HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2000/08/28M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Council Packets\08-28-00\Agenda - City Council.doc
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2000
Special Budget Session 6:00 pm
Regular Council Meeting 7:00 pm
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomason
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. August 14, 2000
B. July 10, 2000
5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
6. REPORTS
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Just and Correct Claims
C. Licenses for Approval
D. Approve Resolution 5465 setting forth a tentative timetable for preparing
and adopting the 2001 budget and long term financial plan.
E. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., Monday, September 11, 2000, for the
Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 668, an Ordinance Vacating a
Sign Easement No Longer Serving a Public Purpose. – Jim Ericson
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
A. Business License Approvals-Givonna Reed
7:10 B. Public Hearing, Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 663, an
Ordinance Creating Language to Administer and Regulate Tattoo and
Body Piercing Establishments within the City of Mounds View – Jim
Ericson (Roll Call Vote)
M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Council Packets\08-28-00\Agenda - City Council.doc
City Council Meeting
August 28, 2000
Page -2-
C. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 665, an Ordinance Rezoning
Properties Associated with the Walgreens Development from B-3 and PF
to PUD – Jim Ericson (Roll Call Vote)
D. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 666, an Ordinance Vacating
the Old Edgewood Drive Right of Way Included within the Proposed
Walgreens PUD – Jim Ericson (Roll Call Vote)
E. First Reading (Introduction) of Ordinance 668, an Ordinance Vacating a
Sign Easement No Longer Serving a Public Purpose – Jim Ericson
F. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 669, an Ordinance
Authorizing the Disposal by Sale of Real Property Associated with the
Walgreens PUD – Jim Ericson (Roll Call Vote)
G. Consideration of Resolution 5458, a Resolution the Final Plat for the
“Mounds View City Hall Addition” related to the Walgreens PUD – Jim
Ericson
H. Consideration of Resolution 5463, a Resolution Approving a Minor
Subdivision of 8132 Long Lake Road – Jim Ericson
I. Consideration of Resolution No. 5464, Approving Street Projects 2001-1,
2001-2 – Michael Ulrich
J. Consideration of Charter Commission Resolutions 2000-11, 2000-12 –
Michael Ulrich
K. Consideration of Park Improvement Expenditures – Michael Ulrich
11. Next Council Work Session: Tuesday, September 5, 2000
Next Council Meeting: Monday, September 11, 2000
12. ADJOURNMENT
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
August 14, 2000
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
7:02 P.M.
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Marty, Quick, Stigney and Thomason.
NOT PRESENT: None.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. Monday, August 14, 2000, City Council Agenda.
Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To accept the August 14, 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, July 24, 2000, City Council Minutes.
Mayor Coughlin requested a correction to Page 2, 6th paragraphs, correct “Mounds View
Mattes” to “Mounds View Matters.”
Council Member Stigney requested a correction to Page 3, first sentence, to change the words
“City’s elected officials” to “other elected officials.”
MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Stigney. To approve the July 24, 2000, City Council minutes as
corrected.
Ayes – 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
None.
Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 2
6. REPORTS
Council Member Stigney commented on his attendance at the National Night Out events and
appreciation for resident’s interest in that event.
With regard to noise and low-flying aircraft complaints on the Anoka County Airport, Council
Member Stigney requested residents call Jack Eberlein of MAC Operations at 612-726-5111. He
advised that the control tower does not log any complaints.
Mayor Coughlin stated it is actually a federal offense to interfere with the operations of the
control tower so multiple telephone calls to the control tower could result in a problem. He
stated the normal complaint number to call is 612-726-9411 and advised that telephone calls
made to that telephone number are tracked and logged.
Council Member Stigney noted that Mr. Eberlein also would like to be called with complaints
and indicated he would log them as well.
Council Member Marty thanked the Police and Fire Departments for their participation at the
National Night Out events. He commented on the block party in his neighborhood, which was
the first one held, and visitors that attended.
Council Member Marty reported on his attendance at a Cable Commission meeting and budget
discussions held. He advised they discussed a desire to roll what is not spent into next year’s
budget.
Council Member Marty stated they also talked about cablecasting other City Council meetings on
Sundays. He advised that option is not yet decided and will be further discussed. He stated there
has been interest in the Springsted Highway 10 study but, at the last work session, the Mayor had
mentioned that Highway 10 ticketing was up 25%.
Mayor Coughlin stated that is correct, ticketing and other traffic stops are up 25%.
Council Member Quick had no report.
Council Member Thomason had no report.
Mayor Coughlin thanked all who were involved in the 18 group and block parties and stated his
appreciation to DARE Officer Tim Brennon who was the main contact for all the block parties.
He also stated his thanks to the Mounds View Lions Club who donated ice cream to many block
parties, commenting it was very poplar with both kids and “kids at heart” like himself.
Acting City Administrator Ulrich reported that the Rice Creek Watershed Director has estimated
it would be two months before a preliminary plan for Rice Creek Ponds is available for review.
Mayo r Coughlin stated at the last meeting the Council approved on-going communication
between staff and residents and when the time comes to share that information, every effort will
Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 3
be made to communicate it to the residents along with one or more informational meetings. He
stated the Council wants to assure all concerns and questions are dealt with in an informal
manner prior to formal Council consideration.
Assistant City Attorney Vose commented on his work with Mounds View during the City
Attorney’s absence and stated his appreciation of City Staff.
No further reports were considered.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Just and Correct Claims
B. Licenses for Approval
Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to remove Items for discussion.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To Approve the Consent Agenda for Items A and B as
presented.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR
Mayor Coughlin reported that the Highway 10 issue will be discussed this evening as the last
agenda item.
There were no requests or comments from the floor.
10. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. Public Hearing, Discussion and Consideration of the following:
1. Resolution 5462, a Resolution Approving the Walgreens PUD and
Exchange of Real Property for and with TOLD Development
Company.
2. Resolution 5453, a Resolution Approving the Wetland Alteration
Permit and Development Review of the Proposed Walgreens PUD.
3. Resolution 5454, a Resolution Approving the Preliminary Plat of the
Proposed Walgreens Major Subdivision.
Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 4
4. First Reading (Introduction) of Ordinance 665, an Ordinance
Rezoning Properties Associated with the Walgreens Development
from B-3 and PF to PUD.
5. First Reading (Introduction) of Ordinance 666, an Ordinance
Vacating the Old Edgewood Drive Right of Way Included within the
Proposed Walgreens PUD.
6. First Reading (Introduction) of Ordinance 669, an Ordinance
Authorizing Disposing by Sale of City-Owned Real Property.
Mayor Coughlin opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m.
Planning Associate Ericson explained that TOLD Development Company, represented by Mr. Bob
Cunningham, is requesting approval of a planned unit development and major subdivision to
construct a Walgreens Drugstore and restaurant at the corner of Edgewood Drive and County
Highway 10. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of this request and all
associated actions at their meeting on July 19, 2000.
Planning Associate Ericson explained that because of the complexity of this request, staff
provided a breakdown of the number of actions required for Council consideration as follows:
• Approval of the PUD and Exchange of Land (Res. 5462)
• Approval of the Development Review and Wetland Alteration Permit (Res. 5453)
• Approval of the Preliminary Plat for the proposed Major Subdivision (Res. 5454)
• Authorization to Rezone the Properties (Ord. 665)
• Authorization to Vacate Unneeded Edgewood Drive Right of Way (Ord. 666)
• Authorization to Dispose by Sale of City-Owned Real property (Ord. 669)
Planning Associate Ericson explained that one other action relative to this request will be
forthcoming at the Council’s next meeting, that being an ordinance to vacate a City-controlled
sign easement where the former alignment of Edgewood Drive intersected with Highway 10.
This particular sign easement is not the easement for the existing billboard but, rather, for where
the old Bel Rae Ballroom sign was located.
Planning Associate Ericson explained that Resolution 5462 approves the PUD and the proposed
exchange of land between the City and TOLD Development. Prior to the meeting tonight, the
Council received the corrected PUD Document and the Contract for Private Development
relating to this development, both of which shall act as the governing documents for this planned
unit development. This resolution also directs staff to present an ordinance to rezone the
property and an ordinance to dispose of by sale the remnant parcel.
Planning Associate Ericson explained that Resolution 5453 approves the development review
stage of the PUD and the wetland alteration permit. The resolution contains a number of
stipulations which will need to be met concerning revisions to the site plans. The corrections
have been agreed upon by the developer yet were not included in the latest plan submission. The
Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 5
Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) will need to approve the wetland alteration and grading
and drainage plans, as well as any other applicable permitting agency as determined by RCWD.
He advised that preliminary comments from RCWD are very positive. Regarding the City
approval of the wetland alteration, the Municipal Code states that, “A minimum alteration of a
wetland may be allowed when necessary for the use of property but only when it will not have a
substantially or significantly adverse effect, as determined by the City, upon the ecological and
hydrological characteristics of the wetland.” Staff asserts that given the minimal area proposed to
be filled and disturbed, and the addition of the regional stormwater pond to treat and filter runoff,
this condition is met.
Planning Associate Ericson explained that Resolution 5454 approves the preliminary plat of the
proposed major subdivision subject to stipulations directing the developer to make some minor
revisions. He explained how the lots would be configured and need for a plat to create that
remnant lot. Planning Associate Ericson noted that 66 feet of property would be added to the
Community Center lot and the plat cleans up some inconsistencies. Related to the preliminary
plat is Ordinances 666, vacating the old Edgewood Drive right-of-way, and Ordinance 668, an
ordinance vacating a sign easement which no longer serves a public purpose. Ordinance 668 will
not be before the Council for action until the August 28, 2000 meeting.
Planning Associate Ericson explained that Resolution 5454 also stipulates that the developer
shall make a park dedication payment pursuant to Section 1202.04 of the Municipal Code. The
valuation used for this project is $3.81 per square foot, based on the appraisal performed by
Appraisal Concepts, Inc., dated June 30, 2000. Because the Walgreens project area to be
developed comprises 116,875 square feet, the total dedication required would be $44,529.
Planning Associate Ericson explained that Ordinance 665 is the vehicle by which the affected
properties are formally rezoned. The area to be developed, as well as the undeveloped Outlot A
that the City will acquire, will be rezoned to PUD from PF and B-3. The Community Center and
the 66-foot strip of land east of the Community Center will be rezoned from B-3 to PF. This is a
first reading; second reading and adoption shall be scheduled for August 28, 2000.
Planning Associate Ericson explained that Ordinance 666 is drafted to vacate the old alignment
of Edgewood Drive. The basis for approving any vacation is that the Council shall determine
that the public purpose, need or benefit of the area no longer exists, or that the public purpose
and interest would be better served by the vacation. The ordinance states that the City has
determined that the area no longer serves a public purpose and it is in the public interest to
approve the vacation. This is a first reading; second reading and adoption shall be scheduled for
August 28, 2000.
Planning Associate Ericson explained that Ordinance 669 is drafted to meet the requirements of
the City Charter which states in Section 12.05 that any disposal of City-owned land shall be done
only by ordinance. The ordinance indicates that the City has determined that such conveyance
will further the public interest. This is a first reading; second reading and adoption shall be
scheduled for August 28, 2000.
Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 6
Mayor Coughlin asked for public input at this time. There being none, the public hearing was
closed at 7:26 p.m.
Bob Cunningham, representing TOLD Development, requested Council consideration of Item 20
as contained in Resolution 5462 which contemplates the park dedication fees. He noted staff’s
calculation of 10% of $445,000 would be equal a park dedication fee of $44,500. He respectfully
requested that the Council waive this park dedication fees. Mr. Cunningham explained that over
time in negotiating with City Staff, they have agreed to additional costs beyond normal
development, the first of which was the inclusion of a trail to which they do not protest. That
totals 1,800 lineal feet of trail both on and off their property at an estimated cost of $36,000 to
$45,000. In addition, they have also agreed to pay the increased cost of the regional storm water
detention pond. He presented a diagram identifying the delineation of the storm water pond
needed for their project, and that of a regional storm water pond. He stated the cost for this
enlarged pond, the trail, and park dedication equals approximately $150,000 of additional costs
to get the development approved by the City. Mr. Cunningham stated that is why he would like
to respectfully request the Council to waive the park dedication fees. He stated TOLD
Development is also bearing the cost of the plat including Bronson, creating separate lots for the
Community Center, and the 66 feet for the Community Center lot, which is also a substantial
cost.
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated this is a significant request and he is disappointed
it was not raised at the beginning of the public hearing process so comment could have been
made.
Mayor Coughlin reopened the public hearing at 7:32 p.m.
Mr. McCarty stated the park dedication fee is a very important part of the City’s business and, if
forgiven, he would suggest it be done on a trade-for-trade fair trade basis. He stated his
impression that other developers have been willing to provide a trail with PUD developments and
encouraged the Council to not establish a precedent.
William Kuether, 5302 St. Stephens Street, asked what he would have to do to “kill” this plan.
He stated he moved in a year ago and four other residents of St. Stephens Street have lived there
less than one year.
City Attorney Vose informed Mr. Kuether that offering public hearing input that he does not like
the plan is the first step to take. City Attorney Vose advised that he is not able to give other legal
advice to the public.
Mr. Kuether asked if there is any hope of stopping this project.
Mayor Coughlin explained this is the first Council meeting where official action has been
considered on this project.
Mr. Kuether stated he had asked the City Planner if the City could install shrubs to block the
view of Highway 10 from St. Stephens Street but it was indicated there was no money in the
Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 7
budget. He asked why the Council would consider waiving $400,000 in park dedication fees if
the City had no money in the budget for screening.
Planning Associate Ericson stated a request for plantings was received and forwarded to the
Public Works Director and City Forester asking what would work in that situation.
Acting City Manager Ulrich stated he forwarded the request to the City Forester and the City
Forester tried numerous times to contact the resident via e-mail, telephone, and stopped by on
several occasions. He stated his impression that information was given as to Mr. Kuether as to
what could be planted.
Mr. Kuether stated he was told there was no City money for these plantings. Acting City
Manager Ulrich stated there are no City funds for boulevard screening between the right-of-way
and St. Stephens Street.
Council Member Quick asked where the screening is being requested.
Mr. Kuether explained that St. Stephens Street begins by the Network Liquor parking lot and his
suggestion was to buy bushes, shrubs, or trees to seclude his neighborhood from Highway 10 but
he was told there was no money in the budget for such plantings.
Council Member Quick asked if the request was to use City funds for these plantings. Mr.
Kuether stated that is correct and he was told there was no money in the budget but now a request
is being made to waive payment of a large fee.
Mayor Coughlin stated the issue of shrubs is a bit “far of field” from the Walgreens request but
he would like staff to talk with Mr. Kuether to see if anything can be done to follow up with that
suggestion.
Council Member Stigney stated the question was raised by Mr. Kuether about what he could do
to stop the project. He reviewed the items on the agenda were for resolutions to approve the
PUD and exchange of real property with TOLD Development Company, approving the wetland
alteration permit and development review of the proposed Walgreens PUD, approving the
preliminary plat of the proposed Walgreens subdivision, and giving first reading of ordinances to
rezone, vacate the old Edgewood Drive right-of-way, and authorizing disposing by sale of city-
owned property. Council Member Stigney explained that after the first reading, residents have
60 days to petition against an ordinance by obtaining the required number of signatures. He
suggested Mr. Kuether contact City staff to obtain that information.
Council Member Marty asked Mr. Kuether why he does not want the Walgreens store in that
location.
Mr. Kuether stated he is a first-time homeowner and enjoys the seclusion of the large trees so he
objects to the idea of having a Walgreens when there is another Walgreens located five miles
down the road. He noted there is also a Snyder Drug Store in the strip mall. With regard to a
proposed restaurant, Mr. Kuether noted there are other restaurants in the area.
Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 8
Council Member Marty noted that a significant buffer will remain with the trees and wetland.
Council Member Quick commented that the location of another Walgreens is not a consideration
of the City Council.
Mr. Kuether stated his impression that a new Walgreens may impact the existing Snyder Drug.
Mayor Coughlin explained that property owners have certain rights to build on their property and
what is built is their determination, not the determination of the Council. He noted there will be
.9 acres of wetland which the Council can designate, into perpetuity, to a particular use such as
passive open space.
Mr. Kuether stated he grew up by Apache Plaza and is concerned about the impact of these new
stores on the current strip mall.
Mayor Coughlin stated those comments have been noted.
Mr. McCarty stated the point he wanted to make is that the developer’s request, at first blush,
seemed reasonable but the ordinance requiring park dedication fees must be protected as well as
the precedent of obtaining trailways through the City which has been accepted by most
developers. He encouraged the Council to take into consideration the entire City when making a
decision and stated his impression the City can take at least five acres which would afford the
City to do some things with the Community Center and community at large. Mr. McCarty stated
it takes a lot of study, review of staff reports, and time spent with the developer to make that
decision.
Mayor Coughlin closed the public hearing at 7:47 p.m.
Council Member Stigney corrected that it is not the Wedgewood Community Center but the
Mounds View Community Center and not Wedgewood Drive but Edgewood Drive. Planning
Associate Ericson stated that correction has been noted.
Council Member Stigney referred to Resolution 5453 and the requirement for a sidewalk along
Edgewood Drive. He asked if it will be concrete. Planning Associate Ericson answered
affirmatively.
Council Member Stigney noted the mention of two decorative lights and an additional three
lights. He asked if the decorative lights will be of the type already used along the trailway.
Planning Associate Ericson answered affirmatively.
Council Member Marty asked when this is due to come before the Rice Creek Watershed
District. Planning Associate Ericson advised the District has already received the preliminary
plans and begun review. He stated his understanding that the developer wanted to make sure the
drainage and storm water plan had been approved by the City prior to presenting the final plans
to the Rice Creek Watershed District for final approval.
Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 9
Planning Associate Ericson stated, at this point, staff believes the configuration and location of
the storm water pond will be revised somewhat prior to Rice Creek Watershed District
consideration. Council Member Marty asked to be notified of the date it will be considered by
the Rice Creek Watershed District.
Mayor Coughlin asked what the timeline is for construction of these two buildings. Mr.
Cunningham stated they will commence construction of the Walgreens building as soon as all
approvals are in place, including the Rice Creek Watershed District and recording of the plat. He
estimated that will be late September. He explained that negotiating the Culver’s Restaurant has
become a longer process due to their process for finding a qualified franchisee. He estimated that
construction will occur in late spring.
Mayor Coughlin asked if there is a way to require timelines to assure the restaurant pad is
occupied within a certain time frame. Planning Associate Ericson stated a clause can be
included, noting construction can be phased with a stipulation that within 30 days after final City
approval and execution of the contract, the developer must obtain a building permit for the first
phase. However, there is no requirement on when the second phase must be started but, perhaps,
that language could be added. Planning Associate Ericson noted the consideration tonight is only
for the Walgreens site.
Council Member Marty stated his support to include that language to ensure a Culver’s
Restaurant or some type of restaurant is constructed.
Planning Associate Ericson noted if the marketplace changes and the developer cannot get a
restaurant, he would be concerned about the requirement to construct something within a given
time frame.
Mayor Coughlin suggested the term “reasonable amount of time” be included in the clause. He
stated the Council knows that negotiating such a development can take time.
Planning Associate Ericson noted some final input that is needed with the development
agreement and stated the finalized document can be brought before the Mayor and/or Council, or
the Council could so direct staff to finalize the document.
Council Member Stigney stated he is concerned that the Walgreens will be part of the
corporation or a subentity of Walgreens. He asked if a bankruptcy should occur, would it be
against the Walgreens Corporation or just this Walgreens location.
Mr. Cunningham stated the building will be owned by an entity of TOLD Development with a
lease agreement between TOLD Development and Walgreens.
Council Member Stigney asked what guarantee TOLD Development can provide if things do not
go as planned in several years.
Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 10
Mr. Cunningham explained they will just build the building and Walgreens will operate the
business. He stated they will have a 20-year lease with Walgreens Corporation plus lease
extensions well into the future.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the contract for private development includes language to give
further assurance of what will happen by placing restrictive covenants so certain types of
businesses cannot locate there which would provide further protection regarding uses.
Mayor Coughlin asked which resolution relates to the park dedication issue and request for
waiver. Planning Associate Ericson stated it is referenced in Resolution 5454.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5462, a
Resolution Approving the Walgreens PUD and Exchange of Real Property for and with TOLD
Development Company.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5453,
a Resolution Approving the Wetland Alteration Permit and Development Review of the
Proposed Walgreens PUD.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5454, a
Resolution Approving the Preliminary Plat of the Proposed Walgreens Major Subdivision.
Mayor Coughlin noted there has been a request by the developer to waive the park dedication fee.
He entertained amendments to the motion on the floor.
Council Members Quick and Marty indicated an unwillingness to consider such an amendment to
the motion on the floor.
Mayor Coughlin stated he can fully appreciate the issues presented by Mr. Cunningham relating
to the request to waive the park dedication fee. However, there are other projects coming before
the Council and recently considered by the Council that have had to pay these park dedication
fees. Rather than opening “Pandora’s Box” he stated a reluctance to change the direction and
established policy of the City for park dedication fees.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Introduce First Reading of
Ordinance 665, an Ordinance Rezoning Properties Associated with the Walgreens Development
from B-3 and PF to PUD.
Mayor Coughlin asked if a roll call vote is in order.
Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 11
Assistant City Attorney Vose stated it is since a 4/5ths vote is required for adoption.
In response to Council Member Quick’s request, Planning Associate Ericson named the many
types of uses and businesses that are allowed in a B-3 zoning district.
Council Member Quick asked if using a PUD process would scope down the uses to this specific
use. Planning Associate Ericson stated that is correct.
Council Member Stigney noted the Charter requires a 3/5ths vote and asked if a 4/5ths vote is per
Code. Mayor Coughlin stated that a 4/5 vote is required based on State Statutes.
Assistant City Attorney Vose stated legal effectiveness is rendered at second reading but it would
not hurt to conduct a roll call vote at first reading as well.
Mayor Coughlin stated he will use his prerogative to request a roll call vote to be called.
ROLL CALL: Thomason, Stigney, Marty, Quick, Coughlin.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Mayor Coughlin stated for the record that this first reading was approved by the unanimous vote
of the Council.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Introduce First Reading of
Ordinance 666, an Ordinance Vacating the Old Edgewood Drive Right of Way Included within
the Proposed Walgreens PUD,
Mayor Coughlin requested a roll call vote to be called.
ROLL CALL: Quick, Stigney, Marty, Thomason, Coughlin.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Mayor Coughlin stated for the record that this first reading was approved by the unanimous vote
of the Council.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Introduce First Reading of
Ordinance 669, an Ordinance Authorizing Disposing by Sale of City-Owned Real Property.
Mayor Coughlin requested a roll call vote to be called.
ROLL CALL: Marty, Thomason, Quick, Stigney, Coughlin
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 12
Mayor Coughlin stated for the record that this first reading was approved by the unanimous vote
of the Council.
B. Public Hearing and First Reading (Introduction) of Ordinance 663, an
Ordinance Creating Language to Administer and Regulate Tattoo and Body
Piercing Establishments within the City of Mounds View.
Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 8:10 p.m.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the Mounds View Municipal Code does not at this time
address tattoo or body piercing establishments. He stated that Ordinance 653, which was
adopted on February 14, 2000 to prohibit any tattoo shops or body piercing establishments to be
located in the City for a period of six months, has been superseded by Ordinance 667, adopted
August 7, 2000, which extends the moratorium on such uses an additional three months. With
the adoption of Ordinance 667, such uses cannot locate in Mounds View until November 14,
2000, or until the effective date of this proposed Ordinance 663, whichever occurs first.
He explained that the Council raised some questions at the work session on August 7, 2000,
regarding the licensing provisions, training and certification of the specialists. Because of other
development cases being processed, staff has not had sufficient opportunity to explore these
issues yet is confident that such information will be made available prior to second reading and
adoption. If these questions are not fully addressed to the Council’s satisfaction, second reading
can be put on hold until such time that those questions are addressed.
The Planning Commission has recommended adoption of Ordinance 663 as indicated in Planning
Commission Resolution 629-00, approved at their meeting on July 19, 2000. Staff recommends
the Council hold the public hearing (and continue it to August 28) and consider the first reading
(introduction) of Ordinance 663.
There was no public input.
Mayor Coughlin stated the Public Hearing would be continued to the August 28, 2000 meeting.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Approve First Reading of
Ordinance 663, an Ordinance Creating Language to Administer and Regulate Tattoo and Body
Piercing Establishment within the City of Mounds View.
Upon inquiry, Assistant City Attorney Vose advised there is no legal prohibition to consider first
reading while the public hearing is continued.
Council Member Stigney stated at the work session he had asked about including language to
require training, certification, or accreditation prior to opening such a business. He noted staff
will continue research on that issue and the language would be included prior to consideration of
second reading.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 13
C. Public Hearing, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5455 Approving
Economic Development Project and Tax Increment Financing Amendments.
Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 8:14 p.m.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish explained that as indicated at the Council work
session, modification of the Mounds View Economic Development Project and Tax Increment
Financing Plans establishes the necessary framework to provide tax increment financing
assistance for the Mermaid’s proposed hotel and banquet center expansion. He stated that the
anticipated level of assistance being negotiated with the developer is 90% of the available
increment over a period of 10.5 years or duration of the TIF district not to exceed $2 million to
$2.5 million. He stated that issue will be considered at a future meeting.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish noted the letter outlining the “but for” requirements
of the legislation and need to articulate those findings. He stated those findings will be
quantified and articulated in terms of sources and uses of funds compared to anticipated levels of
income to define the rate of return at an upcoming meeting. He stated staff is in the process of
negotiating this agreement and requested input on the possibility of scheduling a work session
during the third week of September to consider this and the Mermaid development plans in
conjunction with their PUD application so the developer could place footings prior to frost
conditions.
There was no other public input.
Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 8:18 p.m.
Dan Hall, representing the Mermaid, stated his family has had this property for 27 years and this
idea for a banquet center started with him and his father about five years ago. He reviewed how
this concept developed and their decision to approach City staff about the availability of
assistance to put this type of project together to help with property acquisition and demolition.
Mr. Hall stated there has been a lot of progress and cooperation realized with the City Council
and City Staff. He stated they have incurred obstacles including the finding that the soils will not
support the type of facility they would like to build. He reported that the location of the bowling
alley and banquet center is where Rice Creek used to be and the soils do not support the
buildings. Mr. Hall noted the estimated costs for different construction concepts to address the
poor soil conditions and stated they hope to be able to do a soil correction, noting these costs do
not include technical or engineering work. He explained the cost of this project is skyrocketing
due to increased land costs, construction costs, soil corrections, and without TIF, this project will
not move forward. Mr. Hall commented on this family’s financial commitment into this project
already and stated it is important for them to proceed with the project. He stated the AmericInn
franchise and hotel management is preparing comprehensive informational packages.
Council Member Stigney asked about future projections and guarantees for the City should there
be a bankruptcy.
Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 14
Mayor Coughlin noted this is a pay-as-you go TIF consideration.
Bob Hajec, attorney for Mr. Hall, stated this is a pay-as-you go project and secured through real
estate taxes so the City is very secure in knowing that what ever is negotiated, the City will get it
regardless of bankruptcy.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish stated if the taxes are not paid, it will go to tax
forfeiture and when liquidated, the proceeds to back to the taxing jurisdiction.
Mayor Coughlin stated that John G. Kinnard would not be involved in this project unless it was a
viable business for the foreseeable future.
Council Member Marty asked if all of the land parcels have been secured. Mr. Hall stated they
have.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5455, a
Resolution Approving Economic Development Project and Tax Increment Financing
Amendments.
Council Member Stigney noted next to Music Off Ten it is a dual business. Mr. Hall stated this
is one building with separate walls and they will take the entire building.
Council Member Stigney asked about the amendments brought forth on the TIF agreement and
asked for an explanation as to why the changes were being made and if it was city-wide or
specific for the Mermaid.
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish explained that the changes being recommended are
specific to the Mermaid since it is a pay-as-you go project and any expenditures associated to the
project need to be reflected. The amendment adds those expenditures to the TIF budget. He
reviewed the history of the City’s amendments to the TIF policy to combine districts and need to
define the Mermaid project.
Council Member Stigney noted language indicating it refers to the project. Economic
Development Coordinator Parrish explained it refers to the area where expenditures can be made
which is the boundaries of the City. He stated the added additional expenditures are anticipated
to be project and site specific. As the TIF district is set up, they are fully poolable and one in the
same for reporting purposes.
Council Member Stigney noted Page 6 indicating the estimated cost of the redevelopment project
is $1.5 million but $2.5 million was mentioned. Economic Development Coordinator Parrish
explained this allows the City to be more flexibility in dealing with offices of the State Auditor
which states TIF funds must be spent in accordance with the TIF budget so this would provide
the City with maximum flexibility should the end documentation for the project indicate $1.8
million. With the recommended language, a TIF amendment to the district is not needed. He
explained the budget does not necessarily reflect the amount of assistance to be provided.
Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 15
Economic Development Coordinator Parrish noted the actual numbers of assistance to this
project are articulated in the development agreement.
Council Member Stigney asked if bonding is anticipated on a pay-as-you-go project. Economic
Development Coordinator Parrish explained with a pay-as-you-go project a limited revenue
obligation, called a TIF Note, is issued which is considered a limited revenue obligation of the
City.
Council Member Quick asked if this is typical of all future projects. Economic Development
Coordinator Parrish stated nothing different will be done with this project than done with past
projects.
Council Member Quick moved the question.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Vote on the motion to Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5455:
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
D. Public Hearing, Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5461, a
Resolution Approving the General Concept Plan of the Proposed Mermaid
Planned Unit Development.
Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 8:38 p.m.
Planning Associate Ericson explained that Dan Hall, representing the Mermaid, is requesting
City approval of a PUD general concept plan to construct a 97-room hotel and a 500-seat banquet
center to be attached to and integrated with the existing complex. The general concept plan is the
first stage of a PUD process. This matter was discussed at the August 7, 2000 work session and
revised plans have been submitted to indicate a five foot setback, which had been proposed at a
one foot setback and was a concern of the Planning Commission. He explained the entrance will
be relocated farther north and a water park would be added in conjunction with the hotels.
Planning Associate Ericson stated a resolution was drafted to approve of the general concept plan
and directs the developers to return with landscaping, detailed site plans, drainage, signage,
footprints, dimensions, setbacks, parking lot arrangements, final grading, and utility plans. He
noted the stipulation included in the resolution that the plans be revised to indicate a minimum
five foot parking lot setback along Highway 10 and County Road H, which has been done.
Planning Associate Ericson displayed a revised colored site plan, noting the Rexall site has been
removed and the Perkins Restaurant will be removed from the site. He reported on the
possibility of erecting a “Welcome to Mounds View” monument sign.
There was no public input.
Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 16
Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 8:43 p.m.
Council Member Quick noted that Perkins Restaurant had decided to vacate the property on their
own. Mr. Hall stated that is correct and Perkins chose not to resign their lease and approached
him to sell the property.
Council Member Stigney asked if Perkins Restaurant plans to relocate in Mounds View. Mr.
Hall explained this was a corporate-owned store.
Bob Hajec, attorney representing Mr. Hall, stated Perkins Restaurant had the right to extend their
lease another five years and chose not to renew that option.
Mayor Coughlin asked about monument signage at the corner and previous mention that it would
be included in the Mermaid development He asked if that is still being considered. Mr. Hall
stated the monument placement area is “in the works” but he is unsure about the construction of
a monument sign.
Mayor Coughlin stated concerns have been raised regarding how the statuette will be altered to
meet modern sensibilities. Mr. Hall stated there are no iron-clad plans presently but, at the least,
it will be removed and redesigned with clamshells, a more modern and conservative look with a
softer image. He stated his management staff supports retaining the mermaid in some motif
since it has been part of this property since the 1960s. Mr. Hall indicated a willingness to
consider public input as well. He noted that AmericInn will not want to be associated with
anything that does not reflect a good image and assured the Council they want a prosperous
business at the Mermaid as well.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5461, a
Resolution Approving the General Concept Plan of the Proposed Mermaid Planned Unit
Development.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
E. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 658, an Ordinance Amending
Chapter 1103 of the Zoning Code Pertaining to Fences and Fence Heights.
Planning Associate Ericson stated the City Council held a public hearing and approved the first
reading of this ordinance on July 24, 2000. He explained that the changes contemplated by
Ordinance 658 are minimal, however, the consequence is such that the Council may require or
allow a fence up to eight feet tall in a front yard to satisfy buffer, screening, or privacy issues.
He advised that Ordinance 658 adds the following language to Section 1103.08, Subdivision 3:
‘‘The City Council may require or approve fencing up to ninety -six inches
(96") in height in a front yard to satisfy a buffer or screening condition of a
development review or conditional use permit.’’
Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 17
Staff and the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the second
reading and adoption of Ordinance 658.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Waive the Reading, Approve the Second Reading,
and Adopt Ordinance 658, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1103 of the Zoning Code Pertaining
to Fences and Fence Heights.
Council Member Marty asked if this means only the Council can made the decision. Planning
Associate Ericson answered affirmatively.
ROLL CALL: Thomason, Stigney, Quick, Marty, Coughlin.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Mayor Coughlin stated for the record that this ordinance was adopted by the unanimous vote of
the Council.
F. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 664, an Ordinance Amending
Chapter 1106 of the Zoning Code Pertaining to Accessory Buildings.
Planning Associate Ericson explained that Ordinance 664 was drafted in response to the large
number of Conditional Use Permits (CUP) being reviewed and granted for oversized sheds and
garages (accessory structures). The Council direc ted staff to work with the Planning
Commission to arrive at a Code revision that would be more flexible and permissive for the
residents, as long as certain predetermined conditions were met. The Planning Commission
initiated discussion on this issue on June 7, 2000, and at each meeting subsequent from that point
through July 19, the Planning Commission developed and refined the language that is now
represented by Ordinance 664. On July 19, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Resolution
624-00, which recommends to the City Council adoption of this ordinance. Planning Associate
Ericson explained the square footages that would be allowed under the new ordinance with and
without the need for a CUP.
Planning Associate Ericson noted the City Council approved the first reading of this ordinance
on July 24, 2000. At that meeting, staff indicated that a specific Fire Code reference would need
to be footnoted because of the reduced setback requirement. Staff consulted with the City’s
Building Official, who noted that in a residential district, a three-foot separation is allowed
without having to meet more stringent Fire Code construction requirements. Staff and the
Planning Commission recommend approval of the second reading and adoption of Ordinance
664.
Council Member Quick asked about the requirement for driveways. Planning Associate Ericson
explained that a driveway would be required if the garage or structure is to be used frequently.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Stigney. To Waive the Reading, Approve the Second Reading,
and Adopt Ordinance 664, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 of the Zoning Code Pertaining
to Accessory Buildings.
Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 18
ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomason.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Mayor Coughlin stated for the record that this ordinance was adopted by the unanimous vote of
the Council.
G. Consideration of Resolution 5457 Ratifying the Appointment of Election
Judges for the 2000 Primary and General Elections.
Assistant to the City Administrator Reed explained that State law requires that election judges
for Primary and General Elections be appointed by the municipal governing body. Resolution
5457 contains a preliminary list of election judges and with the Council’s permission, the list will
be expanded if and when necessary. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed recommended the
Council approve the appointment of election judges for the 2000 Primary and General Elections.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5457,
a Resolution Ratifying the Appointment of Election Judges for the 2000 Primary and General
Elections and to allow staff the ability to add names as available.
Council Member Stigney asked if a policy is in place to balance the Republican and Democrat
judges. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed explained State Law indicates you cannot have
more than one-half of the election judges on one shift of the same party.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
H. Approval of Springsted Phase 2 of Highway 10 Action Plan Development
Work Plan.
Dave Wettergren, Springsted, Inc., presented a proposed work plan for the Highway 10 Action
Plan. He noted the report that was presented at the last Council work session, as produced by a
task force, and the recommendation to proceed with the development of an action plan. The
report identified a number of capital and administrative items, many with associated costs. He
explained that Springsted is now presenting a proposed Phase 2 work plan that would engage the
City and Springsted whereby Springsted would assist the City in the work plan. The primary
objectives would be to assist the City to develop cost estimates and identify funding sources for
each administrative and capital item identified in the steering report. Springsted would also
assist the City in the prioritization of action items and the creation of implementation schedules
of items eventually included in the Highway 10 Plan.
Mr. Wettergren reviewed the highlighted action items to identify which issues would receive
further study, to attach cost estimates to the identified action items, and to develop a tentative
financing plan for consideration by the City. When project cost and funding alternatives are
identified, they will prioritize action items to be considered for plan implementation. He noted
this proposal contains several checks and balances to identify actions, then to determine cost
estimates and funding sources, with another Council opportunity to again address
Mounds View City Council August 14, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 19
implementation. Once the implementation plan is created, tasks would be identified along with
associated costs and timelines.
Mr. Wettergren stated they would present basic debt schedules and tax impact analysis. He
recommended a staff member be identified to work with Springsted who can advise them what
concerns or issues need to be brought back to the Council. He stated there is a possibility that the
Council could be expected to incur some costs to determine the cost estimates and they would be
sensitive to assure proper Council authorization. Mr. Wettergren estimated it would take six to
eight weeks to identify tasks and cost estimates.
Council Member Marty asked if the cost estimate of $9,075 is relatively firm. Mr. Wettergren
stated it was bid at a not-to-exceed with hourly billing.
Mayor Coughlin noted to exceed that amount, additional Council authorization would be
required.
Council Member Quick left the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To approve the Highway 10 Study Phase 2 Work Plan
and authorize the expenditure of up to $9,075 to Springsted to complete the study and to
designate Community Development Director Jopke as the staff person to work with Springsted.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Absent - 1 (Quick) Motion carried.
Mr. Wettergren reported that Bob Thistle will be working on this project on behalf of Springsted.
I. Consideration of Scheduling a Special Work Session.
Mayor Coughlin noted the request of staff to set a special work session on September 18, 2000.
Council consensus was reached to authorize staff to post a special work session for September
18, 2000, if deemed to be needed.
Council Member Quick returned to the meeting at 9:06 p.m.
11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, August 21, 2000 – 6:00 P.M.
Next Council Meeting: Monday, August 28, 2000 – 7:00 P.M.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Coughlin adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m.
Transcribed and recorded by:
Carla Wirth
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
July 10, 2000
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
7:05 P.M.
______________________________________________________________________________
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Marty, Quick, Stigney, and Thomason
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. Monday, July 10, 2000, City Council Agenda
Mayor Coughlin asked if anyone would like to add items to the agenda.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Accept the July 10, 2000, City Council Agenda as
presented.
Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Monday, June 12, 2000, City Council Minutes
Mayor Coughlin noted Council Member Stigney had distributed his suggested change to the
minutes.
Council Member Marty stated he would like to make three minor changes to the minutes,
however, he did not have them at this time but would provide that information to staff.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To accept the June 12, 2000 City Council minutes as
corrected by Council Member Stigney and Council Member Marty.
Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Abstain – 1 (Thomason) Motion carried.
Council Member Thomason abstained due to her absence.
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 2
5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mayor Coughlin encouraged residents who would like to discuss Highway 10 safety issues to
attend a meeting of the Highway 10 Steering Committee tomorrow night, July 11th at 7:00 p.m.
in the Council Chambers. The Committee will be presenting conclusions from their discussions,
with the main focus of the meeting being to obtain public input. He stated a variety of things
have happened on Highway 10 over a number of years, and in the last year there have been two
pedestrian fatalities. Mayor Coughlin requested anyone with input to attend the meeting, contact
Community Development Director Jopke, or comment via the Internet. All e-mail addresses are
listed on the Mounds View website. He stated this would be a key meeting in deciding the future
of how Mounds View will look as it pertains to Highway 10.
6. REPORTS
Council Member Marty reported the Festival in the Park celebration was successful. The golf
tournament at The Bridges was a rousing success, there were 190 golfers that participated, and a
good time was had by all. He stated he would especially like to thank Williams Energy, as their
sponsorship made this feasible. He also thanked all of the other sponsors, as there were a
number that contributed quite a bit in products. He thanked the volunteers, and explained as they
did not have very many of them it ended up being a long day. He and his wife co-chaired the
event, however, she performed about 95% of what needed to be done. Council Member Marty
stated they were there from approximately 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., however, the event turned out very
well. He stated they would like to get more volunteers for next year to allow shorter shifts. He
also thanked the golf course and staff for their expertise in running a tournament. He said they
did end up in the “black,” although not by a substantial amount, and the proceeds will be going
to the kids in the community who cannot afford to participate in athletic events. Council
Member Marty explained a lot of the major expense was to get things such as signs at the golf
course, which they will not have to spend money on next year. He thanked everyone for
participating and said he hoped to see them again next year.
Council Member Stigney reported the Planning Commission met on July 5, 2000, and the Local
Water Management Plan update was presented and discussed. He advised that loose ends will be
completed and it will be brought back for a final consideration by the Planning Commission at
their next meeting. Council Member Stigney stated there was a lot of discussion regarding the
proposed PUD for Walgreens. A new member of the Planning Commission, Ms. Thomas,
mentioned the value of an exchange versus selling the land, and this will likely reappear before
the Council. He reported there was discussion of the first draft of Ordinance 664, which is on the
Consent Agenda for a public hearing. This ordinance pertains to permits for accessory buildings.
Comments were also made concerning the concept plan for the Mermaid, which will be before
the Planning Commission next week.
Mayor Coughlin reported he received several telephone calls of appreciation for the fireworks
display. He said he also received a couple of calls from people that liked the parade and how it
was coordinated. Mayor Coughlin noted the attendance of Sherry Gunn, the 2001 president for
the Festival Committee. He reported there were a lot of people at the car show and there seemed
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 3
to be people in great numbers attending the Festival. He extended his personal thank you to the
Executive Committee, along with all the people who participated behind the scenes to make the
Festival a success. He commented the Committee would be meeting very soon to plan for the
next Festival and, hopefully, they will continue to strive to this kind of excellence.
No further reports were considered.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Just and Correct Claims.
B. Licenses for Approval.
C. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., Monday July 24, 2000, to Consider the
First Reading of Proposed Ordinance 658, an Ordinance Amending Chapter
1103 of the Zoning Code Pertaining to Fences and Fence Heights.
D. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 p.m., Monday July 24, 2000, to Consider the
First Reading of a Proposed Ordinance 664, an Ordinance Amending
Chapter 1106 of the Zoning Code Pertaining to Accessory Buildings.
Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to remove Items for discussion.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve the Consent Agenda for Items A, B, C, and
D, as presented.
Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
8. UNIFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR
Julian Sprunck, 2649 Louisa, stated he would like to speak regarding an item not yet on the
agenda. He stated it is his understanding that Mr. Harstad of Harstad Properties has once again
instituted a lawsuit against the City of Mounds View, seeking permission to develop his
properties which start at Sunnyside Road and move east to Long Lake Road and south to Ridge
Lane. Part of that area is wooded, part is a wetland, and the wetland is the issue he would like to
address. Mr. Sprunck stated his home directly abuts this property immediately to the south. He
explained his home is the second house east of Sunnyside Road and his major concern comes
with the possibility of flooding that area.
Mr. Sprunck stated in 1998, when Mr. Harstad first proposed his comprehensive plan, he got
involved and invited then current mayor Barb Haake and the inspector from the Rice Creek
Watershed District, Tony Gruff(sp?), to view his property. His property is purposely
undeveloped, as when they bought the property in 1977 they chose not to develop the property.
They liked the wildlife and the area, and knew the poplar trees would be short lived and would
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 4
die off eventually. He said Mr. Gruff viewed a depression in his back yard that runs diagonally
from northwest to southeast that was created by an original tributary creek, which feeds into Rice
Creek. When he informed Mr. Gruff that the comprehensive plan called for the development of
townhouses immediately adjacent to his property, Mr. Gruff surveyed his property and asked if
he ever had any flooding. Mr. Sprunck said he responded that he had not and he did not own a
sump pump, as they have never had a problem since 1977. He explained there was an occasion
where they had a little lake, he has a picture of his kids floating on an innertube in that
depression. He stated Mr. Gruff said if they build townhouses in that area they will have to raise
the ground elevation by six inches, which will cause flooding to his home and every one of his
neighbors on Louisa.
Mr. Sprunck stated it is his understanding that Mr. Harstad again wants permission to develop
the property. There is no need to go into legal issues, however, he is aware there is a zoning
proposal. He noted the property is now zoned R-1 and there is nothing he nor residents of
Mounds View can do if Mr. Harstad chooses to develop single family homes. He stated his
problem comes with the possibility of a rezoning the property to R-3 to allow Mr. Harstad to
build townhouses, which in turn creates more pavement, concrete, and flooding. He stated he is
unalterably opposed to the development of that land, particularly into townhouses. He stated he
also has pictures from1998 taken two days after a major rainfall and showing the standing water
in that area.
Mayor Coughlin stated he did tour the area with Mr. Sprunck, and although due to potential
litigation that faces the City he cannot go into the detail of where the City and developer are at,
he will say that from his observation of two years ago he would concur with Mr. Sprunck's
statements.
Sherry Gunn, 8120 Red Oak Court, stated she would like to thank everyone for turning out for
the Festival. She thanked the Executive Committee, parade commentators, parade organizers,
Fire Department, Tri-City Legion, Bridges Golf Course, Police Department, Public Works
Department, parade participants, Irondale Marching Knights, and the many volunteers for their
help putting the festival together. She also extended a special thank you to Sherry Linke, and
noted this was her last festival, as she is stepping down as president of the Executive Committee.
She said Ms. Linke has done a wonderful job. She requested any suggestions, as she will be
taking on the role of president of the committee, and they would be starting meetings within the
next month for next year's festival.
Mr. Sprunck reported another young person in the community died, Sabrina Lindberg, 5236 Red
Oak Drive. She was an adopted Korean who was scheduled to be a junior this coming year at the
University of Minnesota, and was studying in Chili. He explained that while Sabrina was
jogging on June 11th she suffered a heart attack. She suffered another heart attack yesterday
morning and died. He said he and his wife knew the Lindberg family because they cared for his
children, one of whom is also an adopted Korean. He said the funeral would be at St. Timothy's
Catholic Church on Thursday morning of this week.
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 5
Mayor Coughlin said their thoughts and prayers are with the Lindberg family at this time. He
added any other information on the funeral will be with the front desk secretary at City Hall.
There were no further requests or comments from the floor.
10. COUNCIL BUSINESS
Council Member Marty requested the following items to be added to next month's work session
agenda:
1) Consideration of water and sewer billing by usage.
2) Consideration of possible surcharge for water lines from City lines in the street to residents'
homes.
Council Member Marty explained the City is not responsible for anything from the City's lines to
the homes, and this could be a considerable expense to a homeowner.
The Council agreed.
Mayor Coughlin noted there has been an increase in criminal activity in New Brighton, including
a car jacking. He reported he has asked the Police Chief to give the Council an update as to the
activity there, how it may pertain to the City of Mounds View, and how they can work together
to make the City more safe for everyone.
A. Public Hearing to Consider Ordinance 660, Implementing Franchise Fee on
Reliant Energy Minnegasco Natural Gas Operations within the City of
Mounds View
Mayor Coughlin opened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m.
Mayor Coughlin advised Minnegasco provides natural gas for two properties in the City of
Mounds View, and previously had not fallen under the franchise agreement as is NSP. He
explained that Ordinance 660 would charge fees to Minnegasco on services provided to those
two properties back to January 1, 2000.
City Attorney Riggs noted this was discussed at the June 12, 2000 meeting, and there is a brief
summary in the minutes.
Mayor Coughlin closed the public hearing at 7:32 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Adopt Ordinance 660,
an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Reliant Energy Minnegasco Natural Gas
Operations within the City of Mounds View.
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 6
Council Member Stigney asked if the Charter requires reading of the ordinance. Mayor
Coughlin noted there will be a roll call vote of the Council.
Council Member Marty inquired if the date would need to be inserted in subdivision 2. City
Attorney Riggs advised based on the Council’s past discussion, the date should be January 1,
2000.
ROLL CALL: Quick, Marty, Coughlin, Stigney, Thomason
Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.
B. Consideration to Hire Full Time Maintenance / Custodial Position
Acting City Manager Ulrich advised Staff advertised for and received seven applications for this
position, and interviews were conducted with all of the applicants. Staff found John Hughes as
being the most qualified for the position and recommends he be offered the position. This would
be at the outlined salary scale with the following additional conditions:
After one year the step increases would be on a 5% basis.
The successful applicant would start out at 85% of step one, which is $12.50/hour, and based
on satisfactory performance receive a 5% increase, as is normal, through a probationary
period.
The position would become part of the Public Works Unit with its own job description and
scale.
Mr. Hughes would be subject to a pre-employment physical and drug test.
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve as recommended by Staff.
Council Member Stigney stated he does not believe this should be a full time position as he has
stated previously.
Mayor Coughlin stated if they are going to build a $6.5 million dollar building, it will be
necessary to make sure it is kept up. He suggested the Council would be remiss in not having
someone take care of it on this basis.
Ayes - 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
Mayor Coughlin requested Acting City Manager Ulrich to contact Mr. Hughes and inform him
of the Council's decision.
11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, July 17, 2000 – 6:00 P.M.
Next Council Meeting: Monday, July 24, 2000 – 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Coughlin reiterated his earlier request for interested residents to attend the Highway 10
Steering Committee meeting tomorrow, July 11th, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers.
Mounds View City Council July 10, 2000
Regular Meeting Page 7
12. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Coughlin adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m.
Transcribed and recorded by:
Carol Hamer
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
Item No. 07B
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: August 28, 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.
HVAC
Kraemer Heating – New
Northern Heating & Air Conditioning – New
Plymouth Plumbing – New
TREE TRIMMING/REMOVAL
Drobnick’s Tree Service – New
Bill Marty Tree Trimming – New
Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested.
Resolution No. 5465
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
County of Ramsey
State of Minnesota
A resolution setting forth a tentative timetable for preparing and adopting the 2001 budget and
long term financial plan.
WHEREAS, the City=s Charter and Code, as well as State Statutes set forth various requirements
for considering and adopting the City=s budget; and
WHEREAS, Section 7.04 of the City Charter requires the City Clerk-Administrator to submit to
the Council a budget calendar to be established by resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Mounds View, Minnesota
that the following budget and long term financial plan calendar is hereby adopted:
August 21 - Sept 11 Council review of budget and LTFP:
August 21st work session
August 28th - 6:00 to 7:00 p.m.
September 5th work session
September 11th work session
September 11 Council adopts preliminary budget and maximum levy.
Sept 12 - Oct 16 Additional Council meetings as needed.
November 4 City distributes budget newsletter.
November 13 Council holds informational meeting on the 2001 budget & LTFP.
December 4 Truth in taxation hearing
December 11 Adoption of 2001 budget, tax levy and 2000 LTFP
Adopted this 28th day of August 2000.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk-Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No. 10A
Type of Business: CB
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Givonna Reed
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Approval of Business Licenses
for 2000-2001
Date of Report: August 28, 2000
At the June 26, 2000 and July 24, 2000 City Council Meetings I requested
approval for a number of business license applications for 2000-2001. As of the
July 24, 2000 meeting there were several businesses that had not submitted
application materials: Blimpies Subs & Salads, Hardee’s, KFC, Perkins
Restaurant and Bakery, and Subway.
Upon direction from the Council and with advice from the City Attorney’s office, I
mailed copies of the attached letter to the above-listed businesses by certified
mail. I have received completed applications from all businesses except KFC. I
spoke with Lisa Howard of the Business Licensing Division of KFC the week of
August 24th and advised her that the City would issue a citation if KFC’s
application materials were not submitted by August 11, 2000. I have not
received the requested application materials and, consequently, I have asked the
Police Department to proceed with issuing a citation to KFC for operating without
a business license.
The Utility, Police and Health reports indicate that there are no violations that
would prohibit the renewal of business licenses for Blimpies Subs & Salads,
Hardee’s, Perkins Family Restaurant and Subway.
Recommendation: Approve business license applications for Blimpies Subs &
Salads, Hardee’s, Perkins Family Restaurant and Subway.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________
Givonna Reed
Assistant to the City Administrator
July 27, 2000
«Contact_Name», «TitlePosition»
«Company_Name»
«Address_1»
«City_1» «State_1» «Zip_1»
RE: «License»
«Local__Company»
«Local_Address»
«City» «State» «Zip»
Dear «Contact_Name»:
Please accept this letter as a third reminder that the above referenced business
license held in the City of Mounds View expired June 30, 2000. You are
currently in violation of the Mounds View Municipal Code and subject to criminal
and/or civil prosecution by the City of Mounds View.
A third and final deadline of August 11, 2000 is being extended in hopes that you
will address this matter immediately and submit the required renewal application
materials to the City. If the City does not receive your completed application by
4:30pm, Friday August 11, 2000, the City will proceed to issue a citation for
violation of the Mounds View Municipal Code.
Please submit the appropriate renewal application, tax clearance form, worker’s
compensation information and fee («Fee») by Friday, August 11, 2000.
Sincerely,
Givonna Reed
Assistant to the City Administrator
Item No: 10 B
Meeting Date: August 28, 2000
Type of Business: PH & CB
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: James Ericson, Planner
Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Second Reading (Adoption) of
Ordinance 663, an Ordinance Creating Licensing
and Siting Requirements to Administer and
Regulate Tattoo and Body Piercing Establishments.
Date of Report: August 21, 2000
Discussion:
The City Council approved the first reading of Ordinance 663 at its meeting on August 14,
2000.
After making numerous inquiries, staff learned that neither the County nor State licenses
or certifies these types of businesses. In addition, Staff has researched this issue and
found that there are no standardized training programs available to tattoo artists or
piercing specialists; experience is gained only through apprenticeships in and with
established, reputable businesses and professionals. To reflect this, the ordinance has
been revised to require a minimum four years of actual experience or two years of
apprenticeship and two years of actual experience.
Recommendation:
Continue the public hearing and consider the second reading and adoption of Ordinance
663.
______________________
James Ericson, Planner
Attachment:
1. Ordinance 663
I:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\SP075-00\CC Report - Aug 28, 2000.doc
ORDINANCE NO. 663
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE TO ENACT A NEW CHAPTER OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CODE
OF ORDINANCES TO ADMINISTER AND REGULATE TATTOO, BODY PIERCING,
BODY BRANDING, BODY SCARRING AND BODY PAINTING ESTABLISHMENTS
AND TO REVISE TITLE 1100 (THE ZONING CODE) PERTAINING TO SUCH USES
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Title 500 of the Mounds View Municipal code shall be amended by the creation of a new
Chapter 515 as follows:
Chapter 515
Tattoo, Body Piercing, Body Branding, Body Scarring And Body Painting
Establishments
SECTION:
515.01. Findings, Purpose and Intent
515.02. Definitions
515.03. License Required
515.04. General Rule
515.05. License Application
515.06. Application and Investigation Fees
515.07. Application Verification and Consideration
515.08. Persons Ineligible for a License
515.09. Locations Ineligible for a Tattoo and Body Piercing Enterprise License
515.10. General License Requirements
515.11. Health and Sanitation Requirements
515.12. License Terms, Renewals
515.13. Suspension; Revocation
515.14. Temporary Tattooing, Body Piercing, Body Branding, Body Scarring Or Body
Painting Event License.
515.01: FINDINGS, PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of this section is to
regulate the business of tattooing, body piercing, body branding, body scarring or body painting
in order to protect the health and welfare of the general public. The City Council finds that the
experience of other cities indicates that there is a connection between tattooing and hepatitis and
other health problems. The City Council finds that stringent regulations governing tattooing can
minimize the hepatitis and disease risk and therefore protect the general health and welfare of the
community.
515.02: DEFINITIONS: The following definitions apply in this Chapter of this Code.
References hereafter to “sections” are, unless otherwise specified, references to sections in this
Chapter. Defined terms remain defined terms whether or not capitalized.
“Body piercing” means any method of puncturing the skin of a person by the aid of needles or
other instrument designed or used to puncture the skin for the purpose of inserting jewelry or
other objects in or through the human body. “Body piercing” shall not refer to any medical
procedure performed by a licensed physician or medical specialist.
“Body branding” means impressing or burning a mark or figure on the skin of a person with a
hot object or flame.
“Body painting” means applying color, pigment or paint to an area of the skin that exceeds three
square inches.
“Body scarification or scarring” means any method by which a scar is applied to or left upon a
body.
“Clean” means the absence of dirt, grease, rubbish, garbage, odor and other offensive, unsightly,
or extraneous matter.
“Good repair” means free of corrosion, breaks, cracks, chips, pitting, excessive wear and tear,
leaks, obstructions, and similar defects so as to constitute a good and sound condition.
“Enforcement officer” means the Chief of Police or designee.
“Operate” means to own, manage or conduct, or to have control, charge or custody over.
“Specialist” means that person performing the tattooing, piercing, branding or painting within a
licensed tattoo and body piercing enterprise.
“Tattoo and body piercing enterprise” means a place of business where all or some of the
following services are provided to the public for consideration: tattooing, body piercing, body
branding, body scarring or body painting.
“Tattooing” means the marking of the skin of a person by insertion of permanent colors by
introducing them through puncture of the skin.
515.03: LICENSE REQUIRED:
Subd. 1. Tattoo and Body Piercing Establishment License: It is unlawful to
operate, offer, engage in or carry on tattooing, body piercing, body scarring, body
branding or body painting without a tattoo and/or body piercing license.
Subd. 2. Tattoo and Body Piercing Specialist License: It is unlawful to practice, administer or
provide tattoo, body piercing, body scarring or body branding services in the City without a
tattoo and/or body piercing specialist license
515.04. GENERAL RULE: The owner or operator of a licensed tattoo and body piercing
establishment may employ only licensed tattoo and body piercing specialists to provide tattoo,
piercing, branding, scarring or painting services. The owner or operator of a licensed tattoo and body
piercing enterprise need not be licensed as a tattoo and body piercing specialist unless that owner or
operator personally provides tattoo, piercing, branding, scarring or body painting services.
515.05: LICENSE APPLICATION:
Subd. 1. Tattoo and Body Piercing Establishment License: The application for a tattoo and body
piercing establishment license must contain the following information:
a. For all applicants:
(1) Whether the applicant is an individual, corporation, partnership or other form of
organization;
(2) The legal description of the premises to be licensed together with a plan of the area
showing dimensions, location of buildings, street access and parking facilities;
(3) The floor number, street number and rooms where the tattoo, piercing, branding,
scarring or bady painting services are to be conducted;
(4) Whether all real estate and personal property taxes that are due and payable for the
premises to be licensed have been paid, and if not, the years and amounts that are unpaid;
(5) If the application is for a premises either planned or under construction or undergoing
substantial alteration, the application must be accompanied by preliminary plans showing the
design of the proposed premises; if the plans for design are on file with the building inspector, no
plans need be submitted;
(6) The name and street address of the business if it is to be conducted under a
designation, name or style other than the name of the applicant, and a certified copy of the
certificate required by Minnesota Statutes, section 333.02;
(7) Any other information that the City Council may require.
b. For applicants who are individuals:
(1) The name and date of birth and of the applicant and applicant's residence address;
(2) If the applicant has ever used or been known by a name other than the applicant's
name, and if so, the name or names and information concerning the dates and places where used;
(3) Residence addresses of the applicant during five (5) years preceding the date of
application;
(4) The type, name and location of every business or occupation the applicant has been
engaged in during the preceding five (5) years;
(5) Names and addresses of the applicant's employers for the preceding five (5) years;
(6) If the applicant has ever been convicted of a felony, crime or violation of an ordinance
other than a minor traffic offense; if so, the applicant must furnish information as to the time,
place and offense involved in the convictions;
(7) If the applicant has ever been engaged in the operation of tattoo, piercing, branding,
scarring or body painting services; if so, the applicant must furnish information as to the name,
place and length of time of the involvement in such activity.
c. For applicants that are partnerships:
(1) The names and addresses of general and limited partners and the information
concerning each general partner described in subdivision 1b of this Section;
(2) The managing partners must be designated, and the interest of each general and
limited partner in the business must be disclosed;
(3) A true copy of the partnership agreement must be submitted with the application, and
if the partnership is required to file a certificate as to a trade name under Minnesota Statutes,
section 333.02, a certified copy of that certificate must be submitted.
The license--if issued--will be in the name of the partnership.
d. For applicants that are corporations:
(1) The name of the organization, and if incorporated, the state of incorporation;
(2) A true copy of the certificate of incorporation, and, if a foreign corporation, a
certificate of authority as described in Minnesota Statutes, section 303.02;
(3) The name of the general manager, corporate officers, proprietor, and other person in
charge of the premises to be licensed, and the information about those persons described in
subdivision lb;
(4) A list of the persons who own or have a controlling interest in the corporation or
organization or who are officers of the corporation or organization, together with their addresses
and the information regarding such persons described in subdivision 1b of this Section.
Subd. 2. Tattoo and body piercing specialist license: The application for a tattoo and body piercing
specialist license must contain the following information:
a. The applicant's name and address;
b. The applicant's current employer;
c. The applicant's employers for the previous five (5) years, including employer's name, address
and dates of employment;
d. The applicant's residence address for the previous five (5) years;
e. The applicant's social security number, date of birth, home telephone number, weight, height,
color of eyes and color of hair;
f. If the applicant has ever been convicted of a felony, crime or violation of an ordinance other
than a minor traffic offense and, if so, the time, place and offense involved in the convictions;
g. If the applicant has ever used or been known by a name other than the applicant's name, and if
so, the name or names and information concerning dates and places where used;
h. Evidence that the applicant:
(1) Has current insurance coverage over one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) for
professional liability in the practice of tattooing, piercing, branding, scarring or body painting;
(2) Has a minimum four years of experience and training from a established professional
establishment;
(3) Is affiliated with, employed by or owns a tattoo and piercing enterprise licensed by the
City;
(4) Whether the applicant holds a current tattooing, body piercing, body branding, body
scarring or body painting license from any other governmental unit;
(5) Whether the applicant has previously been denied a tattooing, body piercing, body
branding, body scarring or body painting license from any other governmental unit.
(6) Any other information that the City Council may require.
515.06: APPLICATION AND INVESTIGATION FEES: The fees for tattoo and piercing
enterprise and specialist licenses are set forth from time to time by City Council resolution. An
investigation fee will be charged for tattoo and piercing enterprise licenses. An application for either
license must be accompanied by payment in full of the required license and investigation fees, if
applicable.
515.07: APPLICATION VERIFICATION AND CONSIDERATION:
Subd. 1. Tattoo and piercing enterprise license: The Clerk-Administrator must verify the information
supplied on the license application and investigate the background, including the criminal
background, of the applicant to assure compliance with this Section. Within ninety (90) days of
receipt of a complete application and fee for a tattoo and piercing enterprise license, the Clerk-
Administrator must make a written recommendation to the City Council as to issuance or non-
issuance of the license. The City Council may order additional investigation if it deems it
necessary, but must grant or deny the application within one hundred twenty (120) days of receipt
by the Clerk-Administrator of the complete application and required fees.
Subd. 2. Tattoo and piercing specialist license: Within ninety (90) days of receipt of a complete
application and fee for a tattoo and piercing specialist license, the Clerk-Administrator must grant
or deny the application. Notice will be sent to the applicant upon a denial informing the
applicant of the right to appeal to the City Council within twenty (20) days. If an appeal is
properly made, the matter will be placed on the next available City Council agenda.
515.08: PERSONS INELIGIBLE FOR LICENSE:
Subd. 1. Tattoo and Body Piercing Enterprise License: A tattoo and body piercing enterprise license
may not be issued to an individual who:
a. Is a minor at the time the application is filed;
b. Has been convicted of any crime directly related to the occupation licensed as prescribed by
Minnesota Statutes, section 364.03, subdivision 2, and who has not shown competent
evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness to perform the duties and
responsibilities of a licensee as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, section 364.03, subdivision
3;
c. Does not have the legal authority to be employed in the United States;
d. Is not of good moral character or repute;
e. Is not the real party in interest of the enterprise;
f. Has misrepresented or falsified information on the license application.
Subd. 2. Tattoo and Body Piercing Specialist License: A tattoo and body piercing specialist license
may not be issued to a person who does not meet the minimum training requirement or could not
qualify for a tattoo and body piercing enterprise license or who is not affiliated with or employed
by a person or entity holding a tattoo or body piercing enterprise license.
515.09: LOCATIONS INELIGIBLE FOR TATTOO AND BODY PIERCING
ENTERPRISE LICENSE:
Subd. 1. A tattoo and body piercing enterprise may not be licensed if the enterprise is located on
property on which taxes, assessments or other financial claims to the state, county, school district
or City are due and delinquent. In the event a suit has been commenced under Minnesota
Statutes, sections 278.01-278.13, questioning the amount or validity of taxes, the City Council
may on application waive strict compliance with this provision; no waiver may be granted,
however, for taxes or any portion thereof, which remain unpaid for a period exceeding one (1)
year after becoming due.
Subd. 2. Zoning Compliance: A tattoo and body piercing enterprise may not be licensed if the location
of such enterprise is not in conformance with Title 1100 of the Mounds View Municipal Code.
515.10: GENERAL LICENSE REQUIREMENTS:
Subd 1. General licensing requirements are as follows:
Tattoos on minors. No person shall tattoo, pierce, scar, brand or paint any person under the
age of 18 except in the presence of, and with the written permission of, the parent or legal guardian
of such minor.
Prohibition on license transfer. The license granted is for the person and the premises named
on the approved license application. No transfer of a license shall be permitted from place-to-place
or from person-to-person without first complying with the requirements of an original application,
except in the case in which an existing noncorporate licensee is incorporated and incorporation does
not affect the ownership, control, and interest of the existing licensed establishment.
Hours of operation. A licensee shall not be open for business for tattooing before 8:00 a.m.
nor after 10:00 p.m.
Licensed premises. The tattoo, body piercing, body branding, body scarring, body painting
enterprise license is only effective for the compact and contiguous space specified in the approved
license application. If the licensed premises is enlarged, altered, or extended, the licensee shall
inform the Clerk-Administer.
Adherance to Codes. The tattoo, body piercing, body scarring, body branding, body painting
enterprise shall comply with applicable Minnesota Statutes and all titles, chapters and sections of the
Mounds View City Code, including those expressly stated as follows: Chapter 513, Adult
Establishments; Section 514.11, Subd. 5, regarding prohibited massages; and Title 600, Public
Health and Safety.
Effect of license suspension or revocation. No person shall solicit business or offer to
perform tattooing, body piercing, body branding, body scarring or body painting services while under
license suspension or revocation by the City.
Maintenance of order. The licensee shall be responsible for the conduct of the business being
operated and shall at all times maintain conditions of order.
Employee lists. The licensee shall provide to the Clerk-Administrator a list of employees
who perform tattooing, body piercing, body branding body scarification or body painting at the
licensed establishment and shall verify that each employee has received a copy of Chapter 515.
Liability insurance. All licensees shall have at all times a valid certificate of insurance issued
by an insurance company licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota indicating that the
licensee is currently covered in the licensed business by a liability insurance policy. The minimum
limits of coverage for such insurance shall be:
(1) Each claim, at least $200,000;
(2) Each group of claims, at least $500,000.
Such insurance shall be kept in force during the term of the license and shall provide for notification
to the City prior to termination or cancellation. A certificate of insurance shall be filed with the City.
515.11: HEALTH AND SANITATION REQUIREMENTS:
Subd. 1. No person shall engage in the practice of tattooing, body piercing, body branding, body
scarring or body painting at any place in the City without complying with the following
regulations:
(a) Lavatory requirement. Every place where tattooing, body piercing, body branding, body
scarification or body painting is practiced shall be equipped with an adequate and
conveniently located toilet room and hand lavatory for the accommodation of employees and
patrons. The hand lavatory shall be supplied with hot and cold running water under pressure;
shall be maintained in good repair at all times; and shall be kept in a clean and sanitary
condition. Toilet fixtures and seats shall be of a sanitary open front design and readily
cleanable. Easily cleanable, covered receptacles shall be provided for waste materials. Every
lavatory facility shall be provided with an adequate supply of hand cleansing compound and
single-service sanitary towels or hand-drying devices.
(b) Skin infection. No person having any skin infection or other diseases of the skin shall be
tattooed, pierced, scarred, branded or painted.
(c) Sterilization and disposal of bio-hazardous materials. All needles and razor blades and
other equipment used for piercing, scarring, branding or puncturing shall be individually pre-
packaged, pre-sterilized and disposable. No such equipment shall be used on more than one
customer. All bio-hazardous waste shall be disposed of in accordance with law, and disposal
procedures shall be approved by the enforcement officer. Sterilizing solutions and methods
may be used for the purpose of sterilizing instruments other than needles and razor blades.
(d) Skin preparation procedures. The following procedures shall be used for skin
preparation:
(1) Operators shall wash their hands thoroughly with soap and water then dry them with
a clean towel before and after each tattooing, branding, scarring, piercing or painting.
Specialists with skin infections of the hand shall not perform any tattooing, body
piercing, body branding, body scarring or body painting services.
(2) Whenever it is necessary to shave the skin, pre-packaged, pre-sterilized, disposable,
razor blades shall be used.
(3) The skin area to be tattooed, scarred, pierced, branded or painted shall be thoroughly
cleaned with anti-bacterial germicidal soap, rinsed thoroughly with water, and
sterilized with an antiseptic solution. Only single-service towels and wipes shall be
used in the skin cleaning process.
(4) After tattooing, piercing, scarring or branding, a sterile dressing must be applied to
the tattooed, pierced or branded area.
(e) Operating furniture. All tables, chairs, furniture, or area on which a patron receives a
tattoo, any body piercing, body branding, body scarification or body painting shall be covered
by single-service disposable paper or clean linens, or in the alternative, the table, chair, or
furniture on which the patron receives a tattoo, body piercing, body scarring, body branding
or body painting shall be impervious to moisture and shall be properly sanitized after each
tattoo, body piercing, body branding, body scarring or body painting.
(f) Towels. Every specialist shall provide single-service towels or wipes for each customer
or person and such towels or wipes shall be stored and disposed of in an acceptable manner.
(g) Coverings: The specialist shall require that the person who is receiving the tattoo, piercing,
branding, scarring or painting will at all times have that person’s breasts, buttocks, anus and
genitals covered with a non-transparent covering. The specialist may lift the covering to
expose the person’s breasts, buttocks, anus or genitals to the limited extent necessary to
perform the tattooing, body piercing, body scarring, body painting or body branding requested.
The specialist shall ensure that no other person may view the exposed body part.
(h) Garments of specialist: The specialist performing tattoo, branding, piercing, scarring or
painting services shall be fully clothed so as to have the specialist’s breasts, buttocks, anus and
genitals covered with a non-transparent material or clothing. Every specialist shall wear clean
garments when engaged in the practice of tattooing, body piercing, body branding, body
scarring or body painting. If garments are contaminated with blood or body fluids, such
garment shall be removed, changed, and/or discarded or cleaned by dry cleaning methods.
(i) Pigments. Pigments used in tattooing shall be sterile and free from bacteria and noxious
agents and substances including mercury. The pigments used from stock solutions for each
customer shall be placed in a single-service receptacle, and such receptacle and remaining
solution shall be discarded after use on each customer.
Minimum floor space. There shall not be less than 250 square feet of floor space at the place
where the practice of tattooing, body piercing, body scarring, body branding or body painting
is conducted, and said place shall be well lit and ventilated.
(k) Influence of alcohol and drugs. No person shall practice tattooing, body piercing, body
branding, body scarring or body painting while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or
illicit drugs. No customer shall be tattooed, pierced, scarred, branded or painted while under
the influence of alcoholic beverages or illicit drugs.
(l) Written instructions. The operator shall provide the person tattooed, scarred, pierced,
painted or branded with printed instructions on the approved care of the skin during the
healing process.
(m) Living quarters. No place licensed as a tattoo, body piercing, body branding, body
scarring or body painting establishment shall be used or occupied as living or sleeping
quarters.
515.12: LICENSE TERMS, RENEWALS: Licenses expire annually on December 31. The
license fee will be prorated in thirty (30) day increments for licenses issued after June 30. The
Clerk-Administrator must prepare an application form for the renewal of a license requiring
information that the manager determines necessary for consideration of the renewal. The renewal
application must be made no later than November 30.
515.13: SUSPENSION; REVOCATION:
Subd 1. The City Council may revoke the license or suspend the license if the licensee submitted
false information or omitted material information in the license process required. The City
Council may by resolution suspend or revoke a license for the violation of any provision or
condition of this section or any other local law governing the same activity during the license
period or any criminal law during the license period which adversely affects the ability to
honestly, safely, or lawfully conduct a tattooing, body piercing, body scarring, body branding
or body painting business.
Subd. 2. A revocation or suspension shall be preceded by written notice to the licensee and a public
hearing before the City council. The notice shall give at least ten days notice of the time and
place of the hearing and shall state the nature of the charges against the licensee. The notice
shall be mailed to the licensee at the most recent address listed on the application.
515.14 TEMPORARY TATTOOING, BODY PIERCING, BODY BRANDING, BODY
SCARRING OR BODY PAINTING EVENT LICENSE.
Subd. 1. The Clerk-Administrator may issue a temporary tattoo, piercing, branding, scarring and body
painting event license as provided in this subsection.
Subd. 2. A temporary tattoo, piercing, branding, scarring and body painting specialist license may be
issued to a person who:
a. Is qualified to hold a tattoo and piercing specialist license under this Section;
b. Has completed the required application and paid the license fee at least seven (7) days prior
to the effective date of the license.
Subd. 3. A temporary license is effective for four (4) consecutive days. A person may not be issued
more than three (3) temporary licenses in any period of three hundred sixty (360) consecutive
days.
Subd. 4. All other provisions of this Section apply to temporary licenses.
515.15. EXEMPTIONS: Jewelry stores that provide ear piercing services to its customers as an
accessory service shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter so long as the service is incidental
to the sale of jewelry. For purposes of this ordinance, a jewelry store shall mean a retail business that
derives a majority of its revenue from the sale of jewelry and that derives less than one percent of its
revenues from ear piercing services.
515.16: VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES: Any person who violates any provision of
this Chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as provided
in Section 104.01 of this Code. (Ord. 663, 8-28-2000)
SECTION 2. Chapter 1113 of the Mounds View Municipal Code shall be revised to address
zoning and siting requirements of Tattoo, Body Piercing, Body Branding, Body Painting or Body
Scarring Establishments by the addition of the underlined language as follows:
1113.02: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a B-2 District:
Subd. 3. Tattoo, Body Piercing, Body Branding, Body Painting or Body Scarring
Establishments, provided that:
a. Any such establishment shall be separated by no less than 1,000 feet from any other
such establishment located within the City of Mounds View, as measured from the
property lines of the property upon which the uses are located.
b. The minimum floor space for such use shall be 250 square feet
c. The establishment and operators shall be licensed and be in compliance with Chapter
515 of the Municipal Code. (Ord. 663, 8-28-2000)
SECTION 3. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after its publication in the official City
newspaper.
First read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 14th day of August, 2000.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 28th day of August, 2000.
____________________________________
Dan Coughlin, Mayor
Attest:
____________________________________
Michael Ulrich, Interim Clerk-Administrator
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Robert C. Long, City Attorney
H:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\SP075-00\Ordinance 663 -- Tattoo Code.doc
SJR-184037v1
MU210-48
Item No: 10 C
Meeting Date: August 28, 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: Second reading and Adoption of Ordinance 665, an
ordinance Rezoning properties associated with the
Walgreens PUD from PF and B-3 to PUD and PF.
Date of Report: August 21, 2000
Discussion:
Ordinance 665 rezones the properties associated with the Walgreens planned unit
development at the northeast corner of Highway 10 and Edgewood Drive. The City’s
remnant parcel would be rezoned to PUD from PF, the Midland Videen land would be
rezoned to PUD, except that part to be joined with the Community Center, which would
be rezoned PF, and the Community center would be rezoned PF instead of the current
B-3 business commercial designation.
The City Council approved the first reading of Ordinance 665 at its meeting on August
14, 2000.
Recommendation:
Approve the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 665.
____________________
James Ericson, Planner
Attachment:
1. Ordinance 665
X:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\Walgreens (MA00-001, ZC00-002, DE00-002)\CC Report 1- Aug 28, 2000.do
Ordinance 665
Page 2
SJR-184037v1
MU210-48
ORDINANCE NO. 665
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REZONING OF PARCELS FROM PF (PUBLIC FACILITIES
DISTRICT) AND B-3 (HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT) AND PF (PUBLIC FACILITIES 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 665.
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 and the zoning classification for the following described parcels
are hereby amended as follows:
Parcel Legal Description Existing Zoning
Designation
New Zoning
Designation
See Exhibit A (Generally, City Remnant Parcel) PF PUD
See Exhibit B (Generally, Midland-Videen land) B-3 PUD
See Exhibit C (Generally, Community Center) B-3 PF
SECTION 2. This ordinance is effective thirty days after its publication.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 14th day of August, 2000.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 28th day of August,
2000.
Ordinance 665
Page 3
SJR-184037v1
MU210-48
_______________________________________
Dan Coughlin, Mayor
ATTEST
_______________________________________
Michael Ulrich, Interim City Clerk-Administrator
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
City Attorney
SJR-184037v1
MU210-48
Exhibit A
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8,
Township 30 North, Range 23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, lying northeasterly of the northeasterly
right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 10-62, lying south of the westerly extension of the
south line of Lot 19, Block 5, Pinewood Terrace No. 2., according to the recorded plat thereof,
Ramsey County, Minnesota, and lying southeasterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the northwest corner of Lot 22, Block 5, said Pinewood Terrace No. 2; thence
southerly on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 46 minutes 46 seconds East, along the west
line of said Lot 22, a distance of 73.58 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described;
thence southerly a distance of 330.62 feet along a tangential curve concave to the northwest
having a radius of 383.00 feet and a central angle of 49 degrees 27 minutes 34 seconds; thence
South 48 degrees 40 minutes 48 seconds West, tangent to the last described curve, a distance of
186.68 feet to the northeasterly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 10-62 and there
terminating.
A-1
SJR-184037v1
MU210-48
Exhibit B
All of Lots 17 and 18 and that part of Lot 16 lying south of a line drawn between the
Southeasterly corner of Lot 19 and the Southwesterly corner of Lot 4, all in Block 5,
Pinewood Terrace No. 2, according to the recorded plot thereof, and situate in Ramsey
County, Minnesota.
AND
The tract described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 17, Block 5,
Pinewood Terrace No. 2, Village of Mounds View, Minnesota, according to the recorded
plot thereof; thence South along the West line of said Lot 17 a distance of 55.19 feet to
the actual point of beginning; thence on a curve to the left with a radius of 20 feet and
delta angle of 90 degrees 32 minutes 30 seconds a distance of 31.61 feet; thence East
along the South line of said Lot 17 a distance of 72.19 feet; thence South on a line
parallel to the West line of said Pinewood Terrace No. 2 a distance of 66.91 feet; thence
on a curve to the right with a radius of 62.5 feet and delta angle of 90 degrees 32 minutes
30 seconds a distance of 98.77 feet; thence West on a tangent to last said curve a distance
of 28.91 feet; thence North on a line parallel to and 33 feet East of said West line a
distance of 149.81 feet, more or less, to the actual point of beginning, according to the
recorded plot thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
B-1
Exhibit C
Lots 19, 20, 21, and 22 and that part of Lot 16 lying North of a line drawn between the
Southeasterly corner of Lot 19 and the Southwesterly corner of Lot 4; all in Block 5,
Ordinance 665
Page 2
SJR-184037v1
MU210-48
Pinewood Terrace No. 2, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Ramsey
County, Minnesota.
C-1
ORDINANCE NO. 666
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE VACATING AN UNUSED AND PREVIOUSLY TRAVELED PORTION OF
EDGEWOOD DRIVE IN THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW.
WHEREAS, the right-of-way for Edgewood Drive has been physically reconstructed and realigned, with such
realigned right-of-way for Edgewood Drive to be dedicated to the public pursuant to the plat of Mounds View City Hall
Addition;
WHEREAS, the former right-of-way for Edgewood Drive, as legally described on Exhibit A, is no longer needed
for a public purpose;
WHEREAS, any person, corporation or City owning or controlling utility easements contained upon the property
vacated reserves the right to continue maintaining the same or to enter upon such way or portion thereof vacated to maintain,
repair, replace, remove or otherwise attend thereto; and
WHEREAS, it is intended that any person, corporation or city owning or controlling utility easements contained
upon the property vacated shall realign the same with the realigned right-of-way for Edgewood Drive to be dedicated to the
public pursuant to the plat of Mounds View City Hall Addition.
NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. The City of Mounds View Municipal Code Appendix D is hereby amended to include reference to the
following Special Ordinance No. 666.
Subdivision 1. The City has made a determination that the land constituting the public roadway easement of the
previously traveled Edgewood Drive is no longer needed for a public purpose, and as such, it is in the public interest to
vacate such portion of the previously traveled Edgewood Drive roadway easement described as follows:
See Exhibit A.
Subd. 2. The public utilities or facilities located in the portion of the Edgewood Drive roadway easement area to be
vacated described in Exhibit A of this ordinance are intended to be relocated to the realigned right-of-way for Edgewood
Drive to be dedicated to the public pursuant to the plat of Mounds View City Hall Addition. The proposed vacation of the
portion of the Edgewood Drive roadway easement therefore will not adversely affect the ability of the City or other utility to
maintain, repair, or replace public utilities.
Subd. 3. The Council finds that there is no longer a public need for that portion of the Edgewood Drive roadway
easement to be vacated, as described in Exhibit A of this ordinance.
Subd. 4. The portion of the roadway easement, as described in Exhibit A of this ordinance, is hereby vacated.
SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after its publication.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this ____ day of _______, 2000.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this ____ day of _______, 2000.
Dan Coughlin, Mayor
Michael Ulrich,
Interim City Clerk-Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Exhibit A
Legal Description of Portion of Edgewood Drive to be Vacated
That part of Edgewood Drive as dedicated in the plat of Pinewood Terrace No. 2, Ramsey County,
Minnesota, and together with that part of Edgewood Drive as located in the Southwest Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 30 North, Range 23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota,
which has become a public roadway by prescriptive use or recorded easement which lies northeasterly of
the northeasterly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 10-62 and which lies southerly of the
following described line:
Commencing at the northwest corner of Lot 22, Block 5, said Pinewood Terrace No. 2;
thence southerly on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 46 minutes 46 seconds
East, along the west line of said Lot 22, a distance of 73.58 feet to the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence southerly a distance of 330.62 feet along
a tangential curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 383.00 feet and a
central angle of 49 degrees 27 minutes 34 seconds; thence South 48 degrees 40
minutes 48 seconds West, tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 186.68 feet
to the northeasterly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 10-62 and there
terminating.
Item No: 10 F
Meeting Date: August 28, 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: Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 669, an
Ordinance Authorizing the Disposal by Sale of City-Owned
Real Property
Date of Report: August 21, 2000
Discussion:
This ordinance is the Charter-required mechanism by which the City officially authorizes
the transfer of land—the one-acre remnant parcel—to TOLD Development Company in
return for the City receiving approximately 8 acres of the Midland Videen land.
The City Council held a public hearing on August 14, 2000 and approved the first
reading of the attached Ordinance 669. There have been no changes made to the
ordinance since its first reading.
Recommendation:
Approve the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 669.
____________________
James Ericson, Planner
Attachment:
1. Ordinance 669
X:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\Walgreens (MA00-001, ZC00-002, DE00-002)\CC Report 3- Aug 28, 2000.doc
ORDINANCE NO. 669
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING DISPOSAL BY SALE
OF REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY CITY
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Appendix D of the Mounds View Municipal Code entitled “Special Ordinances” is hereby amended to
include reference to the following Ordinance 669.
Subdivision 1. The City of Mounds View owns an approximate 1 acre parcel of land in Ramsey County,
Minnesota, the legal description of the property being as follows:
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 30 North, Range 23 West,
Ramsey County, Minnesota, lying northeasterly of the northeasterly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway
No. 10-62, lying south of the westerly extension of the south line of Lot 19, Block 5, Pinewood Terrace No. 2.
according to the recorded plat thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota, and lying southeasterly of the following
described line:
Commencing at the northwest corner of Lot 22, Block 5, said Pinewood Terrace No. 2;
thence southerly on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 46 minutes 46 seconds East,
along the west line of said Lot 22, a distance of 73.58 feet to the point of beginning of the
line to be described; thence southerly a distance of 330.62 feet along a tangential curve
concave to the northwest having a radius of 383.00 feet and a central angle of 49 degrees 27
minutes 34 seconds; thence South 48 degrees 40 minutes 48 seconds West, tangent to the
last described curve, a distance of 186.68 feet to the northeasterly right-of-way line of State
Trunk Highway No. 10-62 and there terminating.
Subdivision 2. Meridian Properties Redevelopment, LLC, d/b/a TOLD Development Company has applied for a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) to construct a Walgreens Drugstore and restaurant on the City property, has offered
approximately 8.0 acres of land commonly known as the “Midland Videen land” in exchange for the City property, and
has offered to make certain improvements to both properties. In exchange for such land and improvements, the City
desires to convey the property to allow development thereof. The City Council has determined that conveyance of the City
property will further the public interest.
Subdivision 3. As provided by Section 12.05 of the City Charter, the City Council authorizes conveyance of
the above-referenced property to Meridian Properties Redevelopment, LLC, d/b/a TOLD Development Company
pursuant to the terms of a Contract for Private Development to be entered into between the City and TOLD
Development Company. No proceeds will result from this conveyance.
SECTION 2. This ordinance is effective thirty days after its publication.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 14th day of August, 2000.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 28th day of August,
2000.
_______________________________________
Dan Coughlin, Mayor
ATTEST
_______________________________________
Michael Ulrich, Interim City Clerk-Administrator
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
City Attorney
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\Walgreens (MA00-001, ZC00-002, DE00-002)\Ordinance 669 - Disposal of Real Property.doc
Item No: 10 G
Meeting Date: August 28, 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: Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5458, a Resolution
Approving the Final Plat of “Mounds View City Hall Addition”
Date of Report: August 21, 2000
Discussion:
The Mounds View City Hall Addition encompasses the entirety of the City Hall campus, the
Public Works building, the Community Center, the remnant parcel created by the realignment of
Edgewood Drive, and the Midland Videen open space.
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 and sign easement vacations. Other than these required changes--which have
been made, the final plat is no different from the preliminary plat and is in proper form for
recordation.
Subsequent to the August 14th City Council meeting, TOLD has informed staff that there may be
an issue relating to the exact location of the Highway 10 right-of-way in relation to the site. It
may in fact be 2 to 3 feet further north than originally thought which would impact the
proposed site plan. It may require that TOLD acquire some of the right-of-way. TOLD is working
with MnDOT and Ramsey County to resolve this issue.
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, and resolved the right-of-way issue.
Recommendation:
Approve Resolution 5458, a resolution approving the final plat for the Mounds View City Hall
Addition major subdivision, with stipulations as noted.
____________________
James Ericson, Planner
Attachments:
1. Mounds View City Hall Addition, final plat
2. Resolution 5458
X:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\Walgreens (MA00-001, ZC00-002, DE00-002)\CC Report 5- Aug 28, 2000.doc
Resolution No. 5458
August 28, 2000
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 5458
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT FOR THE
“MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL ADDITION”
PROPOSED BY TOLD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY;
PLANNING CASE NO. PD00-001
WHEREAS, TOLD Development Company (hereinafter the “Developer”) has applied for a
Major Subdivision to subdivide and reorganize properties within its proposed planned unit
development at the northeast corner of Highway 10 and Edgewood Drive; and,
WHEREAS, a final plat date-stamped August 24, 2000, entitled “MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL
ADDITION” has been submitted by the applicant; and,
WHEREAS, the properties included with the Major Subdivision are legally-described as
follows:
(SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 1)
WHEREAS, on January 10, 2000, the City Council of the City of Mounds View approved
Resolution 5409 which gave authority to the Developer to submit an application for a Planned Unit
Development and Major Subdivision inclusive of City-owned property; and,
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2000, the City Council of the City of Mounds View
approved Resolution 5454 which approved the preliminary plat of the proposed Mounds View
City Hall Addition major subdivision; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the following documents relative to this proposal:
1. Application, dated May 8, 2000
2. Zoning Map
3. Location Map
4. Property Survey, prepared by Loucks Associates, date-stamped June 30, 2000.
5. Preliminary Plat, prepared by Loucks Associates, date-stamped August 10, 2000.
6. Final Plat, prepared by Loucks Associates, date-stamped August 24, 2000.
7. Resolution 5409, adopted January 10, 2000
8. Resolution 5454, adopted August 14, 2000
9. Planning Commission Resolution 623-00, approved July 19, 2000
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan recommended for approval by the Mounds View
Planning Commission designates the parcels associated with the PUD as CC-PUD, Community
Commercial Planned Unit Development; and,
Resolution No. 5458
August 28, 2000
Page 3
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the proposed final plat of the
Mounds View City Hall Addition and finds it to be consistent with the preliminary plat and in
conformance with Resolution 5454 and with all applicable sections of the Mounds View Municipal
Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City Attorney has reviewed the final plat and finds it to be in conformance
with all applicable sections of the Mounds View Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, the conditions and requirements regarding the proposed exchange of real
property between the City and the Developer are fully addressed in the Contract for Private
Development; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has received a recommendation of approval
from the Mounds View Planning Commission as stated in Planning Commission Resolution No. 623-
00.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council, having
already approved the preliminary plat, approves the final plat for the Mounds View City Hall Addition
subject to the terms and conditions as stated in the Contract for Private Development and subject to
stipulations as follows:
1. The developer shall submit the park dedication fee in the amount of $44,529 prior to City
signatures being placed upon the Mounds View City Hall Addition plat.
2. The developer shall have executed the Contract for Private development prior to City
signatures being placed upon the Mounds View City Hall Addition plat.
3. The developer shall have resolved all Highway 10 right-of-way issues prior to City
signatures being placed upon the Mounds View City Hall Addition plat.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that approval of this final plat is
subject to approval by and recordation with Ramsey County, which shall occur within four months of
Council approval. The developer shall furnish the City with a reproducible copy of the final plat
showing evidence of the recording; otherwise the approval of the final plat shall be void.
Adopted this 28th day of August, 2000.
______________________________
Dan Coughlin, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Michael Ulrich, Interim City Administrator
(SEAL)
Resolution No. 5458
August 28, 2000
Page 4
X:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\WALGREENS (MA00-001, ZC00-002, DE00-002)\RESOLUTION 5458 - FINAL PLAT.DOC
Exhibit 1.
Legal Descriptions for Major Subdivision:
City Hall: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8,
Township 30, Range 23, lying North of State Highway 10- 62, according to the
United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Ramsey County,
Minnesota.
AND
The North 30 feet of the West 254 feet of the South 15 Acres of the Northwest
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 30 North, Range 23
West, and all that part of the South 15 Acres lying Northeasterly of State Highway
10-62 Except the West 254 feet thereof, according to the United States
Government Survey thereof and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Community Lots 19, 20, 21, and 22; That part of Lot 16, lying North of a line drawn between
Center: the Southeasterly corner of Lot 19 and the Southwesterly corner of Lot 4, except
the East 66 feet of said Lot 16; all in Block 5, Pinewood Terrace No. 2, according
to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Midland All of Lots 17 and 18 and that part of the East 66 feet of Lot 16 lying North of a
Videen: line drawn between the Southeasterly corner of Lot 19 and the Southwesterly
corner of Lot 4, also that part of Lot 16 lying South of a line drawn between the
Southeasterly corner of Lot 19 and the Southwesterly corner of Lot 4, all in Block
5, Pinewood Terrace No. 2, according to the recorded plot thereof, and situate in
Ramsey County, Minnesota.
AND
The tract described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 17, Block
5, Pinewood Terrace No. 2, Village of Mounds View, Minnesota, according to the
recorded plot thereof; thence South along the West line of said Lot 17 a distance of
55.19 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence on a curve to the left with a
radius of 20 feet and delta angle of 90 degrees 32 minutes 30 seconds a distance of
31.61 feet; thence East along the South line of said Lot 17 a distance of 72.19 feet;
thence South on a line parallel to the West line of said Pinewood Terrace No. 2 a
distance of 66.91 feet; thence on a curve to the right with a radius of 62.5 feet and
delta angle of 90 degrees 32 minutes 30 seconds a distance of 98.77 feet; thence
West on a tangent to last said curve a distance of 28.91 feet; thence North on a line
parallel to and 33 feet East of said West line a distance of 149.81 feet, more or less,
Walgreens Report
August 14, 2000
Page 5
to the actual point of beginning, according to the recorded plot thereof, and situate
in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Item No.10I
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: August 28, 2000
Type of Business: C.B.
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution No. 5464 Approving Street
Projects 2001-1 & 2001-2
Date of Report: August 29, 2018
Staff is requesting Council adopt Resolution No. 5464 that will authorize staff to begin the
proceedings of Street Project 2002-1 Co. Rd. H2 and 2001-2 Residential Project No. 3. These
two projects were within the new proposed project map presented at the August 7th Council
Work Session. By authorizing these projects staff will send letters to the property owners
affected by the projects, informing them of the current policies regarding street improvements.
Staff will also be negotiating services from two different consulting engineering firms to serve on
the project teams.
Staff also spoke of establishing two Pavement Condition Indexes (PCI), one that will be the
rating at which the pavement segments will be maintained and the other will be the rating at
which the pavements will receive little if any preventative or permanent maintenance. Staff is
recommending that these two ratings be 75 and 45.
___________________________________
Michael Ulrich, Interim City Administrator
C:\Mike's documents\projects\street projects 2001-1, 2001-2.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 5464
City of Mounds View Staff Report
August 29, 2018
Page 2
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING STREET PROJECTS 2001-1 & 2001-2
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby approve the commencement of
street projects 2001-1 and 2001-2 and;
WHEREAS, project 2001-1 is identified as Co. Rd. H2 and project 2001-2 is identified as residential
project number three on the proposed project map and;
WHEREAS, staff is authorized to inform the participants of these projects of the current street improvement
policies and schedule neighborhood meetings to gather input for the projects and;
WHEREAS, staff is also authorized to negotiate and sign for engineering services for both projects from the
established consulting engineering pool and;
WHEREAS, threshold Pavement Condition Index (PCI) ratings will be established to determine levels of
preventative and permanent maintenance and;
WHEREAS, a PCI rating of 75 or higher will be the level at which a street will continue to receive
preventative and permanent maintenance procedures and;
WHEREAS, a PCI rating of 45 or lower will be the level at which a street will not receive any preventative
or permanent maintenance procedures.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby
approve the commencement of street projects 2001-1 and 2001-2.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that staff is also authorized to negotiate and sign for engineering services
for both projects from the established consulting engineering pool.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that PCI ratings of 75 and 45 will be established to determine levels of
maintenance performed to street segments.
Adopted this 28th day of August, 2000.
ATTEST: ______________________________
MAYOR
(SEAL) ______________________________
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
C:\Mike's documents\projects\res no. 5464, 2001-1 2001-2.doc
Item No.10J
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: August 28, 2000
Type of Business: C. B.
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Michael Ulrich, Interim City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Charter Commission Resolutions 2000-11,
2000-12
Date of Report: August 29, 2018
Staff presented Charter Commission Resolutions 2000-11 and 2000-12 to the City Council at the
August 21, 2000 work session for review and discussion. Staff was given direction to seek the
City Attorney’s opinion of these resolutions. Findings were as follows:
1. The City was presented with Resolutions 2000-11 and 2000-12, which request and
extension of the review period, for an additional 90 days to consider Ordinances 661
and 662 on August 14, 2000.
2. These resolutions state that they were adopted on August 10, 2000.
3. An official meeting of the Charter Commission was not held on August 10, 2000 due
to a lack of a quorum.
4. Council was presented unapproved minutes of the July 13, 2000, Charter Commission
meeting which stated that a motion was made and seconded to apply for a 90 day
extension regarding Ordinances 661 and 662.
5. The 60-day period of time for the Charter Commission to submit an extension
terminated on August 14, 2000.
Based on these findings the City Attorney stated that the City Council could:
A. Accept the resolutions as the intention of the Charter Commission to comply
with the 60-day period, but erroneously dated the resolutions.
B. Reject the request for the extension, as the proper documents were not
submitted with the given time period.
This decision is up to the City Council.
___________________________________
Michael Ulrich, Interim City Administrator
C:\Mike's documents\staff reports\Ordinances 661,662.doc
Item No. 10K
Staff Report No.
Meeting Date: August 28, 2000
Type of Business: C B.
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Park Improvement Expenditures
Date of Report: August 29, 2018
Woodcrest park playground equipment was removed due to the wetland project over a year ago.
As near as staff can recollect, its was stated that if the playground structure was not salvageable a
new structure would be purchased for the site. Staff does not recall if a funding source for this
purchase was identified at the time. Several requests and inquiries have been made for a new
playground at this site. Staff has not received any quotes for equipment at this time from any
manufactures. Staff is requesting Council authorization to pursue the purchase of equipment and
authorization to utilize Park Dedication funds for the purchase. Estimated expenses for the
structure, border and surrounding fill could be from $12,000.00 to $18,000.00
The Park and Rec. Commission also approved the replacement of the Hillview Hockey boards at
their Feb. 10, 1999 meeting. Some confusion remains as to the direction either the YMCA or
City staff received as to submitting this request in the 2000 budget or for special funding from
the Park Dedication fund at the time the Commission requested additional improvements for
various parks. Staff has sought to provide the safest and most economical maintenance of these
boards throughout the 1999-2000-winter season. The current hockey boards are in excess of 15
years old and in need of replacement. It is at this time that staff is request, with the Commission’s
earlier approval, that these boards be replaced, prior to the 2000-2001 winter season.
Staff has received a quote from the same contractor that constructed the rink at Lambert. Staff
has been more than satisfied with the construction materials, longevity of the rink and
workmanship performed on this structure. New hockey boards for the Hillview rink will be
approximately $21,400.00, which includes new posts, boards and fencing. Staff is also concerned
about the skating surface, which is approximately 9 years old. Even though the surface has been
sealcoated and painted several times, it still continues to deteriorate, as is the case with any
bituminous surface. Several cracks have been increasing in width and severity. While this is not
of great concern for winter skating, the rink is also utilized for in-line skating in the summer
months. The surface of the rink will need to be added to, to accommodate the rink configuration.
Staff would also request Council consider authorizing resurfacing of the pavement. A
preliminary estimate for this repair would be approximately $10,000.00. The resurfacing material
is a special material designed for both winter flooding and in-line skating. Staff is seeking
information on this product from the contractor and previous users.
A total of approximately $31,400.00 would be required for this project. Staff is aware of the
resolution and policy that was recently adopted which would allow for only the interest on the
City of Mounds View Staff Report
August 29, 2018
Page 2
Park Dedication fund to be spent for improvements. At this time, it would seem that this might
be the most likely funding source other than general fund reserves. Park Dedication fees will be
received from the Walgreen and Mermaid projects in the future.
A combined amount between $43,400.00 and $49,400.00 will be required to complete these two
projects.
Staff seeks Council direction and / or approval for these two projects.
___________________________________
Michael Ulrich, Interim City Administrator
C:\Mike's documents\staff reports\Park Improvments.doc