Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2000/05/08M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Council Packets\05-08-00\Agenda - City Council.doc CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNCIL AGENDA MONDAY, May 8, 2000 REVISED 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomason 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. April 24, 2000 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: 6. REPORTS 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims B. Licenses for Approval C. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, May 22, 2000, at 7:05 pm to Discuss and Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Shed at 7474 Groveland Road. D. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, May 22, 2000, at 7:10 pm to Discuss and Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 2251 Oakwood Drive. E. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, May 22, 2000, at 7:15 pm to Discuss and Consider a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage at 2832 Woodale Drive. F. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, May 22, 2000, at 7:20 pm to Discuss and Consider a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage at 4749 Old Highway 8, Ace Supply Company. G. Resolution 5438 Amending Personnel Manual – Givonna Reed H. Consideration of Skidloader Purchase – Mike Ulrich I. Resolution 5439 adjusting salaries of full time female dominated positions for pay equity and authorizing various budget modifications for personnel related issues. – Bruce Kessel 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR A. Citizens: Before speaking, must give their full name and address for the minutes. Please limit your comments to three minutes. M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2000\City Council\Council Packets\05-08-00\Agenda - City Council.doc City Council Meeting May 8, 2000 Page –2- 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Consideration of Resolution 5437, a Resolution Approving a Wetland Buffer Permit to Allow for the Construction of a Twin-home at 7654 Woodlawn Drive – Jim Ericson B. Discussion of Charter Amendments / Form of Gov’t and Resolution No. ____ - City Attorney (Information will be available at the meeting) C. Highway 10 Study Process – Rick Jopke / Springsted D. Consideration of Emergency Ordinance 658, an Ordinance Allowing for the Installation of Eight-foot Tall Fences in Front Yards under Certain Circumstances – Jim Ericson E. Consideration of Full Time Custodial / Maintenance Position for the Community Center – Michael Ulrich F. League of Minnesota Cities Annual Conference: Registration and Housing Information— Givonna Reed G. Second Reading and Readoption of Ordinances 649, 650 and 651 to amend the City of Mounds View Charter -- Bob Long 11. Next Special Work Session: Monday, May 15, 2000 Next Council Work Session: Monday, June 5, 2000 Next Council Meeting: Monday, May 22, 2000 12. ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting April 24, 2000 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 7:03 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Quick, Stigney and Thomason. NOT PRESENT: Marty. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Monday, April 24, 2000, City Council Agenda Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to add items to the agenda. MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Quick. To Accept the April 24, 2000, City Council Agenda as presented. Ayes – 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Monday, April 10, 2000, City Council Minutes Council Member Thomason requested a correction to Page 5, Item 10A, first paragraph, first sentence to indicate “…just south of Pinewood Elementary School.” Council Member Stigney requested a correction to Page 6, Item 10B, third paragraph, to indicate “Council Member Stigney inquired if the Engineering Technician was currently at the maximum step of his existing step classification, and this item represented a $3,000 wage increase adjustment.” MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomason. To accept the April 10, 2000 City Council minutes as corrected. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS None. Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 6. REPORTS Council Member Stigney reported he attended the April 19th meeting of the Planning Commission. He indicated the majority of the items discussed at that meeting were listed for consideration on the current Agenda under Council Business. Mayor Coughlin reported he attended the Golf Course Committee meeting, which was held at 4:30 p.m. that date. He indicated three items were discussed, and it was agreed that they would be presented to the full Council at an upcoming Work Session. He advised there was ongoing discussion pertaining to the First Tee program, and discussion regarding the development possibilities of the “Big Woods, “ which is an area adjacent to the golf course and north of new Highway 10. He stated there was some discussion regarding the Golf Course Manager’s contract, and this matter was also referred on to an upcoming Work Session. He indicated this meeting was televised, and would be rebroadcast. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated earlier that evening, the Council met with Jim Brimeyer of the Brimeyer Group. He stated it was noted at that time that there was a conflict with regard to one of the dates of the proposed timetable for the City Administrator Search, therefore, the Council changed the July 3rd Work Session to the third Monday in July. Mayor Coughlin inquired if the Council would be agreeable to proceed in this manner. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To Change the July 3, 2000 City Council Work Session to July 17, 2000. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mayor Coughlin stated the Council might wish to consider whether or not they would desire to set a Special Work Session on the third Monday of May, in order to continue the discussions with the individual departments in advance of the budget discussions that would take place later in the year. He indicated staff has advised that this matter could possibly be scheduled for discussion at the May 1st Work Session, however, it might be better to set a Special Work Session, and cancel it if necessary, rather than having to post the required notifications at the last minute. He noted he found the previous Special Work Session to be profitable. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated he had spoken with the Police Chief that date, and he indicated this discussion would be better scheduled for the May 15th Council Work Session. He explained that the federal materials were expected to arrive, and this would allow time to review that information. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To Set a Special City Council Work Session for May 15, 2000, to Continue Discussions with the Individual Departments in Advance of the Budget Discussions Later in the Year. Mayor Coughlin advised that the DARE Program Graduation was scheduled to take place that evening at the Community Center, and both he and the DARE Officer have been requested to Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 speak at that event. He indicated they could pause the proceedings to allow the two of them to leave for a brief moment, or consider posting this as a Special Meeting, during which the entire Council could be present while addressing this matter. He pointed out that this could also serve to throw the support of the entire Council and the Police Chief behind the DARE Program. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. City Attorney Long reported that the Airport Legislation would be up for a vote in the Senate the following day, and would also be in the Rules Committee of the House to be put in proper form to go to the House Floor. He advised that if all goes according to plan, the legislation should be before the Senate on Tuesday, and the House on Wednesday. No further reports were considered. 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Just and Correct Claims. B. Licenses for Approval. C. Consideration of Resolution 5436, Authorizing the Golf Course Manager to Undertake a Feasibility Study for the Expansion of the Bridges Golf Course. D. Consideration of Purchase of Exercise Equipment for Community Center. Mayor Coughlin asked the Council if anyone would like to remove Items for discussion. Council Member Stigney requested Item C be removed for further discussion. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Approve the Consent Agenda for Items A, B, and D as presented. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Council Member Stigney stated there is language in this resolution, which pertains to the expansion of the golf course on property that is currently wetland and was previously owned by Sysco. He stated it was his understanding that Sysco dedicated this land to the City subject to a covenant that it would be retained as wetland, which conflicts with the proposal to expand the golf course. He requested clarification. Golf Course Superintendent Hammerschmidt indicated he has copies of all of the deed documents pertaining to the golf course property, and the City Attorney has reviewed these documents in terms of the feasibility of expanding this section of the golf course. He stated he has never seen any covenants in those documents that place any restrictions upon the use of that land. Council Member Stigney pointed out that if there were any restrictions, this would create a conflict. Superintendent Hammerschmidt stated to his knowledge there were none. Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 Council Member Stigney stated it appeared that the purpose of continuing the Hydrology Study, which was approved for this year, was to allow some different land usage in the area, depending upon the results of the report. Superintendent Hammerschmidt stated this was correct. He explained that they were examining the feasibility of possible uses, and of these uses, the one that has been most discussed by the Commissions, the Golf Course Committee, and Council is the possible expansion of the golf course. Council Member Stigney stated the Hydrology Study has not been completed, and therefore, it was somewhat premature to proceed with this proposal. Superintendent Hammerschmidt explained that the examination of the feasibility of expanding the golf course involves three considerations, which include the driving range and the Clubhouse operations, which are not impacted by the Hydrology Study. He stated the third consideration, relates to the amount of land available, and they are certain there is sufficient land to create an 18-hole pitch and pot, and possibly enough for nine holes on the course, and this is where the Hydrology Study presents an impact. He explained that the Hydrology Study is not necessary in terms of proceeding with the First Tee Program as discussed, and the expansion plan, however, it will be necessary as this matter goes forward in the future. Council Member Stigney stated in his opinion it would be premature to hire an architect to plan a layout when the Hydrology Study is incomplete. He added that they have received no residents’ comments regarding what they would like do with this land. He indicated they should wait until after the Hydrology Study is complete to determine what types of land they are dealing with, and then determine what is feasible. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To approve the Consent Agenda for Item C as presented. Mayor Coughlin stated this was simply a feasibility study, and such studies have been somewhat of a mantra for many members of the current and previous Councils who desire to obtain as much information possible in a timely manner, in order to be aware of all of the options that are available. He stated he was in favor of this item. Council Member Stigney reiterated he believed this proposal was premature. He advised that this was not a free study, and they were launching forward a bit prematurely. Ayes – 3 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR There were no requests or comments from the floor. Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 5418, a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit, Development Review and Wetland Buffer Permit for the Messiah Lutheran Church Facility Expansion. Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 7:20 p.m. Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant, Messiah Lutheran Church, was before the Council to request a conditional use permit, development review, and wetland buffer permit for the proposed expansion of their facility located at 2848 County Road H2. He indicated the applicant has been before the Planning Commission at their last three meetings, and significant research and information gathering has gone into this application. He advised that public hearing notices were sent out to the surrounding residents for both the Planning Commission and the City Council hearings, and there is some input regarding this proposal from the residents. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Church proposes a two-phase expansion, with the first phase expanding the existing facility by approximately 5,000 square feet in two areas. He explained that the area on the east side of the building would be approximately 4,400 square feet, and would provide a new entryway and additional lobby space. He indicated there would also be an expansion on the west side of the building, which would be approximately 820 square feet, and would also allow for a new entry way and some office space. Planning Associate Ericson stated the second phase of the expansion which is not planned for another three to five years, depending upon finances, would be approximately 12,000 square feet on the east side, with an additional 15,000 feet on the south side of the site. He indicated that with the first phase of the expansion, there would be a fairly complete removal and replacement of the existing parking lot. He advised that there is currently sufficient parking on the site for 165 vehicles, not including the overflow parking along the west side of Knollwood Drive. He indicated the proposed parking would provide 176 stalls, which would accommodate all parking requirements with the future full buildout of the site. He pointed out that this proposal does not represent a substantial increase in terms of the existing parking. He explained that the Church is currently very over-parked, and it is proposed that at full buildout there would be seating for approximately 600 people. He advised that the City Code requires 150 parking stalls for 600 people, and 176 stalls would be more than adequate to meet this requirement. Planning Associate Ericson stated the dimensional requirements for the expansions are met with regard to the building and parking lot setbacks. He advised that the City Code requires there be 100 feet between any development and a wetland, and this proposal does not meet this setback requirement, therefore, the wetland buffer permit is necessary. He explained that the applicant proposes to construct a stormwater holding pond at the southeast corner of the property, and this pond will be within 10 to 15 feet of the delineated wetland. He stated the plans for the stormwater pond have been reviewed by the City Engineers, and the Rice Creek Watershed District is currently reviewing the plans in terms of the grading, stormwater calculations, wetland characteristics, and ponding capacity. Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 Planning Associate Ericson explained that one of the requirements of an expansion of this scale is that the applicant obtain a Rice Creek Watershed District permit, and this permit has already been approved pending a cash surety and the applicant entering into an agreement with a contractor to do the work. He stated all of the issues with regard to the location of the pond and the wetland should be resolved. He indicated the construction of the stormwater holding pond represents a significant improvement to the site, as the stormwater runoff currently drains directly into the wetland. He explained that this proposal would allow the stormwater runoff from the parking lot to fit into the stormwater holding pond, and the pollutants and sediments would be filtered out before the water reaches the wetland. Planning Associate Ericson indicated one of the issues at the Planning Commission level was the drastic change to the landscaping on the site with the expansion of the parking lot. He explained that as many as 100 large trees would be removed, and the applicant is proposing to replace them with 90 trees, as well as a number of small shrub like plantings. He pointed out that this is not a one-to-one replacement or a comparable replacement in terms of removing a 100 year-old tree and replacing it with a one year-old tree, however, it is hoped that within a few years there would be significant coverage back on the site. Planning Associate Ericson stated another issue with the expansion project is that the Church is proposing to remove two houses, one located on Knollwood Drive, and one on County Road H2. He indicated the neighborhood has expressed some concern regarding the encroachment of the Church further into the neighborhood. He provided the Council with a letter staff received that date from Gordon Klaven, a resident at 2816 County Road H2, who clearly opposes this expansion and is concerned regarding the fact that rather than having a house adjacent to his property, he would have a parking lot and driveway. He indicated this resident is requesting that, at minimum, some type of fencing be erected. Planning Associate Ericson stated the issue of screening was brought forward at the Planning Commission level, at which time, a number of four to five-foot Arborvitae were added to the landscape plan, however, there is only a 7½ foot span between the driveway and the property line at the north end of the property on County Road H2, therefore, there is very little room for landscaping. He explained that the spacing between the driveway and the property line toward the south end of the parking lot increases to 11½ feet, therefore, landscaping could be included in addition to a fence, however, the landscape plan provided to the Council does not indicate any type of fencing. He pointed out that this was somewhat of a new issue, therefore, the Council might wish to stipulate that some type of fencing be provided in this area. Planning Associate Ericson stated the lighting that is being proposed on the site meets the City’s photometric requirements and the requirement that no light be spilled onto adjoining properties. He indicated the foot candle readings at the property lines are below one-foot candle, and all lighting is directed away from adjoining properties, however, with the expanded parking lot, the number of light standards and the intensity of the light, there would be a glow at this corner. He pointed out that this is a very residential area, and there are no other commercial or non- residential uses, therefore, this proposal represents a drastic change in terms of lighting alone. Planning Associate Ericson stated at the Planning Commission level, staff recommended the height of the proposed 30-foot light standards be reduced to a maximum of 25 feet. He indicated Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 staff does not believe this would be overly burdensome, although it would certainly impact the lighting, however, the possible trade off would be that much of that light could be kept closer to the facility rather than being visible to the surrounding area. He advised that the resolution before the Council stipulates that the 30-foot light standards be lowered to 25 feet. Planning Associate Ericson stated there is a 400 square-foot accessory storage shed located at the south end of the site. He indicated the City Code does not allow for accessory structures greater than 216 square feet without a conditional use permit, however, since the Council was currently considering a conditional use permit, staff and the Planning Commission recommend that express allowance for the shed be consistent with this conditional use permit, to avoid duplication and the necessity of two conditional use permits. He advised that allowance for the shed has been drafted into the resolution before the Council. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Fire Marshall has reviewed the plans and has determined that the turning radius, locations of the fire hydrants, and all of the requirements for circulation and access on the site are met. He indicated the Fire Marshall is satisfied with what has been proposed. Planning Associate Ericson stated it was not known at this point if the two homes proposed for removal would be demolished or relocated, however, in either case, a demolition or relocation permit would be required, and that has been drafted into the resolution. He indicated that with regard to the drainage and utility easements, the site has been examined by the City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District, and it is believed that the drainage plan, in conjunction with the stormwater holding pond, would suit the needs of the site. He added that the stormwater holding pond is sized accordingly for the full buildout of the facility, although it was uncertain at this point whether or not that would occur. Planning Associate Ericson advised that a conditional use permit is required for churches and religious institutions, schools and other uses of this nature in the residential district. He indicated the Planning Commission reviewed the general and specific conditional use permit criteria and all of the requirements regard to the zoning, setbacks, and the fact that the expansion match the character of the existing building appear to be met. He stated the only issues pertain to the buffering and the extent of the landscaping provided. He indicated a number of trees would be added in the 31 to 35-foot buffer on the south side of the property, and a number of existing trees would remain on the site. He explained that the primary question is whether or not there would be adequate landscaping in the area on the eastern side of the site, between the adjoining property and the parking lot, to provide adequate screening and buffering, which goes to whether or not the Council would desire to stipulate that some form of privacy fence be installed in this location. He advised that with this exception, staff believes the proposal meets the general conditional use permit requirements. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Planning Commission examined the adverse affects criteria in relationship to the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that this site is designated for an institutional use such as a church, and the fact that the congregation has desired to proceed with this project for a number of years and that there is a demonstrated need for the expansion attests to the fact that this is not being done unnecessarily. Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 Planning Associate Ericson stated there is an issue in terms of whether or not the use would actually tend to depreciate the area in which it is proposed. He explained that the Church has existed in this location for 40 years, and for the most part, it has been a good neighbor to the community, however, there have been some issues with regard to the homes that are being removed, in that they have been used for temporary housing for families in need, and given that these were rental type houses, less care was given to their maintenance, upkeep and appearance. He noted that a number of residents have expressed that they are pleased that these homes would be removed. He indicated that with regard to whether or not this proposal would be too much for the area, the Comprehensive Plan designates this site as institutional, and it has been geared as such for some time. Planning Associate Ericson stated a wetland buffer permit is required by the City Code for any development within 100 feet of a wetland. He explained that the parking lot would not be within 100 feet of the wetland, however, the grading and the disturbance of the soils adjacent to the wetland during the construction of the stormwater holding pond creates the necessity for the wetland permit. He indicated the City Code provides some basis for allowing this type of buffer permit when it is for the benefit of the wetland, which in effect, this proposal is. He explained that the fact that the stormwater holding pond would be within 10 to 15 feet of the wetland would not impact the wetland, and would improve the condition of the wetland by allowing the water to drain in filtered, as opposed to unfiltered. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Planning Commission took testimony from the public and the Council has been provided with another letter from a resident. He indicated common issues related to encroachment, loss of trees, and lighting on the site. He reiterated that the resolution before the Council stipulates that the light standards be lowered to 25 feet, and it was hoped that this would be sufficient to maintain a more residential atmosphere at this corner. He stated there would certainly be a noticeable difference at the site, however, staff does not believe this would be burdensome or detrimental to the neighboring residents. He explained that there are garages on both sides of the site, adjacent to the homes that abut the property, and the garages are located between the houses and the Church property, therefore, there is some buffer present, and a fence along the northeastern boundary would provide additional buffering. Planning Associate Ericson stated everyone is saddened at the loss of trees on the site. He explained this is a beautiful site, however, the City of Mounds View does not have any type of a tree protection ordinance or tree replacement policy. He indicated the applicant is making a good faith effort in the opinion of staff and the Planning Commission to re-landscape the site. He pointed out that no landscaping is shown on the landscape plan, in the areas where the future building additions are to be located, as this would have to be removed in three to five years with the second phase of the expansion, however, a number of trees would be added along the periphery, and as previously mentioned, approximately 90 trees would be added to this site. He reiterated it was not a one-to-one replacement and would not be comparable, however, it is expected that with an expansion of this scale, the site would be different for a number of years. He stated staff and the Planning Commission believe that over time, the site will be adequately landscaped. Planning Associate Ericson provided the Council with a copy of the Planning Commission’s resolution of approval with a number of stipulations that have been carried over to Resolution Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 9 5418, the City Council resolution of approval. He indicated the resolution has been broken down into three sections. He explained that the first “NOW Therefore Be it Further Resolved” clause refers to the development review which is formulated to the site plan, and the second clause refers to the conditional use permit, which also addresses the 400 square-foot accessory building. He advised that the last clause on the last page of the resolution addresses the wetland buffer permit, and that section of the resolution stipulates that the applicant shall obtain approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District and a National Pollution Elimination Discharge System permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. He advised that this is an administrative type of permit, which the contractor would be required to obtain to verify that the erosion control measures are in place, and these permits are typically not denied. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff recommends approval of Resolution 5418, with stipulations. He proved the Council with a brief overview of the site plan. He indicated that to the south of the existing building, in the location of the expanded area, a portion of the parking lot in would remain until such time as the future expansion takes place. Bob Mills, 2817 County Road H2 stated his home was located to the north of the Church. He inquired if the lights at the facility would remain on all night long, or if they would only be utilized during services at the Church. Gary O’Malley, 7432 Bacon Drive, Fridley stated he has been a member of the Church for many years. He explained that the lights at the facility are on timers, and can be set. He indicated the lights are presently left on all night as a security measure. He stated this comment had come forward at the meeting that was recently held with all of the neighbors, and the Church indicated the lights could be turned off at 10:30 p.m., which appeared to be acceptable to the residents in attendance. He indicated the lights nearest the building would probably be left on for security purposes, however, the rest of the lights could be turned off. Mr. O’Malley stated the only other comment the residents brought forward during the meeting was with regard to the south side of the site, where they would prefer to have fewer hardwoods and more evergreens. There was no further public input. Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 7:44 p.m. . MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Approve Resolution No.5418, a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit, Development Review and Wetland Buffer Permit Request for Messiah Lutheran Church Located at 2848 County Road H2; Planning Cases CU00-001, DED00-001 and WB00-001, as Amended to Stipulate that a Privacy Fence be Constructed Along the Northern Portion of the Site, and to Attempt to Maximize the Privacy Fence as per the Code, and Grant Staff Discretion in that Regard. Council Member Thomason stated she would make a friendly amendment pertaining to the privacy fence, in response to the resident at 2850 County Road H2. She stated should would like to add a stipulation to the resolution to indicate that a privacy fence be constructed in this area, a Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 minimum of six feet in height. She stated 7 feet did not allow very much room for landscaping between the two areas, and inquired if this would present a problem. Planning Associate Ericson advised that in the R-1 District there is an interesting Code with regard to fences. He explained that the Code specifically states that in front of the front line of a dwelling, only a four-foot fence is allowed, and behind the front line of the dwelling, an eight- foot fence is allowed. He stated this was a unique situation, and not relative to a dwelling, per se, and staff would feel comfortable with an eight-foot fence no closer than thirty-five feet to County Road H2. He requested the City Attorney advise regarding a requirement imposed by the City through a conditional use permit, such as a fence along a property line, that might be inconsistent with the residential section of the City Code as it pertains to a house. City Attorney Long stated the City could impose conditions with the conditional use permit that the applicant agrees to, and the question appears to be whether or not the condition could be less restrictive than the Code would allow. Mayor Coughlin suggested the friendly amendment be worded to indicate the addition of a stipulation to attempt to maximize the privacy fence as per the Code, and to grant staff some discretion in that regard, understanding the intent behind the stipulation. City Attorney Long stated that with the conditional use permit, the applicant could agree to a condition that they could theoretically have an eight-foot fence at some point on the property, and the question would be whether or not the City could require the applicant to construct an eight- foot fence at a certain point on the property. He stated he believed that this could be done through the conditional use permit process. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff could interpret the Code such that an eight-foot privacy fence up to a certain point would be consistent with the Code. Council Member Stigney stated the lighting was originally proposed to be on 30-foot light standards, and at the Planning Commission level, it was stipulated that this be reduced to 25 feet. He stated the light standards at the Wynnsong Theater were 20 feet in height, and inquired if Council Member Thomason felt there would be any adverse affect with regard to the 25-foot light standards, as opposed to the 20-foot light standards at the theater. Council Member Thomason stated this was also her concern, however, the representative of the Church provided her answer, in that the lights would be on timers, and would be turned off at 10:30 p.m. She explained that the Wynnsong Theater lights remain on until approximately 3:00 a.m., and this lighting level at this time in the morning would be unacceptable at the Church, however, she believed the Church would work with the neighbors in this regard, and therefore, had no problem. Planning Associate Ericson inquired if the Council would desire the timing of the lights be stipulated in the resolution. Council Member Quick indicated this issue should be resolved between the Church and the Community. Council Member Thomason agreed. Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 11 Mayor Coughlin stated it appears that the Church is attempting to work with the community. He indicated he has attended a number of lengthy prayer meetings at his Church, and would not desire to have to deal with a 10:30 ceiling that on occasion, might be overly restrictive. He stated he would prefer to keep this open. Council Member Quick noted that there would also be a period of becoming acquainted with the new facility. Mayor Coughlin stated it was very exciting when Churches, which are the cornerstone of any community, have the opportunity to grow, either because of expansion of programs or attendee membership or both. He indicated this is a wonderful testimony to the area and to this Church, which has served the community for 40 years. He stated he was wholeheartedly in favor of expanding this site. He pointed out that with all of the things that are seen the 6:00 news, one of the few shining lights in society appears to be coming from the Churches. He reiterated he was very much in favor of this resolution. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mayor Coughlin extended his appreciation to all who participated in this matter, and particularly to Planning Associate Ericson, for his work in this regard, much of which is done behind the scenes. B. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 5423, a Resolution Contemplating a Conditional Use Permit for an Over-sized Shed at 2159 Terrace Drive. Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 7:53 p.m. Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant, Robert Kleinshmidt, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 256 square-foot oversized shed in the backyard of his property located at 2159 Terrace Drive. The 13,125 square-foot, well-maintained lot is improved with a typical 1½ story home and two-car garage. There is a small wood-framed shed in the backyard that would be removed upon completion of the proposed larger shed. There is an 8-foot tall privacy fence along the back side of the property. Planning Associate Ericson advised that the City Code requires a conditional use permit for any request for a shed greater than 216 square feet. He noted the City has been experiencing a number of conditional use permit requests for oversized sheds, therefore, it is likely that in the near future the City would examine the City Code to determine if perhaps it should be more allowing in terms of the size of sheds that can be constructed without requiring a conditional use permit. He explained that this was a sign of the times, and it is a benefit to the community when property owners are able to store items inside which might otherwise be stored outside and tend to lend to the appearance of clutter. He advised that the placement of items inside a shed is typically an improvement to the property. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Planning Commission has reviewed this request and has examined both the general conditional use permit and adverse affects criteria. He indicated the Commission felt that the 8-foot privacy fence on the back of the property offers significant screening. He pointed out that the size of the shed is consistent with the size and the proportion Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 12 of the property and the house, and it would not be larger than the existing structures. He explained that this is a fairly small shed in comparison to other requests that have been submitted. Planning Associate Ericson indicated that based upon the Planning Commission’s review, the Planning Commission and staff recommend the City Council approve Resolution 5423, which is a resolution approving the conditional use permit request with stipulations that are typical of any oversized shed conditional use permit. He advised that the shed would not be used for any use prohibited in the Zoning District, and no other sheds would be allowed on the property. He added that the existing shed would be removed, the proposed shed would be a permanent structure, and the resolution would be recorded with Ramsey County. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was a public hearing, and staff has notified residents within 350 feet of the subject property. There was no public input. Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 7:56 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution No .5423, a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for a 256 Square-foot Oversized Shed at 2159 Terrace Drive; Mounds View Planning Case No. CU00-002. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. C. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 5424, a Resolution Contemplating a Conditional Use Permit for an Over-sized Shed at 8038 Long Lake Road. Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 7:57 p.m. Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicants, Juanita Snetsinger and Shelley Hill were before the Council to request a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of an oversized shed at their property located at 8038 Long Lake Road. The size of the proposed shed is 400 square feet, and would replace two existing smaller sheds in the backyard. The 18,480 square-foot well- maintained lot is a larger sized lot in comparison to the minimum required lot in the City, and the City Code requires that the amount of accessory storage space not exceed 20 percent in a backyard. Requests for sheds approaching 400 square feet are examined in great detail, and the proposed shed would take up approximately 3.3 percent of the backyard. The backyard is quite large, and in itself, would constitute a minimum sized lot in Mounds View. Planning Associate Ericson stated there are a number of large mature evergreen trees on and around the periphery of the lot. He indicated staff performed an inspection at the property and felt that because the shed would be located toward the back of the lot and away from public view, there would be adequate screening by virtue of the pine trees and the distance from other properties. He stated this structure would be visible to the properties north and south of 8038 Long Lake Road, however, staff believes that the separation provides adequate buffering, and in Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 13 addition, the shed would allow for the storage of snowmobiles, motorcycles and other small recreational type vehicles which would otherwise be stored outside. He noted there is a small two-car garage on the property, however, the applicants would prefer to park their vehicles inside the garage, and store the recreational vehicles within the shed. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Planning Commission examined the general conditional use permit requirements as well as the adverse affects criteria, and felt that this request satisfies the adverse affects criteria. He indicated staff recently received a telephone call from the neighbor to the south of the subject property, who was not necessarily concerned regarding the proposed size of the shed, but rather, had some basic concerns with regard to the access and location of the shed. He stated there have been no other resident comments with regard to this request. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this oversized shed, primarily because of the amount of screening, and also because of the size of the lot. He explained that the 400 square-foot shed would not overwhelm the lot, nor would it be disproportionate to the size of the house, therefore, staff and the Planning Commission felt very comfortable recommending City Council approval of this request. Shelley Hill, the applicant stated she has spoken to several of her neighbors regarding the proposed shed, and for the most part, they appeared to be in favor of it. She indicated the resident who expressed concerns was located to the south, and was concerned regarding how they would gain access to the shed, were she to construct a fence at the property line. She explained that there is a four-foot chain link fence surrounding the entire backyard, between their properties, and last year, portion of the fence from the backyard to the front yard was removed. She stated at that time, this neighbor did not object to the removal of the fence, therefore, she was surprised there was an issue in this regard at this time. She pointed out that the chain link fence could be easily reinstalled if necessary, and there would be no problem in terms of accessing the shed through this area, which is 8½ feet wide. She added that the area at the other side of the lot is 10 feet wide, and they could access the backyard from this side of the property as well. There was no further public input. Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 7:56 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To Approve Resolution 5424, a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for a 400 Square-foot Oversized Shed at 8038 Long Lake Road; Mounds View Planning Case No. CU00-003. Ayes – 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. D Public Hearing and Second Reading of Proposed Charter Amendments: Ordinances 649, 650, and 651. Mayor Coughlin opened the Public Hearing at 8:03 p.m. Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 14 City Attorney Long stated this is the second reading of the three Charter amendment ordinances that the Council previously reviewed, approved, and forwarded to the Charter Commission. He indicated the Charter Commission returned the ordinances with their approval, and separate actions on each of these items at this time would complete the procedure for amending the Charter in this regard. He stated there were two outstanding issues that would be discussed later in the meeting, and the fourth ordinance pertaining to Section 3.01 is still in discussion with the Charter Commission attorney. Mayor Coughlin explained that these three ordinances are housekeeping items, and there was no additional language proposed by the Charter Commission. City Attorney Long stated this was correct, and this measure was simply to bring the Charter into compliance with State Statutes. There was no public input. Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 8:05 p.m. City Attorney Long advised that a separate roll call vote would be in order on each of these items. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To Waive the Reading, Approve the Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance 649, an Ordinance Amending Charter Section 3.04, Subd. 1, Adoption of Ordinances, Resolutions and Motions. ROLL CALL: Thomason, Stigney, Marty, Quick, Coughlin Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Absent – 1(Marty) Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Quick. To Waive the Reading, Approve the Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance 650, an Ordinance Amending Charter Section 5.05 as to the Initiative Process and Resolutions Proposed in the City. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomason Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Absent – 1 (Marty) Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomason. To Waive the Reading, Approve the Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance 651, an Ordinance Amending Section 5.07 of the Charter Regarding Referendum Process and Resolutions Adopted. ROLL CALL: Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomason, Coughlin Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Absent – 1 (Marty) Motion carried. Mayor Coughlin stated for the record that all of these ordinances were adopted by the unanimous vote of the Council. Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 15 E. Premises Permit Renewal for Lake Region Hockey Association. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated this item is the consideration of the renewal of the premises permit for Lake Region Hockey Association. He indicated the application has been reviewed by the Police Department, and meets with all City Code requirements. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5434, a Resolution Approving the Premises Permit Renewal for Lake Region Hockey Association. Council Member Stigney requested the motion be amended to reflect that the reading has been waived. Council Members Quick and Thomason agreed. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. F. Continuation of Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 5417, a Resolution Approving an Interim Use Permit for Two Billboards Located at Sysco Minnesota Property, 2400 County Road J. Mayor Coughlin continued the Public Hearing at 8:08 p.m. Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant, DeLite Outdoor Advertising representing Sysco Foods, was before the Council to request an interim use permit to allow for the installation of two billboards on Sysco property located at 2400 County Road J. This item was first before the City Council on March 27th, at which time it was tabled, pending action on the applicant’s variance request with the Planning Commission. Planning Associate Ericson indicated the Planning Commission approved the variance request on April 19th, which allows for a separation distance between two billboards of less than the minimum required 1,000 feet. He indicated a diagram has been attached which depicts the locations of the proposed billboards on the Sysco property and the approved billboards on the Bridges Golf Course, and there is a notation indicating the location of the 500-foot distance separation, as opposed to the 1,000 foot separation between the other billboards. Planning Associate Ericson stated the two billboards on the Sysco property were originally proposed to be of a single monopole type design, and very typical of billboards that would be seen along the interstate. He explained that through the interim use permit, the City Council required a stone faced monument style billboard on the Bridges Golf Course, which is very atypical and aesthetically pleasing in terms of a design that would appear to fit in with the nature of the golf course. He stated this design was as unobtrusive as possible, and it was made very clear in the Planning Commission’s resolution of approval, the interim use permit, and the resolution before the City Council, that the design of the Sysco billboards be as aesthetically pleasing and consistent with the billboards approved for the Bridges Golf Course as possible, although not necessarily exactly the same. Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 16 Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has been to the Sysco property a number of times, and met at the property with representatives of Sysco and DeLite Outdoor Advertising, Golf Course Superintendent Hammerschmidt and Mayor Coughlin that date. He explained that the purpose of this meeting was to examine the southern billboard site, which is located on the south side of the parking lot to the north of the stormwater holding pond, to determine if the monument style billboard would be possible in this location. He indicated that from this meeting, it was believed that the monument style billboard could be installed in this location without creating any impact to the parking lot or encroaching into the stormwater holding pond. Planning Associate Ericson stated DeLite Outdoor Advertising has submitted several design themes, which have been provided to the Council. He indicated the interim use permit requires that this request be examined in terms of a conditional use permit, and the City Council and Planning Commission believe that the general conditional use permit requirements are met, and that this proposal would not be detrimental to the subject property or any surrounding properties. He advised that the zoning requirements are met with this request, and the specific requirements set forth in Ordinance 644, the ordinance that created the language that allows the billboards, are also met with this request. Planning Associate Ericson stated the final issue the City is attempting to resolve is with regard to the design of the proposed billboards. He reiterated that these billboards would be aesthetically similar and consistent with those billboards approved on the City’s golf course. He provided the Council with a presentation of the applicant’s proposed designs, and indicated Option 1 is the most similar design to that which the City approved on the golf course, with the only difference being an empty space in between the three pillars. He provided the Council with a rendering of the billboards proposed for the golf course, and noted an extension of the center pillar and a light feature at the top of the structure, which differs from the applicants proposed design. He reiterated that the intent is that the Sysco billboards be similar to, and consistent with, the billboards proposed on the golf course. Planning Associate Ericson stated the issue before the Council at this time is with regard to the options proposed by the applicant, and if they are as similar to, or as consistent with the billboards approved for the golf course that they would warrant approval of the Resolution 5417. He advised that there are two attachments to the resolution. He explained that Exhibit A indicates the approximate locations of the billboards on the Sysco property and those approved on the Bridges Golf Course, which is intended to depict the separation between the second billboard on the Sysco property, and the first billboard on the Bridges Golf Course. He noted a typographical error in the exhibit, which indicates that the Planning Commission approved the variance request on April 24, and advised that this has been revised to indicate that the date of approval was April 19th. Planning Associate Ericson stated Exhibit B would be attached to the resolution as the final design style that the City requires of the Sysco billboards. He explained that the four options presented by the applicant were open for discussion by the Council at this time, and the fact that there is adequate room on the site to allow for the monument style design, as well as what is consistent, reasonable, and aesthetically similar to the billboards on the Bridges Golf Course. Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 17 Jim McGreedy, Lark & Hoffman Law Firm, representative of DeLite Outdoor Advertising stated he was aware that the City desires to have the Sysco billboards be similar as the design style of the billboards on the Bridges Golf Course. He indicated they propose several designs at are very similar to the monument style billboards at the Bridges Golf Course and they feel that the design proposals are very reasonable. He indicated the City’s Zoning Ordinance does not specify any particular design criteria, and their proposed designs are very compatible with the design styles at the golf course. Mr. McGreedy stated that forcing them to utilize the monument style at the Sysco property would add substantial cost to the two Sysco billboards, which they would prefer to avoid. He indicated they still maintain that there would be some difficulty in terms of traffic flow or parking at the Sysco site, which makes that billboard style less desirable. He stated he was aware that City staff disagrees with them on some of these points, and that there would be further discussion in this regard. He expressed his appreciation to staff and the City Council for their work and accommodation to them during this process, adding that they looked forward to working together in the future. Paul Radamacher, representative of DeLite Outdoor Advertising stated their proposed designs are all derivative of the golf course model that was provided to them by staff. He explained that they are all basically the same design, with the exception of the number of pillars. He indicated that if the City decides to proceed with the monument style design with the double arch, they would prefer not to have the “garage door” between the arches, as they feel this is somewhat excessive. He stated that based upon the meeting that date, there is sufficient room on the site to utilize any of the options presented to the Council, and they would be happy to proceed with whichever of these the Council selects. Mayor Coughlin closed the Public Hearing at 8:21 p.m. Council Member Stigney stated he would move to approve the resolution, stipulating that Option 1 be utilized as the closest reasonable facsimile of that being used at the golf course as the design criteria. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Coughlin. To Approve Resolution 5417, a Resolution Approving an Interim Use Permit for Two Billboards Located at Sysco Minnesota Property, 2400 County Road J, as Amended to Add Language in Item 2 to indicate “The design of the proposed billboards shall not include a monopole design, and shall include the same decorative monument style stone or brick face design appearance as the billboards approved for the Bridges Golf Course in a from substantially similar to that attached as Exhibit B,” and to Include Exhibit B, with the Stipulation that Option Number 1 be Utilized as the Design Criteria. Mayor Coughlin stated Council Member Marty was unable to attend the meeting, however, had requested that on his behalf, he state publicly for the record that it continues to be his desire to attempt to maintain similar aesthetics to all of the billboards along Highway 10, in order to reduce the amount of negative sentiment on the part of the public. He explained that Council Member Marty indicated he desired a monument style billboard base, very similar if not to the exact standard as those at the Bridges Golf Course, to provide uniformity to the entire area. He Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 18 indicated Council Member Marty did not have a vote in this matter at this time, however, he had desired his opinions be conveyed to the Council, and that his wishes be known. Council Member Stigney stated Option 1 differs from the golf course design in that the first leg on the golf course signs extends upward beyond the structure. He inquired if there would be a problem for the applicant in terms of duplicating this feature. Mayor Coughlin stated there is also a light tower on one side of the golf course billboards, and he did not believe that feature would be stipulated. He indicated Council Member Marty’s concerns were specifically related to the base of the structures. Council Member Stigney inquired if it would be a problem for the applicant to incorporate the light feature, or some facsimile thereof, into the design of their billboards. He pointed out that of the options presented, Option 1 is the most similar to the billboards proposed at the golf course, however, it still deviates from the design. Mr. Radamacher stated they had based their design proposals on the golf course model that was provided by staff. He indicated that although it would be possible to incorporate a light tower, they would feel this was excessive. He explained that they had focused upon the base of the billboard, and how that would correspond to the design and structure of the golf course billboards, and had not focused upon the light tower at the top of the billboard. He reiterated they had worked with the model provided by staff. Council Member Stigney inquired if this model had indicated the light tower. Mr. Radamacher stated it did not. Council Member Stigney inquired if Sysco was not aware of the design of the billboards that were approved for the golf course. Mr. Radamacher stated he had seen the golf course design proposal at one point in the past. Council Member Stigney inquired if there would be a problem with incorporating these features into the design theme of Option 1. Mr. Radamacher stated it would be possible, however, they would prefer not to proceed in this manner. Mayor Coughlin indicated that during his initial tour of the Sysco site, there was some concern regarding whether or not the base of the billboard could accommodate three legs, however, in speaking with staff and through his examination, it appears that the site could be shoehorned to make a three-legged sign possible. He indicated he informed the representative who was present regarding some of the misgivings he was aware of, and stated that both he and Council Member Marty had concerns about keeping the aesthetics as close as possible to all of the other billboards that will be lining this stretch of Highway 10 for a period of 15 years. Mayor Coughlin stated Options 1 is very close to the design of the golf course billboards, however, given that they would be proceeding with the three-legged design, he did not see it as a major step to match the lower portion of the pedestal to be in keeping with the other billboards. He stated he would offer as a friendly amendment a stipulation that the design be as similar as possible to the golf course style base. He inquired if the Motioner would agree. Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 19 Council Member Stigney stated he would agree, in as much as DeLite could do this. He stated he would prefer these billboards be identical to those at the golf course. Mayor Coughlin stated he was not attempting to throw additional hoops in front of the applicant, or to drag this matter out any further. He explained that no member of the Council or Planning Commission was in favor of billboards, therefore, they must attempt to find a balance, in that if they are going to have billboards, at least from the City’s standpoint, in order to address some of the golf course bond issues, they are as aesthetically pleasing and acceptable to the landscape as possible. He indicated everyone is in agreement that the three-legged design is possible at the site, therefore, he would rather take the extra step and proceed with this design style. He indicated the light pole appeared to be an option, and perhaps it could simply be a unique feature of the Bridges Golf Course, to differentiate between the City’s billboards and Sysco’s billboards. Council Member Stigney stated he desired to see a reasonable design along this stretch of roadway, adding that if they are going to live with the billboards for the next 15 years, they should attempt to make them as compatible as possible. He pointed out that if this represents an additional cost, this is not his criteria to evaluate, but rather that of the bidder who installs them. He stated his first preference is to make the billboard designs as similar as possible, and his second preference would be to make the base compatible. He indicated he had no strong leaning in either direction.. City Attorney Long stated with regard to the friendly amendment that was currently on the table, the Council might wish to have this reflected in the resolution. He explained that there were two issues, one of which was related to the actual design, which should be specified in Exhibit B. He stated the second issue relates to the specific language of the resolution. He indicated he had taken the liberty to draft language relating to the criteria in an attempt to capture the intent, and would suggest that this be included in Item 2 of the resolution to indicate “The design of the proposed billboards shall not include a monopole design, and shall include the same decorative monument style stone or brick face design appearance as the billboards approved for the Bridges Golf Course in a form substantially similar to that attached as Exhibit B.” Mayor Coughlin stated he would submit this as his friendly amendment, and would stipulate Option 1 on Exhibit B. City Attorney Long advised that because this is an interim use permit, the Council may attach conditions, however, the applicant must agree to these conditions. Mayor Coughlin stated all parties were present, and he would hope that this issue could be resolved at this time. Council Member Stigney inquired if the applicant would be responsible for removing the billboards on the Sysco property after the 15 year time period. Mayor Coughlin stated this was correct. He indicated that because this is an interim use, this was stipulated in the Ordinance. Council Member Thomason stated she agreed that the billboards should be a similar as possible, in order to conform to the billboards at the Bridges Golf Course. Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 20 Mayor Coughlin inquired if the applicant would agree to these conditions. Mr. Radamacher stated Exhibit B, labeled the golf course model, would be sufficient, and they would agree to that type of a structure as well. Mayor Coughlin inquired if the applicant was agreeable to the language proposed by the City Attorney. Mr. Radamacher stated this language was acceptable. Mr. McGreedy agreed. City Attorney Long inquired if the Sysco representative also agreed. Phil Seipes, representative of Sysco Foods Service indicated that since the beginning of this process, they have simply stated they required a safe environment for their trucks to operate in, and with the help of City staff, Planning Associate Ericson, Golf Course Superintendent Hammerschmidt, and Mayor Coughlin, he felt that a very good solution had been worked out that date. He stated they could proceed with this, and there would be no interference to the operation of their business. He stated they could continue to grow their business and add more jobs to the City of Mounds View. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mayor Coughlin thanked all parties for their time and efforts in this regard. G. Consideration of Resolution 5433 Approving Severance Pay for Wallace Mortenson and David Brick. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated before the Council is Resolution 5433, which authorizes severance payments to Wallace Mortenson and David Brick. He indicated the severance for Dave Brick would come from the General Fund, and Wallace Mortenson’s severance is funded from the Wastewater Fund. He explained that both accounts have reserve amounts for vacation and sick leave pay offs, and both of these individuals will be leaving on approximately the same date. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated the accrual rate for Dave Brick was formulated in a very similar and exact manner as that of the former Chief of Police, and Mr. Mortenson’s accrual rate and severance package is per the contract. He pointed out the contract specifically references health insurance, and he was aware that when the former Police Chief retired, he was informed that this also included dental and life insurance. He explained that subsequent to that time, it appears that dental and life insurance were not specified in the resolution, therefore, the Council may desire to specify whether or not health insurance includes dental or life insurance. Mayor Coughlin stated the same amount of money is involved, and it simply is spent down at a faster rate if the individual buys into several plans. He indicated he would leave this decision up to the retiree. He would ask that the Motioner include this in the record. Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 21 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Thomason. To Approve Resolution 5433, a Resolution Authorizing Severance Payment to Wallace Mortenson and David Brick, as Amended to Indicate that Health Insurance Includes Dental and Life Insurance. Council Member Stigney inquired if Chief Ramacher’s severance package only included health insurance, and this would now be expanded. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated in his understanding, the language of that resolution was the same as the resolution before the Council at this time, however, the three individuals who prepared that package and Former Chief Ramacher were all of the understanding that health, dental, and/or life insurance were included. Council Member Stigney inquired if the former Police Chief was being compensated for all three of these items. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated he was paid for all three items for period of a year to 16 months, after which time, a determination was made that the resolution was only for health insurance. Council Member Quick inquired if the Council had approved this. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated he believed this was the understanding of the former City Administrator. Mayor Coughlin clarified that these individuals would be converting their sick leave that remains banked into a lump sum that would be kept in reserves and then spent accordingly, therefore, the same amount of money would be available. He explained that whether they desire to utilize this for health insurance alone, which would extend the use of that money for a longer period of time, of whether they would spend it on a variety of health plans, the same amount of money would be expended. Council Member Stigney inquired regarding the specific language of the contract. Interim Administrator Ulrich explained that the contract specifies health insurance. Council Member Stigney indicated that if the contract states health insurance, and they are using this for the former Police Chief, this is what should be specified at this time. Mayor Coughlin stated as a point of order, the Motion included dental and life insurance. Ayes – 3 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. Council Member Stigney stated he was opposed to this action because he believed the Council should follow the contract, as specified. Mayor Coughlin expressed his thanks to Mr. Brick and Mr. Mortenson for their long service to the City, and wished them well in their retirement. H. Consideration of Resolution 5435 Authorizing Revisor’s Footnote Addition to the City of Mounds View Charter. Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 22 City Attorney Long stated legal staff has discussed this issue with Charter Commission Attorney, Ray Faracy, and City Attorney Scott Riggs has worked with Mr. Faracy to draft the resolution before the Council. He stated the “Whereas” clause on the second Page of the resolution, would indicate “The following language shall be included into the Charter as a footnote to Section 4.02 of the Mounds View City Charter. Any Charter Provision limiting the term of an elected city official is unconstitutional and unenforceable,” and would further cite the Minnesota Supreme Court case. He indicated Mr. Faracy was legally in agreement with this language, and at this point, he has not indicated whether or not he has had the opportunity to discuss this with his client, the Charter Commission, to determine if they are in agreement. He stated procedurally, the Council could adopt the resolution at this time. City Attorney Long advised that if the City Charter Commission desires to propose alternative language, this matter could be brought back for consideration, however, the primary concern is to have language in the Charter that would indicate this provision has been ruled unconstitutional, in the most simple language possible. He stated his thoughts were that this resolution could be adopted at this time, and if the Charter Commission desires further language, the City could bring the matter back for further discussion at that time. MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Quick. To Approve Resolution 5435, Authorizing Revisor’s Footnote Addition to the City of Mounds View Charter. Council Member Stigney stated the Charter Commission Attorney legally agrees to this wording, however, the Charter Commission has not seen the language. He inquired if there was some reason, in the City Attorney’s view, that the Charter Commission should not see this language prior to adoption. City Attorney Long stated action could wait. He indicated he was simply suggesting, in that there has been some interest in having this issue resolved, that the Council proceed. He explained that this is a procedural matter, unlike the actual Charter provisions, which require the formal vote and agreement, and as a courtesy if the Charter Commission had some suggested language to change this proposed language, they could certainly present this. He explained however, this is purely a procedural matter, in that the City is the codifier. He indicated the City and the Charter Commission have been battling somewhat on this point, in terms of the actual deletion of this language which the Charter Commission rejected, and which would require the Charter Commission’s vote, and the second option would be to include a footnote. City Attorney Long advised that this item would not require the vote of the Charter Commission in order to proceed, as it is more of a clerical housekeeping issue, however, the Council could decide if they would care to wait until they have full input from the Charter Commission, or if they would prefer to act on the matter at this time, and entertain any changes proposed by the Charter Commission at a later date. He pointed out that the Charter Commission Attorney has stated there was no legal issue with regard to the proposed language. Council Member Stigney indicated that if the Charter Commission Attorney was in agreement with this language, he had no real problem with this, with the exception that the Charter Commission has not seen the proposed language, and as a matter of courtesy when working with the Commission, the Council may wish to obtain their input. He explained that when the Charter Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 23 Commission meets to discuss this issue, they might bring forward some language they would prefer, and he had concerns regarding whether or not this Council would deal with that in good faith. Mayor Coughlin advised that this item could not go into effect without the agreement of both parties. City Attorney Long stated this particular footnote does not require the formal vote of the Charter Commission, and pursuant to the discussions with the Charter Commission regarding amendments to the Charter, they preferred not to delete this provision. He advised that the addition of a footnote had come forward as an alternative, and it was the consensus of the Charter Commission to proceed in this manner. He stated there was no specific language at that time, and legal staff was directed to work out language with the Charger Commission Attorney as a courtesy. He reiterated that this item does not require the vote of the Charter Commission, however, the Council could certainly lay the matter over until the Charter Commission has the opportunity to review the language. Julie Olsen, 2663 Lake Court Circle stated there was a discussion pertaining to the City Attorney’s recommendation of a possible footnote, which she believed was suggested by the Mayor, and in their response, the Charter Commission indicated they felt that because of the manner in which the Charter was written, and because the motion had already been passed at the Council level, this would be sufficient. She explained that they had no problem or issue in this regard, however, they certainly would have an issue if there was any reason to question the wording of the footnote, however, they did not feel this was necessary. She stated if the Council desired courtesy input from the Commission, that would be acceptable, and if the Council desired to move forward, that would also be acceptable. Ms. Olsen stated with regard to the three Charter amendments that were directed to the Council earlier in the evening, she was pleased that they were approved, particularly in light of the urgency to move forward in this regard, however, this action was supposed to be made by a vote of all members of the Charter Commission, therefore, she would request the City Attorney examine this to determine whether or not the amendments have actually been made. She stated she did not believe these items could proceed as amendments to the Charter without the vote of all of the Charter Commission members. Mayor Coughlin advised that direction must come from the Chair and not from the Floor. He requested City Attorney Long speak to this issue. City Attorney Long stated these ordinances require the unanimous vote of the Council, however, he was uncertain if there were any further requirements, therefore, he would research the matter, and if there are further requirements, these items would be brought back before the Council Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Council Member Quick inquired if there was another issue City Attorney Long would be researching for the Council. Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 24 City Attorney Long indicated there had been questions pertaining to the procedural issues related to amending the Charter. He stated this could be done by ordinance, as set forth in Subd. 7 of the State Statute, and this is the procedure by which the Charter Commission recommends and the City Council adopts. He advised that another procedure is the Citizens Petition process, which is specified in the Charter. He indicated the third procedure is “Amendments Proposed by the Council, “ and that is set forth in Subd. 5, Section 410.12 of State Statutes, which indicates “The council of any city having a home ruled charter may propose charter amendments to the voters by ordinance. Any ordinance proposing such an amendment shall be submitted to the Charter Commission. Within 60 days thereafter, the Charter Commission shall review the proposed amendment, but before the expiration of such period, the Commission may extend the time for review for an additional 90 days by filing with the City Clerk its resolution determining that additional time for review is needed. After reviewing the proposed amendment, the Charter Commission shall approve or reject the proposed amendment, or suggest a substitute amendment. The Commission shall promptly notify the Council of the action taken. Upon notification of the Charter Commission action, the Council may submit to the people in the same manner provided in Subd. 4… (City Attorney Long stated Subd. 4 is the petitions process, which would be submitted directly without requiring the actual gathering of signatures) …the amendment originally proposed by it or the substitute amendment proposed by the Charter Commission. The amendment shall become effective only when approved by the voters as provided in Subd. 4.” City Attorney Long explained that essentially, the Council could submit Charter amendments for consideration on the ballot. He indicated this would require the review of the Charter Commission, which would have a total of 150 days for the review. He advised that if there is no agreement of the Charter Commission, or if the Council does not chose to accept the Commission’s amendment language, the amendment could go to the ballot as originally proposed by the Council. Council Member Stigney inquired regarding the Council vote required to commence this process. City Attorney Long stated the Statute does not specify this, therefore, it would require a majority vote. He stated it would not require a unanimous vote, and in staff’s interpretation, the majority vote of the Council would be required in order to submit it to the Charter Commission, and then to the ballot. He explained that this differs from the unanimous vote that is required to adopt it as an amendment. Council Member Coughlin stated in light of the discussion at the Special City Council Meeting that evening with Mr. Jim Brimeyer, in regard to a City Manager form of government, he would suggest for Council consideration that they commence the research into this process. He indicated that if they were intending to put something on the ballot in November, it would probably be in order to begin this process relatively soon. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Coughlin. To Direct Legal Staff to Draw Up Proposed Language for a Resolution Working on the Language for the Charter for a City Manager Form of Government as Opposed to a Clerk Administrator Form of Government. Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 25 Council Member Stigney stated the citizens voted for a different form of government for the City. Council Member Quick inquired what year this vote was taken. Council Member Stigney stated he believed this was in the 1970’s, City Attorney Long stated there were two ways to amend the Charter to specify a City Manager form of government, which include laying out the provisions for this in the Charter, and keeping all other provisions of the Charter intact. He explained that the other means to accomplish this is set forth in Section 410.30 of the Statutes, which contains a provision for Abandonment of Home-ruled Charter by Cities. He indicated that if this were utilized, the city would assume a statutory city status, which governed under Plan A or Plan B. He explained that Plan B is the City Manager form of government. City Attorney Long advised that the Charter could be amended by essentially abandoning the Charter, and replacing it in the same vote with the Plan B, which is the City Manager form of government. He explained that in terms of direction, the Council should determine whether they would desire to keep all of the elements of the Charter in place, and only amend the Section pertaining to the City Clerk form of government, adding the City Manager, or if they would desire to abandon the Charter in the proposal and replace it with Plan B, the City Management form of government. He stated both of these methods involve the same procedure, and the Council could submit them through the same process. Council Member Quick requested legal staff research both options. Mayor Coughlin concurred. Council Member Stigney stated he would like to see the pros and cons of both forms of government, in terms of why the City would desire the City Manager form of government, versus the current manner in which they are governed. Mayor Coughlin stated this information would be inherent in the discussion. Ayes – 3 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 11. Next Council Work Session: Monday, May 1, 2000 – 6:00 P.M. Next Council Meeting: Monday, May 8, 2000 – 7:00 P.M. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Coughlin adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Transcribed and recorded by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Meeting April 24, 2000 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 6:06 P.M. 1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Quick, Stigney and Thomason. NOT PRESENT: Marty. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA None. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS None. 6. REPORTS No reports were considered. 7. CONSENT AGENDA None. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR There were no requests or comments from the floor. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Discussion of the City Administrator Position Profile. Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 Mayor Coughlin stated Jim Brimeyer of the Brimeyer Group was present to discuss the City Administrator Profile and the search timetable. Mr. Brimeyer stated this item was a draft of the City Administrator Position profile. He indicated he would go through the profile with the Council to determine if is accurate, in terms of describing the community and the organization, and to determine if it accurately reflects what the City would like to see in a City Administrator. He stated the profile has not been published, nor has it been announced. He explained that the issue of salary range has not been discussed at this point, and he did not wish to proceed prior to obtaining Council approval in this regard. Mr. Brimeyer indicated the first page of the profile would be amended to reflect the correct spelling of the Wynnsong Theater. He pointed out that during the previous search there was no golf course or Community Center in Mounds View. He noted that the number of employees had decreased since the previous search for the City Administrator, and inquired if this was primarily due to the fact that the City had turned over a portion of the operations to the YMCA, and reduced office staff. Mayor Coughlin stated this was one element, however, the City has also experienced some downsizing. Mr. Brimeyer inquired if the number of employees, as indicated in the profile, was accurate. Mayor Coughlin stated this number did not reflect the Police Department employees. He indicated Assistant to the City Administrator Reed could provide this information. Mr. Brimeyer inquired if there were any corrections to the third page of the document. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated the storage capacity for the water is 1.5, as opposed to 2.95. Mr. Brimeyer stated although this was not the subject of this profile, several individuals had indicated an interest with regard to a Council/Manager form of government. He indicated he was not aware how much time the Council would desire to devote to this matter, if any, however, it had come forward. He indicated the title of the position is City Administrator, however, during the previous search, it was Clerk Administrator. He reiterated that there appears to be some desire to examine the form of government, which he would assume would require an amendment to the City Charter or Ordinance, which are more complicated matters than what they are prepared to discuss at this time. Council Member Stigney advised that the City Charter establishes the title of this position as the Clerk Administrator. He indicated the Charter also specifies that the City does not have a Council/Manager form of government. Mr. Brimeyer stated he was aware of this, and the Council could discuss whether or not they wish to consider this at some point in the future. He indicated each reference to the City Administrator in the profile would be amended to indicate Clerk Administrator. Mr. Brimeyer stated pages 4, 5 and 6 very much represent the conversations they had with everyone. He pointed out that the third bullet from the bottom of page 5 indicates “Explore Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 Adopting City Council/Manager Form of Government. He inquired if the Council desired to leave this statement in. Council Member Stigney stated this was not in keeping with the City Charter, and would require an amendment to proceed. Mr. Brimeyer inquired if the Council would desire to include this in the profile as part of the “per Charter provisions”, or possibly make a reference to include a Charter change. Council Member Stigney stated he saw no reason to change the Charter. Council Member Quick stated the Council should examine this. Mr. Brimeyer indicated he brought this matter forward simply to put it out on the table at this time. He stated they would make reference to the fact that this would require a Charter change, if it were to proceed. Mr. Brimeyer stated the Highway 10 Corridor study is still an issue with the City, and street plans are ongoing. He indicated debt load at the golf course was an issue, and the Housing Maintenance Program was ongoing. He stated there was some discussion that they had cut too deeply into the City Administrative offices, and might require some help in this area. He indicated there is a reference to the City’s strategic planning process, and the update of the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that the suggestion of a Grant Officer contracting for grants administration had come forward several times during the discussion, as well as looking at adopting a Council Manager form of government, TIF policies, and expansion of the regional airport in Anoka. He inquired if there were any other issues the Council would like to include in the profile. Council Member Stigney inquired if there was anything in the profile pertaining to the City Administrator’s familiarity with Tax Increment Financing. Mr. Brimeyer stated this was referenced under Background Experience, and indicates a familiarity with Economic Development, Redevelopment, and understanding of funding options such as Tax Increment Financing and Community Development block grants. Council Member Stigney stated he noted language pertaining to the hiring of additional administrative staff. Mr. Brimeyer stated this was on Page 5, the sixth bullet from the bottom of the page. . Council Member Stigney inquired if this was a generic form of the normal functions this position would perform, or if this represented the hiring of additional staff. Mr. Brimeyer stated this should be reworded, to indicate “Evaluate the need for additional staff, ” rather than “Facilitate the need for additional staff.” Mr. Brimeyer stated he would amend the number of full-time employees on Page 6 of the profile. He indicated he has reviewed the salary ranges provided to him by Assistant to the City Administrator Reed, and specified the lower two-thirds of this range in the profile. Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 Council Member Stigney inquired regarding the current salary range. Mr. Brimeyer stated he believed this was as high as $84,000 to $85,000, with City Administrator Whiting earning approximately $82,000 to $83,000. He explained that this could be amended, however, he would advise that the marketplace appears to call for these amounts. Mr. Brimeyer requested the Council review the proposed timetable to determine if the dates were satisfactory. He indicated the application deadline date of May 30th may be moved back a bit, as the announcement was initially to be made the week of April 17th, and this had not been done, because he did not wish to place an announcement prior to the Council’s review. He stated this has set the timetable back a week. He advised that the profile indicates the approval of the profile is to take place on April 24, and this on schedule, however, ordinarily, they attempt to coincide the deadline for applications with the placement of the announcement, therefore, they may move the May 30th date back a week or so. Mr. Brimeyer stated July 3rd is a regular Monday session for the Council, and they hope to be able to deliver 8 to 10 candidates at that time, out of which 4 or 5 would be selected for interviews. He stated the Council should provide sufficient advance notice if they desire to change this meeting date. He added that the interview dates are scheduled for Friday and Saturday, the 28th and 29th of July, and Saturday the 29th should be deleted. He indicated the Council would not be needed that entire Friday, but only during the evening. Mayor Coughlin stated July 3rd was a Council Work Session, and suggested the Work Session be changed to the third Monday in July. It was the consensus of the Council to post this meeting change. Mayor Coughlin stated the Council was in an official Special City Council meeting, however the Council could reconfirm this change at the regular Council meeting. Mr. Brimeyer inquired regarding the date of the regular Council meeting in July. Mayor Coughlin stated the City Council would meet in July 10th. Mr. Brimeyer indicated he would require approximately 2 weeks to conduct the credit and reference checks. Mayor Coughlin stated the interviews would be held on June 28th, and requested the Council Members review their calendars to determine if July 10th would be an acceptable date for Council consideration. Mr. Brimeyer inquired if the Council found the salary range, as indicated in the profile, to be acceptable. Mayor Coughlin inquired if the City could obtain the candidate they are seeking for this position at this level. Mr. Brimeyer advised that the city of Hugo, a small town, recently paid $75,000 for their City Administrator, and the city of Maplewood was paying over $100,000, which is an indication of Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 the current marketplace. He stated he would amend the number of employees, change the title of the position from City Administrator to Clerk Administrator, and reword the language pertaining to the City Council/Manager form of government, making reference to the necessity to amend the Charter. He stated the timetable would be amended. Mr. Brimeyer commented that they typically prefer to make their presentation with an attractive photograph of a feature of the City, such as City Hall, the golf course, or a park. Interim Administrator Ulrich stated Planning Associate Ericson would attempt to locate a photograph of this nature. Council Member Stigney suggested Interim Administrator Ulrich might wish to contact Council Member Marty, to determine if he had conflicts with regard to the proposed timetable. Mayor Coughlin stated he had spoken with Council Member Marty that date, and he had desired to express that he was in agreement with this proposal. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Coughlin adjourned the meeting at 6:26 p.m. Transcribed and recorded by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No. 7B Type of Business: CA WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council From: Barb Benesch Item Title/Subject: CONTRACTOR LICENSES FOR APPROVAL Meeting Date: May 8, 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 Anderson Heating & A/C – New Apollo Heating & Vent. Corp. – Renewal Harris Companies - New M & D Plumbing & Heating - New Twin City Furnace Co. - Renewal GENERAL (COMMERCIAL) Interior Construction Services, Inc. - New M.P. Johnson Construction, Inc. - New OTHER All Poolside Services, Inc. - New Roger Briles - New SEWER/WATER Sandd Excavating, Inc. – Renewal SIGN Minnesota Sign Co., Inc. - New Staff Recommendation: Approve license applications as requested. RESOLUTION 5438 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA Resolution amending Personnel Manual to allow retirees to pay for health, dental and life insurance premiums with severance funds, and allowing non-union employees to convert 65% of accrued and unused sick leave to severance. WHEREAS, certain State and Federal laws allow employees and their eligible family members to continue purchasing insurance services through the City of Mounds View after the employee leaves City employment, and WHEREAS, City employees and the City Council would like to see union and non-union employees treated in a manner that is fair and consistent, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does hereby amend Section 4.35D (Separation Compensation-Sick Leave Severance) by adding the following paragraph: “Employees who have completed ten years of service and retire may elect, in lieu of severance pay, to have the employer use sixty-five percent (65%) of the employee’s accrued and unused sick leave for the retiree’s group health, dental and life insurance premiums for as long as the funds are available up to the retiree’s 65th birthday”, and Be it further resolved that the Mounds View City Council does also amend Section 4.10A (COBRA) of the Personnel Manual by adding the following paragraph: “Retiring employees who have health, dental and/or life insurance coverage at the time of retirement, and who elect to have those same coverages during retirement under COBRA, will be permitted to use severance funds (as entitled in Section 4.35D) to pay for health, dental, and/or life insurance premiums until such time as the employee’s severance funds are exhausted.” Adopted this 8th day of May, 2000. ATTEST: ____________________________________ Dan Coughlin, Mayor (SEAL) ____________________________________ Mike Ulrich, Interim City Clerk-Administrator Item No. 7 H Staff Report No. Meeting Date: May 8, 2000 Type of Business: C.A. WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: Discussion of Skidloader Purchase Date of Report: August 29, 2018 Per Council direction at the May 1, 2000 City Council meeting, staff was directed to include this item on the consent agenda for consideration. Once again, staff has received a quote from Lano Equipment for the replacement of the City’s skidloader. The current loader will be traded in on the new purchase. The new equipment will be purchased from the State bid procedures and funded from the departments capital construction fund, Pavement Management 100-4470-7050. New Skidloader $24,349.00 Trade-in - $12,859.00 Tax $ 746.00 Total $12,236.00 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council award the purchase of a new skidloader from Lano Equipment for $12,236.00 to be funded from a transfer of $12,236.00 from the Pavement Management fund 100-4470-7050 to 100-4470-7030. ___________________________________ Michael Ulrich, Interim City Administrator C:\Mike's documents\staff reports\Skidloader pur2.doc RESOLUTION NO. 5439 Adjust salaries of full time female dominated positions for pay equity and authorize various budget modifications for personnel related issues CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW County of Ramsey State of Minnesota WHEREAS, the City is committed to remaining in compliance with the State of Minnesota Pay Equity Act; WHEREAS, the City has determined that it is presently out of compliance with said act; WHEREAS, the City had determined that based upon preliminary data, if the City raises the salary for the four full time female dominated positions to the predicted pay line that it would be in compliance; and WHEREAS, the City would need to modify its 2000 budget to fund such increases, in addition to modify the 2000 budget to recruit a new City Administrator. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View that the following monthly salaries are hereby approved, effective May 1, 2000: Administrative Assistant (4 individuals) $3,078.37 Payroll Technician (1 individual) 3,055.25 Accountant (1 individual) 3,928.95 Assistant to Clerk-Administrator (1) 4,238.64 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following budget modification is hereby approved: General Fund Full Time Salary Benefits Other City Council + $235 + $35 - City Administrator + 820 + 115 - “ “ - recruitment - 16,500 - 1,500 + $18,000 Elections + 120 + 20 - Finance + 1,635 + 225 - Central Services + 1,440 + 200 - Community Development + 445 + 60 - Police + 445 + 60 - Other – contingency - - - 5,855 Contingency Recycling + $100 + $15 - $ 115 Street Lighting + 25 + 5 - 30 Water – Admin + 255 + 35 - 290 Water – Infrastructure + 170 + 25 - 195 Wastewater – Admin + 255 + 35 - 290 Wastewater – Infrastructure + 170 + 25 - 195 Said resolution was declared to have been duly passed and adopted this 8th day of May, 2000. ATTEST: __________________ Mayor (SEAL) __________________ Interim City Administrator Item No: 10 A Meeting Date: May 8, 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 5437, a Resolution approving a Wetland Buffer Permit to allow for the Construction of a Twinhome at 7654 Woodlawn Drive. Date of Report: May 3, 2000 Background: For many years, Victor Loeffler, the owner of 7654 Woodlawn Drive, has been actively seeking buyers for his property, which is located between Bronson Drive and Woodlawn Drive, adjacent to the Sunrise United Methodist Church property. There are wetlands present on the site which has until recently made the property somewhat less desirable for development. In October of 1998, the property owner contracted with Summit Envirosystems to perform a wetland delineation of the site in preparation of an eventual sale of the property. Rice Creek Watershed District inspectors have reviewed the wetland delineation report and approved the delineation subject to their revision. Mr. Loeffler has a potential buyer for the property who has applied for a building permit and is seeking City approval of a buffer permit to allow for the construction of a Twinhome on this R-2 zoned lot. Discussion: The City reviews all development that occurs within wetlands and their buffers because of the important role that wetlands play in maintaining the ecosystem and the area hydrology, in that they are critical to the present and future health, safety and general welfare of the land, animals and people within the City. Chapter 1010 of the City Code outlines the permitting process for work occurring within a wetland buffer. The intent of the buffer permit requirement is not to prohibit development within 100 feet of a wetland, but rather to allow the City an opportunity to review the work in relation to the potential impacts to adjacent wetlands. Buffer permits do not allow for any alteration of a wetland—only those areas surrounding a wetland. The boundaries of the wetland on the subject property cover the northwest corner of this irregularly shaped lot. The attached survey shows the location of the wetland (as adjusted by RCWD staff) and the footprint of the proposed twinhome. At its nearest point, the westernmost-corner of the twinhome is approximately 10 feet from the wetland. The southernmost corner of the building would be approximately Wetland Buffer Report 7654 Woodlawn Drive May 1, 2000 55 feet from the delineated boundary of the wetland. Attached are letters from Rice Creek Watershed District and SEH, the City’s Engineer. Rice Creek indicates that the development should have no impact upon the wetland as long as any fill and construction activity is contained east of the estimated Watershed delineation. RCWD staff also recommends the installation of a retaining wall between the westernmost corner of the building and the wetland as well as the addition of a type of rip/rap feature at the end of the concrete swale that drains onto the property. Staff concurs with these suggestions. After reviewing the survey and delineation report, SEH sent a letter in which a concern is raised about the limited storage capacity of the wetland. Specifically, they recommend that no grading or alteration should occur below the 902 contour on the property, that the building elevation be higher than 904.3, and that a natural buffer be maintained between the wetland and any structure or maintained lawn area. These recommendations, in addition to those made by Rice Creek Watershed District, are included in the attached Resolution. Because of the present condition of the site and the extent to which the site has been disturbed and altered from its natural state, development of the parcel would be an aesthetic improvement to the area. The conditions attached to the resolution are intended to protect and preserve the wetland and to prevent any disturbance within the defined wetland boundary. Recommendation: Given the feedback of the Rice Creek Watershed District and the City’s Engineer, staff would recommend the Council approve Resolution 5437. James Ericson, Planner N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\WB00-002\Buffer Report -- May 8, 2000.doc Zoning Map 7654 Woodlawn Drive RESOLUTION NO. 5437 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A WETLAND BUFFER PERMIT FOR VICTOR LOEFFLER, 7654 WOODLAWN DRIVE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE WB00-002 WHEREAS, Victor Loeffler has requested approval of a Wetland Buffer Permit for property of which he is the owner of record, property legally known as: Lot 5, Block 2, Parkview Terrace, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the above-described property is zoned R-2, Single and Two-Family Residential; and, WHEREAS, said property is located within one hundred feet of an identified wetland; and, WHEREAS, the entirety of Lot 5, Block 2, Parkview Terrace, falls within a wetland zoning district; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has found that wetlands within the City, as part of the ecosystem, are critical to the present and future health, safety and general welfare of the land, animals and people within the City, as well as within the Rice Creek Watershed District; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has in mind its statutory obligation to comply with Chapters 104, 105 and 112 of Minnesota State Law, the regulations of Rice Creek Watershed District, Regulations of the Department of Natural Resources, including provisions for protected waters, Public Law 92.500 (Federal Water Pollution Control Act), open space policies of the Metropolitan Council and its guidelines encouraging protection and enhancement of marshes, wetlands in the flood plain area and the public interest in preventing irreparable destruction or deterioration of valuable natural resources; and, WHEREAS, Section 1010.08 of the Municipal Code states that a Wetland Buffer Permit is required when any construction activities are planned within one-hundred feet of a wetland; and, WHEREAS, the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) has reviewed the delineation report prepared by Summit Envirosystems and has found the delineation--subject to a RCWD revision--to be acceptable; and, WHEREAS, no development activities or disturbances of any kind will occur within the wetland itself; and, Wetland Buffer Report 7654 Woodlawn Drive May 1, 2000 WHEREAS, representatives from the City’s engineer have reviewed the delineation report and site plan and have made recommendations with regard to the proposed development to protect and preserve the wetland. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves the Wetland Buffer Permit requested by Victor Loeffler, contingent upon the following: 1. Only clean fill, substantially free of chemical pollutants and contaminants, shall be brought onto the site. 2. No waste--solid, hazardous or otherwise--shall be allowed to enter directly or indirectly into the wetland. 3. Before a building permit can be issued, the builder/developer shall submit a detailed grading and site plan showing existing and proposed elevations and the revised boundary of the wetland, such plan to meet with the approval of the Director of Public Works. 4. The site plan shall indicate a retaining wall near the westernmost corner of the proposed building. 5. To protect against future erosion, the site plan shall be revised to show a section of riprap at the terminus of the concrete swale that drains stormwater onto the site. 6. To the extent possible, a minimum five-foot natural buffer area shall be maintained between the wetland and the structure and lawn area. 7. The surveyor shall install “flags” on the property to mark the boundary of the wetland (as revised by Rice Creek Watershed District) 8. The minimum floor elevation of the home shall not be less than 904.3. 9. Any loss of flood storage capacity (area below the 902.0 elevation) shall be replaced elsewhere on the lot at a minimum 1:1 ratio with the affected areas clearly shown on the Grading Plan, including the areas of fill listed in cubic feet. 10. Grading of the site shall not deviate from the approved plan without the express written consent of the Director of Public Works after review by the City Engineer. 11. Construction erosion control measures designed to limit soil loss from the development site shall be installed prior to construction activity as approved by the Director of Public Works and maintained during the duration of the construction, not to be removed until graded areas have been sodded or revegetated. Wetland Buffer Report 7654 Woodlawn Drive May 1, 2000 12. Before a building permit can be issued for this development, the applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City, which among other things would hold the City harmless and without any liability in the event of flooding or water damage to the improved property. 13. Before a building permit can be issued for this development, the builder or developer shall post a $1,000 letter of credit, bond or cash surety which would be forfeited in the event the builder/developer fails to conform to or comply with the provisions of this resolution of approval or development agreement. Surety would be refunded upon satisfactory completion of the development and restoration of the site. Adopted this 8th day of May, 2000. ______________________________________ Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________________ Michael Ulrich, Interim City Clerk/Administrator (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\WB00-002\CC RESOLUTION 5437.DOC Item No. 10C Staff Report No. Meeting Date: 04/08/00 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 Members From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Highway 10 Study Process Date of Report: August 29, 2018 BACKGROUND On March 13, 2000 the City Council approved a work plan proposed by Springsted to facilitate discussions on the future of County Highway 10 and allocated $5,000 of TIF Pool funds to the study. As staff has worked with Springsted to work out the details on the study and process, we have concluded that changes to the work plan and process originally proposed may be necessary. Additional funds may also be necessary. The original work plan focused on community discussions to identify issues and priorities that should be addressed. Staff and Springsted have reviewed all the previous studies that have been done on Highway 10 and have concluded that there was considerable community input into the previous studies that seems to have identified most if not all of the issues. It seems that maybe the study should be refocused to build on the previous studies and not to reinvent the wheel. The study could synthesize the issues identified and focus on common elements that have been identified in all the studies. Priorities could then be determined and an action plan developed to address the identified priorities. The action plan would contain items that would be addressed immediately, in the short term and in the long term. A finance plan could also be developed. Staff is also talking to the Design Center to see what role they could play in helping the City understand and visualize the possibilities for County Highway 10 and what opportunities may be available through the I35W Corridor Coalition. Representatives from Springsted will be present at the May 8th City Council meeting to discuss this revised process in more detail. The May 10th Steering Committee is also being postponed until the process , work plan, and budget are finalized. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve a revised process, work plan, and budget for the Highway 10 Study. ______________________________________ Rick Jopke, Community Development Director N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPROJ\Sp077.00\05-08-00 City Council Report.doc Item No: 10 D Meeting Date: May 8, 2000 Type of Business: WK 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 Ordinance 658, an Emergency Ordinance Allowing for the Installation of Eight-foot Tall Fences in Front Yards under Certain Circumstances. Date of Report: May 4, 2000 Discussion: This emergency ordinance is before the Council in response to a matter that was discussed at the May 1, 2000 Worksession meeting regarding the property owner of 8438 Groveland Road. As the Council may recall, the property owner had requested a variance from the Planning Commission to install an eight-foot tall fence in her front yard to protect herself and her family from the allegedly abusive behavior of the adjoining property owner to the north. The Planning Commission, while very sympathetic to the applicant’s situation, could find no property-based hardship associated with the request and acted to deny the request. The applicant then appealed that decision to the City Council. At the worksession meeting, much discussion was given to the possible landscaping options that may be utilized to provide for a suitable screening between the two properties. The applicant had indicated that for some reason, none of her landscaping was able to grow between the two properties and was thus reluctant to invest significant sums into additional landscaping only to see that too fail. The Council took testimony from Chief Clark regarding the ongoing police activity at the neighbor’s location, substantiating the applicant’s testimony concerning the incidents of harassment, loud parties, suspicious activities and the like. It was noted that in the last few years, the police had been dispatched to the property more than fifty times, with citations being issued and the neighbor arrested on occasion. The applicant, who takes great pride in the appearance of her yard and property and has lived in the house for thirty years, feels the only suitable and acceptable solution--short of moving--is the installation of a fence tall enough to reduce, if not eliminate, all contact with the neighbor. Staff was then directed to research all of the possible solutions and to present its findings at a future Council meeting. Ordinance 658 Report May 8, 2000 Page 2 Due to the seriousness of this matter and the desire to protect the safety, security and well-being of Mounds View residents, staff drafted an emergency ordinance which allows in certain situations fences up to eight-feet in height in front yards. The City Council has the authority, pursuant to Section 3.06 of the City of Mounds View City Charter and Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355, Subdivision 4, to adopt an emergency ordinance which would allow for the immediate adoption of an ordinance in situations in which it is believed that the passage of the emergency ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare of its residents. This allows for ordinances to be adopted as they are introduced, bypassing the first and second reading and thirty-day-from-publication effectiveness clause. The Director of Community Development, the Chief of Police and the Interim City Clerk/Administrator have reviewed this ordinance and concur that the adoption of this emergency ordinance is warranted and justified based on the facts and testimonies at the Council meeting and Planning Commission meetings. It is also believed that this approach represents the most appropriate solution and provides for some checks-and-balances in the event a similar situation were to occur elsewhere in the community. Staff has forwarded a copy of this ordinance to the City Attorney, who had not had an opportunity to respond as to its content and form by the time this report was sent to Council. If the City Attorney suggests any revisions to the ordinance prior to the meeting, staff will make the necessary corrections and provide the Council with the revised copies. Regardless of whether changes are needed, the City Attorney will be able to address this issue while the Council is called to order. Recommendation: Based upon the recommendation of staff and the desire of the Planning Commission to have this situation resolved in a manner such as that being presented, and given the harassment issues and level of police involvement, it would seem that adoption of Emergency ordinance 658 would seem warranted, subject to City Attorney approval as to the content and form. _____________________________________ James Ericson, Planner S:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\VR00-002\Appeal to CC -- May 1, 2000.doc Ordinance 658 Report May 8, 2000 Page 5 ORDINANCE NO. 658 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1103.08, SUBDIVISION 3, OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE, PERTAINING TO THE LOCATION AND HEIGHT OF FENCES WITHIN THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mounds View has been made aware of a situation in which a Mounds View resident has been subjected to ongoing verbal and mental harassment from an adjacent property owner; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Police Department has confirmed the existence of the harassment situation, has logged many calls regarding the source of the harassment, has issued court citations to and has arrested the alleged harasser; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View resident subjected to the harassment has requested a permit to construct an eight-foot tall fence that would extend into the front yard to provide for increased personal privacy and to possibly reduce the opportunities for harassment; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1103.08, Subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Zoning Code, fences in front yards shall not exceed four feet in height; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council believes the installation of eight-foot tall fences in certain situations would serve to benefit the health, safety and well-being of residents by providing for additional screening, protection and privacy; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority, pursuant to Section 3.06 of the City of Mounds View City Charter and Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355, Subdivision 4, to adopt an emergency ordinance which would allow for immediate adoption and effectiveness; and, WHEREAS, The Mounds View City Council believes that passage of this emergency ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare of its residents; and, NOW, THEREFORE, based on the above findings of fact, THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Chapter 1103, Section 1103.08, Subdivision 3 of the Mounds View Zoning Code is hereby amended with additions underlined to read as follows: Ordinance 658 Report May 8, 2000 Page 6 1103.08: FENCING, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING: Subd. 1. Height: No fence shall exceed eight feet (8') in height and in the case of grade separation, such as the division of properties by a retaining wall, the height shall be determined on the basis of measurement from the average point between the highest and lowest grade. Subd. 2. Intersections: No fences, structures or planting of trees or shrubs shall be permitted within thirty feet (30') of any corner formed by the intersection of street property lines or the right of way of a railway intersecting a street, except properly constructed chain link fences. Such chain link fences shall not exceed forty-eight inches (48") in height from the grade level at the lot line and shall have openings in the wire mesh of not less than one and five- eighths inches (1-5/8") nor more than two and one-fourth inches (2-1/4"). Such fences may follow the lot line to the lot corner. The thirty feet (30') restriction noted above shall consist of the triangle formed by connecting the two (2) points on intersecting lot lines that are each thirty feet (30') from the lot corner. Subd. 3. Location: a. Except as provided in subdivision 2 above, fences not to exceed forty-eight inches (48") in height may be located on any part of a lot. Fences not to exceed ninety-six inches (96") in height may be erected on any part of a lot behind the front line of the principal building. The City Council may require 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. In unusual circumstances, a property owner may install front yard screening not to exceed ninety six inches (96") in height to provide for increased safety, security or privacy, with the written consent of the Chief of Police and Community Development Director, who may attach reasonable conditions to such approval. b. A fence shall be installed on the applicant's property. The fence shall not be installed directly over the property line. SECTION 2. This emergency ordinance is intended to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Mounds View and is effective upon adoption in accordance with Section 3.06 of the City of Mounds View City Charter. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this 8th day of May, 2000. Dan Coughlin, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Ulrich, Interim City Clerk / Administrator Ordinance 658 Report May 8, 2000 Page 7 (SEAL) Item No.10E Staff Report No. Meeting Date: May 8, 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 Full Time Custodial / Maintenance Position for the Community Center Date of Report: August 29, 2018 Based on several discussion of this topic and a general consensus of Council direction, staff would request final direction to the consideration of the City employing a full time Custodial / Maintenance position for the Community Center. The current year’s budget will allow for a starting salary of $12.50 per hour and still allow the City to contract for the weekend custodial services. The Parks Foreman and work will supervise this position directly with the contracted employees at the Community Center. As mentioned earlier the starting salary would be $12.50 per hour with full City benefits. The five-step salary plan for this position would be: Step #1 Step #2 Step #3 Step #4 Step #5 $12.50 / hr $13.13 / hr $13.79 / hr $14.48 / hr $15.20 / hr Should Council’s direction in this matter be to proceed with advertising the position, staff would also request authorization to hire a contract custodial service for the weekends. Staff seeks Council direction and authorization in this manner. ___________________________________ Michael Ulrich, Interim City Administrator C:\Mike's documents\staff reports\Cust-Maint Position.doc