Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2001/02/12M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\02-12-2001 Council\Agenda -- February 12, 2001.doc CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNCIL AGENDA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2001 Revised 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomas 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL/ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES A. Approval - January 22, 2001 Council Minutes B. Acceptance - Park & Recreation Meeting Minutes, December 13, 2001 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: A. Presentation of Resolution 5517, Certificate of Appreciation to Retiring Deputy Chief James I. Hansen B. Presentation of Resolution 5525, Certificate of Appreciation to Retiring Fire Motor Operator John Durkot C. Recognition of Patricia Michna for 22 Years of Service to the City of Mounds View D. Resolution 5528, Establishing a Tri-City Task Force to Study the Water Quality of Spring Lake 6. REPORTS 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims B. Licenses for Approval C. Consideration / Award of Community Center Pond Expansion Bids D. Resolution 5522, Appointing Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson to the Park and Recreation Commission E. Resolution 5523, Authorizing the Hiring Police Officer Jennifer Ann Kuhl F. Resolution 5524, Authorizing the Hiring Police Officer Kasey James Keekeisen G. Resolution 5526, Authorizing the Promotion of Officer Tim Brennan to Police Lt. H. Resolution 5529, Silver Lake Woods Homeowners Association Use of City Hall Basement I. Approval of Restaurant License for That Coffee Shop 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR A. Citizens: Before speaking, must give their full name and address for the minutes. Please limit your comments to three minutes. M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\02-12-2001 Council\Agenda -- February 12, 2001.doc City Council Meeting February 12, 2001 Page –2- 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinances 677 (EDC), and 678 (Planning and Zoning), Amending City Code Language Relating to Council Liaisons to Boards and Commissions-Scott Riggs 1. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinances 2. Vote: Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomas, Sonterre B. Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5527, a Resolution Approving a Development Review for an Office Building at 7664 Greenfield Avenue, Planning Case DE00-002 C. Discussion of Street Projects and Assessment Policy – Michael Ulrich 11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, March 5, 2001 Next Council Meeting: Monday, February 26, 2001 12. ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting February 12, 2001 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 7:04 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomas. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, February 12, 2001 City Council Agenda. Mayor Sonterre asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Remove Items 7E, 7F, and 7G from the Consent Agenda for Discussion. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Sonterre/Marty. To Add Item 10B to the Consent Agenda. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve the February 12, 2001, City Council Agenda as amended. Ayes - 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Monday, January 22, 2001 City Council Minutes. Council Member Marty requested the following changes: On Page 3, third paragraph, second line change the line to clarify he was on the Park and Recreation Commission as well as being on the Planning Commission. On Page 7, second paragraph, correct the spelling of Barbara Hawke to Haake. On Page 11, sixth paragraph also correct Hawke to Haake. Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 2 Mayor Sonterre requested that on Page 5 the word “County” be inserted in front of Highway 10 to differentiate between the old and new 10. On Page 12 on the roll call vote change Sonterre to an aye vote and Thomas to nay. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomas. To Approve the Monday, January 22, 2001, City Council Minutes with the requested changes. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. B. Accept Park & Recreation Meeting Minutes, December 13, 2000 Council Member Stigney inquired as to why this item was on Council’s agenda. He also asked if Council was merely acknowledging the Park and Recreation Committee had minutes or if Council needed to be concerned with the content of those minutes. Mayor Sonterre explained per city code the Park and Recreation Committee must share its minutes with Council and the Planning Commission. Council Member Marty noted the Committee had discussed requesting funds for a City survey of park needs and inquired as to whether that request will be discussed at an upcoming Council work session. Mayor Sonterre explained the issue was discussed in a previous work session where Council directed the Committee to begin the survey process. Council Member Marty inquired as to whether the City needed to look for a cost estimate for this survey or whether the survey was in the preliminary stages. Public Works Director Ulrich confirmed the survey was in the preliminary stages indicating it still needs to be determined whether to proceed with the survey. Council Member Stigney noted the agenda for the Park and Recreation Committee meeting had a typographical error in the year. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Accept the December 13, 2000, Park & Recreation Meeting Minutes as presented. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 3 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: A. Presentation of Resolution 5517, Certificate of Appreciation to Retiring Deputy Chief James I. Hansen Mayor Sonterre presented Retiring Deputy Chief James I. Hansen with a Certificate of Appreciation and thanked him for his years of service to the City. B. Presentation of Resolution 5525, Certificate of Appreciation to Retiring Fire Motor Operator John Durkot Mayor Sonterre presented retiring Fire Motor Operator John Durkot’s Certificate of Appreciation to Nile Zikmund, Fire Chief, in Mr. Durkot’s absence. C. Recognition of Patricia Michna for 22 Years of Service to the City of Mounds View Mayor Sonterre presented Patricia Michna a Certificate of Appreciation for her 22 years of service to the City of Mounds View. Ms. Michna thanked Mayor Sonterre and said it has been a pleasure to work for the City. She then explained there is a bill before the legislature for a statewide records system and asked everyone to write to their legislators to voice their support. She also thanked city staff and the officers she has worked with over the last 22 years. D. Resolution 5528, Establishing a Tri-City Task Force to Study the Water Quality of Spring Lake MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5528, a Resolution Establishing a Tri-City Task Force to Study the Water Quality of Spring Lake. Council Member Stigney clarified this study will be of no cost to the City. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 6. REPORTS Mayor Sonterre reported he went to the Ramsey County League of Minnesota Cities forum on January 25, 2001 where he voiced his sentiments for removal of a City sales tax and how expansion of the sales tax would impact the City. He reported he also voiced his concerns for transit in the City in light of the fact Mounds View is not in line to receive any form of light rail transit. Mayor Sonterre reported on January 27, 2001 he and Mr. Ericson attended the dedication ceremony for 2225 Hillview. This is a house that through a cooperative effort with Habitat for Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 4 Humanity, the City and private organizations was purchased and rebuilt and now has a happy mother and two children living in it. Mayor Sonterre reported the I-35W corridor meeting was January 25, 2001. Mayor Sonterre reported he met with Representative Evans and Senator Chadray on February 12, 2001 to discuss upcoming legislation. The most important of which is turnback funds from the state to the county and how this limits what the City can do as far as improvements to the County Highway 10 corridor. Both Representative Evans and Senator Chadray have indicated they will begin work to find a way around the turnback issue in order to allow the City to make improvements to the County Highway 10 corridor. Mayor Sonterre reported the cable schedule is now on the City website and will be monitored and maintained. He also reported Focus News has agreed to run a weekly schedule with changes as necessary. Council Member Marty reported there was a short golf course meeting today. Mr. Hammerschmidt gave a brief update on First Tee and the golf course expansion. Council Member Marty clarified they were just discussing it at this point, not going forward at this time. They did however decide to make application to the First Tee organization. The Committee also discussed having a golf course task force committee made up of residents. This may or may not be a good idea depending on what future course the City takes with the golf course. If the Committee does decide to have a citizen task force the City will let residents know. He also noted the City bulletin board sign was incorrectly displaying the time for the meeting as 5:00 p.m. not 5:30 p.m. Council Member Stigney reported he had attended the Rice Creek Watershed meeting with residents on the ponding issue. He noted it would be nice if other Council could review the tape to make themselves aware of residents’ concerns as there still seems to be a lot of concerns. Mayor Sonterre noted there must be a lot of interest in the meeting as both copies of the tape were checked out. Council Member Marty reported he attended the first meeting of the Community Center last Monday before the work session. There was discussion on developing a plan for emergency procedures for the City. Retired Lieutenant Dave Brick is the emergency coordinator for the City and the City hopes to replace him soon. Mayor Sonterre noted the Community Center will be hosting the North Metro Home and Garden Show on Saturday March 3, 2001 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Last year’s home and garden show brought 2500 plus people to the City. City Administrator Miller noted Council had received the golf course feasibility study at the work session and told Council that officials from Springstead would be at the next City Council Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 5 meeting. She asked Council to look through the document and contact her if there were specific issues Council would like Springstead to be prepared to answer at the Council meeting. Council Member Stigney questioned whether it may be preferable to have Springstead attend a work session to discuss the feasibility study rather than a Council meeting. City Administrator Miller explained Staff felt there would be more time available at the last Council meeting of the month as work sessions are usually quite long. Mayor Sonterre noted the golf course would either be on the work session or Council meeting agenda throughout the next several months broken down into smaller fragments for easier discussion. City Administrator Miller noted Council was provided with an information packet last week and asked Council to let her know what, if anything, Council would like to see added. 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims B. Licenses for Approval C. Consideration / Award of Community Center Pond Expansion Bids D. Resolution 5522, Appointing Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson to the Park and Recreation Commission E. Resolution 5523, Authorizing the Hiring Police Officer Jennifer Ann Kuhl. F. Resolution 5524, Authorizing the Hiring Police Officer Kasey James Keekeisen. G. Resolution 5526, Authorizing the Promotion of Officer Tim Brennan to Police Commander H. Resolution 5529, Silver Lake Woods Homeowners Association Use of City Hall Basement I. Discussion and Approval of Restaurant License for That Coffee Shop. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve the Consent Agenda for Items A – D, G, and I as presented. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Amend the Motion to Approve the Consent Agenda for Items A – D, G, and I to Remove Item 7C for Discussion. Ayes – 5 Nays –1 (Quick) Motion carried. Council Member Stigney read the names of the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for the Parks and Recreation Committee. Vote on Motion to Approve A, B, D, G, and I of the Consent Agenda. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 6 Council Member Stigney inquired as to why there was a need to expand the pond as the City just put in the Community Center pond. Public Works Director Ulrich clarified there was not a problem with the pond for the area it was built to drain. He then explained that back in 1996 when Bronson Drive was reconstructed the City contemplated purchasing the Midland Videen property and thought that would include a larger wetland and retention pond. The City did not purchase the property and, consequently, there was no retention pond constructed. The City requested as part of the Walgreen’s Development Agreement that they expand the pond and connect it between the storm sewer around the Midland Videen property and cross under County Highway 10 and expand in the frontage on Bronson Drive. The Walgreen’s officials determined the land swap was too expensive for them and that item was removed from the Developer’s Agreement. This item was presented at the work session and Staff had requested to use funds to expand the pond. It was Staff’s understanding that this item was approved at the work session. Council Member Stigney noted he believed Walgreen’s was putting in a pond that was to be a regional pond. Public Works Director Ulrich explained the pond going in is to replace the pond on Edgewood Drive and to take care of Walgreen’s impervious surfaces and is not a regional pond. Council Member Stigney stated it was his understanding Walgreen’s would be creating a regional pond. Community Development Director Ericson explained there is a storm sewer running under Edgewood Drive that will be diverted partially into the new pond. One of the requirements is that some of the water underneath Edgewood Drive be handled by the Walgreen’s pond. This is a different drainage shed than Bronson Drive. Walgreen’s deemed the water issue on Bronson drive not to be related to their project and declined to install a regional pond. Council Member Stigney clarified Walgreen’s was not creating a regional pond on either side of the property. Community Development Director Ericson stated it depends on what a person calls the pond. The pond will take runoff from the City Hall property, the property to be developed, and some water under Edgewater Drive. It will not, however, treat the water on Bronson Drive. Council Member Stigney asked whether treating the water was of benefit to the Rice Creek Watershed. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated it was of benefit to filter the water before it entered the watershed. Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 7 Council Member Stigney asked if Rice Creek Watershed District would be contributing to the funding of the pond. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated he was told Rice Creek Watershed District had no funds available to assist with the pond. Council Member Stigney inquired as to whether Staff was currently seeking funds. Public Works Director Ulrich explained that other than the initial conversation with Rice Creek Staff has not sought funds. Council Member Stigney requested Staff ask Rice Creek Watershed District to contribute funds for the ponding project. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated Staff would speak to Rice Creek Watershed District concerning the ponding project. Council Member Marty noted he had similar questions concerning the ponding issue but had asked them before the meeting and was given the same explanation as Council Member Stigney just received. He stated he was a little surprised at the bid and thinks it is a good bid. He also stated that based on information from Staff it seems Rice Creek Watershed District officials have told them the ponds are a proactive approach by the City. In light of that information, the City should ask them to contribute funds to the ponding project. If they are not able to, the bid appears to be a good bid. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve Item 7C on the Consent Agenda and Direct Staff to Seek Rice Creek Watershed Funds to Assist with the Construction of the Retention Pond. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Table Consent Agenda Items 7E and 7F for Further Discussion. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/. To Approve Consent Agenda Item 7G With a Change of Title from Police Commander to Police Lieutenant. Council Member Stigney questioned the difference in title. Council Member Quick explained Council sets the chain of command and he feels it needs to be discussed at a work session. Council Member Stigney suggested tabling the issue to the work session for further discussion. Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 8 Council Member Quick explained he would like to put the candidate in the lieutenant position and have Staff come to Council with a suggestion for the title change. Council Member Marty stated Council did approve a search to replace Lieutenant Brick so what Council approved was a replacement of the lieutenant’s position and Staff has come to Council with a title change. Council needs to fill the lieutenant position and clarify the change of title with Council later. Council Member Stigney stated he was not prepared to discuss the title change at this meeting. Council Member Marty explained Council had approved a job search to fill a lieutenant position. On this agenda the title has been changed to police commander rather than lieutenant and he would like to fill the position Council has already approved which is that of lieutenant. Council Member Quick explained Council approved several years ago the creation of a lieutenant’s position. His motion is to fill the position of police lieutenant as approved previously by Council. If the Chief wants a different title he can bring that issue to a work session. Council Member Stigney asked the significance between the commander and lieutenant position in pay and responsibilities. Chief Clark explained there was a reorganization by the Civil Service Commission of the chain of command that was presented to Council for approval. This Resolution is requesting the creation of a commander position and appointing of a person to that position. There is no pay change or change in duties. It is merely a change in title to make Mounds View more compatible with surrounding cities. It is a matter of police hierarchy. In other communities the title of the number two person has been changed to commander. Therefore, there are issues when a lieutenant calls a commander the commander then calls the Chief back and the Chief has to relay the information back to the lieutenant. A change of title from lieutenant to commander would eliminate this problem. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Move the Question. Ayes – 4 Nays –1 (Stigney) Motion carried. Mayor Sonterre asked Chief Clark to be prepared to discuss the title change at an upcoming meeting. Vote on the Motion to approve Item 7G on the Consent Agenda with the title change to lieutenant. Ayes – 4 Nays –1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 9 None. 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR Mr. Werner of 2765 Sherwood Road noted at the last work session Springstead presented a feasibility study on the golf course. The financial guru explained the study outlined four types of bonding up to $4.5 million dollars. One of the bonding methods which seemed most advantageous to the City seemed to be the one which required a referendum by the people. Mr. Werner stated he was wondering what the City Council view is on the subject of getting the best rate in spite of having to get the people to approve it. Mayor Sonterre explained at this point in time he does not have enough comprehension of the study and is not ready to respond to a question of that nature. Council Member Thomas clarified that not all of the funding options were bonding options. There are other options that did not involve borrowing money to fund the golf course expansion. Council Member Marty reported Mr. Hammerschmidt had ordered ten (10) copies of the Springstead report if Mr. Werner or other residents are interested in reading the report they can contact Mr. Hammerschmidt. Mr. Werner stated the financial guru had also mentioned the City may be getting close to its bonding limit. He then asked if that were the case. Council Member Marty stated he was sitting between Mr. Hammerschmidt and Mr. Kessel at the meeting and can confirm that the statement of the financial representative concerning the bonding limit was in error. Council Member Marty recommended Mr. Werner contact Mr. Kessel for further information. Council Member Stigney stated he had spoken to Mr. Hammerschmidt and asked him about taking the issue to a referendum and Mr. Hammerschmidt was in favor of doing so. Mr. Werner asked whether TIF funds would be involved with this golf course expansion. Council indicated there would not be TIF funds involved with this golf course issue. David Jahnke of 8428 Eastwood Road stated he had attended the golf course meeting and wanted to summarize what he said at the meeting. He indicated he feels that anything having to do with the golf course should be decided by resident comment on whether or not they want it. In the past the City went about the whole thing wrong and got into financial trouble because of it. Even if the study says it may be feasible to build it he has a problem with the City funding a business venture. He thinks the City should get out of the one it currently has and pay it off before looking to the future to see if the City should be in business for a golf course. Mr. Jahnke stated Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 10 he does not understand why the City would look into building another nine holes if it cannot make the first nine work. Dan Lamb of 2305 Sherwood Road stated he had attended the Rice Creek Watershed meeting on the Greenfield ponding issue. Again, in his opinion, it lacked the information residents had requested. Last September Mayor Sonterre’s e-mail stated he had compiled a list of questions and forwarded them to Rice Creek. These questions were not answered and residents still have not received the information. In essence, in his opinion, Rice Creek was not prepared to answer the questions previously asked of them. Residents did have a list at the meeting aside from the list the mayor had said he would provide. He then asked if the City could pull this together somehow. Mayor Sonterre stated he took issue with the comments of Mr. Lamb. He indicted everything sent to him as liaison on the ponding issue was forwarded on to Rice Creek which he can prove by providing information on all e-mails sent to him. All e-mails concerning the ponding issue were forwarded to Rice Creek and Mike Ulrich. So, the statement Mr. Lamb made indicating the questions were not forwarded to Rice Creek is false. Mayor Sonterre then noted Mr. Lamb was on public record as saying he was opposed to the pond in every way, shape and form. Mayor Sonterre also noted he has heard Mr. Lamb say that anything he could use to derail the project he would so any comments made by Mr. Lamb to him are viewed in that light. Mr. Lamb stated Rice Creek had told him they had not received a list of questions. Mayor Sonterre clarified everything sent to him on the ponding issue was forwarded on to Rice Creek. Mr. Lamb referred to a letter with highlighted items the City needed to provide before the project could proceed. He then asked if the City had provided any of those items. Council Member Marty stated the City has not provided any of that information. Council Member Stigney noted it was mentioned at the meeting but council did not provide the information. Mr. Lamb asked if the City provided direction on any of the items in the letter. Council Member Marty explained the City has not provided direction. The issue is merely in the discussion stages at this point. Mr. Lamb asked if the City has provided a rough estimate of spoils as requested in the letter. Council Member Marty stated the City has taken no further action at all. Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 11 Mr. Lamb asked if any of the bulleted items have been provided by the City. Council Member Marty explained the City has not moved forward as this issue is still in discussion. No information has been provided. Mayor Sonterre clarified the only direction given by the City is for them to outline a proposal for the City to consider. Mr. Lamb asked if there was any discussion prior to this study with Rice Creek Watershed. Mayor Sonterre stated he was not aware of any discussion prior to this discussion. To the best of his recollection this is the only study he is aware of that came before the Park and Recreation Committee. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinances 677 (EDC), and 678 (Planning and Zoning), Amending City Code Language Relating to Council Liaisons to Boards and Commissions. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Waive the Reading and Approve Ordinance 677 (EDC), Amending City Code Language Relating to Council Liaisons to Boards and Commissions. Council Member Stigney questioned whether the Ordinance needed to state the Staff position. City Attorney Vose stated it was Council’s discretion. ROLL CALL: Quick/Marty/Thomas/Stigney/Sonterre. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Ordinance 678 (Planning and Zoning), Amending City Code Language Relating to Council Liaisons to Boards and Commissions. ROLL CALL: Quick/Marty/Stigney/Thomas/Sonterre. Motion carried unanimously. B. Discussion and Approval of Restaurant License for That Coffee Shop. This item was moved to the Consent Agenda. C. Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5527, a Resolution Approving a Development Review for an Office Building at 7664 Greenfield Avenue, Planning Case DE00-002. Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 12 Community Development Director Ericson explained this item was before Council for development review for an office building at 7664 Greenfield Avenue. The applicant is proposing a 2,006 square foot footprint for the office building. Staff and the Planning Commission consider this building to be a nice looking building and one that should maintain the residential character of the neighborhood. This was before the Planning Commission for discussion and received resident input for screening concerns. Mr. Mezzenga and the property owner to the south were not able to make progress concerning the type of screening the property owner wants. Mr. Mezzenga has expressed a willingness to install a six (6) foot or an eight (8) foot fence depending on City requirements. Community Development Director Ericson indicated the building meets all City Code requirements as presented. The proposed leaseable office space for the project is 2,568 square feet which translates to less than 15 parking spaces which is in compliance with ADA requirements. Mr. Mezzenga has indicated there will be building mounted flood lights and no lights in the parking lot. This is a flat lot so there is no real issue as to drainage. The parking lot will be sloped slightly to allow for runoff to flow into the greenspace to be filtered before flowing into the stormwater system. Mr. Mezzenga provided information to Staff tonight on the different types of plantings to be used in the landscaping. Staff has reviewed that information and does not see an issue. The City Forester will review the landscaping plans to make sure it complies with City requirements. The exterior of the building will be masonry and a wood- grained maintenance free siding. No signage is proposed at this time. If there is signage the Planning Commission has asked that it be a monument type sign no larger than 100 square feet. The issues of the Planning Commission concerning this site plan were outlined in the Staff report. Staff has also included Resolution 5527 for Council’s consideration. Community Development Director Ericson indicated Staff is recommending that the fencing issue be discussed but will leave the decision up to Council. All other issues with the site plan meet City code requirements. Council Member Marty noted the landscaping on the south side of the property and the fencing are the only issues he sees. He then commented Staff and the Planning Commission have made good recommendations. Council Member Marty noted the discussion of foot traffic was an issue and questioned how that was being addressed. Community Development Director Ericson stated Staff is confident that development of this property will divert most of the foot traffic. One of the requirements of the site plan is a fence adjacent to the fence currently existing to divert people around. Council Member Thomas asked if there is City sidewalk in front of the building. Community Development Director Ericson explained there is sidewalk in the County I right-of- way. Mr. Mezzenga, the applicant, told Council he is receptive and willing to provide whatever type of fencing Mr. Zwirn would like. He noted, however, he did not believe the issue is merely the Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 13 fencing. In his opinion, Mr. Zwirn is attempting to slow this development down by refusing to agree to the type of fencing he wants installed. Mr. Mezzenga explained he had tried to contact Mr. Zwirn but did not bend over backwards to do so. Mr. Mezzenga suggested Council approve the site plan at this point but hold the building permit until the fence issue is resolved. Council Member Marty asked if Council could approve the Resolution without resolution of Item 7 which is fencing. Community Development Director Ericson stated he was split on the issue. He explained he has had issues on another development area and it would have been nice if things were completely taken care of before the project started. But, on the other hand, Mr. Mezzenga is right. How long do you table the matter in hopes of reaching an agreement with Mr. Zwirn? Staff would be comfortable with approval at this point and holding the building permit until the fence issue is resolved. Staff does not question Mr. Mezzenga’s integrity on this issue and believes he is being up front on his desire to resolve the fencing issue. Staff is comfortable provided legal counsel approves of the suggestion. City Attorney Vose asked if the issue would be coming back to Council for approval. Community Development Director Ericson explained the Resolution, as written, would approve the site development as long as the fence is installed per City Council requirements. Staff thought there would be something for Council to approve but as Mr. Zwirn and Mr. Mezzenga have not reached an agreement Council merely has Mr. Mezzenga’s assurances that he will install whatever type fence the City requires. City Attorney Vose inquired as to whether the statement “as required by Council” had meaning to Staff. Community Development Director Ericson agreed that at this point, it is not clear what is to be done concerning fencing. Staff was hoping that there would have been a clearly defined plan as to what type of fencing was going to be required tonight. Staff is hesitant to have Council approve the Resolution without knowing what the fencing would be. Council Member Marty asked what the advantage of approving the Resolution now versus when the fencing issue has been resolved. Community Development Director Ericson explained Mr. Zwirn has asked for a screening fence to screen his backyard from the parking lot of the building. If the issue is tabled and brought back before Council in two weeks whether or not the fencing issue has been resolved Staff is comfortable with asking Council to approve the Resolution at that point. Council Member Thomas stated she is concerned that this may be dragged out if Mr. Zwirn and Mr. Mezzenga cannot resolve the fencing issue. Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 14 Council Member Stigney inquired as to whether Council can approve with the stipulation that no building permits be issued until the fence issue is resolved. Community Development Director Ericson stated he is fine with Council suggestion to approve and hold the building permits provided the City Attorney approves. He also noted building permits ordinarily are not issued unless all requirements of the site plan approval are met. He then suggested changing Item 7 to read applicant shall install an eight (8) foot fence along the south property line with the location to be determined. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To table Resolution 5527, a Resolution Approving a Development Review Request for an Office Building located at 7664 Greenfield Avenue, to February 26, 2001 to give the Applicant Time to Contact the Neighbor to the South to Attempt to Resolve the Fence Issue. Mr. Mezzenga indicated he was fine with tabling it but asked that Council not allow Mr. Zwirn much more input other than what his concerns for the fencing are. If so, this could be dragged out for weeks. The building is a story and a half building. He has proposed to put a six (6) foot fence along the whole back of the property. However, he feels an eight (8) foot fence is too tall and offers no more screening than the six (6) foot fence. The six (6) foot fence blocks all views from the main level and an eight (8) foot fence will not block views from the second level of the building. He suggested Council dictate a six (6) foot fence along the whole southern property line. The matter has gotten to the point where he has suggested attaching to Mr. Zwirn’s fence to eliminate the issue of maintenance and appears to be getting nowhere with the resident. Council Member Stigney asked if the Planning and Zoning Commission was comfortable with a six (6) foot fence. Community Development Director Ericson said the Planning and Zoning Commission was leaning toward the eight (8) foot fence. However, Staff agrees with Mr. Mezzenga’s argument that a six (6) foot fence would sufficiently screen the property from the office building. The Planning and Zoning Commission agreed to defer to Council assuming the fencing issue would be resolved between the applicant and the resident. Council Member Stigney stated he did not want to stipulate a six (6) foot fence as the issue seems unresolved at this point. Community Development Director Ericson said he did not believe Mr. Zwirn’s concerns could be addressed. He did not mean this statement as an insult to Mr. Zwirn but Mr. Zwirn has a lot of issues with his property, the property to be developed, and the Tom Thumb property. He does not appear to be happy to have a commercial lot next to him. The City is attempting to satisfy his concerns to the best of its ability. Council Member Thomas stated she is comfortable with tabling the matter until the next meeting but does not want to put it off any longer. She normally is a huge proponent of public input but feels Mr. Zwirn has had ample opportunity for public input. Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 15 Community Development Director Ericson stated he agreed with Council Member Thomas that the matter should not be put off any longer than two weeks. He stated Staff will determine what type of fence is appropriate and place that language in the Resolution if the applicant and Mr. Mezzenga are unable to reach an agreement. Council Member Marty asked Mr. Ericson to let Mr. Zwirn know that if Mr. Zwirn and Mr. Mezzenga are unable to reach an agreement City Staff will determine the type of fencing to be used. Council Member Thomas asked Mr. Ericson to provide a brief presentation on fencing to the Planning Commission at its next meeting for discussion and input. Community Development Director Ericson agreed to put discussion of the fencing on the Planning and Zoning Commission’s agenda. Mayor Sonterre told Mr. Mezzenga his plan is good and the fencing issue is all that needs to be resolved. Vote on Motion to Table. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. D. Discussion of Street Projects and Assessment Policy. Mr. Ulrich indicated this matter was before Council at the work session. He then went through a brief summary from his staff report and stated he was seeking more input on the issue. Council Member Stigney stated he had no problem discussing at this meeting but said at last work session it did not appear they were solving any issues. It may be more appropriate to discuss this further at the work session. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated Staff was fine with Council Member Stigney’s position but said he was trying to provide a timeline of past history and obtain input as to where the City is going with this issue as he feels there is a need for a policy. Council Member Stigney indicated he believed there was agreement to leave this issue at the work session for further discussion. He stated he liked the summary provided by Mr. Ulrich but to take any action is not appropriate at this point. Mayor Sonterre asked Mr. Ulrich is he was looking for action on this matter. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated he was looking for discussion and input not action at this time. He then gave a brief overview of the past history of this issue pointing out various street projects within the City completed over the past few years. Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 16 Public Works Director Ulrich indicated Staff believes there needs to be a policy and procedure for improvements so that the residents feel the improvement is worthwhile and useful. Staff is wondering where the objection to the projects lies and needs direction as to how far streets are allowed to deteriorate before steps are taken to improve them. Staff is willing to do research on funding but feels there is a need to develop a policy for the City. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated he had compiled information from other cities in the area as to how they handle street project improvements and gave a brief overview of that information to Council. Council Member Stigney asked for a copy of the information presented to Council on other cities. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated he would provide a copy to Council Member Stigney. Council Member Marty inquired as to how the pavement construction index number is arrived at. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated City Staff was initially trained how to conduct surveys of selected areas. There was a controlled area they went out to with supervision of the professional giving the training. The last survey was done by a pavement management company and not by City Staff. The condition of the pavement starts at 100 and then throughout the years various cracks, ruts, etc., are all considered deficiencies which will deduct points from the overall rating of 100. Council Member Marty referred to the charts of streets and suggested eliminating no improvement and go with the PCI. Give residents the option of passing for a year or two but determine once the PCI reaches a certain number the street will be improved. Council Member Thomas stated she believed residents were not able to pass for a year or two and have any kind of planning for the street projects. A lot of residents don’t see the need to spend the money for a street that does not appear to need repair. She then asked what type assessment basis is used in Cities around Mounds View. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated he has data from the past that indicates New Brighton charges $900.00. He believes Spring Lake Park is around $1,200.00. Council Member Thomas asked if the $900.00 was a flat fee or a percentage of the improvements. Public Works Director Ulrich stated the $900.00 is a flat fee. Council Member Thomas indicated she would be interested to see how the fees and rates correlate to how many miles the cities actually reconstruct. Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 17 Council Member Stigney questioned what other cities use the same PCI and what percentage of the PCI do they use to determine when the street should be repaired. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated he thought Roseville used the same PCI. Council Member Stigney asked if that percentage was 70%. Public works director Ulrich indicated he was not sure what the percentage was. Council Member Stigney requested that Staff check other cities for what their PCI percentage cutoff number is for determining when a street must be repaired. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated he would check into it and also stated he could check with the City’s consultant as a large number of cities use the same consultant. Council Member Stigney indicated there was a big difference in the projects mentioned by Mr. Ulrich in his earlier comments as one project is an MSA street and the other is a City streets so repairs are paid by residents. Public Works Director Ulrich clarified that the residents on County Road H2 would pay for half of 26 foot of asphalt and base to 9/10 design. They will not pay for anything else. Residents on the northern side with the exception of Arden would pay for 100% of the rehabilitation. Council Member Stigney asked how many streets the City is planning on doing during what period of time. How many is the City projected to do over what period of time and how many are MSA versus non-MSA. He noted there is $1.6 million in special projects funds and said the City could perhaps use that money for street projects. He also asked Staff to check into using funds in the TIF interest fund for funding the street project repairs. Public Works Director Ulrich noted he had asked the finance director for a brief analysis as the franchise fee was mentioned at the work session to raise it to fund street improvement projects. The finance director told him the current City taxes of an average household are approximately $410.00. If the entire four (4) percent of the franchise fee was used to pay off bond payments virtually eliminating a street assessment for street repairs for the next 20 years, using the scenario that the City would do approximately $1 million dollars worth of street projects every other year, the increase in tax dollars to figure the current 2% and the additional 2% it would mean an increase of 13.5% meaning the City needs another $280,000 annually to fund street projects using the franchise fee. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated the average franchise fee paid per resident is approximately $60.00 per year. In essence with a tax increase of approximately $55.00 plus another $30.00 for franchise fee the resident would pay $1600 - $2000 over a twenty year period. These figures include inflation and rising construction costs. They are paying for assessments or bonding in some way shape or form. Doesn’t know how residents would prefer to pay for the assessment. Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 18 Council Member Marty noted Council Member Stigney had raised a question at the work session instead of using the franchise fee to let them take the tax. Council Member Marty stated he had called Bruce Kessel to ask him about that and indicated the people who itemize would receive a benefit because they could write it off. Public Works Director Ulrich explained a resident with a higher valued home would pay more than a resident with a lower valued home. There are inequities in every assessment plan that Council should be aware of. Council Member Stigney stated Public Works Director Ulrich had asked for direction and stated the City needs to look at all the issues. Whether you take it out of franchise fee or call it a tax the City needs to look at priorities and see what its spending the money on and be upfront with the residents about how the money is being spent. He indicated a desire to make sure the City looks at all the factors in the equation. Public Works Director Ulrich explained the finance director had also mentioned if somebody was moving in or an analysis was being done by the League of Minnesota Cities or the Tribune or if this were to go through the general public they wouldn’t know the amount was for a street assessment but would think Mounds View taxes were extremely high. Mayor Sonterre stated the City has a recently adopted street policy not even tested being questioned and he thinks it is sound and would advise to move forward. In talking about the assessment policy if someone should choose to move up to a curb and gutter and new asphalt is the resident being asked to pay 100% of the asphalt cost but 25% of the curb and gutter and sewer. One thing he would like to see is an analysis of the benefit to the City. Mayor Sonterre asked Public Works Director Ulrich if he would like to see all streets upgraded to a curb and gutter system. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated yes he would like to see all streets upgraded to curb and gutter systems but stipulated that in order to improve the drainage that many lots suffer from because of instability of pavement due to all the traffic on the curb line cannot establish a solid curb line and the only way to do that is with curb and gutter. This would also help with drainage. The City would be able to eliminate drainage in backyards and the middle of intersections. The standard he would recommend would be a curb and gutter system. Mayor Sonterre stated he would like to see some consideration given to giving the residents more of an incentive to choose what’s better in the long run. If the City can eliminate the 25% residential fee for curb and gutter by offsetting 25% on the street reconstruction fees the residents that are getting a better quality road in the end would feel they were getting more for their money. He stated he would like to have information on how this type of funding would affect the projects and how long the funds would last. Council Member Stigney noted the street of choice for new developments is the curb and gutter system but thirty years ago if the City did a street assessment at that time it may have been worth Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 19 it but now to come and say you need a new street because your street has not been good for the last thirty years does not make sense to the residents because the street is fine, the drainage is fine and the whole neighborhood is thirty years old. The City would be asking a lot of older residents to pay for curb and gutter that many of them deem unnecessary. Council Member Thomas noted there is a difference in the plans for curb and gutter and adding a wider road and sidewalk and people assume when you say curb and gutter the City is widening the road and adding sidewalk. This becomes a major traffic concern for these older neighborhoods. Mayor Sonterre added it can be done in an existing size street. Council Member Stigney stated it could be but when talking about a storm sewer that doesn’t currently have one the cost goes up there and if it hasn’t been needed for many years the City will have a hard time convincing residents they should pay for it. Public Works Director Ulrich stated there is a level of appreciation for who says it is needed and who says it is not needed. If you are on the top of the hill you don’t need sewer but if at the bottom of the hill you do. This is not the case in every area but there are situations out there. Some of the drainage problem is water sits in front of a driveway or in front of a mailbox in the spring during thawing. There are not major issues everywhere in town but there are minor issues in different areas. Council Member Stigney noted that the survey of residents concerning drainage issues found that the majority of residents did not want anything done to their street. The City is asking residents to pay 100% of the asphalt and a portion of curb and gutter if they want that. He reiterated his earlier comment that this is not a new development but an older neighborhood that Mr. Ulrich is asking to bring up to 2001 street standards which many residents don’t feel is necessary. Public Works Director Ulrich clarified he is not personally asking residents to pay 100%. That was a decision that was adopted by Council. Communities all over are renovating and bringing streets up to 2001 standards. A lot of the existing curb and gutter stays during the reconstruction if it is already in place and not deteriorated. Mayor Sonterre thanked Public Works Director Ulrich for his work on this project. 11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, March 5, 2001 Next Council Meeting: Monday, February 26, 2001 Council Member Stigney asked when the retreat was scheduled. City Administrator Miller told him the retreat was scheduled for April 6th and 7th, 2001. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 20 Mayor Sonterre adjourned the meeting at 9:16 p.m. Transcribed and recorded by: Joan Lenzmeier Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting January 22, 2001 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 7:08 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomas. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, January 22, 2001 City Council Agenda. Mayor Sonterre asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Add Item 10 E to Direct Staff to Create Specific Job Descriptions for Each Commission and Committee. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Add Item 10 F County Highway 10 Redevelopment Update. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve the January 22, 2001, City Council Agenda as amended. Ayes - 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Tuesday, January 2, 2001, City Council Minutes. Council Member Marty requested the following changes: Page 2, change Berk to Berg; Change Mounds View Focus to Focus News; The reference to the Focus News reporter should be reporter/editor; Omit the sentence on Page 9 indicating Council took a five minute break before the work session. Mounds View City Council January 22, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 2 Mayor Sonterre requested the spelling of Mike Ulrich’s name be corrected throughout the document. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve the Tuesday, January 2, 2001, City Council Minutes with the requested changes. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. B. Monday, January 8, 2001, City Council Minutes. Council Member Marty stated he questioned whether he had indicated the golf course was operating at a loss as noted on Page 5 of the minutes. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Table Discussion and Approval of the January 8, 2001, Meeting Minutes to Allow Staff to Review the Tape of the Meeting to Clarify the Comments of Council Member Marty. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: None. 6. REPORTS Mayor Sonterre reported he had attended the Minnesota League of Cities conference in Fairmont a week ago and spoke with Carl Neu who asked him to pass along good wishes to the Council. City Administrator Miller indicated she had received a call from the Irondale School District requesting permission to use the Community Center for the high school get together in the spring. Mayor Sonterre questioned whether the City or the School District would need to provide security at the building if the event is held at the Community Center. Mayor Sonterre suggested Staff inquire as to whether security has been used at prior School District events. Council Member Quick directed Staff to look into the matter further and report back to Council. City Administrator Miller noted there were scheduling conflicts with the Council/Staff retreat scheduled for January 29, 2001 and it has been cancelled. The retreat will be rescheduled for a date mutually acceptable to Council. Council Member Marty suggested Council discuss a date for the retreat after the Council meeting due to the large number of people in attendance at the meeting. Mounds View City Council January 22, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 3 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims. B. Licenses for Approval. C. Resolution 5520, Appointing Gary Stevenson as Planning Commission Chair. Mayor Sonterre asked the Council if anyone would like to remove items for discussion. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Approve the Consent Agenda for Items A, B, and C as presented. Council Member Marty stated he has served with Gary Stevenson on the Park and Recreation Committee before he went to the Planning Commission and he feels Gary Stevenson will be an excellent chairperson for the Commission. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR William Werner of 2765 Sherwood Road stated at the last meeting a resident asked questions about the finances at the golf course. When it came to the question of the salary of the manager of the golf course Council Member Quick advised that salary by name is protected by data privacy. He then asked Mayor Sonterre if this was correct information. Mayor Sonterre indicated salary information is not available by name due to data privacy issues but salary by position or title is available as public information. City Attorney Riggs confirmed the statements of Mayor Sonterre. Mr. Werner said he had seen salary information in a newspaper from Blaine that printed salary by name and he questioned why Mounds View will not release salary information by name if it is done in Blaine City Attorney Riggs indicated the newspaper can publish whatever it wishes but a request for information needs to be handled by position and title as per data privacy practices requirements in state law. Mr. Werner told Council he had a list of salaries bi-weekly listed by name for Mounds View employees in a document from 1996. Mounds View City Council January 22, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 4 Mayor Sonterre told Mr. Werner he had been given information as to how to obtain the information for the salary but said the City will not release salary information by name. Mr. Werner asked Mayor Sonterre to have Council Member Quick comment on this matter. Mayor Sonterre stated he did not feel it was necessary to have Council Member Quick comment on the matter and told Mr. Werner Council needed to move on with comments from other residents. Cindy Carvelli-Yu of 5255 Irondale Road thanked Community Development Director Ericson for the outstanding letter he sent to the theater concerning the parking issue. She kept track of parking on Irondale Road over the weekend and there have been a few changes since the last meeting. Since she was here it has happened every weekend rather than occasionally as she originally told Council. The totals range from six (6) cars to 26 cars. The neighborhood also has an issue with trash, popcorn, and pop debris being tossed as people walk to their cars. Ms. Carvelli-Yu explained a resident called and asked the police to drive by to see if they could get through and a woman with a young child was walking on the street and the police car had to slow down to a crawl to avoid removing mirrors which shows there is not enough room to pass with cars parked on both sides of the street. She expressed concern for less experienced drivers traveling on the road with the current conditions that could lead to a death or serious injury to pedestrians. Ms. Carvelli-Yu asked Council to check her neighborhood on the evening of February 9, 2001, as the theatre will release Hannibal which should make for a busy evening at the theatre Ms. Carvelli-Yu stated she feels the theater destroyed the woodlands and that while residents shouldn’t have waited so long to complain they are before Council now and are asking for help. It seems to neighborhood residents the theatre is successful and, as such, the theatre should have enough money to provide parking for its patrons. She asked that council do something to help them. Mayor Sonterre said he drove over to the theatre and he counted 27 cars at 6:08 p.m. on Saturday. The issue is there and Council will deal with it. Mayor Sonterre told Ms. Carvelli-Yu he and Community Development Director Ericson had been working on the issue during the day today and asked Mr. Ericson to update the residents. Community Development Director Ericson told residents he had spent some time talking with the theater manager, the district manger for the theater, and the underlying property owner. The theater leases the land and Mr. Anthony in Texas is the landlord. Any improvements or expansions to the parking lot will need to be approved by Mr. Anthony. Mr. Anthony was told of resident and City concern for overflow parking flowing out into the neighborhood. Mr. Anthony offered to allow the theatre to plow the vacant lot between the theatre and Highway 10 for overflow parking as an immediate short-term solution. It appears that the lot should be able to hold 50 or 60 cars and should eliminate parking on Irondale road. Mounds View City Council January 22, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 5 Staff has checked and it does not appear vehicles are parking on Irondale Road because it is closer but because parking is not available in the lot. The City will continue to work with the theatre operator and the landlord to arrive at a permanent solution for the parking situation. Staff feels the theatre operator and the landlord have demonstrated a willingness to work with the City and residents to resolve the issue, as they have been very cooperative. Ms. Carvelli-Yu asked if the theatre operator could expand the parking lot. Community Development Director Ericson indicated there was not space available to expand the parking lot. There are two undeveloped lots available but the theatre operator does not own them Mr. Anthony owns them and is not interested in having one of his lots used for a parking lot. Council Member Quick indicated he had driven down Irondale Road on Saturday at 5:40 p.m. and there were 25 cars parked on Irondale Road. After the last meeting he and Council Member Marty went over to look at the parking lot and noticed a substantial number of parking spaces not plowed out. Last Saturday when he went through the situation was the same. He then asked Community Development Director Ericson if the theatre operator could be required to open up those spaces. Community Development Director Ericson indicated he did address the issue of snow removal with the theatre operator as that is something the City can control and enforce. Mr. Anthony has agreed to allow the theatre operator to remove snow and place it on the undeveloped lots if need be. Council Member Marty stated he had spoken to Police Chief Clark about the parking issue and Police Chief Clark told him it was more of an issue than Council was aware of as the police department has been getting some complaints for awhile. The police have instructed the theatre manager to open up the parking lot as there were a number of spots not available and the theatre did free up some of the spots but there are still several wasted spaces on the lot. Council Member Marty also indicated the sidewalk to the theatre has not been cleared forcing residents to walk in the street. He asked Mr. Ericson to speak to this as he has first hand knowledge of the situation. Community Development Director Ericson stated he had parked at City Hall and crossed County 10 to go to a movie and found the sidewalk was not plowed and was forced to walk in the street. The issue of keeping the sidewalks clear will be addressed with the theatre operator. Council Member Thomas inquired as to whether the theatre is opening itself up to ADA compliance violations by not clearing the sidewalks. City Attorney Riggs indicated the business may have ADA compliance issues if it does not keep the sidewalks clear. Community Development Director Ericson indicated the landowner appeared concerned and willing to do what he can to motivate the theatre operators to make sure the situation is resolved. Mounds View City Council January 22, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 6 Mayor Sonterre stated he and Jeremiah Anderson had gone to the theatre this morning and found between 12 and 18 spots not available due to a snow removal issue. Mayor Sonterre explained to residents it is important to consider the spirit of the conversations to this point as it appears the City, the theatre operator, and the landowner are all in agreement that there is an issue and all seem willing to work together to resolve the issue. Michelle Sanbeck of 2356 Sherwood Road told Council she had come to City Hall at 5:00 p.m. to address the Cable Commission but the doors were locked and she could see a meeting cancellation notice posted. She asked Council if there is something that can be done about the programming schedule. It took her three or four hours to figure out the schedule which she had written down and she pointed out each week the schedule is different. She noted the schedule is in the New Brighton Bulletin but not in Focus News. She asked Council to do something to make the schedule more consistent and asked that it be published in Focus News. Recently she told her neighbors to watch the replay of the Rice Creek Watershed District meeting and then the meeting did not run as scheduled. She also pointed out there have been several instances where a meeting is playing only to be cut off prior to the completion of the meeting which is very frustrating when you spend time watching only to not be able to find out the conclusion of the meeting. She asked Council to make sure that the length of meetings is considered when playing back meetings. Mayor Sonterre asked Ms. Sanbeck to contact Patrick Toth who is in charge of the cable programming to discuss the programming issues. He also asked her to call each and every time there is an issue with programming to inform Mr. Toth as he takes pride in providing excellent service to residents and will work to remedy the situation. Mayor Sonterre asked Community Development Director Ericson if the cable playback schedule is on the website and, if not, if it was possible to do so. Community Development Director Ericson indicated he and Mr. Toth have spoken concerning placing the cable playback schedule on the website and are taking steps to do so. Mayor Sonterre stated the City would let residents know as soon as the cable playback schedule is available on the website. Council Member Marty noted for those residents that don’t have a website the cable playback schedule is supposed to scroll on Channel 16. He then stated he had requested at a recent meeting Council request Focus News publish the cable schedule and he feels it is important to do so as Focus News is the City’s legal newspaper. Barbara Hawke, a member of the Cable Commission stated she had arrived at City Hall to discover the meeting was cancelled also. She told Ms. Sanbeck the next meeting is set for February 12, 2001. She then agreed to address the programming issues raised by Ms. Sanbeck with the Cable Commission as she too feels it is terribly frustrating to only see part of a meeting. Mounds View City Council January 22, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 7 Ms. Sanbeck noted there may be an issue with allowing the theatre to have overflow parking in the vacant lot as she believes there is an ordinance that does not allow vehicles to park if there is not class five, black top or concrete. Ms. Sanbeck asked City Attorney Riggs if a resident is allowed to ask for salary by position and then to ask for which positions an individual holds within the City. City Attorney Riggs indicated the City would be able to release the information if it was requested by position and then positions held by a certain individual were requested. Dan Lamb of 2305 Sherwood Road stated he is confused by the City’s commitments of publication for the Rice Creek Watershed District meetings. Mr. Lamb stated he believed the City had agreed to expand the mailing list and to make an effort to publicize the issue through the legal newspaper and the cable channel. He then inquired as to whether the City has expanded the mailing list. Mr. Lamb stated he had gotten an e-mail from Mr. Ulrich that said he had invited all residents from the original mailing list but did not make mention of an expanded mailing list. City Administrator Miller stated she was not aware of who was on the original mailing list as it was established prior to her start date with the City. Mayor Sonterre indicated it was his recollection the City had agreed to expand the mailing area three to five blocks beyond the original mailing list parameters. City Administrator Miller indicated she had received an e-mail from someone with an expanded mailing list. It is her understanding that Mr. Ulrich was sending out notices based on an expanded list. The City was also planning to put notice of the meeting on the electronic board in front of City Hall and to publish it in two editions of Focus News. It will also be put on the cable access channel and the City’s website. Mr. Lamb stated for the record the meeting is scheduled for February 8, 2001 at 6:30 p.m. which is only about two weeks away. He questioned when the City intended to get the information out to the public. City Administrator Miller indicated she had not done the mailing so she is unsure if it has been sent out. Mr. Lamb indicated the mailing has gone out as he received a postcard already. His concern is for those residents who may be interested in attending the meeting but are not on the mailing list. There are residents in Mounds View who have expressed interest in assisting the City to get information out to the public as the last thing he wants to see is people not getting to voice their opinion and ending up with problems like the residents here tonight to discuss the problems with the movie theatre. Mounds View City Council January 22, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 8 Council Member Marty took issue with the last comment by Mr. Lamb as Council Chambers was packed full of residents voicing concerns about the movie theatre. Mr. Lamb indicated he was referring to the comment made that some residents did not speak up when they had their chance and then ended up with a problem. Council Member Thomas suggested Staff check to see if residents in temporary housing and multi-housing received the mailing as in the past it has been policy not to send City mailings to those groups. Mayor Sonterre asked City Administrator Miller to check with Mr. Ulrich to determine which residents were on the mailing list and then respond to Mr. Lamb’s inquiries. Mr. Lamb asked if anyone from Council would be attending the Rice Creek Watershed District meeting. Mayor Sonterre indicated someone from Council should be at the meeting but indicated there is no formal designation of which Council Member will be attending. Council Member Marty indicated he will be out of town. Council Member Stigney indicated he planned on attending if he did not have a conflict. He also requested the meeting be cable cast as it was not last time. Council Member Thomas indicated she will be attending the meeting. Mr. Lamb stated this issue has been going on for some time even though Council has taken the position there is no plan for it. There was a study done which cost approximately $6,000 which he believes to be a lot of money for a preliminary plan. The City has called it a feasibility study and is now looking into another proposal which will require substantial engineering hours and at a time when the City should be looking into ways to reduce costs he asked how the City can justify the expenditure of even more money on a preliminary plan. Mayor Sonterre indicated there will be considerable debate and more definition at the meeting before the issue is brought before Council to determine the appropriate course of action. Mayor Sonterre respectfully requested Mr. Lamb’s attendance at the meeting, as this is a very important issue to the City and area residents. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Resolution 5519, Authorizing Severance Package for Pat Michna. Assistant to the Administrator Reed reported Pat Michna has served the police department for 22 years and is retiring. Staff is before Council seeking approval of the severance package for Pat Mounds View City Council January 22, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 9 Michna which consists of $4,956.77 for accrued and unused vacation time and $8,066.80 for fifty-percent of accrued and unused sick leave for a total of $13,023.57. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5519, Authorizing the Severance Package for Pat Michna. Council Member Marty thanked Pat Michna for doing an excellent job for the City. Assistant to the Administrator Reed told Council Pat Michna will be formally recognized before Council on February 12, 2001. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. B. Public Hearing, Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 672, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 of the Zoning Code Pertaining to Home Occupations. Community Development Director Ericson explained Ordinance 672 was sent back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for additional review. There were minimal changes made to the Ordinance involving a couple of housekeeping issues, a change to on street parking, an increase in signage from one square foot to four square feet, and a change to allow for a sign within five (5) feet of the right of way. The Planning Commission felt one square foot of signage was insufficient. Staff has since heard from residents concerned for allowing signs within five (5) feet of the right of way. Residents have indicated allowing a four square foot sign within five (5) feet of the right of way gives a home-based business more visibility and residents are concerned they would have signs invading the neighborhood. Staff feels there could be problems if the change to signage is allowed but this is before Council as the Planning Commission recommendation. Council may either table the issue for further discussion or could take action tonight depending on Council opinion. Council Member Quick inquired as to whether Council could approve the Ordinance taking out the change to signage. Community Development Director Ericson indicated Council could eliminate the change to signage and approve the Ordinance. Mayor Sonterre noted there have been some concerns voiced for allowing a change from one square foot to four square feet but the greater concern is for the placement of the sign. A sign on a house or garage is not as imposing as a sign in the front yard. The Planning Commission did a good job with the Ordinance by eliminating on street parking but allowing a sign within five feet of the right of way poses some concern. Council Member Marty left Chambers at 8:05 p.m. and returned at 8:08 p.m. Mounds View City Council January 22, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 10 Mayor Sonterre opened the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. Elizabeth Shelquist of 8025 Fairchild Avenue indicated that just as the residents on Irondale Road she would like the character of her neighborhood maintained. She has lived in Mounds View since 1964 and read the ordinances before she bought her lot and built her house and has always followed the ordinances. Ms. Shelquist stated she feels she represents the 95% of people who don’t have home-based businesses who feel changes to the sign allowed will significantly change the look of the neighborhood. Ms. Shelquist stated in an R1 district a resident has the freedom to do what they want as long as it does not encroach on anyone else’s rights. Ms. Shelquist stated there is the potential to have a sign in every yard on the block. She believes there is a need to preserve the outside image of the neighborhood. Ms. Shelquist noted Council Members ran on an “open communication” with residents campaign and she questioned why the second reading of this Ordinance was not in the Focus News. She also asked Council to publish notices in Mounds View Matters. Ms. Shelquist stated she is not only opposed to changing the Ordinance to allow for signage within five feet of the right of way but is opposed to allowing outside signage at all. Council Member Marty thanked Ms. Shelquist for her heartfelt and well-spoken comments. Ms. Shelquist asked what Council Member Quick had meant when he asked if Council could strike the change concerning signs and approve the Ordinance. Council Member Quick explained if Council approved the Ordinance without the change to signage the original language of the Ordinance concerning signage would stand which allows for a one square foot sign affixed to either the house or garage. Ms. Shelquist stated she would like to grandfather in anyone who has a sign at this point but not allow signs in the future. She stated she and many people her age came to Mounds View when Control Data moved in and love being in this community and doing things for the community. She asked Council to consider people like her who want a residential neighborhood with no signs, no traffic and no problems. Council Member Quick inquired as to when the home occupation ordinance was adopted. Community Development Director Ericson indicated he was not sure but could look into it. Ms. Shelquist stated she believed the home occupation ordinance to be part of the original Mounds View set of ordinances adopted in 1958, 1959 or 1960 and if it was changed she was not aware of it. Community Development Director Ericson noted the proposed change to the Ordinance was reported in at least one newspaper. Mounds View City Council January 22, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 11 Barbara Hawke stated she is very privileged to be able to work out of her house as an insurance agent and would not want to do anything to jeopardize the ability to do so. In her opinion, despite the fact she operates a business out of her home, she does not believe it is appropriate to have signs posted in yards changing the character of the residential neighborhoods. Council Member Thomas stated she does not believe the City has properly defined what a home- based business is and until it does so is not in a position to resolve the other issues such as parking and signage. There needs to be a policy to protect the neighborhood but also to allow for a business in the home. She does not believe enough has been done to address the issues and the City has not gotten enough resident input to do so. Ms. Shelquist stated if the City wants to limit home-based businesses the issue has been addressed very well in most of the suburbs. Most suburbs have decided to allow a home occupation if it is quiet, and produces no traffic and no signs. Ms. Shelquist stated she had called a New Brighton council member who said he thought a resident had to have a permit to open up a business and that when the resident came to get the permit would be questioned concerning the business. A home-based business is allowed to have two customers per day for a total of four trips. In Spring Lake Park they are allowed a nameplate on the door. She stated she has never seen signs on lawns other than campaign signs and does not feel it is appropriate. Council Member Thomas stated she feels the City needs to allow more time for public comment as to what the community wants a home-based business to be. It would then be easier to define the issues. Mayor Sonterre closed the public hearing at 8:28 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To Waive the Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance 672, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1006 of the Zoning Code Pertaining to Home Occupations Deleting the Proposed Changes to Section C Concerning Signage. Community Development Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission had wanted to clean up the language of Section C as it is difficult to enforce a clause allowing any sign prior to December 29, 1972 because Staff has no way of knowing what signs have existed since December 29, 1972. Community Development Director Ericson stated Staff was hoping to take the difficult to understand and enforce language out of the ordinance and simply state a sign of one square foot is allowed. City Attorney Riggs indicated deleting that sentence could jeopardize any pre-existing sign usages which would be grandfathered in if the language is left in. Mounds View City Council January 22, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 12 Community Development Director Ericson stated any sign in the community may be in that situation but Staff simply doesn’t know and believes it may be a meaningless statement. City Attorney Riggs stated it would affect a sign existing prior to December 29, 1972. Council Member Stigney noted the kennel sign in town would be affected by the language change as it has been there as long as he remembers. Community Development Director Ericson said City Code has provisions for nonconforming structures, signs, and buildings. The sign could exist but if it were destroyed it would then have to comply with the new requirements. City Attorney Riggs stated a sign existing for such a long period of time may be allowed to be replaced if it were destroyed despite a change in the ordinance. Council Member Quick questioned what City Attorney Riggs recommended. City Attorney Riggs indicated he would feel more comfortable if the language was left in the Ordinance because there may be situations where it applies. Council Member Quick stated he will follow the recommendation of the City Attorney and let his motion stand as is. City Attorney Riggs indicated the language could be removed if the City finds no one is affected by it. ROLL CALL: Quick – Aye/Marty - Aye/Stigney - Aye/Thomas – Nay/Sonterre- Aye. Motion carried. Council Member Quick asked Staff to place discussion of Council Member Thomas’ ideas concerning defining home-based businesses on the work session agenda for the Carl Neu meeting. C. Public Hearing, Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 674, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1005 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Pertaining to the Housing Code. Housing Inspector Jeremiah Anderson indicated Ordinance 674 was presented to Council at the January 8, 2001 meeting where Council approved the Ordinance. The Ordinance was drafted in an effort to simplify and strengthen the language of the Ordinance. The majority of the changes are regarding the establishment of an enforcement officer and eliminating any vague or unclear language in the code. Mayor Sonterre opened the public hearing at 8:38 pm. Mounds View City Council January 22, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 13 Mayor Sonterre closed the public hearing at 8:38 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Waive the Second Reading and Approve Ordinance 674, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1005 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Pertaining to the Housing Code. Council Member Marty thanked Housing Inspector Jeremiah Anderson for all his work on the Ordinance. ROLL CALL: Quick – Aye/Marty - Aye/Stigney - Aye/Thomas - Aye/Sonterre – Aye. Motion carried unanimously. D. Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of a Variance Request by John Wilson, 7764 Greenwood Drive, Planning Case VR00-008. Community Development Director Ericson explained Mr. Wilson had applied for a variance for a garage addition built without any setback to the side property line which was constructed without a permit. Staff was made aware of the garage addition when neighbors called to complain and has been communicating with Mr. Wilson over the summer. The Planning Commission denied the request in December as it did not meet the variance requirements. Mr. Wilson has requested an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission. Staff has since spoken with Mr. Wilson and he has considered the possibility that a compromise could be made. There is ten feet between the structure and the property line. Mr. Wilson indicated he could move the structure to within four feet of the property line. Staff asked him to move the structure to five feet from the property line eliminating the need for a variance. Mr. Wilson has agreed to do so and based on the agreement reached is not at this meeting. Staff recommends Council deny the appeal to provide formal closure to this matter upholding the Planning Commission decision. Mr. Wilson intends to make changes to the structure and is no longer seeking an appeal for the full structure. Staff has drafted a resolution denying the appeal if Council wishes to consider it this evening or it can be added to the next meeting agenda. Mayor Sonterre inquired as to whether Mr. Wilson had given an indication as to how soon he will make the corrections to the structure. Community Development Director Ericson stated Mr. Wilson had not indicated when he intended to make the corrections to the structure. The resolution drafted by Staff goes through the chronology of events of this case and goes through the findings to support the Planning Commission decision. It also requires Mr. Wilson to bring the structure into compliance with building and zoning codes within 30 days of the date of the resolution. Council Member Thomas questioned whether the City is creating a hardship by requiring Mr. Wilson to do construction in February. Mounds View City Council January 22, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 14 Community Development Director Ericson stated the City is not imposing the hardship. Council Member Thomas indicated the City would be imposing the timeline and does have the option of making it hard or easy for Mr. Wilson to comply. Community Development Director Ericson stated he believes the City has a responsibility to consider the residents who have had to wait for a year to have this issue resolved. Council Member Thomas suggested giving Mr. Wilson 60 days to make the changes to the structure. Mayor Sonterre explained that by keeping the 30-day time limit Mr. Wilson could get a warning if the structure is not changed within 30 days and would then have another 30 days to complete the changes to the structure for a total of 60 days before he would be cited. Council Member Marty stated in light of how Mr. Wilson has procrastinated in dealing with the City on this issue he is hesitant to allow any more than 30 days. Housing Inspector Jeremiah Anderson stated the City is caught in a situation where it feels the need to provide due process for Mr. Wilson which tends to drag things out. In his opinion, Mr. Wilson has been provided with due process and residents need closure on this issue. Had Mr. Wilson applied for a permit this whole situation could have been avoided. In light of the circumstances surrounding this matter Housing Inspector Anderson indicated he does not think 30 days is an unreasonable amount of time to bring the structure into compliance. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5521, a Resolution Denying the Appeal of the Planning Commission Denial of a Variance for a Zero- Foot Garage Addition Setback at 7764 Greenwood Drive, Requested by Property Owner John Wilson. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. E. Direct Staff to Create Specific Job Descriptions for Each Commission and Committee Within the City. Council Member Marty suggested having Staff draft job descriptions for each commission and committee within the City. This would make it easier for those applying for the positions and for Staff and Council to know what each commission and committee position entails. Council Member Thomas questioned whether the job descriptions are something that can be easily gathered from the bylaws of the various commissions or committees or from City Code. City Administrator Miller stated it is her understanding that not all commissions have bylaws and the ones that do exist are somewhat vague. Mounds View City Council January 22, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 15 Mayor Sonterre stated he believed the request for position descriptions to be a good idea that should not be very time consuming for Staff. Council Member Thomas requested the job descriptions be presented to each commission and committee for approval and then to Council. Council Member Stigney stated he would like to see the job descriptions remain vague. Council Member Marty directed Staff to draft job descriptions for each commission and committee within the City to be presented to each commission and committee for approval and then to Council. F. Update on Improvements and Modifications to County Highway 10 Council Member Marty requested an update on the County Highway 10 redevelopment issue. Community Development Director Ericson indicated Requests for Proposals have been sent to 50 area firms to propose a plan for dealing with design, transportation and planning issues for County Highway 10. A few firms have requested further information which Staff has provided. The deadline to submit a Request for Proposal is February 16, 2001 and Staff should be able to provide information to Council by the end of that week. Council passed a resolution that was forwarded to Ramey County which included a specific request to lower the speed limit on County Highway 10. MNDOT has been asked to conduct a speed study and Staff is unsure how long that process takes. The other issues dealt with the timing of pedestrian crosswalks and signage of those crosswalks. The Ramsey County traffic engineer is working on those issues and Staff hopes to see improvements take place shortly. Staff anticipates changes in the immediate future but is not sure when something definite will happen. Council Member Marty asked Community Development Director Ericson to provide another report on the County Highway 10 redevelopment at the second Council meeting in February. Community Development Director Ericson indicated he will inform Council prior to the council meeting in February if he receives any information on the issue as well as provide an update at the second Council meeting in February. Council Member Marty thanked Community Development Director Ericson for the update. Mayor Sonterre noted the City Council/City Staff retreat has been cancelled and residents will be informed of the rescheduled date as soon as that date is available. 11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, February 5, 2001 Next Council Meeting: Monday, February 12, 2001 Mounds View City Council January 22, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 16 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Sonterre adjourned the meeting at 8:58 p.m. Transcribed and recorded by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. PARK AND RECREATION MEETING MINUTES December 13, 2000 Meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm The following items on the agenda were discussed: Hillview Park Shelter Replacement. Discussion evolved around types of construction, amenities within the building, purposes of the building. Construction; concrete block, brick, tip up panels, wood. Amenities; storage area, picnic shelter, rest room open to the outside, security system / lighting, full HVAC, telephone, internet access, electrical service for portable appliances. Purposes; summer programs, warming house, neighborhood meetings, family events, picnics A consulting engineering firm would be contacted by staff to present various options available and estimated construction costs. Comprehensive Park Plan and Survey The commission discussed the idea of requesting funds from the City Council to perform a City survey of the needs, wants and current amenities within each park. This would assist the commission and staff in future capital replacement scheduling and further park development. Also presented by staff and recommended by the Commission was the concept of hiring a consultant to perform and Comprehensive Park Master Plan. This plan would include the current park facilities, replacement schedules, and any future additions or developmental concepts for the individual parks. The Commission approved the motion unanimously for staff to present these two proposals to the City Council. Staff also mentioned that the fitness equipment for the Community Center should be arriving in the near future. Meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:30pm. RESOLUTION NO. 5517 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR FIREFIGHTER JIM HANSEN WHEREAS, Jim Hansen has been employed by the Spring Lake Park/Blaine/Mounds View Fire Department for twenty-one years as a volunteer firefighter; and WHEREAS, Jim joined the Fire Department on September 26, 1979, and was assigned to Station Two days; and WHEREAS, Jim was appointed as acting Fire Motor Operator and Acting Captain in the 1980s and was appointed to the rank of Captain at Station Three in December, 1994; and WHEREAS, Jim was assigned as Acting District Two Chief, permanently appointed to that position in January of 1996 and promoted to the rank of Deputy Chief in July of 1999; and WHEREAS, Jim attended a myriad of special courses and seminars on various areas of fire fighting and was first certified as Firefighter I, II and III between 1989 and 1992 and has maintained current certification to the present time; and WHEREAS, Jim has met all training requirements and standards and been certified as Fire Investigator I, II and III by the National Fire Protection Agency; and WHEREAS, Jim received his Instructor Teaching License in 1988 and was selected to be a member of the MN Fire Instructors Assn. And Examiner for the State of Minnesota by the Certification Board in 1990; and WHEREAS, Jim has responded to more than 3,200 fire calls and attended over 1,675 weekly drills, participated in public fire education and public relations events and retired on January 31, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, Richard Sonterre, Mayor of the City of Mounds View, members of the City Council, employees of the Spring Lake Park/Blaine/Mounds View Fire Department and residents of the City of Mounds View express our appreciation to Jim Hansen for his devoted services as Firefighter and Captain. Presented this 12th day of February, 2001. ___________________________________ Rich Sonterre, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL: ___________________________________ Kathleen Miller, City Administrator RESOLUTION 5525 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR FIRE MOTOR OPERATOR JOHN DURKOT WHEREAS, John Durkot has served as a volunteer firefighter for the past twenty years; and WHEREAS, John joined the department on February 9, 1980 and was appointed to the rank of Fire Motor Operator in June of 1981; and WHEREAS, John attended many special courses and seminars on various areas of fire fighting including Fire Motor Operator and HazMat Awareness, maintained his First Aid/CPR and First Responder certifications throughout his years of service, and served as Station Three Engineer for many years; and WHEREAS, John received several awards including Awards of Merit as Outstanding Firefighter of the Year in 1983, responding to the most fire calls at Station 3 in 1984, and 1993, for serving on the 40th Anniversary Celebration Committee in 1984 and helping to restore our 1922 antique American LaFrance engine; and WHEREAS, John has responded to more than 2,150 fire calls and attended over 750 weekly drills and participated in various public fire education events and station tours; and WHEREAS, John will retire from duty on April 16, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, Richard Sonterre, Mayor of the City of Mounds View, members of the Council, employees of Spring Lake Park/Blaine/Mounds View Fire Department and residents of the City of Mounds View express our appreciation to John Durkot for his devoted service as Firefighter and Fire Motor Operator. Presented this 12th day of February, 2001. ATTEST: Richard Sonterre, Mayor SEAL: Kathleen Miller, City Administrator M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Council Packets\02-12-2001 Council\Item 05D--Res 5528, Establishing a Tri-Cit Task Force--Kathleen Miller.doc Item No.5D 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: Kathleen Miller, City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Resolution No. 5528 Establishing a Tri-City Task Force to Study the Water Quality of Spring Lake Date of Report: February 12, 2001 Background Staff members and former Mayor, Dan Coughlin met with neighborhood representatives of Spring Lake to discuss their concerns with officials from the DNR late last year. It was determined during that meeting that the DNR would require some indication that the tree cities involved, shared this concern before they would commit to any kind of involvement. Staff met with the Administers from Fridley and Spring Lake Park to discuss what if any involvement the Cities should commit to regarding this issue. The attached resolution simple states that the three cities all acknowledge that a concern exists. This does not commit the city to any kind of financial involvement. Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council approve Resolution No. Establishing a Tri-City Task Force to Study the Water Quality of Spring Lake. Respectfully Submitted, ___________________________ Kathleen F. Miller City Administrator Item No. 7B Type of Business: CA WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council From: Barb Benesch Item Title/Subject: CONTRACTOR LICENSES FOR APPROVAL Meeting Date: February 12, 2001 Please consider the following contractor licenses for approval. The licenses listed will expire on December 31, 2001. All applicants have submitted appropriate fees and proof of insurance. Licenses are noted with a “New” or “Renewal” after the company name. Those licenses defined as “new” include all 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 2000.. Those defined as “renewal” were licensed in the year 2000. GENERAL (COMMERCIAL) North Central Roofing & Construction - Renewal HVAC Joel Smith Heating & Air Conditioning – Renewal Total Comfort of Wisconsin, Inc. - New SIGN Topline Advertising, Inc. – New Universal Signs, Inc. – Renewal OTHER Nardini Fire Equipment Co., Inc. – Renewal Central MN Tree Service, LLC – New Veit & Company, Inc. – Renewal Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested. Item No. 7C Staff Report No. Meeting Date: February 12, 2001 Type of Business: C.A. 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: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Community Center Pond Expansion Bids Date of Report: August 15, 2018 During the early negotiations with Told Development for the building of the Walgreen’s, staff tried to persuade the developer to expand the Community Center water quality pond as part of their project. As it turned out, the developer strongly disagreed with the City’s request for this inclusion. Staff reported this back to the City Council, with the request that the City expand this pond, which would provide both a water quality measure to a large parcel of Edgewood Drive, Bronson Drive and Greenwood Drive and rate control for an under sized storm sewer south of County Hwy 10. The City Council granted staff permission to perform this project with Surface Water Funds. As a result, staff prepared plans and specification, advertised and received bids for the project. Following are the bid results: Zappa & Sons $22,817.90 Forest Lake Const. $36,221.00 Eureka Const $44,631.00 Arnt Construction $45,606.70 Veit $48,845.60 Ceres $49,940.40 Sunram Construction $55,797.00 Rybak $58,481.00 Carl Bolander & Sons $58,830.00 Jay Bros $60,002.74 GL Contraction $62,398.20 The Engineer’s Estimate for this project was $35,262. Staff recommends award of the project to the low bidder, Zappa & Sons for $22,817.90. Due to a couple discrepancies in the bid form and the plans, staff would request the Council authorize the Director of Public Works to sign all change orders up to 15% of the bid amount. The project will be charged to the Surface Water Management Fund, 245-4415-7050, with a transfer of the final project cost to this account from the reserve account in Surface Water Management. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends award of the project to the low bidder, City of Mounds View Staff Report August 15, 2018 Page 2 Zappa & Sons for $22,817.90 and authorizes the Director of Public Works to sign all change orders up to 15% of the bid amount. Authorize transfer of final project expense from Surface Water Fund reserves to account # 245-4415-7050. _________________________________ Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works C:\Mike's documents\projects\Comm Cent Pond Bid Rec.doc RESOLUTION NO. 5522 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPOINTING A CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION WHEREAS, members of the Park and Recreation Commission shall consist of nine members of the resident population of Mounds View; and WHEREAS, based upon the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission the City Council shall appoint a chairperson and vice-chairperson; and WHEREAS, the Park and Recreation Commission has sent forward a recommendation to appoint Dan Coughlin as chairperson and Sherry Gunn as vice-chairperson. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does hereby certify the appointment of Dan Coughlin as chairperson and Sherry Gunn as vice- chairperson of the Park and Recreation Commission. Adopted this 22nd day of January, 2001 ATTEST: _______________________________ Richard Sonterre, Mayor (SEAL) _______________________________ Kathleen Miller, City Administ RESOLUTION NO 5223 Resolution Authorizing Hiring Police Officer Be it resolved that the City of Mounds View, Minnesota does hereby authorize the hiring of Jennifer Ann Kuhl as a Police Officer. Chief of Police William Clark is hereby authorized to execute this resolution and make offer of employment to said individual. Said individual will be employed as a probationary employee for a period of one year before becoming a permanent employee of the City. I certify that the above resolution was adopted by the City Council, City of Mounds View, Minnesota on February 12, 2001. Signed: ____________________ Kathleen Miller Administrator City of Mounds View _____________________ Date: Signed: _____________________ Richard Sonterre Mayor City of Mounds View _____________________ Date: Witnesseth: _____________________ (Signature) _____________________ (Title) Date:_________________ RESOLUTION NO 5524 Resolution Authorizing Hiring Police Officer Be it resolved that the City of Mounds View, Minnesota does hereby authorize the hiring of Kasey James Keckeisen as a Police Officer. Chief of Police William Clark is hereby authorized to execute this resolution and make offer of employment to said individual. Said individual will be employed as a probationary employee for a period of one year before becoming a permanent employee of the City. I certify that the above resolution was adopted by the City Council, City of Mounds View, Minnesota on February 12, 2001. Signed: ____________________ Kathleen Miller Administrator City of Mounds View _____________________ Date: Signed: _____________________ Richard Sonterre Mayor City of Mounds View _____________________ Date: Witnesseth: _____________________ (Signature) _____________________ (Title) Date:_________________ 1 Memorandum To: City Administrator CC: Mayor, City Council From: Chief of Police Date: 8/15/2018 Re: Promotion of Timothy Brennan to Police Commander/New hires STAFF REPORT After a promotional process was held by the Police Civil Service Commission, consisting of testing and oral boards, the Civil Service Commission on February 5th, 2001 tendered the name of Officer Timothy Brennan for promotion to Police Commander for the Department. The name change of the position was voted on November 20th, 2000 by the Civil Service Commission. It is a name change, only, and does not change position responsibility or pay scale. The title coincides with changes recently made in the St. Paul Police Department, which mirrors changes occurring across the country. This change in our Department places the title on an even keel with other Departments around us who have; Deputy Chief, Assistant Chief, Major, Captain, and Commander titles for the number two person in the Department. Our current title of Lieutenant falls at number three or four in most organizational structures and creates some conflict when dealing along the established traditional lines of other Departments for communications and projects. This change should resolve those issues. The Resolutions for new hires also come after a Police Civil Service Commission process of testing and Oral Board as well as the State mandated process of background, physical and psychological. Both presented candidates have passed all established process and been approved from the list presented to Council in June 2000. These new hires are the replacement for Dave Bricks retirement (1) and the new position created by moving to a School Resource Officer. Your continued support of the changes occurring in the Police Department are greatly appreciated. CONFIDENTIAL RESOLUTION NO 5526 Resolution Authorizing A Promotion to Police Commander Be it resolved that the City of Mounds View, Minnesota does hereby authorize the Promotion of Timothy Brennan to Police Commander or the Mounds View Police Department. Chief of Police William Clark is hereby authorized to execute this resolution and make offer of promotion to said individual. Said individual will be promoted to probationary status for a period of one year before becoming a permanent. I certify that the above resolution was adopted by the City Council, City of Mounds View, Minnesota on February 12, 2001. Signed: ____________________ Kathleen Miller Administrator City of Mounds View _____________________ Date: Signed: _____________________ Richard Sonterre Mayor City of Mounds View _____________________ Date: Witnesseth: _____________________ (Signature) _____________________ (Title) Date:_________________ RESOLUTION 5529 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA WHEREAS, Silver Lake Woods Homeowners Association has used the City Hall basement for its annual meetings since 1986; and WHEREAS, Silver Lake Woods Homeowners Association has a large membership which cannot be accommodated by the community rooms at the Community Center; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has granted certain long standing community organizations the opportunity to continue to use City Hall as a meeting place. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does grant the Silver Lake Woods Homeowners Association the opportunity to continue to hold its annual meetings in the basement of City Hall. Adopted this 12th day of February 2001. ATTEST: Richard Sonterre, Mayor SEAL Kathleen Miller, City Administrator Item No. 7I Type of Business: CB 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: Givonna Reed, Assistant to the City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Discussion and Consideration of Restaurant License for That Coffee Shop Date of Report: February 12, 2001 On January 11, 2001 I received an application for a new Class B Restaurant License for That Coffee Shop. The owners propose to open the coffee shop at 2559 Highway 10. The restaurant has a maximum occupancy of 19 and will be open for a maximum of 15 hours daily. As this is an application for a new license, an extensive “background” review has been conducted. The following departments or agencies have been contacted and have indicated that the applicants have met all conditions for license approval: • Finance (Utility) • Police Department • Community Development (Zoning and Building & Fire Inspections) • Ramsey County Department of Public Health • MN Department of Revenue RECOMMENDATION I recommend that the City Council approve a restaurant license for That Coffee Shop. Respectfully Submitted, ___________________________ Givonna Reed Assistant to the City Administrator RESOLUTION NO. 5527 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT 7664 GREENFIELD AVENUE; PLANNING CASE NO. DE00-002. WHEREAS, Tony Mezzenga, representing property owner Earnest Gustafson, has applied for a development review to construct a 2,006 square-foot office building at 7664 Greenfield Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned B-3, Highway Business, is designated as a “Neighborhood Commercial” use on the Comprehensive Plan and is legally described as follows: Lot 30, Block 3, Greenfield Plat 2, Subject to Road Easement 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, according to Section 1114.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code, commercial offices are a permitted use with the B-3 zoning district; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Site Plans, date-stamped 2/2/01 d. Variance Resolution 633-00, approved 9/13/00 e. Planning Commission Resolution 646-01, approved 1/13/01 f. Staff Report WHEREAS, the proposed development satisfies the requirements of Zoning Code as well as the variance approved on September 13, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the site plans date-stamped 2/2/01 indicate that the proposed office building will be 34 feet by 59 with a footprint of 2,006 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the number of parking stalls provided (14 regular, 1 handicapped, 15 total) satisfies the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act and the requirements in the variance approved September 13, 2000; and, WHEREAS, on January 17, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 646-01, recommending approval of this development review request. Resolution 5527 Page 2 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council, finding that all requirements have been met, does hereby approve the development review request for the construction of a 2,006 square foot, two-level office building with a maximum 3,000 square feet of leaseable office space at 7664 Greenfield Avenue, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Barrier curbing (B 6-12) shall be installed around the perimeter of the parking lot and access drive. At points where stormwater will collect, cuts shall be made to allow water to pass through into pervious areas. 2. All utilities to the building shall be installed underground. 3. One monument sign shall be allowed not to exceed eight (8) feet in height or one hundred (100) square feet in area. The base of such sign shall be constructed of masonry or stone materials to match the building. A pole or pylon type sign is prohibited. No more than 60 square feet of combined building mounted signage shall be allowed. 4. The masonry or stone building siding and any other architectural design characteristics shall be consistent along the north and east building elevations. 5. There shall be no outside garbage storage or dumpster allowed on this site, all garbage and refuse shall be stored within the building. 6. There shall be no parking lot lighting other than supplemental flood lights mounted upon the building. Such lights shall be down cast and shielded or hooded to eliminate glare or light spillage onto adjoining properties in accordance with Chapter 1103 of the Mounds View Zoning Code. 7. The applicant shall install any fencing, screening or buffering as required by the City Council. Adopted this 12th day of February, 2001. _________________________________ Richard Sonterre, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Kathleen F. Miller, City Administrator (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\DE00-002 (MEZZENGA)\RESOLUTION 5527.DOC MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 646-01 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT 7664 GREENFIELD AVENUE; PLANNING CASE NO. DE00-002. WHEREAS, Tony Mezzenga, representing property owner Earnest Gustafson, has applied for a development review to construct a 2,000 square foot office building at 7664 Greenfield Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned B-3, Highway Business, is designated as a “Neighborhood Commercial” use on the Comprehensive Plan and is legally described as follows: Lot 30, Block 3, Greenfield Plat 2, Subject to Road Easement 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, according to Section 1114.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code, commercial offices are a permitted use with the B-3 zoning district; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Location Map d. Site Plan, date-stamped 1/12/01 e. Floor Plan and Elevations, date-stamped 1/12/01 f. Variance Resolution 633-00, approved 9/13/00 g. Staff Report WHEREAS, the proposed development satisfies the requirements of Zoning Code as well as the variance approved on September 13, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the site plans date-stamped 1/11/01 indicate that the proposed office building will be 34 feet by 59 with a footprint of 2,006 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the number of parking stalls provided (14 regular, 1 handicapped, 15 total) satisfies the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act and the requirements in the variance approved September 13, 2000; and, Mezzenga Resolution 646-01 January 17, 2001 Page 2 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission, finding that all of the requirements have been met, does hereby recommend that the City Council approve the development review request for the construction of a 2,006 square foot, two-level office building with 2,568 square feet of leaseable office space at 7664 Greenfield Avenue, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Barrier curbing (B 6-12) shall be installed around the perimeter of the parking lot and access drive. At points where stormwater will collect, cuts shall be made to allow water to pass through into pervious areas. 2. All utilities to the building shall be installed underground. 3. One monument sign shall be allowed not to exceed eight (8) feet in height or one hundred (100) square feet in area. The base of such sign shall be constructed of masonry or stone materials to match the building. A pole or pylon type sign is prohibited. No more than 60 square feet of combined building mounted signage shall be allowed. 4. The masonry or stone building siding and any other architectural design characteristics shall be consistent along the north and east building elevations. 5. There shall be no outside garbage storage or dumpster allowed on this site, all garbage and refuse shall be stored within the building. 6. There shall be no parking lot lighting other than supplemental flood lights mounted upon the building. Such lights shall be down cast and shielded or hooded to eliminate glare or light spillage onto adjoining properties in accordance with Chapter 1103 of the Mounds View Zoning Code. 7. Elevation contours and drainage arrows shall be added to the site plan to indicate direction of stormwater runoff. 8. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan indicating the locations, numbers and species of the plantings to be used on the site. The City Forester shall review the landscape plans and make recommendations as to the specific species used. 9. The applicant shall install any fencing, screening or buffering as required by the Planning Commission or City Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 17th day of January, 2001. Mezzenga Resolution 646-01 January 17, 2001 Page 3 _________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Vice Chairperson ATTEST: _________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\DE00-002 (MEZZENGA)\RESOLUTION 646-01.DOC Item No: 10 B Meeting Date: February 12, 2001 Type of Business: CB WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor & City Council From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5527, a Resolution Approving a Development Review for an Office Building at 7664 Greenfield Avenue, Planning Case DE00-002 Date of Report: February 7, 2001 Background: Tony Mezzenga, who is under contract to purchase the property at 7664 Greenfield Avenue, is requesting approval of a Development Review to construct a one and a half story office building with a 2,000 square-foot footprint on the property. The site plan is consistent with the setback and parking area variance that was approved by the Planning Commission on September 13, 2000. The resolution is attached for Council reference. For the meetings of the Planning Commission, staff sent notices to the property owners within 350 feet of 7664 Greenfield Avenue to promote neighborhood awareness and to solicit suggestions and input from those residents most affected by this development. Due to the minimal response and apparent acceptance of this development, staff chose not to send another mailing out to residents for this meeting. It was announced at the January 17th meeting that this item would be on the February 12th Council agenda. Staff has contacted the resident immediately to the south, however, to ensure he was aware of the meeting. In summary, the purpose of a development review is to allow the City (staff, Planning Commission and City Council) to review proposed development in terms of their consistency with City Codes, in the context of the adjoining developments and to ascertain and mitigate any potential impacts to the community. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council which then acts upon the request. Discussion: This 13,068 square-foot property is zoned B-3, Highway Business. The size of the lot and corner-lot setbacks present practical difficulties in terms of what can be developed, which was the basis for the variance approved for the lot in 2000. This lot borders commercial property to the west (Tom Thumb and a Laundromat), high density residential to the east, and low density residential to the south and north. The proposed office use would fit well into the predominately residential surroundings and is consistent with the B-3 zoning designation. Mezzenga Report February 12, 2001 Page 2 Dimensional Requirements: Building Setbacks: Required Proposed: Met ? • Front (Co. Rd. I.): 30 feet 30 feet Yes • Front (Greenfield): 30 feet 87 feet Yes • Side (West): 10 feet* 10 feet Yes • Side (South): 10 feet* 20 feet Yes Parking Lot Setbacks: • Front (Co. Rd. I.): 10 feet* 12 feet Yes • Front (Greenfield): 10 feet* 18 feet Yes • Side (West): 5 feet 49 feet Yes • Side (South): 15 feet* 15 feet Yes Parking Requirements: • Allowed: 1 per 200 sq. ft. of leaseable office space area* • Proposed: 15 spaces • Max. leaseable office space: 3,000 Square Feet • Prop. leaseable office space: 2,568 Square Feet * These requirements are as allowed by Resolution 633-00, a resolution approving a variance for reduced building and parking lot setbacks and parking requirements. The site plan submitted for Council review, date-stamped Feb. 2, 2001, is consistent with the approved variance and with the applicable City Codes. Parking: The approved variance allows for a reduced parking ratio—one space per every 200 square feet of leaseable office space or fraction thereof. The site plan indicates a total of 15 stalls which translates into a maximum leaseable office area of 3,000 square feet. The submitted floor plans show a combined 2,898 square feet of potential office space, yet Mr. Mezzenga has indicated that one of the rooms on the lower level would be set aside for storage; thus the amount of leaseable office space is reduced to 2,568 square feet. The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) parking requirements are met by the provision of the one van-accessible spot. Staff has indicated to Mr. Mezzenga that the City Code requires B 6-12 perimeter curb be installed for this development. Lighting: The site plan does not indicate that any exterior lighting will be used with this development. Staff addressed this issue with Mr. Mezzenga, who indicated that the only lighting to be used for the parking lot would be provided by building-mounted floodlights. These lights will need to comply with the Zoning Code pertaining to lighting and glare. (Chapter 1103 of the Zoning Code.) Mezzenga Report February 12, 2001 Page 3 Drainage: The lot at 7664 Greenfield Avenue, and those that surround the subject property, are essentially flat with little if any change in elevation. The proposed development will add a relatively minimal area of impervious surface. Because of that, the lack of elevation change, and the requirement of perimeter curbing, staff does not consider stormwater runoff to be an issue for the adjoining properties or the City’s stormsewer system. Even so, the parking lot shall be constructed with a slight slope to drain stormwater toward the north and east (away from the building) into areas of pervious greenspace. (Refer to the arrows on the site plan indicating drainage flow.) This is a technique encouraged by Rice Creek Watershed District and consistent with its “best management practices” philosophy. The perimeter curbing shall be constructed with breaks or surmountable points to allow for the stormwater to pass through, thus allowing water to infiltrate and recharge the aquifers rather than being discharging untreated directly into City stormsewers. (Rice Creek Watershed District does not need to review this development as it falls well below the minimum acreage threshold.) Landscaping: The site plan indicates landscaping around the building and at both lot corners fronting County Road I. Mr. Mezzenga has indicated that these plantings would be twelve 10-gallon Arbor Vitaes which are typically about four feet tall. Staff has suggested that the heights of the plantings be staggered if possible for a better visual effect. The landscaped areas will be covered with western red Cedar mulch. Staff is also suggesting the addition of a row of four to six foot lilacs (or something similar) at the south property line to provide additional screening to the adjoining residence. All non-landscaped pervious areas shall be sodded. Fencing: Because of the close proximity of the home to the south on Greenfield Avenue, the need to provide for screening is important. This can be accomplished with a row of plantings, such as lilacs, or with the construction of a fence. Staff would prefer a more natural buffer, however the drawback is that it would take years to fully screen the building with plantings whereas a fence would provide for immediate screening. Staff has been in contact with Mr. Zwirn, the resident to the south, and Mr. Zwirn attended the Planning Commission meeting on January 17 to provide his input. The applicant and Mr. Zwirn are attempting to work out a solution that would be amenable to both parties. Staff would like to have this agreement in place and defined by the time Council acts on this development review request. The other issue regarding fencing is that there is a fairly significant number of people who walk across the currently vacant lot to get to the Tom Thumb store and Laundromat. Staff and the Planning Commission have suggested that a fence be installed to block pedestrian traffic behind the building for safety considerations and to discourage loitering and vandalism. Mezzenga Report February 12, 2001 Page 4 Building Exterior: The front (east) building elevation indicates a one and a half story building with a hipped roof and covered entryway. The building exhibits an aesthetically pleasing, context- sensitive residential appearance. The base of the building will be of masonry or stone material and the top half sided with a wood-grained maintenance-free exterior. The masonry or stone base and any other architectural features shall be incorporated in the east, north and west building elevations, if not all four sides. Grading: It is not anticipated that the construction will alter the existing land elevations, and as such, a grading plan does not need to be submitted. If existing elevations will remain substantially unchanged as expected, the site plan shall be revised to generally show elevations for the purpose of illustrating the direction of stormwater runoff and those areas where runoff can collect during heavy rain. Arrows shall be used to indicate the direction of water flow. Signage: Because the proposed development is located within a predominately residential area, special consideration shall be given toward the types and size of signage permitted. To further strengthen the residential appearance of the building, staff would discourage the use of any wall-mounted building signage. If, however, such signage is imperative, that it be accomplished in a decorative, unobtrusive manner. Ground mounted signage shall be allowed only if designed as a masonry monument sign, not to exceed eight feet in height or 100 square feet in area. The location of such a ground sign shall be consistent with Chapter 1008 in that it be located at least 15 feet from a property line and 25 feet from the lot corner formed by the Greenfield Avenue and County Road I right of ways. The site plan does not indicate a location for such a sign as no sign is currently proposed. Planning Commission Review: The Planning Commission reviewed this request at their meetings on January 3, 2001, and January 17, 2001. After much discussion regarding the proposal, of which most was focused on screening and buffering issues relevant to the residential property to the south of the building, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request, contingent upon the following requirements: 1. Barrier curbing (B 6-12) shall be installed around the perimeter of the parking lot and access drive. At points where stormwater will collect, cuts shall be made to allow water to pass through into pervious areas. 2. All utilities to the building shall be installed underground. 3. One monument sign shall be allowed not to exceed eight (8) feet in height or one hundred (100) square feet in area. The base of such sign shall be constructed of masonry or stone materials to match the building. A pole or pylon type sign is prohibited. No more than 60 square feet of combined building mounted signage shall be allowed. Mezzenga Report February 12, 2001 Page 5 4. The masonry or stone building siding and any other architectural design characteristics shall be consistent along the north, west and east building elevations. 5. There shall be no outside garbage storage or dumpster allowed on this site, all garbage and refuse shall be stored within the building. 6. There shall be no parking lot lighting other than supplemental flood lights mounted upon the building. Such lights shall be down cast and shielded or hooded to eliminate glare or light spillage onto adjoining properties in accordance with Chapter 1103 of the Mounds View Zoning Code. 7. Elevation contours and drainage arrows shall be added to the site plan to indicate direction of stormwater runoff. 8. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan indicating the locations, numbers and species of the plantings to be used on the site. The City Forester shall review the landscape plans and make recommendations as to the specific species used. 9. The applicant shall install any fencing, screening or buffering as required by the Planning Commission or City Council. The site plans date-stamped February 2, 2001 do indicate both landscaping and stormwater runoff arrows, so requirement 7 and 8 above have been met. Recommendation: Assuming the fence issue has been resolved, staff and the Planning Commission are recommending approval of this development review request, subject to the remaining seven requirements as noted above. Staff has prepared Resolution 5527 for the Council’s action if it so desires. Please call me if you have any questions. _____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director 763-717-4021 N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\De00-002 (Mezzenga)\Mezzenga Report - Feb 12, 2001.doc Zoning Map 1 Item No. 10C Staff Report No. Meeting Date: February 12, 2001 Type of Business: C.B. 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: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: Discussion of Street Projects and Assessment Policy Date of Report: August 15, 2018 Background: In the past several weeks, staff has presented the City Council with the results of two surveys for two separate street improvement projects. Each project has it’s own separate issues of pavement condition, drainage, traffic and pedestrian traffic. These projects have been initiated through the guidelines of the new assessment policy and street standards adopted by the Council based on recommendations from the Street Committee, each with differing results. Discussion has taken place at two work sessions regarding the condition of the streets (PCI), drainage, and traffic which has spurred further discussion of what the City should do with street reconstruction when opposition to improvements are voiced. Thoughts of revising the standards and assessment policy has surfaced again with little change in the City’s ability to provide additional financing to lower assessments, which on the surface, appear to be the major hurdle in reaching the property owners’ approval for an improvement. The following is a brief history of the City’s street standards and assessment policy. November 13, 1995 • Assessment policy is adopted with 50% assessment and standard of construction is 30 feet wide is recommended with a 28-foot minimum with B618 Concrete Curb and Gutter. Summer 1996 • Bronson Drive is reconstructed to 32 ft. wide with a sidewalk, utilizing existing assessment policy and MSA standards. Summer 1997 • Old Highway 8 is reconstructed utilizing Municipal State Aid (MSA) Standards, 50% Assessment for street, Surface Water Assessment revised • Initial process commences for reconstruction of Spring Lake Road and Co. I begin • After approximately 8 months of meetings and deliberation, Council rejects project and orders Ramsey County to recycle and overlay the project. Project proceeds in summer of 1998. Street Committee appointed to provide recommendations for new assessment policy and street standards. February 2000 • Street Committee Recommendations adopted, Assessment Policy Amended, Street Construction Standards Amended. 2 December 2000 • Two proposed projects initiated under new policies, one residential, one possible Municipal State Aid (MSA) January 2001 • Results of property owners survey presented to the City Council. Majority of the Residential Project owners request no improvement. Majority of Co. H2 owners’ requested reconstruction with MSA Standards. Staff authorized to proceed with feasibility study for Co. H2 reconstruction. Residential project put on hold pending further Council review and discussion of Assessment Policy and street standards. February 2001 • Staff presents short presentation of funding options for Council discussion and consideration, seeking direction. Staff has received a few inquires from the residents of the proposed residential project as to the status of the project. Staff has been unable to provide them with a definitive answer other than no decision has been made, pending further Council discussion. Staff provided Council with five options regarding the residential project at the January work session. These options are: 1). Abide with the survey results returned by the residents in which No Improvement would be made to any of the streets proposed. 2). Proceed with the minimum measure (overlay) on all streets, assessed accordingly. 3). Proceed with the recommended measure of rehabilitation for all streets. 4). Schedule additional meetings to attempt to establish a consensus, that some type of improvement is necessary. 5). Move on to the next scheduled improvement, notifying the residents that no preventative pavement management measures will be taken on these segments of streets and No Improvement will be scheduled, unless the residents petition the City for an improvement, at which time the City will perform the initially recommended project, if the pavement condition warrants it. A number of comments were received from residents at the informational meetings such as; no need for new streets, no need for sidewalks, will increase traffic and speed, cost is too much. It is unclear if any one component of the proposed improvement that is dominating the negative support, although the need for improvement and assessments seem to be the highest mentioned. Some residents did request some type of improvement which would improve the street condition and correct drainage issues. Staff provided Council with a few funding mechanism at the last work session. They were presented to generate discussion and provide direction to staff, possibly enabling staff to formulate an assessment policy revision, construction standard revision, and a future funding mechanism for street projects. 3 Analysis: It is inevitable that any assessment policy and or street standard for any proposed project will meet with a certain amount of resistance, just as it is inevitable that streets will need to be improved throughout the entire City in the future. The goal of the program is to be successful in improving the City’s infrastructure in a manner that is the most cost effective and efficient, that ultimately produces an end product that the City, which is the residents, feel is worthwhile and affordable. Staff has some suggestions for Council to consider for the future of the City’s street improvement projects 1. Keep existing policy in place. Move on to next residential project on the list. 2. Modify existing policy to reduce assessment amount and improve street construction standard, which would require additional City funding. 3. Identify the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) in which street reconstruction is required. 4. Cease solicitation of new improvement projects; continue to perform preventative maintenance measures on pavements worthy of these procedures. Deposit remaining funds into Reconstruction fund. Consider projects by petition or established reconstruction PCI value only. 5. Survey property owners regarding street improvement concerns. Possibly add questions of funding options, which could include increased taxes, increased utilization of Franchise funds, bonds and assessments to next election ballot. Recommendations: Staff highly recommends that concerns from the residents be identified regarding both the assessment policy and street standards, these concerns be addressed in the best possible manner and a threshold PCI value be established for a street reconstruction project or a average PCI threshold for an area project, prior to any further project proposals. Staff has surveyed a number of surrounding communities requesting information on average miles of reconstruction per year, and methods for determining projects. It is hopeful this information will be available to present at the meeting. Accompanying this report is the current Assessment Policy for Council’s review. If Council members have any questions or concerns pertaining to this report, please feel free to call me. _________________________________ Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works 4 ORDINANCE NO. 654 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 202, SECTION 202.09 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED "PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS" The City of Mounds View ordains: SECTION I Chapter 202.09,Subd 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is amended to read: The following are methods of street reconstruction and rehabilitation, which will be utilized by the City of Mounds View in considering future projects and assessments. It will be noted that the design standard for either reconstruction or rehab will be the current design of the street section. Projects may be constructed to higher designs if warranted and / or approved by the City Council. Subd.2 Improvement Type and Apportionment of Cost: a. Street Reconstruction Including Curb and Gutter. The cost of street reconstruction shall be recovered by the adjusted front footage method. The front footage rate shall be determined by dividing the project cost by the total number of adjusted front feet in the project area. The assessments per adjusted front foot may vary depending on the underlying zoning of a parcel. Assessments for residential properties which are on collector or arterial streets, (MSA, County road) shall be assessed for one hundred (100%) of the pavement surface and base, up to a width of 26 feet, equally divided by both sides of the street. This amount shall not exceed $14.60 per front foot. b. a.1. Non-Collector Street Residential property owners will be assessed for the cost of the pavement and base for the front footage side of the property, which shall not exceed $14.60 per frontage foot. This amount will be adjusted annually by resolution, in accordance with the Engineering News Record (ENR) a.2. Residents requesting Curb and Gutter, any required storm sewer and/or installation of sidewalks/trails on a construction project will be assessed twenty-five (25%) 5 of the total cost of the project additions which will include engineering, additional removals, base and all other associated expenses. All additional project requests shall be assessed at twenty-five (25%) of the total costs associated with the improvements. a.3. One hundred (100%) of the turn back funds received from Ramsey County will be applied to the new construction or pavement cost of the road that was received. The remaining cost shall be recovered by means of the general ad valorem property tax paid by the entire community or by other funds that may become available to the City for infrastructure cost recovery. b. Street Resurfacing. Street resurfacing is commonly known and referred to as street overlaying whereby a new bed of road material such as bituminous is installed over an existing paved road to a specific thickness. Assessments shall be determined by the adjusted front footage method at one hundred (100%) percent to properties on both sides of the street. A mill and overlay to an existing paved road will be assessed by the adjusted front footage method at 100% percent to properties on both sides of the street. A recycle and overlay to an existing paved road will be assessed by the adjusted front footage method at one hundred (100%) percent to properties on both sides of the street. Assessments will be based on physical project costs plus engineering, administration costs, ROW expenditures and other related project costs. The method of rehabilitation or resurfacing shall be determined by the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of the combined segments of the streets considered for the project. c. Sidewalk. Sidewalk improvements may be done in conjunction with a street reconstruction or as a separate project. In any event, sidewalks requested that are not included in the City’s sidewalk and trail plan shall be recovered by assessing twenty-five (25%) to the affected property owners and the remainder paid by the general ad valorem property tax paid by the entire community or by other funds that may become available to the City for infrastructure cost recovery. Sidewalks are generally installed on the City’s major streets or in accordance with the City’s sidewalk and trail plan, which will connect several neighborhoods and community attractions in a logical pattern; these improvements will not be assessed to the abutting properties. d. Sealcoating. Sealcoating, patching and cracksealing are considered general maintenance activities and the expenses of such acts will be paid for by ad valorem 6 property tax or any other funds available to the City at that time. e. Sanitary Sewer and Water Mains. Repair and replacement of sewer or water mains is usually done in conjunction with a street reconstruction project and the cost of this work should be included as part of the total major street project cost and should also be considered to be included in the rate assessed for street reconstruction. If it is determined that the repair and replacement work results in a greater benefit to some properties and not to others, the Council should consider establishing a different assessment rate based on the benefits received. f. Sanitary Sewer and Water Trunk Improvements. Trunk sewer and water mains are usually designed to carry larger volumes of flow than are necessary within an immediate property area in order to serve additional properties beyond the area of their immediate placement. Therefore, 100 percent (100%) of the cost of trunk improvements will be assessed on a unit basis to all properties within a district deemed to be benefitted from the trunk improvements. g. Sewer and Water Services. Individual sewer and water services benefit only the properties they serve and 100 percent (100%) of their cost shall be assessed to the property for which they are installed. h. Drainage Improvements. Storm drainage and ponding/basin systems are usually constructed to serve a specific drainage or "watershed" district. These drainage districts have trunk lines, which are large diameter pipes that transport large volumes of water from one or more drainage districts. Property within drainage districts that would receive benefit from a trunk storm sewer, would be assessed a unit amount of $400.00 per lot for a single family residential lot. This amount would be determined and adjusted annually by resolution using the Engineering News Record (ENR). Multifamily housing lots that exceed 1/3 acre would be assessed based on the number of acres, multiplied by the unit cost of $1,200.00 per acre. Commercial / Industrial property would be assessed based on the number of acres that are determined to benefit from the trunk line multiplied by the unit cost of $1,200.00 per acre to a maximum amount of three (3) acres or $3,600.00. The remaining cost will be paid for by the Surface Water Utility and/or by an ad valorem property tax paid by the entire community or by other funds that may become available to the City for infrastructure cost recovery. Should a project be initiated on a particular street that requires storm sewer laterals which would be connected to the trunk lines, the Surface Water Utility would fund these expenses. 7 I. Special Conditions. Special consideration shall be given to the "age" of a street or utility system when determining the proportion of cost to be assessed to benefitted properties. If it is necessary to reconstruct or resurface a street or perform major repair/replacement work on sewer and water utilities, before a reasonable amount of time (10 to 12 years for resurfacing, 12 to 17 years for partial reconstruction and 17 to 25 years for total reconstruction) the assessment shall be calculated on a pro-rated basis. The remaining cost shall be recovered by means of the general ad valorem property tax paid by the entire community or by other funds that may become available to the City for infrastructure cost recovery. J. In projects involving new street construction, and mill and overlays, mailboxes will be grouped on gang posts in numbers logical to the spacing required. This practice will insure the proper placement of the mailboxes, reduce potential roadside hazards, and generally clean up the edge of the street. The cost of the new posts and installation will be added to the project. Residents of overlays and mill and overlays may request the new posts and installation, which will be added to the cost of the project. Section II. Chapter 202.09 Subd 3 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is amended to Read: Subd.3 METHODS OF ASSESSMENT a. The nature of an improvement determines the method of assessment. The objective is to choose an assessment method which will arrive at a reasonable, fair and equitable assessment which will be uniform upon the same class of property within the assessed area. The most frequently recognized assessment methods are: the unit assessment, the front footage assessment and the area assessment. Depending upon the individual project, any one or a combination of these methods may be utilized to arrive at an appropriate cost distribution. City staff will consider all methods and weigh their applicability to the project and present a recommendation to the City Council in the form of a mock assessment roll (or rolls). A description of each assessment and its corresponding policy application is presented. A separate section (Section III) will identify the appropriate matchup of method with a specific type of project and analyze why each is generally used. The purpose of assessment formulas is to allocate assessed costs among benefitted properties, the formula should result in a allocation of assessments which is reasonably related to the benefit received. Any one predetermined formula will not be appropriate in all cases because of circumstances unique to the relationship between the specific project and the specific properties benefitted. When considering an assessment method or formula for any given project, it may be necessary to combine assessment methods or to modify the methods described below. Therefore, the following description of methods of assessments should be regarded as 8 guidelines, which may not be appropriate in all cases. b. Unit Assessment. A unit assessment shall be derived by dividing the total project cost by the number of Residential Equivalent Density (RED) units in the project area. A RED unit is defined as a single family residential unit. All platted and unplatted property will assigned RED unit values equivalent to the underlying zoning. When the existing land use is less than the highest and best permitted use, the Council may consider the current use as well as the full potential of land use in determining the appropriate number of RED units. Otherwise, the following RED chart will apply on a per unit basis, subject to adjustment by the Council for any inequities: Single Family 1.00 RED Duplex 1.00 RED Condominium 0.80 RED Multifamily (3 units or more) 0.80 RED Townhouse 0.80 RED Commercial 2.00 Units Industrial 2.00 Units The unit approach has proven to be the best method in those instances whereby the improvement largely benefits everyone to the same degree and the cost of the improvement is not generally affected by parcel size. c. Area Assessment. The assessable area shall be expressed in terms of the number of acres or the number of square feet subject to assessment. When determining the assessable area, the following considerations will be given: (1) Ponding Assessment Consideration. Lakes, ponds and swamps may be considered a part of the assessable area of a parcel. (2) Road Right-of-Way Assessment Consideration. Up to 20 percent (20%) of the gross acreage may be deducted for street right-of-way purposes within unplatted parcels of five acres or more depending upon the parcel configuration and is only applicable to single family residential use. Parcels of less than five acres may not qualify and may be assessed full acreage. The reason for this size restriction is that, in most instances, parcels of less than five acres cannot support an internal public road system. (3) Park Dedication Assessment Consideration. When park land is dedicated as part of a residential development, as required by Subdivisions Code - Chapter 1204.02, the developer shall not be assessed an acreage charge on the portion of land dedicated. d. Front Footage Assessment. The actual physical dimensions of a parcel abutting an improvement (ie., street, sewer, water, etc.) will generally not be 9 construed as the frontage utilized to calculate the assessment for a particular parcel. Rather, an "adjusted front footage" will be determined. The purpose of this method is to equalize assessment calculations for lots of similar size. Individual parcels by their very nature differ considerably in shape and area. The following procedures will apply when calculating adjusted front footage. The selection of the appropriate procedures will be determined by the specific configuration of the parcel. All measurements will be scaled from available plat and section maps and will be rounded down to the nearest 2 foot dimension with any excess fraction deleted. e. Categorical type descriptions are as follows: Standard Lots Rectangular Variation Lots Triangular Lots Cul-de-sac Lots Curved Lots Irregularly Shaped Lots Corner Lots Flag Lots Double Frontage Lots City of Mounds View Staff Report August 15, 2018 Page 10 10 The ultimate objective of these procedures is to arrive at a fair and equitable distribution of cost whereby consideration is given to lot size and parcels are comparably assessed. SECTION III. This ordinance is effective thirty days after its publication. Introduced and read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on August 23, 1999. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 14 day of February, 2000. ATTEST: ____________________________ MAYOR (SEAL) ____________________________ ADMINISTRATOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ CITY ATTORNEY 11 C:\Mike's documents\ordinances\ORDINANC\Ord 654 Amended Assess Pol.doc