated that the golf course has been making the debt service payment 30 and interest payment charged to the golf course but to a large extent has had to borrow money 31 from other funds to make those payments so, while the golf course loans are being paid off it is at 32 the expense of rising internal loans. He then said that he is not optimistic that the golf course 33 will ever make money. 34 35 Council Member Stigney asked if the loans are being paid or just interest at this point. 36 37 Finance Director Hansen indicated that he would not know the status until year-end but he 38 expects that the internal loan amount will be increased. 39 40 Finance Director Hansen indicated that the City could sell bonds this fall to refinance the old 41 bonds for January 1, 2004 but that alone will not solve the problem. 42 43 Council Member Stigney indicated he understands that Staff is working to turn things around but 44 he questions whether it is feasible to continue carrying it. 45 Mounds View City Council June 9, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 15 1 Council Member Stigney indicated that it looks like the golf course is running with a big deficit 2 and he cannot see that it is practical to continue without the billboards and, if that is the case, 3 then the City should look at alternatives. 4 5 G. Resolution 6029, a Resolution Rescinding Resolution 6001 and Reauthorizing 6 Purchase of Golf Cars 7 8 Golf Course Manager Burg indicated that as Staff proceeded with the lease agreement the City 9 Attorney reviewed it and determined that it was a lease to purchase and the City would have to 10 go out for bonding. 11 12 City Attorney Riggs indicated that it was a true lease purchase but it is tax exempt so bonding is 13 required which would require a true bond opinion for that type of financing. 14 15 Mayor Linke indicated the proposal is to purchase the carts through an internal City loan doing in 16 order to save the interest. 17 18 Finance Director Hansen indicated that buying the carts outright is the lowest cost and the carts 19 are profit makers so he feels this is the best approach to getting the carts at the least cost to the 20 City. He then commented that he understands that interfund loans are an issue with Council but 21 it is the best way to purchase the golf carts without paying someone else interest. 22 23 Council Member Stigney commented that by borrowing from these funds it restricts the use of 24 the funds for other purposes. 25 26 Golf Course Manager Burg indicated that purchasing the carts could save $26,000 over the 27 course of 10 years over leasing them. 28 29 Council Member Stigney asked what the time frame for repayment of this loan would be. 30 31 Finance Director Hansen indicated he could set up a separate loan for the golf carts and show 32 repayment over four or five years but he does not feel it makes a lot of sense to do so if the other 33 loan continues to grow and this one is paid back. 34 35 Council Member Stigney asked what fund the money would come from. 36 37 Finance Director Hansen indicated he would recommend the special projects fund as it is the 38 fund best positioned to make a loan. 39 40 Council Member Stigney asked how much money is in the special projects fund. 41 42 Finance Director Hansen indicated there was approximately $ 2.5 million dollars in the special 43 projects fund. 44 45 Mounds View City Council June 9, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 16 MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Gunn. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6029, a 1 Resolution Rescinding Resolution 6001 and Reauthorizing Purchase of Golf Cars. 2 3 MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Linke. To Specify that the Money Would be Loaned from the 4 Special Projects Fund. 5 6 Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 7 8 Ayes – 4 Nays -= 0 Motion carried. 9 10 Council Member Marty asked for clarification as to how the amendment to the motion was 11 handled. 12 13 Council Member Stigney indicated the procedure was appropriate per Roberts Rules of Order. 14 15 H. Consideration of Development Review Requests for Properties Located at 16 2436 and 2442 County Highway 10 17 18 Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated this development review request had been heard by 19 the Planning Commission and the Commission recommended approval. He then indicated that 20 all the dimensional requirements are met with the plan. 21 22 Council Member Marty asked that the lighting be directed down to minimize the impact to the 23 residents. He also asked that the lighting be tied into the lighting in the theatre property to 24 coordinate and noted he would like to see the City’s Code adhered to with regard to lighting. 25 26 Council Member Gunn indicated she was impressed with the landscaping and said it was very 27 nice. 28 29 MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Linke. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6033, a 30 Resolution Approving the Development Review for Properties Located at 2436 and 2442 County 31 Highway 10. 32 33 Council Member Stigney indicated that he feels the PUD should stay as it was originally 34 approved and he does not support this. 35 36 Council Member Marty indicated he agreed and said he felt the PUD should stay the way it was 37 originally approved. He further commented that the developer dangled a medical office in front 38 of Council and that has fallen by the wayside and he does not support this development. 39 40 Council Member Gunn indicated that the developer was not able to finalize the deal with one 41 medical provider but that does not mean that they are giving up on trying to find other medical 42 tenants to go into the building. 43 44 Mounds View City Council June 9, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 17 Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated there has been no indication that there would not be 1 a medical complex at the corner. He then commented that the PUD amendment has already been 2 approved by Council as a whole and he does not think it would be fair to be opposed to this 3 development because Members are still opposed to the non-restaurant aspect of it. He further 4 commented that he feels the developer has acted in good faith and will continue to do so. 5 6 Council Member Stigney indicated that he was opposed to the development. 7 8 Ayes – 2 (Linke/Gunn) Nays – 2 (Marty/Stigney) Motion failed. 9 10 I. Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 716, an Ordinance Amending 11 Section 1108.04 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Conditional 12 Uses within the R-3 Zoning District 13 14 Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated this Ordinance was drafted to give the City control 15 over expansions to multiple dwelling units by requiring a conditional use permit. 16 17 MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Waive the Reading, Introduce the First Reading and 18 Approve Ordinance 716, an Ordinance Amending Section 1108.04 of the Mounds View Zoning 19 Code Pertaining to Conditional Uses within the R-3 Zoning District. 20 21 Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 22 23 10. REPORTS 24 25 Council Member Marty commented that the date for interviewing the City Administrator 26 candidates had been rescheduled from June 6 and 7 to July 11 and 12 and has now been changed 27 to June 13 and 14. He then said that he feels this is the single most important position in the City 28 and he feels that all Council Members should have input into this and he is opposed to 29 rescheduling the date for the interview. 30 31 Mayor Linke indicated there had been a previous date in May as well. 32 33 Council Member Stigney indicated he feels that all Council Members should have the 34 opportunity to attend. He then said that he feels that pushing the interviews out to July 11 and 12 35 is too far out and suggested that Council consider weeknights to ensure everyone is in town. He 36 further commented that he did not think the interviews should be rescheduling to a night when 37 Council Member Marty is out of town but done on a weeknight to give everyone an opportunity 38 to attend and, if they are in town and cannot attend, that is their choice. 39 40 Mayor Linke indicated that doing so would push the interviews back to July and something needs 41 to be done as soon as possible. 42 43 Council Member Stigney indicated that is why he would like to set it up for weeknights to give 44 everyone an opportunity to attend regardless of whether they are tired or not. 45 Mounds View City Council June 9, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 18 1 Council Member Gunn indicated that she had been told that one of the candidates has already 2 dropped out and she fears that the City will lose more candidates if this is pushed out. 3 4 Council Member Marty indicated that the interviews were not held last weekend because one 5 Council Member was out of town but they are scheduled for this weekend when he will be out of 6 town. 7 8 Mayor Linke indicated that Council made an accommodation for Council Member Marty 9 because he was not available on May 30, 2003 and was trying to afford the same accommodation 10 to other Council Members. 11 12 Council Member Stigney indicated that he feels that as an elected official this is one of the jobs 13 that has to be done and it is hard for him to imagine that there are not two nights in a week where 14 everyone can attend. 15 16 Council Member Marty indicated the issue is that they have to be consecutive because someone 17 is coming in from out of state. 18 19 Mayor Linke indicated that the City is paying to bring someone in for the interview from out of 20 state and needs to consider that when doing the scheduling. He also commented that doing the 21 interviews on a Friday night and Saturday would mean that candidates only have to take one day 22 off not two. 23 24 Council Member Stigney had no report. 25 26 Council Member Gunn had no report. 27 28 Mayor Linke indicated that he presented the proclamation to Spring Lake Park at its Tower Days 29 celebration. He also commented that he was challenged to a pie eating contest by the Mayor of 30 Spring Lake Park and lost. 31 32 Mayor Linke indicated he received an email from Commissioner McCarty resigning from the 33 Police Civil Service Commission and asked that Council accept his resignation. 34 35 MOTION/SECOND: Linke/Marty. To Accept the Resignation of Duane McCarty from the 36 Police Civil Service Commission. 37 38 Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 39 40 Mayor Linke asked whether Council was interested in posting signs on City-owned property that 41 guns are not welcome on public property in the City of Mounds View. He then suggested 42 making signs, laminating them and posting them. 43 44 Mounds View City Council June 9, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 19 MOTION/SECOND: Linke/Marty. To Direct Staff to Create and Post Signs Indicating that 1 Guns are Not Welcome on Public Property in the City of Mounds View. 2 3 David Jahnke cautioned that sometimes it is better to leave things alone. 4 5 City Attorney Riggs indicated that there are other communities going out on a limb and actually 6 attempting to ban guns. He then said that it is up to Council whether or not it wants to make this 7 statement. 8 9 Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 10 11 David Jahnke addressed Council and indicated that he went to the airport meeting and there will 12 be a pretty nice golf course out there. 13 14 Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated that the Council priority information has been 15 compiled and handed out to Council. He then indicated the information would be helpful in 16 assisting Staff with budgeting time. 17 18 Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated that one issue brought up by several Council 19 Members was the compensation plan, the five-step policy, and the use of Stanton. He then 20 indicated that Staff would appreciate some further input from Council as to how to proceed and 21 some suggested changes for consideration. 22 23 Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated that Jeremiah Anderson had recently received a one 24 year certificate from North Hennepin Technical College in housing inspection technology. He 25 then commended Mr. Anderson for his efforts to obtain this training on his own time. 26 27 Interim City Administrator Ericson asked whether Council wished to notice a special meeting to 28 discuss the interview results. He then commented that this coming Monday is an off Monday 29 and setting a special meeting would allow time for Council to discuss the interviews and bring 30 those that were not able to attend the interviews up to speed on how things went. 31 32 MOTION/SECOND: Linke/Gunn. To Set a Special Meeting for Monday, June 16, 2003 at 7:30 33 p.m. 34 35 Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 36 37 Interim City Administrator Ericson asked whether Council wished to have the attorney come out 38 and brief them on the Harstad litigation. 39 40 Council indicated it felt that Staff could provide enough information on the matter. 41 42 Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated the City received a bill from the Humane Society 43 for services rendered during the seizure of a large number of cats from a home in the 44 manufactured home park. He then explained that the Humane Society alerted the police who 45 Mounds View City Council June 9, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 20 alerted Mr. Anderson. Citations were issued, the matter went to Court and was pled down to a 1 lesser charge so there was not a conviction for cruelty to animals. The issue arises because the 2 individual was not convicted of cruelty to animals so the prosecuting attorney did not include the 3 $2,000 costs from the Humane Society as a request for restitution from the Court. 4 5 City Attorney Riggs indicated there is no clear cut answer as to whether this is a City bill. He 6 then commented that because the matter involves the health, safety and welfare of residents, the 7 City has to be involved and, usually, the costs from the Humane Society are included and sought 8 as restitution from the individual but this time that did not happen. 9 10 City Attorney Riggs further explained that the matter was pled to a housing code violation versus 11 cruelty to animals so that is why the collection of the bill at the Humane Society was overlooked. 12 13 Mayor Linke asked for more information and asked Staff to contact the Humane Society and 14 discuss splitting the bill with them. 15 16 Council Member Stigney asked whether the City could seek payment from the individual. 17 18 City Attorney Riggs indicated the City can attempt to collect the money from the individual as a 19 civil matter but he does not feel that the amount is assessable because there was no nuisance 20 situation that was abated. 21 22 Council Member Marty asked if the prosecuting attorney had any responsibility for the bill. 23 24 City Attorney Riggs indicated that the costs are discretionary costs and the judge may not have 25 made the determination to order restitution. 26 27 There was consent to direct Staff to discuss the matter with the Humane Society and ask that they 28 split the bill with the City. 29 30 Interim City Administrator Ericson reminded Council that Staff would be interviewing firms for 31 legal services Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and asked that any interested Council 32 Members attend. 33 34 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 35 36 A. City Council Minutes May 27, 2003 37 38 MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Gunn. To Approve the City Council Minutes of May 27, 2003, as 39 Presented. 40 41 Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 42 43 Mayor Linke asked that the agenda be changed to move the minute approval to before the reports 44 section. 45 Mounds View City Council June 9, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 21 1 12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, July 7, 2003 2 Next Special Council Meeting: Monday, June 16, 2003 3 Next Council Meeting: Monday, June 23, 2003 4 5 6 13. ADJOURNMENT 7 8 Mayor Linke adjourned the meeting at 10:48 p.m. 9 10 11 Transcribed and recorded by: 12 13 14 Joan Lenzmeier 15 Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 16