Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2000/11/13M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Council Packets\11-13-00\Agenda -- City Council Meeting.doc CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2000 7:00 P.M. 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomason 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. October 10, 2000 B. October 23, 2000 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: 6. REPORTS 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims B. Licenses for Approval C. Set Public Hearing Date for 7:10, November 27, 2000 to Consider Ordinance No. 675, an Ordinance Rezoning the Mermaid Parcels from B-3 Highway Business District to PUD Planned Unit Development. D. Set Public Hearing Date for 7:15, November 27, 2000 to Consider Ordinance No. 672, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Relating to Home Occupations. 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. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS 7:00 A. Public Hearing Concerning Possible TIF Modifications. 7:05 B. Public Hearing Concerning Mermaid Preliminary Plat. City Council Meeting M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Council Packets\11-13-00\Agenda -- City Council Meeting.doc November 13, 2000 Page –2- C. First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance No. 675, an Ordinance Rezoning the Mermaid Parcels from B-3 Highway Business to PUD Planned Unit Development. D. First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 672, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 of the Zoning Code Pertaining to Home Occupations; Special Planning Case SP-083-00. E. Consideration of Resolution 5485 appointing an interim Community Development Director-Givonna Reed 11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, December 4, 2000 Next Public Hearing: Monday, December 4, 2000 Truth In Taxation Budget Hearing Next Council Meeting: Monday, November 27, 2000 12. ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Meeting October 10, 2000 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 7:03 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Marty, Stigney, Thomason, and Quick. NOT PRESENT: None. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Tuesday, October 10, City Council Agenda. Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda. No additions or corrections were noted. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To accept the October 10, 2000, City Council Agenda as presented, dispensing with the reading of all ordinances and resolutions unless otherwise requested. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Monday, September 25, 2000, City Council Minutes. Council Member Stigney noted he had one revision but had forgotten it at home. There were no further changes. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To accept the Monday, September 25, 2000, City Council minutes as presented allowing Council Member Stigney to make his correction at a later date. Ayes – 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Mounds View City Council October 10, 2000 Special Meeting Page 2 6. REPORTS Council Member Stigney reported he attended the meeting between Rice Creek Watershed officials and residents regarding the Greenfield ponding project. Mr. Stigney noted there were several concerns raised by residents at the meeting. Some of the major issues raised were questions regarding use of the pond once the pond is in place. There will always be a pond and there could possibly be a park use for the pond. There may be trees taken out to put in the pond. Residents questioned if a pond is the best use and value of the land. Residents questioned what the City gets out of putting in the pond other than having a pond in that location. He indicated there was a lot of opposition to the ponding project and a lot of concern raised by the residents at the meeting. Mayor Coughlin noted City Administrator Miller had attended the meeting and inquired as to whether she had anything to report. City Administrator Miller reported she was pleased to see representatives from the Rice Creek Watershed District seemed receptive to working with the residents regarding the concerns raised. Rice Creek Watershed District expressed a willingness to change the location of the pond to allow the trees to remain as a noise barrier. The size of the pond was also changed from 12 acres to 6 acres. Aside from the one resident who did not want a pond under any circumstances everyone else at the meeting seemed open and willing to negotiate to reach a compromise that was good for the City and worked for the residents. Mayor Coughlin expressed his appreciation and thanks to the Mounds View and New Brighton Police Departments and Irondale High School for their presentation of a mock crash last week. He noted he was pleased the mock crash coincided with homecoming week and said he hoped it made the point that underage drinking and driving can have serious consequences. City Administrator Miller suggested the Council reschedule the November 6, 2000 Work Session to November 8, 2000 as the Council would need to meet on November 8, 2000 to certify election results. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To change the regularly scheduled Work Session on Monday, November 6, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. to Wednesday, November 8, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. City Administrator Miller noted she would like authorization to contact an outside financial agency to look at the numbers provided to the City for the expansion of the golf course. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To authorize Staff to contact an outside financial agency to review the numbers provided to the City for expansion of the golf course. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View City Council October 10, 2000 Special Meeting Page 3 City Attorney Long reported if the proposal on the ballot to change the term of mayor from two years to four years passes it does not apply to whomever wins the election this time. The winner of the election this year will be elected to a two-year term and the winner of the next mayoral election will be seated for four years. City Attorney Long reported the City Charter has specific provisions as to how special elections to fill vacancies are to be run. However, state law has changed and supersedes the Charter. The Charter indicates the person with the third highest vote count would win the seat. There is a new uniform election law requiring candidates be listed and elected separately. This may require some housekeeping to the Charter to bring it in line with the new law. City Attorney Long reported on the status of the billboards at the golf course. There is a legal question involving whether, based on the fact the city owns the golf course, it is appropriate for the City to lease billboard space. He noted the matter is going to be heard before an administrative law judge in the near future. Legal Staff is recommending the City intervene in the process now before a hearing on the matter is set. Intervening as a party would allow the City to be heard and to explain their position. Legal Staff estimates legal fees to intervene at approximately $2,000 to $4,000. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To direct legal Staff to intervene as a party on behalf of the City in the administrative hearing on the billboard issue. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Council Member Marty stated his agreement with City Attorney Long noting if the City waited to intervene there would be a petitioning process that would be more costly for the City. He then inquired as to which City official should attend the hearing. City Attorney Long indicated he would like to wait to see what happens with the hearing and make a decision as to whom would be the best City Staff member to attend. Council Member Marty inquired if the City would be limited in the number of representatives they were allowed to send to the hearing. City Attorney Long indicated the City could use as many people as the City feels is in its best interest. He noted he believes the zoning issue is the key legal issue and said he would probably need Community Development Director Jopke to explain the City’s plan for zoning. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed reported when she circulated a memo last week regarding the resident who had expressed an interest in serving on the Airport Advisory Commission she was unaware that a representative had been appointed to that committee. She has since spoken to the representative who expressed a desire to have an alternate appointed in order to have more representation at the meeting. Mounds View City Council October 10, 2000 Special Meeting Page 4 Assistant to the City Administrator Reed noted she had placed information on the ballot questions into Council Member’s mailboxes. She noted City Administrator Miller and she had drafted some information to hand out to residents explaining the ballot questions. She requested direction from Council on those materials. Mayor Coughlin noted there were two residents who applied for the opening on the Planning and Zoning Commission. After meeting with both residents Mayor Coughlin noted he felt both parties were equally qualified and so he had Planning Associate Ericson randomly pick from the two applications. The person selected to fill the vacancy is Travis L. Serney of 5057 Sunnyside Road. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To accept Mayor Coughlin’s recommendation to appoint Travis L. Serney to the unexpired term on the Planning and Zoning Commission. Council Member Stigney noted the selected individual had lived in the City for four years and inquired as to how long the other applicant had lived in the City. Mayor Coughlin stated he had the application in his office but to his recollection it was somewhat longer. Council Member Marty inquired as to whether the Planning Associate and the Mayor had determined the qualifications of the applicants. Mayor Coughlin noted he had determined on his own both applicants were equally qualified and had Planning Associate Ericson “draw lots” to determine who would fill the vacancy. Mayor Coughlin made a friendly amendment to the motion asking Staff to assign a resolution number to this matter. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. No further reports were considered. 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims B. Licenses for Approval C. Award of Playground Equipment and Funding D. Year 2001 SCORE Funding Grant Application Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to remove items for discussion. MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Marty. To Approve the Consent Agenda for Items A, B, C, and D as presented. Mounds View City Council October 10, 2000 Special Meeting Page 5 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR There was no resident input. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Public Hearing, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5476, a Resolution Regarding the Development Stage of the Proposed Mermaid PUD Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 7:25 p.m. There was no public input. Planning Associate Ericson explained to Council Dan Hall is seeking City approval of development stage plans for the proposed Planned Unit Development which contemplates a 70- room hotel and a 500-seat banquet center to be attached to and integrated with the existing complex. He advised that on September 6, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a set of development stage plans date-stamped August 10, 2000. Prior to City Council review, however, the plans were amended to such a degree that reapproval by the Planning Commission was deemed necessary. The Planning Commission reviewed the revised plans and on October 4, 2000, approved Resolution 637-00 which recommends approval of the Mermaid’s development stage plans. Planning Associate Ericson noted, as mentioned at the Work Session meeting on October 2, 2000, there are a number of changes contemplated by the revised development stage plans. The most noticeable change is that the hotel has been scaled back to three stories and 70 rooms from the initial four-story, 96-room plan and that the Perkins site is no longer a component of the Mermaid expansion. It has been proposed that the restaurant building will be converted to an office use. The water park, which was a separate building located in the hotel courtyard, is now shown to be attached to the east wing of the hotel, replaced with parking in the courtyard area. The total area of the revised PUD is approximately 9.36 acres, which includes the three existing Mermaid Parcels, the Rent-All parcel, Music Off 10 and the dry holding pond associated with the business park development. The minimum requirement for a commercial PUD is 5 acres. The existing business park access drive from County Road H would be shifted to the west to maximize the contiguous parking area for the proposed development. Mounds View City Council October 10, 2000 Special Meeting Page 6 Planning Associate Ericson stated the City Council has been provided with a set of plans date- stamped September 28, 2000, for the proposed expansion. The plans include a preliminary site plan, a preliminary utility plan, a preliminary grading plan, a preliminary landscape plan, an existing conditions plan, an overall floor plan, exterior elevations, an enlarged banquet floor plan, hotel floor plans, and a revised photometric analysis of the site. Planning Associate Ericson noted the site plan indicates the proposed and anticipated configuration of the development. As shown on this plan, a total of 828 parking stalls would be required with the addition of the hotel and the banquet center. The plans indicate that a total of 832 spaces can be provided on the site, but only if the parking lot setbacks are reduced from the B-3 zoning district-required 30 feet to five feet along Highway 10 and County Road H. Such a reduction in the setback requirement is allowed via the PUD process, which explicitly states that a purpose and intent of the PUD is to allow for variation from the provisions of the Zoning Code, including setbacks, parking, height, lot area, etc. Planning Associate Ericson explained that because of the number of complimentary uses, Staff and the Planning Commission believe that 828 stalls may be more parking than what is necessary. For this reason, Staff and the Planning Commission would suggest that the minimum parking required for this site, according to the specifications and area indicated on the plans date- stamped September 28, 2000, be reduced from 828 to 808. This will be addressed within the PUD Document. Planning Associate Ericson explained the setback of the parking lot can be reduced via the PUD process. Approaching this in the strictest sense, if the setbacks requirements were to be enforced without deviation, as many as 175 parking stalls would be lost. The net effect of such a loss would mean either the banquet center would be reduced in size and capacity by 50 percent or more, or the hotel would need to be completely eliminated. Neither scenario would be feasible based upon the already submitted cost and earnings projections. This setback configuration met with the approval of both the Planning Commission and City Council at the concept stage of this development. Planning Associate Ericson explained the building setbacks are different from point to point, but generally speaking, the bowling area would remain unchanged at a minimum setback of 60 feet, the dining and bar area would be more than 200 feet, the hotel addition would be a minimum of 100 feet, while the banquet center would be setback 50 feet. All of these setbacks satisfy the current B-3 zoning requirements. Planning Associate Ericson noted the proposed hotel expansion would be professionally designed to be aesthetically pleasing and would tie in to the existing facility. The hotel addition would be constructed of prefabricated concrete walls and would be finished with maintenance-free siding accentuated with sections of Exterior Finish Insulation System (EFIS). A materials board has been submitted and will be available for viewing at the meeting. Other than the relocated main entrance and the painting of the existing exterior walls to match the new additions, no other changes to the existing building are planned. Mounds View City Council October 10, 2000 Special Meeting Page 7 Planning Associate Ericson explained the applicant plans to retain the multi-colored electronic sign along Highway 10 and proposes three directional signs along County Road H. The additional signage is indicated to be of a monument design, which should be encouraged over a pylon type of sign. Refer to Figure 1 for an example of the proposed directional monument signage. Planning Associate Ericson advised the applicant has indicated that the corner of the property adjacent to Highway 10 and County Road H would be reserved for the City to install a gateway entry sign. The site plans have been revised to indicate this easement area. A separate easement document will need to be executed by Mr. Hall and recorded with Ramsey County to make it official. He then reviewed the proposed site signage area and amount of signage allowed under the B-3 zoning provisions. Staff recommends that the total amount of signage on the property, including the existing pedestal sign, be limited to 850 square feet. The applicant has agreed to this request. Planning Associate Ericson reviewed the landscape plan submitted with the site plans indicating conceptual plantings of trees in the parking lot islands and along the front of the building facing Highway 10. The plan indicates the planting of 25 deciduous trees and 4 coniferous trees with additional unnamed plantings in the courtyard area. Staff will seek input from the City Forester as to appropriate species from those listed and for any other suggestions to improve the landscape plan. He noted that to comply with the proposed Comprehensive Plan and the Mounds View Trails and Sidewalk Plan, the applicant shall be responsible for installing a bituminous trailway along its Highway 10 property frontage. As with the discussion concerning Walgreens, Dan Soler with Ramsey County has verbally indicated that the trailway could be located within the Highway 10 right of way as close to the Mermaid property as possible. The site plan shows the trailway extending north beyond the project area in front of the Perkins site. While Perkins is no longer part of the PUD, Staff would recommend that the trailway and lighting remain as shown on the plan. Planning Associate Ericson reviewed the photometric analysis which had been submitted in conjunction with the development stage plans. The applicant intends to utilize the existing parking lot lighting where possible with the addition of new light fixtures at the southern end of the building. No specifications were provided for the proposed new lighting. The site plan does indicate the location of six decorative lights along the Highway 10 trailway. Because the City is working with NSP to install these lights, the applicant will need to submit a payment directly to the City to cover the cost of installation. Such amount would then be deducted form any required letter of credit or cash surety involved with the financial guarantee of the public improvements. Planning Associate Ericson noted the proposed site plan indicates two Highway 10 accesses and two County Road H accesses. While this would not represent a change from the existing configuration, the two accesses serving the Rent-All property would be eliminated. No new accesses, other than the relocated access to the business park, are contemplated with this proposal. The northern Highway 10 access is actually located on the Perkins property, although there is a joint use agreement filed regarding the access. He advised that Staff and the City’s engineer have been working closely with the applicant and Rice Creek Watershed District to Mounds View City Council October 10, 2000 Special Meeting Page 8 create a regional stormwater holding pond that would be located partly on the Metro Waste Control property and partly on Edgewood Middle School property. While the final drainage plans and use agreements are still being drafted, all indications are that all parties--including Rice Creek Watershed District--will approve the stormwater project. Staff recommends Council review and discuss the revised development stage plans and consider action on Resolution 5476, a resolution approving the development stage plans for the proposed Mermaid PUD subject to the following stipulations: 1. The lighting plan shall be revised to show the light fixture specifications and light standard heights to be used for the new exterior building and parking lot illumination. 2. The total building, monument and pedestal signage to be used on the development shall be limited to 850 square feet. 3. The applicant shall execute a sign easement document which dedicates to the City the area to be used for a gateway sign at the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H. 4. As required by the Planned Unit Development section of the City Code, the applicant shall execute a development agreement pertaining to the Mermaid PUD, which will serve as the guiding and controlling document for this development. 5. The landscape plan shall be further revised to show the specific types and numbers of plantings to be used within this development and shall be approved by the City Forester. Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 7:33 p.m. Council Member Marty commended the applicant and thanked him for his offer to extend the trailway across the Perkins site. He then asked Planning Associate Ericson if the issue of the easement for the gateway sign had been resolved. Planning Associate Ericson indicated there was an error at the County but the document has now been located and there is not a problem with the easement. Council Member Stigney indicated at some point during prior discussions on this project, security at the Mermaid was discussed. He inquired as to whether the applicant would be agreeable to adding a sentence to the PUD document such as “to incorporate such security measures as to ensure the safety of patrons and to minimize the risk of damage to vehicles and theft of property.” The applicant, Mr. Hall, indicated he will do everything he can to ensure the safety of his customers. He also noted he is under strict security guidelines from his insurance carrier and his contract with AmericInn. He then noted he was not sure if putting something in writing would be appropriate. Mounds View City Council October 10, 2000 Special Meeting Page 9 Council Member Stigney acknowledged the security measures in place for the AmericInn and indicated he was concerned with security for the rest of the Mermaid development. He then said to his recollection at one point in time the applicant had said he would be willing to specifically address security issues as part of the process. Mr. Hall indicated he did not understand specifically what Council Member Stigney wanted in writing. Council Member Stigney explained the sentence would be incorporated as part of the plan. Robert Hajek, the attorney representing the applicant, stated he did not believe it would be appropriate to add a stipulation for security as a condition of the PUD as it is very subjective and impossible to determine whether he would be in compliance. He reiterated Mr. Hall will be under strict security guidelines from his insurance carrier and the contract with AmericInn. Council Member Stigney indicated this is a Planned Unit Development and said he believed the City would be remiss if they did not address security issues. He then asked City Attorney Long if it would be appropriate to add language governing security. City Attorney Long indicated it would be more appropriate to add language requiring something tangible in regard to security such as lighting requirements or fencing requirements. He indicated it would be difficult to put a sentence such as Council Member Stigney read because there is nothing tangible that can be used to prove whether they were in compliance or not. He then noted it would be easier to draft specific criteria. Council Member Stigney suggested security cameras be added. Council Member Marty noted the Council had talked about this issue previously and he believes the applicant has shown the City that security issues will be handled appropriately. He also indicated AmericInn would not put a hotel in if they felt there was any type of security issue. He also noted the plan for the hotel specified there would be security cameras. The attorney for the applicant indicated the Mermaid has security cameras in place now for their own protection. Council Member Marty indicated AmericInn has more stringent security requirements than the Mermaid has in place now and the applicant will have to comply with those requirements. The attorney for the applicant indicated the hotel is concerned because the hotel is located next to a mixed use facility and the hotel does not want guests to be disturbed by activities that would reflect negatively upon the AmericInn chain. He indicated as a practical matter the security requirements for the AmericInn will be much more stringent than the City would have imposed upon the applicant. Mounds View City Council October 10, 2000 Special Meeting Page 10 Council Member Stigney inquired as to whether there were external security cameras in place in the parking lots now. He noted he would like the cameras to be added to the PUD process as there have been a lot of break-ins at the Mermaid as well as at the theater development. He noted if this area is going to be expanded and more people drawn into the area then the City should look at ways to protect those patrons and minimize the risk. The attorney for the applicant indicated security cameras add a lot of possible liability and expense because if they malfunction the Mermaid may be responsible because they were installed but not working properly. They may not work in inclement weather and the picture quality may not be what is needed to make the tape useful. He also noted there is a huge expense in managing and storing the tapes. He indicated they are deferring to AmericInn and AmericInn has not determined security cameras in the parking lot are necessary. Council Member Stigney inquired of City Attorney Long if it would be appropriate to require specific security measures to minimize cost to the City as far as policing that area. City Attorney Long indicated as a strictly legal matter it is possible to negotiate language requiring lighting and cameras but the language would need to be agreed to by the applicant. Council Member Stigney inquired if Staff could discuss the matter with the applicant. Community Development Director Jopke indicated he had seen a requirement added to the PUD document in another City he had worked in requiring a security plan be approved by the Chief of Police. City Attorney Long noted that would be a tangible requirement and procedurally something like that could be added rather than getting into the specifics of what the plan would require. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney. To direct Staff to look into alternatives for security and determine if they would be agreeable to the Applicant. Mayor Coughlin asked Council Member Stigney to temporarily withdraw his motion because there was not a motion on the table to consider the entire resolution and indicated Council Member Stigney’s motion could be added as an amendment to a motion to approve the resolution. Council Member Stigney withdrew his motion. Council Member Marty indicated it was his preference to amend the motion to require that Staff check with the Chief of Police and if crime levels increase in the development the issue of security could be readdressed at that time. If there is no significant increase in crime then the issue would not need to be readdressed. Mounds View City Council October 10, 2000 Special Meeting Page 11 MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5476 with the stipulation that Staff draft a security plan to be approved by the Developer and the Chief of Police as part of the PUD process. Council Member Quick restated the motion as a motion to approve Resolution 5476 and if there are significant increases in crime levels the Chief of Police will review the matter and make a recommendation to Council. Council Member Stigney indicated that was not his motion. Council Member Marty withdrew his second. Mayor Coughlin clarified the motion to be a motion to waive the reading and approve Resolution 5476, a resolution regarding the development stage of the proposed Mermaid PUD with the stipulation that a security plan be drafted by Staff and approved by the developer, and the Chief of Police as part of the PUD Process. MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Coughlin. To Waive the Reading and Adopt Resolution 5476, a Resolution Regarding the Development Stage of the Proposed Mermaid PUD with the stipulation that a security plan be drafted by Staff and approved by the Developer, and the Chief of Police as part of the PUD process. Council Member Marty indicated he feels this does not need to be addressed unless there is a significant change in crime levels in the development. Council Member Stigney indicated his motion with the amendment is to direct Staff to look at a plan, discuss it with the developer and get the approval of the Chief of Police. If the Chief of Police is comfortable with the security plan, then he would be comfortable also. Mayor Coughlin noted the motion needed to be further clarified to direct that Staff and the Police Chief look at the security plan and express their level of comfort with that plan. Mayor Coughlin noted he had received a few comments since the last Work Session regarding the plans for the mermaid statue. He then asked the applicant if there was a plan to retool the mermaid statue to make it more in keeping with modern sensibilities. Council Member Marty indicated he had gotten comments also but said they were predominantly in support of keeping the Mermaid as it is a landmark for the City. Mr. Hall, the applicant, indicated there are numerous things that could be done to the statue to modernize it and make it more politically correct. He noted, however, funds are tight on the project and said he intends to paint the statue at this point and sometime in the future redo it. Mayor Coughlin requested when the statue is painted that something be added to the statue to make it more modest. Mounds View City Council October 10, 2000 Special Meeting Page 12 Planning Associate Ericson noted the resolution also approves of a rezoning of the associated properties from B-3 to PUD and directs Staff to prepare an ordinance to effectuate such a rezoning and to set a public hearing for such action. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. B. Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5458, a Resolution Approving the Mounds View City Hall Addition Final Plat Planning Associate Ericson noted Mike Kelcher, representing TOLD Development Company, is present and has submitted a revised and corrected final plat date-stamped October 4, 2000, for the proposed Mounds View City Hall Addition major subdivision. The plat encompasses the entirety of the City Hall campus, the Public Works buildings, the Community Center, the remnant parcel created by the realignment of Edgewood Drive, and the Midland Videen open space. The plat creates two buildable lots, one of which would be utilized for a Walgreens and the other for a restaurant use, as allowed by the approved Planned Unit Development (PUD). The plat also creates an outlot, which will be transferred to the City, and creates a lot for the Community Center and for the entire City Hall campus. Planning Associate Ericson noted that on August 14, 2000, the City Council approved Resolution 5454, which approved the preliminary plat of the Mounds View City Hall Addition. The resolution required that the plat be revised to show (1) a drainage and utility easement around the relocated and enlarged stormwater pond, (2) a five-foot drainage and utility easement around the outer-perimeter of proposed Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, and (3) notations pertaining to the vacation of the old Edgewood Drive. These changes have been made and a copy of the final plat has been forwarded to the City Attorney for review, who finds it consistent with the preliminary plat, the City Code and Minnesota platting requirements. Planning Associate Ericson explained the resolution approving the final plat is subject to County approval and stipulates that before City signatures are placed upon the final plat, the developer shall have paid the $44,529 park dedication fee. Staff recommends Council approve Resolution 5458, a resolution approving the final plat for the Mounds View City Hall Addition major subdivision, with stipulations as noted. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5458, a Resolution Approving the Mounds View City Hall Addition Final Plat with the stipulations noted. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Council Member Stigney inquired as to the status of the spacing of lights for the development and asked if additional lights will be required. Mounds View City Council October 10, 2000 Special Meeting Page 13 Planning Associate Ericson indicated it had not yet been determined. He then said the City had required one light for every 200 feet which was thought to be the correct spacing. The City has since been told by NSP the proper spacing for the type of light which was used is one light for every 125 feet which would indicate the need for four more lights. This issue is an agenda item at the Economic Development Authority meeting later this evening. Council Member Stigney inquired as to whether the number of lights required by the developer had been resolved. Planning Associate Ericson indicated the developer has installed the number of lights required by the PUD document. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. C. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 670, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Reliant Energy Minnegasco Natural Gas Operations within the City of Mounds View. Finance Director Kessel explained both Ordinance 670 and Ordinance 671 relate to franchise fees. The 2000 budget and ordinance covers the franchise fee which is a one-year sunset provision that will expire December 31, 2000. There is a 60-day time period for NSP and Minnegasco to be notified and there is also a 30-day notification before the ordinances take effect. In 2000 two and a half percent of the four percent is going into the general fund and one and a half percent is going into the street fund. The 2001 budget designates two percent to go into the general fund and two percent to go into the street fund. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Ordinance 670, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Reliant Energy Minnegasco Natural Gas Operations within the City of Mounds View. ROLL CALL VOTE: Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomason, Coughlin. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. D. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 671, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Northern States Power Company Electric and Natural Gas Operations within the City of Mounds View Mounds View City Council October 10, 2000 Special Meeting Page 14 MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Approve Ordinance 671, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Northern States Power Company Electric and Natural Gas Operations within the City of Mounds View. Council Member Stigney noted the official name of NSP has been changed to Excel and inquired as to whether the document should be changed to Excel in the ordinance. Mayor C oughlin made a friendly amendment to the motion to change NSP to Excel. ROLL CALL VOTE: Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomason, Coughlin. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 11. Next Council Work Session: Wednesday, November 8, 2000 – 6:00 P.M. Next Council Meeting: Monday, October 23, 2000 – 7:00 P.M. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Coughlin adjourned the meeting at 8:01 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 October 23, 2000 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 7:00 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Stigney, Thomason, and Quick. NOT PRESENT: Marty. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, October 23, City Council Agenda. Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda. No additions or corrections were noted. MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Stigney. To accept the October 23, 2000, City Council Agenda as presented, dispensing with the reading of all ordinances and resolutions unless otherwise requested. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Council Member Marty was not present for the vote. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Tuesday, October 10, 2000, City Council Minutes. Council Member Stigney indicated his electronic copy of the minutes was missing several pages and, therefore, he is unable to say whether or not those pages would have contained changes. It was the consent of Council to table approval of the Tuesday, October 10, 2000, City Council Minutes to the November 13, 2000 City Council Meeting. Mounds View City Council October 23, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: None. 6. REPORTS Mayor Coughlin noted this meeting was Council Member Thomason’s last official City Council Meeting and thanked her for her service to the City. Community Development Director Jopke reported he had attended the Highway 10 Steering Committee Meeting and indicated Ramsey County is doing a good job of addressing the issues of the speed limit on County 10, crosswalk signage and longer pedestrian crosswalk times as requested by the City. Community Development Director Jopke is attempting to set up a breakfast meeting with businesses in the City to discuss County 10 issues from a business perspective. He noted this meeting is tentatively set for November 9, 2000. Community Development Director Jopke noted at the next meeting of the Highway 10 Steering Committee the discussion will center around the RFP process and developing a draft of the vision for County 10 before coming back to the City to ask for approval for the RFP process. The Metropolitan Council has notified Community Development Director Jopke there were no issues with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Metropolitan Council is expected to approve the Comprehensive Plan on the Consent Agenda at their next meeting. Public Works Director Ulrich reported he had met with representatives of the residents from Eastwood Road, Sunnyside Road and Ardan Avenue to discuss the new street policy and possible assessments. There was good input from the residents and Staff felt the meeting was very constructive. There will be another survey sent out with Staff’s recommendations for the different streets that residents can mail back to the City. Once the surveys are received the results will be tabulated and analyzed. At that time, another meeting with residents will be scheduled to discuss the results of the survey. Council Member Stigney indicated Mr. Ulrich had conducted a very thorough and informative meeting. Mayor Coughlin noted he was pleased with the new street policy and was pleased to see the new process underway. No further reports were considered. Mounds View City Council October 23, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims B. Licenses for Approval C. Resolution to Continue Participation in the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Act Program D. Set Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., November 27, 2000 to Consider Ordinance No. 673, Amending Chapter 906.04, Subd. 4, Entitled “Liability for Repairs” of the Municipal Code (Water Services) E. Set Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., November 13, 2000 to Consider Approval of Mermaid Preliminary Plat Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to remove items for discussion. Council Member Stigney requested Item D be removed for discussion. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To Approve the Consent Agenda for Items A, B, C, and E as presented. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Council Member Marty was not present for the vote. D. Set Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., November 27, 2000 to Consider Ordinance No. 673, Amending Chapter 906.04, Subd. 4, Entitled “Liability for Repairs” of the Municipal Code (Water Services) Council Member Stigney indicated it was his understanding the Council had agreed to inform residents of the new ordinance by mailing information with their water bills that the residents could then return to the City. The purpose of the survey is to get resident input on the ordinance. The water bills are not due back until November 30, 2000 and he would like to schedule the public hearing sometime after that date to allow for review of the surveys and resident input. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated the information did go out with the water bills but said there was not a survey to be returned. The information sent to residents indicates there will be a public hearing on the matter on November 27, 2000 and indicates residents may appear before Council to comment on the issue if they wish. Council Member Stigney indicated he had brought up the survey issue at a Work Session and was under the impression Council had agreed to survey residents for their input on the ordinance prior to scheduling a public hearing on the matter. Public Works Director Ulrich apologized for the miscommunication. Mounds View City Council October 23, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 Mayor Coughlin indicated it was his understanding that it was the consent of Council to direct Staff to inform the residents of the potential changes in the utility bill and invite them to the public hearing for comment. Council Member Quick agreed with the understanding of Mayor Coughlin. Council Member Stigney disagreed as he was the one who brought up the issue at the Work Session and he believes Council agreed to survey the residents. He noted he felt Council was “missing the boat” when it comes to informing residents of changes that will affect them. Mayor Coughlin indicated he felt a letter to all residents informing them of the potential change and of the public hearing was adequate. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Approve Consent Agenda Item D as presented. Council Member Stigney indicated he felt the Council missed the opportunity to get the response from the residents as to whether they support the change or not by using a survey included with their water bills. He indicated he is upset with the way this transpired. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Council Member Marty was not present for the vote. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR Bill Dody of 3049 Bronson Drive, who is the Acting Chairperson of the Charter Commission, addressed the Council concerning the two proposed charter amendments on the November 7, 2000 ballot. He indicated there was an article in the paper which stated there were 107 cities in Minnesota under a city manager form of government. He wanted it noted for the record there is only one city the size of Mounds View under a city manager form of government. He also noted Northfield is currently changing to a city manager form of government and has spent an entire year researching the matter. He then said he did not feel Mounds View has spent enough time on the matter. Mayor Coughlin indicated there has been considerable discussion concerning changing to a city manager form of government. Council Member Stigney disagreed with Mayor Coughlin. Mr. Dody asked the Mayor to define how much time had been spent discussing the matter. Mounds View City Council October 23, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 Mayor Coughlin indicated the matter was discussed at a series of meetings over time. Mr. Dody indicated he did not feel enough time was spent on the issue and noted he wanted to say publicly he feels the Council has not dealt with this issue appropriately. Council Member Stigney clarified the comment of Mr. Dody noting that of the 107 charter cities referred to in the article only 30 have a city manager form of government and of those 30 cities only one city is the size of Mounds View. Mayor Coughlin indicated all cities that do not have a charter system have a manager form of government and those cities number in the 100’s. Council Member Stigney indicated those cities are not charter cities they are statutory cities. There was no further resident input. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Consideration and First Reading of Ordinance No. 673, Amending Chapter 906.04, Subd. 4, “Liability for Repairs” of the Municipal Code (Water Services) Public Works Director Ulrich read Ordinance No. 673 and clarified the amendments to it. The ordinance as amended permits the City to make repairs between the watermain and the structure with an executed right of entry agreement. It also requires the repairs be funded by an additional utility fee and the establishment of a separate service repair account for each premises. Mayor Coughlin inquired as to whether the ordinance had been placed on the website. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated he was not sure but would check into it. Council Member Stigney inquired as to whether the ordinance with its amendments would be published in the current edition of Mounds View Matters. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated it would be. Council Member Stigney inquired as to whether fee information would be provided in the article. Public Works Director Ulrich indicated fee information would be included. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Approve Ordinance No. 673, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 906.04, Subd. 4, “Liability for Repairs” of the Municipal Code as it Relates to Water Services. Council Member Stigney commented he disagrees with the way this is being applied all the way to the main. He said he thinks it should come to the curbstop and the City should have it from Mounds View City Council October 23, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 the curbstop to the main. For the first hearing and reading of this he believes it is fine but would like to see what resident input is on the matter at the public hearing. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Council Member Marty was not present for the vote. B. Consideration of Revised 2000 Affirmative Action Plan Assistant to the Administrator Reed told Council that at the September 11, 2000 meeting of the City Council the City’s Affirmative Action plan was approved for submission to the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. The Department of Human Rights has reviewed the plan and has requested some changes. Most of the changes suggested were minor. The Human Rights Department did recommend the City complete a Weighted Small Company Availability Analysis rather than the regular Small Company Availability Analysis that was submitted in September. The regular Small Company Availability Analysis indicated the City is underutilizing women by 13 and people of color by three. The State expressed serious reluctance to certify an organization as small as Mounds View that is underutilizing women to such a high degree. In an effort to more accurately reflect the City’s underutilization of women and people of color Ms. Reed conducted a Weighted Small Company Availability Analysis which calculates the number of women and people of color the City should employ given the size of each of the job groups and availability for each job group. The Weighted Small Company Availability Analysis (p.18) shows the City is underutilizing women by six and people of color by one. Mayor Coughlin inquired as to whether there were any other analyses that could be used other than the one recommended by the Department of Human Rights. Assistant to the Administrator Reed indicated she spoke to the City Administrator regarding using the Weighted Small Company Availability Analysis because when you get the packet from the state with instructions for the process the Weighted Small Company Availability Analysis is not an option the State gives to the City. This is something the State knows about and accepts but does not provide information on. She also indicated there are other analyses like this one cities can use. She indicated the City has looked at three different analyses so far and the one presented is the fourth analysis. Mayor Coughlin noted the City would not be required to hire right away to correct the underutilization of people in the noted people groups but aspire to reflect diversity in hiring in the future. Assistant to the Administrator Reed indicated the City may be required to expand recruiting efforts to use forms of media used by women and people of color to draw a more diversified candidate pool. Mounds View City Council October 23, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 Mayor Coughlin told Assistant to the Administrator Reed she did a masterful job of addressing his concerns and Council Member Stigney’s concerns. MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/Stigney. To Approve the Revised 2000 Affirmative Action Plan as Presented. Council Member Stigney indicated Assistant to the Administrator Reed had done a very good job on the matter. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Council Member Marty was not present for the vote. C. Discussion of Cable Franchise Applications Coralee Wilson, Executive Director of North Suburban Communications Commission and CTV - 15 addressed the Council and told them CTV – 15 is entertaining applications for two new franchises for cable. Most of the cities in the metropolitan area are looking at either two or three applications from companies who want to provide cable television services. The incumbent in the Mounds View area is AT & T Broadband. The incumbent in the Minneapolis area and south is Time Warner. The two applicants for the new franchise are Wide Open West which is based in Colorado and Everest Connections which is based in St. Louis. Telecommunications companies wishing to use the public right of way need to obtain a franchise from the City which enables them to use the public right of way without having to get an easement from each property owner. Even though there is only one cable provider in the area there has always been a nonexclusive cable franchise agreement with the cable provider. The reason there has been only one up until this point is it was deemed by other companies not to be cost effective to have to run all the cables and set up systems in an area where there was already a cable provider only to have to share 50% of the subscribers or possibly less than 50%. The reason there are now companies willing to share the market is most telecommunications companies are now able to provide cable, high-speed internet access and telephone service to subscribers. Telecommunications companies have projected a possible sum of $150.00 per household for various subscriber fees. In 1984 Congress deregulated rates against the desires of local franchising authorities which allowed rates to climb. In 1992 Congress again regulated the rates but there was a sunset on regulation which ended last Fall. Consequently, rates increased. There are pros and cons to competition in the telecommunications field. The competition should stabilize prices. It may not lower the prices but it will keep the prices steady. The downside of competition is there will be construction in the right-of-way and more green cable boxes in the right-of-way. Some residence right-of-way areas may have a large green box depending on how the system is laid out. There Mounds View City Council October 23, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 may also be more visual clutter on the utility poles. These are all things the City needs to look at as the franchise application process goes forward. If the City were to grant the franchise today there would still be a two to five year time period before services would be available. State law requires that cable commissions advertise for franchises. The Commission advertised in May of 2000 and accepted two applications and fees. There is a $50,000 fee required when the application is submitted which covers costs and fees associated with verifying the legal, technical and financial qualifications of the applicant. In the early 1980’s cable companies came to town and promised many things that didn’t materialize once the contract was granted. Much time and energy are being expended on behalf of the Commission to ensure this does not happen with new cable providers. The attorney for the Commission is reviewing the legal, technical and financial qualifications of the applicants and is drafting a report to submit to the Commission for review. The attorney has told the Commission he should be able to provide a rough draft of a franchise document sometime in December. Council Member Stigney inquired as to whether the City could require any new utilities be placed underground. Ms. Wilson indicated that the City is required to “level the playing field” for newcomers and a newcomer may be able to claim the City is putting a hardship on them that the incumbent does not have as it is significantly more expensive to place utilities underground than it is to place them above ground. Council Member Quick also indicated residents may not appreciate having their backyards torn up to bury cables. Mayor Coughlin indicated Council passed the Right-of-Way Ordinance to allow the Council to have the opportunity to require utilities to go underground if it is determined that is best for the City. Mayor Coughlin noted there were several members of the Cable Commission in the audience and thanked them for their support of the executive director including Jerry Skelly who is the godfather or grandfather of Mounds View’s cable system. Mayor Coughlin noted the polling location for the November 7, 2000 general election is the Mounds View Community Center located on Edgewood Drive across from City Hall. Council Member Stigney indicated there would be a candidates’ forum on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 in Council Chambers that would also be rebroadcast on the cable channel throughout election time. 11. Next Council Work Session: Wednesday, November 8, 2000 – 6:00 P.M. Next Council Meeting: Monday, November 13, 2000 – 7:00 P.M. Mounds View City Council October 23, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 9 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Coughlin adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Transcribed and recorded by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 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: November 13, 2000 Please consider the following contractor licenses for approval. The licenses listed will expire on December 31, 2000. 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 have not been licensed within the past two years. Those defined as “renewal” were licensed in the last half of 1999. ASPHALT Minnesota Roadways Co. – New GENERAL (COMMERCIAL) Everest Development, Ltd. - New Jensen Brothers Roofing & Architectural Sheet Metal – New HVAC Aabbott Ferraro- New Midwest Heating & Air Cond., Inc. – New Modern Heating & Air Cond. - Renewal SIGN Sign Art Company, Inc. – New Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested. Item No: 10 B Meeting Date: November 13, 2000 Type of Business: PH & 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, Planner Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 5482, a Resolution Approving the MERMAID ADDITION Preliminary Plat, Planning Case PD00- 002 Date of Report: November 9, 2000 Background: Dan Hall, property owner and president of The Mermaid, is requesting City approval of the preliminary plat for the MERMAID ADDITION, a major subdivision associated with the recently-approved Mermaid PUD. The plat groups together those parcels being utilized for Mermaid expansion, which include the former Rent-All property, the Music- off-10 property, the south 361 feet of the Mounds View Business Park South plat as well as the existing Mermaid parcels. (This plat does not include the Perkins parcel.) Altogether, the total area involved in the plat is 9.36 acres. Discussion: This preliminary plat appears to be consistent with the Subdivision Plats and Procedures Chapter of the City Code and a copy of the preliminary plat has been forwarded to the City Attorney for his review. The legal descriptions are however incomplete, and as such, the dedication page has not been included for preliminary plat review. Plat Highlights: • This plat combines all of the properties involved in the Mermaid PUD into one lot, Lot 1, Block 1, MERMAID ADDITION, and one outlot, Outlot A, MERMAID ADDITION. The outlot would serve as the access drive to the business park property to replace the existing access drive. While it is not anticipated that the business park would own the proposed outlot, it is expected that a permanent access easement would be recorded in its favor. • The plat dedicates 120 feet within the right of way for County Road H south of the Rent All Parcel and 100 feet (9.5 feet deep) south of the Music Off 10 parcel. The extra dedicated area in front of Music Off 10 may or may not be included in the final plat, depending upon County feedback. • The plat dedicates a ten-foot drainage and utility easement around the perimeter of the Mermaid property and also dedicates a 35-foot wide easement area for utilities along the southwestern shared property line between the Mermaid and business park property. Park Dedication Requirement: Chapter 1204 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that all major subdivisions and plats pay a park dedication fee. For developments encompassing more than one acre of land, the fee amounts to ten percent of the associated land value. The table below lists the land values associated with the Mermaid project and the amount of the park dedication required for this project: Mermaid Park Dedication Fee SITE PIN MV Land*Area (SF)$ PSF Music Off 10:083023430005 26,100$ 17,753 1.47$ Halls:083023430006 261,600$ 82,842 3.16$ 083023430007 370,500$ 168,555 2.20$ 083023430008 68,000$ 40,521 1.68$ Rent All 083023430009 79,300$ 41,854 1.89$ Holding Pond Part of 083023430021 117,557$ 57,910 2.03$ TOTAL:923,057$ 409,435 2.25$ Park Dedication Fee:92,306$ *Based on Market Value for Assessed Year 2000; For Property Taxes Payable 2001 From this table, the fee that would be charged to the Mermaid for this plat would be $92,306. Planning Commission Review: The Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat at their meeting on November 1, 2000. After some discussion regarding easements, legal descriptions and other issues, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 638-00, a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of the MERMAID ADDITION preliminary plat. Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of Resolution 5482, a resolution approving the preliminary plat for the Mermaid major subdivision, with stipulations. _____________________________________ James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution 638-00 2. Mermaid Addition plat, date-stamped11/7/00 (Separate Attachment) 3. Resolution 5482 Linder=s CUP Request Planning Case No. 548-99 March 22, 1999 Page 3 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 638-00 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE MERMAID ADDITION MAJOR SUBDIVISION; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. PD00-002 WHEREAS, Daniel Hall, President of The Mermaid, has applied for a Major Subdivision to expand the existing Mermaid property by adding the adjoining former Rent-All property, the south 361 feet of the Mounds View Business Park South property, and the Music Off Ten property; and, WHEREAS, the legal descriptions for the properties to be platted are as follows: (See attached EXHIBIT A.) WHEREAS, the proposed plat is named “MERMAID ADDITION” and contemplates reorganizing the above parcels into one developable lot and one outlot; and, WHEREAS, the area of the proposed “MERMAID ADDITION” is 9.36 acres; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents relative to this proposal: 1. Application, dated May 8, 2000 2. Zoning Map 3. Preliminary Plat, date-stamped October 11, 2000 4. Staff Report. WHEREAS, on October 10, 2000, the City Council of the City of Mounds View approved Resolution 5458 which approved the Mermaid Planned Unit Development (PUD); and, WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan recommended for approval by the Planning Commission designates the parcels associated with the Mermaid PUD and major subdivision as RC-PUD, Regional Commercial Planned Unit Development; and, WHEREAS, according to year 2000 Ramsey County property value assessments, the total land value of the properties involved is $923,057; and, WHEREAS, Chapter 1204 of the Municipal Code states that all subdivisions and plats of land to be used for commercial or industrial purposes are subject to park dedication requirements amounting to ten percent of the most current assessed land values; and, WHEREAS, according to Chapter 1204 of the Municipal Code, the applicable park dedication fee for this major subdivision is $92,306; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat of the proposed Major Subdivision, subject to the following stipulations: 1. The Preliminary Plat shall be revised by indicating the current property owners and appropriate legal descriptions for the involved properties. Linder=s CUP Request Planning Case No. 548-99 March 22, 1999 Page 5 2. The developer shall execute a sign easement document which dedicates to the City of Mounds View the forty foot triangle at the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H as shown on the preliminary plat for a City gateway sign. 3. The developer shall submit the applicable park dedication fee of $92,306 prior to the City signing the final plat. 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 18th day of October, 2000. ______________________________ Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: ______________________________ Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) X:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\MERMAID HOTEL (ZC00-003, DE00-003, MA00-002)\638-00 PC RESOLUTION.DOC RESOLUTION NO. 5482 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE MERMAID ADDITION MAJOR SUBDIVISION; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. PD00-002 WHEREAS, Daniel Hall, President of The Mermaid, has applied for a Major Subdivision to expand the existing Mermaid property by adding the adjoining former Rent-All property, the south 361 feet of the Mounds View Business Park South property, and the Music Off Ten property; and, WHEREAS, the legal descriptions for the properties to be platted are as follows: (See attached EXHIBIT A.) WHEREAS, the proposed plat is named “MERMAID ADDITION” and contemplates reorganizing the above parcels into one developable lot and one outlot; and, WHEREAS, the area of the proposed “MERMAID ADDITION” is 9.36 acres; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents relative to this proposal: 5. Application, dated May 8, 2000 6. Zoning Map 7. Planning Commission Resolution 638-00 8. Preliminary Plat, date-stamped November 7, 2000 9. Staff Report. WHEREAS, on October 10, 2000, the City Council of the City of Mounds View approved Resolution 5458 which approved the Mermaid Planned Unit Development (PUD); and, WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan recommended for approval by the Planning Commission designates the parcels associated with the Mermaid PUD and major subdivision as RC-PUD, Regional Commercial Planned Unit Development; and, WHEREAS, according to year 2000 Ramsey County property value assessments, the total land value of the properties involved is $923,057; and, WHEREAS, Chapter 1204 of the Municipal Code states that all subdivisions and plats of land to be used for commercial or industrial purposes are subject to park dedication requirements amounting to ten percent of the most current assessed land values; and, WHEREAS, according to Chapter 1204 of the Municipal Code, the applicable park dedication fee for this major subdivision is $92,306; and, Linder=s CUP Request Planning Case No. 548-99 March 22, 1999 Page 7 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has adopted Resolution 638-00, a resolution which recommends to the Mounds View City Council approval of the Mermaid Addition preliminary plat. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View City Council does hereby approve the preliminary plat of the Mermaid Addition major subdivision, subject to the following stipulations: 4. The City Attorney shall perform a plat opinion regarding the major subdivision to determine consistency with applicable codes and statutes as well as to ensure that all of the registered owners of the properties and those parties having an interest in the properties are represented and accounted for. 5. The developer shall execute a sign easement document which dedicates to the City of Mounds View the forty foot triangle at the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H as shown on the preliminary plat for a City gateway sign. 3. The developer shall file the Final Plat with the City for its approval no later than six months after approval has been granted for the preliminary plat, otherwise the preliminary and final plat will be considered void, unless an extension has been requested by the developer for good cause and granted by the City Council. 4. The developer shall submit the applicable park dedication fee of $92,306 prior to the City signing the final plat. Adopted this 13th day of November, 2000. ______________________________ Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Kathleen Miller, City Clerk - Administrator (SEAL) J:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\MERMAID HOTEL (ZC00-003, DE00-003, MA00-002)\RESOLUTION 5482.DOC EXHIBIT A. Tract A: (Mermaid Parcel) That part of the East 546.75 feet of the South 715.10 feet of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23 in Ramsey County, Minnesota lying Southwesterly of the Southwesterly right of way line of U.S. Highway No. 10 as it is now laid out and traveled and lying Northerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the West line of the East 546.75 feet of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 distant 445.25 feet North of the South line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 as measured along said West line of the East 546.75 feet thereof; thence North 86 Degrees 52 Minutes 52 Seconds East (assumed bearing of the West line of East 546.75 feet of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 is North 0 Degrees 47 Minutes 11 Seconds West), and to the Southwesterly right of way line of said U. S. Highway No. 10 and except that part of the following described property included in the above described tract: Commencing at a point on the South line of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 8 distant 897.5 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof; thence North 35 Degrees 07 Minutes West (assumed bearing of West on said South line) a distance of 392.7 feet to the center line of County Road H; thence South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West along said center line, a distance of 145.0 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West 120.0 feet; thence North 35 Degrees 07 Minutes West 252.0 feet; thence North 54 Degrees 53 Minutes East, 190.0 feet to the Southwesterly right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 10; thence, South 35 Degrees 07 Minutes East along said Southwesterly right of way line 200.0 feet; thence South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West along said right of way line 70.0 feet; thence South 35 Degrees 07 Minutes East along said right of way line 52.0 feet to the point of beginning. Tract B: (Mermaid Parcel) That part of the East 546.75 feet of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23 in Ramsey County, Minnesota lying Southwesterly of the Southwesterly right of way line of U. S. Highway No. 10 as it is now laid out and traveled, lying Northerly of the center line of County Road H and lying Southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the West line of the East 546.75 feet of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 distant 445.25 feet North of the South line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 as measured along said West line of the East 546.75 feet thereof; thence North 86 Degrees 52 Minutes 52 Seconds East (assumed bearing of the West line of the East 546.75 feet of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 is North 0 Degrees 47 Minutes 11 Seconds West) and to the Southwesterly right of way line of U. S. Highway No. 10 and said line there terminating and except that part of the following described property included in the above described tract: Commencing at a point on the South line of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 8 distant 897.5 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof; thence North 35 Degrees 07 Minutes West (assumed bearing of West on said South line) a distance 392.7 feet to the center line of County Road H; thence South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West along said center line, a distance of 145.0 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West 120.0 feet; thence North 35 Degrees 07 Minutes West, 252.0 feet; thence North 54 Degrees 53 Minutes East, 190.0 feet to the Southwesterly right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 10; thence South 35 Degrees 07 Minutes East along said Southwesterly right of way line 200.0 feet; thence South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West along said right of way line 70.0 feet; thence South 35 Degrees 07 Minutes East along said right of way line 52.0 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to County Road H. Linder=s CUP Request Planning Case No. 548-99 March 22, 1999 Page 9 Tract C: (Rent All Property) A tract of land being a part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and also a part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter distance 897.5 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof; thence North 35 degrees 07 minutes West (assumed bearing on said South line) a distance of 392.7 feet to the extension Northeasterly of the centerline of County Road H; thence South 54 degrees 53 minutes West along said center line a distance of 145.0 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 54 degrees 53 minutes West 120.0 feet; thence North 35 degrees 07 minutes West 252.0 feet; thence North 54 degrees 53 minutes East 190.0 feet to the Southwesterly right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 10; thence South 35 degrees 07 minutes East along said Southwesterly right of way line 200.0 feet; thence South 54 degrees 53 minutes West along said right of way line 70.0 feet; thence South 35 degrees 07 minutes East along said right of way line 52.0 feet to the point of beginning. Tract D: (Music Off 10) The east 100.00 feet of the West 657.57 feet of the South 215 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Item No: 10 C Meeting Date: November 13, 2000 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, Planner Item Title/Subject: First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 675, an Ordinance Rezoning Properties Associated with the Mermaid Planned Unit Development from B-3 to PUD, Planning Case PD00-002 Date of Report: November 9, 2000 Discussion: On October 10, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution 5476, a resolution approving the PUD for the Mermaid. This resolution directed staff to prepare an ordinance to effectuate the rezoning of the Mermaid properties from B-3 to PUD. Ordinance 675 does just that. The Planning Commission reviewed this ordinance on November 1, 2000 and passed Resolution 640-00, which recommends approval of the ordinance. Staff should point out that the legal descriptions (and graphic attached to the ordinance) do not include the business park parcel. This is due to the fact that this parcel already carries the PUD zoning designation. Staff should also point out that the Perkins parcel is not included with this rezoning as it was not included within the PUD. This is the first reading of this ordinance, the second reading and public hearing has been scheduled for 7:10 p.m. on Monday, November 27, 2000. Recommendation: The Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of this ordinance to rezone the properties relating to the Mermaid planned unit development from B-3, Highway Business, to PUD, Planned Unit Development. A roll call vote is not required for first reading. _____________________________________ James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Ordinance 675 Q:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\Mermaid Hotel (ZC00-003, DE00-003, MA00-002)\Mermaid rezoning report - Nov 13, 2000 ORDINANCE NO. 675 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REZONING OF PARCELS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MERMAID PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FROM B-3 (HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT) THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Appendix A of the Mounds View Municipal Code entitled “Specific Rezonings” is hereby amended to include reference to the following Ordinance 675. Subdivision 1. Purpose. The Mounds View City Council has determined that to further economic development and organized land use controls that the present zoning classification of certain parcels should be reclassified to be consistent with the Mounds View Zoning Code and the proposed Mounds View Comprehensive Plan. Subdivision 2. The City’s official Zoning Map as shown in Exhibit A and the zoning classification for the following legally-described parcels are hereby changed from B-3, Highway Business, to PUD, Planned Unit Development: Tract A: (Mermaid Parcel) That part of the East 546.75 feet of the South 715.10 feet of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23 in Ramsey County, Minnesota lying Southwesterly of the Southwesterly right of way line of U.S. Highway No. 10 as it is now laid out and traveled and lying Northerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the West line of the East 546.75 feet of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 distant 445.25 feet North of the South line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 as measured along said West line of the East 546.75 feet thereof; thence North 86 Degrees 52 Minutes 52 Seconds East (assumed bearing of the West line of East 546.75 feet of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 is North 0 Degrees 47 Minutes 11 Seconds West), and to the Southwesterly right of way line of said U. S. Highway No. 10 and except that part of the following described property included in the above described tract: Commencing at a point on the South line of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 8 distant 897.5 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof; thence North 35 Degrees 07 Minutes West (assumed bearing of West on said South line) a distance of 392.7 feet to the center line of County Road H; thence South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West along said center line, a distance of 145.0 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West 120.0 feet; thence North 35 Degrees 07 Minutes West 252.0 feet; thence North 54 Degrees 53 Minutes East, 190.0 feet to the Southwesterly right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 10; thence, South 35 Degrees 07 Minutes East along said Southwesterly right of way line 200.0 feet; thence South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West along said right of way line 70.0 feet; thence South 35 Degrees 07 Minutes East along said right of way line 52.0 feet to the point of beginning. Tract B: (Mermaid Parcel) That part of the East 546.75 feet of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23 in Ramsey County, Minnesota lying Southwesterly of the Southwesterly right of way line of U. S. Highway No. 10 as it is now laid out and traveled, lying Northerly of the center line of County Road H and lying Southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the West line Ordinance 675 Page 3 of the East 546.75 feet of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 distant 445.25 feet North of the South line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 as measured along said West line of the East 546.75 feet thereof; thence North 86 Degrees 52 Minutes 52 Seconds East (assumed bearing of the West line of the East 546.75 feet of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 is North 0 Degrees 47 Minutes 11 Seconds West) and to the Southwesterly right of way line of U. S. Highway No. 10 and said line there terminating and except that part of the following described property included in the above described tract: Commencing at a point on the South line of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 8 distant 897.5 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof; thence North 35 Degrees 07 Minutes West (assumed bearing of West on said South line) a distance 392.7 feet to the center line of County Road H; thence South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West along said center line, a distance of 145.0 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West 120.0 feet; thence North 35 Degrees 07 Minutes West, 252.0 feet; thence North 54 Degrees 53 Minutes East, 190.0 feet to the Southwesterly right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 10; thence South 35 Degrees 07 Minutes East along said Southwesterly right of way line 200.0 feet; thence South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West along said right of way line 70.0 feet; thence South 35 Degrees 07 Minutes East along said right of way line 52.0 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to County Road H. Tract C: (Rent All Property) A tract of land being a part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and also a part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter distance 897.5 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof; thence North 35 degrees 07 minutes West (assumed bearing on said South line) a distance of 392.7 feet to the extension Northeasterly of the centerline of County Road H; thence South 54 degrees 53 minutes West along said center line a distance of 145.0 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 54 degrees 53 minutes West 120.0 feet; thence North 35 degrees 07 minutes West 252.0 feet; thence North 54 degrees 53 minutes East 190.0 feet to the Southwesterly right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 10; thence South 35 degrees 07 minutes East along said Southwesterly right of way line 200.0 feet; thence South 54 degrees 53 minutes West along said right of way line 70.0 feet; thence South 35 degrees 07 minutes East along said right of way line 52.0 feet to the point of beginning. Tract D: (Music Off 10) The east 100.00 feet of the West 657.57 feet of the South 215 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota. SECTION 2. This ordinance is effective thirty days after its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 13th day of November, 2000. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 27th day of November, 2000. _______________________________________ Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST _______________________________________ Kathleen Miller, City Clerk-Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ City Attorney V:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\Mermaid Hotel (ZC00-003, DE00-003, MA00-002)\Ordinance 675 - Rezoning.doc Ordinance 675 Page 5 EXHIBIT A. Tract A: (Mermaid Parcel) That part of the East 546.75 feet of the South 715.10 feet of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23 in Ramsey County, Minnesota lying Southwesterly of the Southwesterly right of way line of U.S. Highway No. 10 as it is now laid out and traveled and lying Northerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the West line of the East 546.75 feet of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 distant 445.25 feet North of the South line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 as measured along said West line of the East 546.75 feet thereof; thence North 86 Degrees 52 Minutes 52 Seconds East (assumed bearing of the West line of East 546.75 feet of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 is North 0 Degrees 47 Minutes 11 Seconds West), and to the Southwesterly right of way line of said U. S. Highway No. 10 and except that part of the following described property included in the above described tract: Commencing at a point on the South line of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 8 distant 897.5 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof; thence North 35 Degrees 07 Minutes West (assumed bearing of West on said South line) a distance of 392.7 feet to the center line of County Road H; thence South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West along said center line, a distance of 145.0 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West 120.0 feet; thence North 35 Degrees 07 Minutes West 252.0 feet; thence North 54 Degrees 53 Minutes East, 190.0 feet to the Southwesterly right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 10; thence, South 35 Degrees 07 Minutes East along said Southwesterly right of way line 200.0 feet; thence South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West along said right of way line 70.0 feet; thence South 35 Degrees 07 Minutes East along said right of way line 52.0 feet to the point of beginning. Tract B: (Mermaid Parcel) That part of the East 546.75 feet of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23 in Ramsey County, Minnesota lying Southwesterly of the Southwesterly right of way line of U. S. Highway No. 10 as it is now laid out and traveled, lying Northerly of the center line of County Road H and lying Southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the West line of the East 546.75 feet of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 distant 445.25 feet North of the South line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 as measured along said West line of the East 546.75 feet thereof; thence North 86 Degrees 52 Minutes 52 Seconds East (assumed bearing of the West line of the East 546.75 feet of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 is North 0 Degrees 47 Minutes 11 Seconds West) and to the Southwesterly right of way line of U. S. Highway No. 10 and said line there terminating and except that part of the following described property included in the above described tract: Commencing at a point on the South line of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 8 distant 897.5 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof; thence North 35 Degrees 07 Minutes West (assumed bearing of West on said South line) a distance 392.7 feet to the center line of County Road H; thence South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West along said center line, a distance of 145.0 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West 120.0 feet; thence North 35 Degrees 07 Minutes West, 252.0 feet; thence North 54 Degrees 53 Minutes East, 190.0 feet to the Southwesterly right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 10; thence South 35 Degrees 07 Minutes East along said Southwesterly right of way line 200.0 feet; thence South 54 Degrees 53 Minutes West along said right of way line 70.0 feet; thence South 35 Degrees 07 Minutes East along said right of way line 52.0 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to County Road H. Ordinance 675 Page 7 Tract C: (Rent All Property) A tract of land being a part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and also a part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter distance 897.5 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof; thence North 35 degrees 07 minutes West (assumed bearing on said South line) a distance of 392.7 feet to the extension Northeasterly of the centerline of County Road H; thence South 54 degrees 53 minutes West along said center line a distance of 145.0 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 54 degrees 53 minutes West 120.0 feet; thence North 35 degrees 07 minutes West 252.0 feet; thence North 54 degrees 53 minutes East 190.0 feet to the Southwesterly right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 10; thence South 35 degrees 07 minutes East along said Southwesterly right of way line 200.0 feet; thence South 54 degrees 53 minutes West along said right of way line 70.0 feet; thence South 35 degrees 07 minutes East along said right of way line 52.0 feet to the point of beginning. Tract D: (Music Off 10) The east 100.00 feet of the West 657.57 feet of the South 215 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Item No: 10 D Meeting Date: November 13, 2000 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, Planner Item Title/Subject: First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 672, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Home Occupations Date of Report: November 9, 2000 Background: This ordinance has been drafted to clean up Section 1106.03 of the Mounds View Zoning Code pertaining to Home Based Businesses. The Planning Commission reviewed this ordinance at its last two meetings, adopting Resolution 641-00 on November 1, 2000, which recommends approval of the ordinance. Discussion: There are two housekeeping changes to the ordinance and two changes of substance. The first change of substance relates to allowable signage. The Code currently allows for one-square foot of signage, which was felt to be too restrictive. This has been increased to four square feet, placement of which can occur either on the house or garage, or within five feet of a street right of way. The other change contemplated by this ordinance is that the limitation of no more than two cars for either on or off street parking has been changed to no more than two cars for on street parking, dropping the off street limitation. The Planning Commission also considered an amendment to the Code which would have added an item “h” to the ordinance, stating that home businesses involving automotive sales, service or repair would be expressly prohibited. In the end, the Planning Commission felt this was too broad a restriction and that the City’s Nuisance Codes would address most automotive uses so the amendment was deleted from the ordinance. The Council should be aware that staff has been in contact with a resident of the City who operates a telemarketing business from within his home. (Refer to the attached letter.) According to the ordinance as it is drafted, the business is in violation due to the fact that there are employees on the site that do not live at the residence. Given the technological age we are now living and the growing numbers of telecommuters and computer-based home businesses, staff is curious to know the Council’s thoughts on revising the ordinance--beyond that already contemplated--to allow for employees who are not residents of a property. Staff would caution however that any possible change be carefully considered as to the potential impact to the immediate neighbors Ordinance 672 Report Page 2 and neighborhoods in general. The City is not opposed to home-based businesses in general nor is it opposed to residents earning a living from within their homes. The concern, to restate it, is with the potential impacts to the neighbors who may not be comfortable living next to a thriving home-based business with employees coming and going and the related parking and activity issues. Since I will not be at the meeting Monday evening, Community Director Jopke will be on hand present this report and to address any questions the Council may have. Recommendation: If the Council finds the attached draft of Ordinance 672 acceptable, staff and the City Council would recommend approval of the first reading. If there are minor changes that arise from discussions at the meeting, these can be made prior to the scheduled second reading on November 27, 2000. If the Council would like to see more extensive changes or would desire additional research on home-based businesses, staff would recommend tabling any action on the ordinance to give staff time to accomplish whatever research is requested. _____________________________________ James Ericson, Planner Attachments: 1. Letter to Resident 2. Ordinance 672 T:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\Sp083-00\Ord 672 Report - Nov 13, 2000.doc ORDINANCE NO. 672 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1106.03, SUBDIVISION 3, OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE, PERTAINING TO HOME-BASED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Chapter 1106, Section 1106.03, Subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Zoning Code is hereby amended with additions underlined and deletions struck out to read as follows: Subd. 3. Home Occupations: The regulation of home occupations within residential structures is intended to ensure insure that the occupational use is clearly accessory or secondary to the principal dwelling use and that compatibility with surrounding residential uses is maintained. No home occupation shall be allowed which: a. Involves employees other than persons residing on the premises; b. Involves alteration or construction features not customarily found in dwellings; c. Has an exterior display or sign in excess of four one square feet foot. Such sign, for identification purposes only, shall be located either on the principal structure structured or garage, or mounted on the property within five (5) feet of a street right of way, so long as the sign or parts thereof do not extend beyond the property’s borders. Any sign existing prior to December 29, 1972, shall not be enlarged but may be continued at the size and location upon such date, except as hereinafter specified or subsequently amended. Any sign erected after December 29, 1972, but prior to the effective date hereof shall come into compliance herewith by April 1, 1983; d. Involves exterior storage of equipment or materials; e. Generates more than two (2) motor vehicles at a time for either off-street or on-street parking; f. Results in violation of the provisions of Chapter 607 604, Nuisances, of the Municipal Code; and g. Involves activity visible from the public streets. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall go into effect thirty (30) days after it has been published in the official City newspaper. First read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this ____ day of ____, 2000. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this ____ day of ____, 2000. Dan Coughlin, Mayor Ordinance 672 Report Page 4 ATTEST: Kathleen Miller, City Clerk / Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ Robert C. Long, City Attorney Item No. 10E 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: Consideration of Resolution 5485 Appointing an Interim Community Development Director Date of Report: November 13, 2000 At the November 8, 2000 Work Session the City Council directed staff to prepare a resolution acknowledging the resignation of Community Development Director, Rick Jopke, and appointing Jim Ericson, City Planner, as the interim Community Development Director. The resolution is attached for your consideration. Respectfully Submitted, ___________________________ Givonna Reed Assistant to the City Administrator RESOLUTION NO. 5485 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION APPOINTING AN INTERIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR WHEREAS, Community Development Director Rick Jopke is resigning from his position effective November 17, 2000; and WHEREAS, at its November 8, 2000 Work Session the City Council gave staff direction to advertise for the Community Development Director position; and WHEREAS, the City Council has established a pay scale (115% of the current rate of pay) for employees serving in interim management positions per resolution 5427, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mounds View City Council names Jim Ericson, City Planner, as Interim Community Development Director starting November 18, 2000 and continuing until the start date for the new Community Development Director. Adopted this 13th day of November, 2000. Attest: Dan Coughlin, Mayor SEAL Kathleen Miller, City Clerk-Administrator