HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2006/04/24PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
April 24, 2006
New Brighton City Hall
803 Old Highway 8, New Brighton, MN 55112
7:00 P.M.
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, and Thomas
NOT PRESENT: None.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. Monday, April 24, 2006 City Council Agenda
Mayor Marty suggested adding Item 11C under Reports of City Attorney to Council Business as
Item 7K.
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To Approve the Monday, April 24, 2006 agenda as
amended.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
5. PUBLIC INPUT
Mayor Marty reminded citizens of the 2nd Annual Town Hall Meeting that will be held on
Saturday, April 29, 2006, from 9 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Doris Heilman, 3034 Ardmore Avenue, stated there was an accident on Highway 10 on Saturday
afternoon. She stated she has gone from being angry and disgusted that it has happened again, to
being very sad for the child and the family. She states she is haunted by the phone call she
received on February 20, 2000, when her son, Brandon, was hit and killed there.
Ms. Heilman stressed there is a severe waning lack of awareness about how dangerous the road is
for kids. She indicated that right after Brandon’s accident, the schools were teaching kids how to
properly cross the highway, but she stated that she made telephone calls to the schools, and found
out that this stopped a couple of years ago and there is only some general discussion about it in
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 2
health class. She stressed that this is not enough. She stated the City has a DARE officer and a
Community Resource Officer that could visit the school to teach children about road safety, if the
school does not have the personnel, the knowledge or the education to conduct the training. She
noted it cannot be that expensive to send an officer one morning to the school to provide training.
Ms. Heilman stated the question of how does one cross the road was asked today, and Brandon’s
father was told that one should run as fast as one can before the light changes. She stated that
according to what was learned in February 2000, one should travel half ways across the road
when the light first changes, and then wait in the middle of the road until the light changes again.
She stated there is a basic lack of understanding on how to cross the road. She stressed this
should not have happened the first or second time, and although the second time was not as tragic
as her son’s accident, that there should not be a third time.
Mayor Marty asked Deputy Chief Tom Kinney to provide a brief run down of what happened.
Deputy Chief Kinney stated the Mounds View Police Department responded to a traffic accident
at 4:00 p.m. on Saturday, April 22, 2006, at County Road 10 and Edgewood Drive. He stated an
eleven year old bicyclist was struck by a vehicle and taken to the hospital. He explained the
accident is still under review and investigation by the State Patrol, so the details cannot be
released. He explained the Police Department assisted with providing traffic control and with the
witness statements. He stated there is an incident report available, but the accident itself is being
handled by the State Patrol. He added there will be a reconstruction due to the severity of the
injury to the child.
Councilmember Thomas stated that one thing that should be mentioned is that there was a
significant problem with the timing of the lights, and explained that the lights were recently re-
timed so one can get all the way across by pressing the button. She stated that children need to
be educated on how to properly cross the street.
Mayor Marty stated the re-timing of the lights with the crosswalks was the first safety issue that
was addressed on County Highway 10, and the City will be moving on with it.
Mike Sczcepanski, 2385 Laport Drive, stated it is an unfortunate situation of what happened on
County Road 10. He stated the Council is considering placement of additional billboards or
taking the movement of the billboards over. He wondered how many millions of dollars will be
spent on the upgrading and the beautification of County Road 10. He stated the Council is
talking about approving placement of billboards on County Road 10. He stated that is absolutely
ludicrous. He stressed billboards should have never been allowed in Mounds View, and they
should not be allowed now. Mr. Sczcepanski stated he does not like looking at billboards, and
no one should have to look at them. He stated if the billboards are placed where no one in their
homes can see them and not on County Road 10.
Mr. Sczcepanski added that he would like the Council to update the public on a regular basis as
to what is going on with the sound wall.
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 3
Mayor Marty asked Economic Development Coordinator Backman for an update on the matter.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that it is a priority for the Council and the
City has been trying to work with the legislature on this issue. He stated there was a hearing on
April 11, 2006, where the City tried to get it amended on to the Omnibus Transportation bill on
the Senate side, but the City was not able to do it. He stated it is difficult at that juncture,
because the chairs are marshalling those omnibus bills through the process. He stated that
recognition has been received from the different entities that this is an important issue.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that because it is a bonding year, the
budget targets do not allow for a project of this amount to move forward at this time. He noted
that the target for the transportation bill on the House is a modest $750,000. He stated that all
operating agencies and stakeholders will continue to work on the components of the noise wall
extension and the design concept extension on I-35W area from Lexington Avenue to 694. He
thanked Representative Bernardy and Senator Betzold for their time and efforts on behalf of the
Coalition and the City on this issue.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that he attended a meeting on April 18,
2006 at the Capitol with all of the entities, where the legislation and the status of things were
discussed. He explained the consensus was that this issue should be addressed at the next
session, and work should be started earlier in this process. He explained the issue continues to
have the support of Medtronic and the other players that want to see the sound wall. He stated it
is a priority for the City, and pointed out that the City has not forgotten about this issue, but the
financial realities at the Capitol have to be recognized.
Mayor Marty pointed out that Economic Development Coordinator Backman related to him last
week that MnDOT is on board with the City and is supporting this issue, and that carries a lot of
weight. He stated in the past, the City has tried to drag MnDOT along to get it done, but this
time they are in support of this project.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that with luck in the process, the project
could be underway in 2007.
Councilmember Flaherty asked Deputy Chief Kinney about the traffic safety training by the
DARE Officer. Councilmember Thomas stated the school was doing it.
Councilmember Flaherty agreed with Ms. Heilman that children should be shown how to
correctly cross the street and about traffic safety in general. He wondered if the City can contact
the school to get the program rolling again. City Administrator Ulrich stated he would look into
that.
Councilmember Gunn recalled that an actual light was brought into the school and the children
were taught how to push the button and how to wait for the light to change. She could not recall
who was doing the training.
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 4
Deputy Chief Kinney stated the Ramsey County Sheriff Department has been fairly active with
school safety patrol and education. He stated more effort can be put forth to educate children
about traffic safety, and it would certainly not take a lot of time or effort. He stated a DARE
officer or a School Resource Officer can invest some effort into it. He stated the Police
Department would make an effort to provide education.
Mayor Marty stated that after Brandon’s accident in 2000, there was a concerted effort in the
schools for two to three years to provide education, and it is now too bad that something like this
has to wake up the community to keep it going in the curriculum. He stated this education is
definitely called for.
Councilmember Flaherty stated he received calls from residents around the area about jake
braking around the corners of Highway 610. He asked if the City can look into putting up signs
that say “no jake braking” until the sound wall is in place. He commented that he does
understand that enforcement is a different subject.
Mayor Marty stated he would like to see no jake braking in and around Mounds View, and noted
this issue has been discussed for years.
Mr. Sczcepanski stated that four or five years ago, there was approval to put signage up, but it
could not be called jake braking due to some legal issues. He stated the signs never appeared,
and added that it would require the Mounds View Police Department to periodically patrol it. He
commented that he sees the Blaine Police Department on County Road 10 stopping people and
unfortunately, he does not see the Mounds View Police Department out there. He stated he
thought this was approved a long time ago, but he has still not seen the signs.
Mayor Marty stated that Jacobs Company made that type of equipment, but they are not the only
ones. He indicated that since then, there have been some signs erected that say noise ordinances
are enforced on County Road I. He stated that controls should be placed on County Road 10 as
well as on City streets because it is a problem.
Councilmember Stigney recalled the discussion of signs for jake braking, but noted that the City
has no control for putting signs on a State highway.
Mr. Sczcepanski recalled that the State representative agreed that the signs could be put up if the
City asked for them.
Councilmember Flaherty indicated that the City would have to put the signs up and would need
to go through MnDOT.
Director of Public Works Lee explained that MnDOT will allow signs on the right-of-way, but it
has to be an official request by the City and the City has to pay for and enforce the signs.
City Administrator Ulrich noted this matter would be placed on the work session agenda.
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 5
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
A. Resolution 6798, A Resolution of Appreciation for Stan McDonald for over
four years of dedicated service with the Mounds View Economic
Development Commission (EDC).
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/STIGNEY. To approve Resolution 6798, A Resolution of
Appreciation for Stan McDonald for over four years of dedicated service with the Mounds View
Economic Development Commission (EDC).
Mayor Marty stated he wished Mr. McDonald was here tonight to present the Resolution to him
personally. Mayor Marty stated he first met Mr. McDonald when he was a Council liaison to the
Park and Recreation Commission, and indicated Mr. McDonald has contributed quite a bit to the
community.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for
an Over-size Garage at 8495 Sunnyside Road.
Community Development Director Ericson explained that the applicants, Don and Diane Balk,
are building a new home and would like to expand the garage to 1,062 square feet in order to
park their recreational vehicle inside. He explained that the maximum sized garage permissible
without a conditional use permit is 952 square feet.
Director Ericson stated that all the setbacks and maximum square footage requirements of the
conditional use permit is satisfied with this proposal. He stated that all possible adverse effects
of the proposed conditional use were considered, and there does not appear to be any adverse
effects.
Director Ericson explained that the home is two stories, and the home is taller than the garage.
He stated the garage was designed to be incorporated into the home itself, and it is well designed
so that it fits in and blends in with the homes and other homes in the area.
Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 7:26 p.m.
Robert Ringdahl, 8485 Sunnyside Road, stated he lives in the house right next to the proposed
garage, and commented that it is quite a big garage and it is close to the property line.
Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 7:27 p.m.
Mayor Marty stated that a number of years ago, there was an individual that wanted to build a
garage to use for parking a recreational vehicle instead of having it sit in the driveway for the
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 6
summer. He explained the City gave permission for that and the neighbors had some concerns
over size of the garage, but once the garage was there and the resident was able to pull the
recreational vehicle in, the neighbors felt much happier about it.
Mayor Marty stated it is a big garage, and wondered if the applicant had made sure that the
garage door is high enough to park the recreational vehicle in and whether they took into
consideration the roof-top equipment and the garage door.
Mr. Don Balk, 8478 Long Lake Road, stated it took three tries before the architectural drawings
were accurate so that the recreational vehicle could clear the garage door, but they have
confirmed that it will work for the intended purpose.
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To waive the reading and approve a Conditional Use
Permit for an Over-size Garage at 8495 Sunnyside Road.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
B. Resolution 6794 Approving the Final Plat and Development Agreement for
the Hidden Hollow South Major Subdivision.
Planning Associate Heller explained that Dan Saplis Inc. has submitted an application for a
major subdivision of parcels on the north side of Woodale Drive. The proposed Hidden Hollow
South subdivision would create six buildable lots from the existing two lots.
Planning Associate Heller stated that the Council approved the preliminary plat on February 27,
2006, and the final plat is very similar. She stated there were some enlargement of some
easements, as well as adjustments of the roadway placement three feet to the east due to existing
manholes. She stated these changes are reflected in the final plat.
Planning Associate Heller showed a picture of the model home that will be built first, and
explained it is 3,400 square feet finished with an additional 1,500 square feet unfinished
basement. She stated this development is a nice compliment to the Hidden Hollow project to the
north.
Mayor Marty asked if there were two garages. Planning Associate Heller explained that there is
a three car garage.
Councilmember Flaherty commented that he was really happy to see that the City Forrester went
out to the site to determine if there were any trees that could be saved. He noted that the City
Forrester indicated that there were not any trees of value on the site.
Mayor Marty commented that the City Forester indicated that vegetation is located in the front
and west sides of property. Planning Associated Heller stated that most of it would have to be
removed for the street placement, but Staff wanted the City Forester to go in and see if there was
anything else to save.
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 7
Mayor Marty stated that he received a couple of comments from residents about the naming of
the new cul-de-sac as Pleasant View Drive. He stated that Pleasant View Drive continues on to
the north and continues on to the south and is disjointed for a couple of blocks. He stated there
may be confusion for people following Pleasant View Drive. He wondered if there is any reason
to call it Pleasant View Drive.
Planning Associated Heller suggested it could be named Pleasant View Circle.
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/THOMAS. To waive the reading and approve Resolution
6794 Approving the Final Plat and Development Agreement for the Hidden Hollow South Major
Subdivision.
Councilmember Stigney asked if the street construction costs will be covered by the
development. Planning Associate Heller stated it would.
Director Ericson asked for a confirmation on the street name. The Council agreed it should be
named Pleasant View Circle.
Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, asked for clarification that the existing street would not
be renamed, and only the extension running north and south would be renamed. The Council
indicated that was correct.
Mayor Marty asked if there is going to be a trailway along the western border that is north of
Hidden Hollow South where the City easement is. Planning Associate Heller stated it would be
an access trail.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
C. First Reading of Ordinance 772, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the
City Charter.
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane explained on April 18, 2006, the Mounds View
Charter Commission adopted Resolution 2006-05, which put forward suggested amendments to
the Charter in Chapter 7 relating to “Taxation and Finances”. She noted that these amendments
were discussed at the April 18, 2006 Special Work Session between the Mounds View Charter
Commission and the City Council.
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and approve the Introduction
and First Reading of Ordinance 772, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the City Charter.
Councilmember Stigney stated that he thought the whole Section 7 should have been before the
Council instead of doing it in pieces.
Councilmember Flaherty commented that the joint meeting between the Council and Charter
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 8
Commission was amiable and productive.
Mr. Amundsen wondered if the Council wanted to talk about the objectives of the Code change.
He stated it is important that the timeline is inserted so that the general public can pull up the
Charter and actually look at the timeline of how the budgeting goes. He stated if residents want
to be involved in the budget process, they need to start thinking about it now because public
input needs to be received by June. He stated he likes the timeline piece of the language the best
that provides an outline for the public to understand.
Mayor Marty stated that this has been discussed at numerous meetings, but it is a good point to
refresh the public on.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
D. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 771, an Ordinance Amending
Chapters 502 and 503 of the Municipal Code relating to Liquor Licenses.
Community Development Director Ericson explained that the first proposed amendment changes
the code to require that a public hearing be conducted for every new, transferred or renewed
license. He noted this change is recommended based on feedback from residents who would
have wanted to provide input during license renewals.
Director Ericson explained that the second proposed amendment would allow liquor license
facilities to offer outdoor seating in association with their establishment.
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To waive the reading and approve the Second Reading
and Adoption of Ordinance 771, an Ordinance Amending Chapters 502 and 503 of the Municipal
Code relating to Liquor Licenses.
Director Ericson asked if the motion authorizes Staff to publish the ordinance summary. Mayor
Marty indicated it does.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
Mayor Marty Aye
Councilmember Flaherty Aye
Councilmember Gunn Aye
Councilmember Stigney Aye
Councilmember Thomas Aye
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
E. Consideration of Ordinance 769, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of
the Municipal Code relating to Signs and Billboards.
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 9
Mayor Marty stated that Staff has been working on some questions for an informal survey to be
handed out at the upcoming Town Hall Meeting that will be held on Saturday, April 29, 2006.
City Administrator Ulrich explained the list of possible questions is a draft version.
Mayor Marty confirmed that one of the survey questions relates to signs and billboards. City
Administrator Ulrich indicated that is correct.
Mayor Marty asked how the question reads. City Administrator Ulrich handed out the draft
questions to the Council. He explained the question reads, “Discussion regarding the relocation
of billboards in the community is ongoing and consideration is being given to alternative
locations. Which locations do you feel are appropriate for billboards? Check all that apply: US
Highway 10, County Highway 10, Old Highway 8, I-35W, Other”. He stated it is a general
survey question to find out where people feel billboards would be appropriate.
Mayor Marty stated that if the Council votes on this issue, then the question could be stricken
from the survey. He stated he would like to get a straw poll of residents at the Town Hall
Meeting. He suggested postponing the final decision until the survey results are received. He
mentioned he has heard from some residents on this issue, and thought the City might be able to
get more opinions from residents that attend the Town Hall Meeting.
Councilmember Stigney stated that his mind is made up regardless of the Town Hall Meeting.
He stated it is not a good idea to put billboards on County Highway 10.
Councilmember Flaherty stated his mind is not made up, and he certainly would welcome public
input. He stated that throughout the negotiations with Medtronic, the City had a “good faith
agreement” and the location south of Woodale Drive was mentioned more than one time. He
stated it would be disingenuous to them to remove it from the table. He stated he is looking for
more input. He stated he wants to ask Clear Channel what they are planning in that location and
that he would like to see a rendering. He indicated he would also like to have information from
the business owners around the area for their feelings on what will happen.
Councilmember Flaherty stated this is in the heart of the business community, and there are no
homes on the front or back of the location south of Woodale Drive.
Councilmember Gunn noted that Mr. Dan Hall is present, and that he volunteered the Mermaid
as a site for a billboard.
Dan Hall, 2200 Highway 10, stated that he cannot give the exact date that it started to look like
the Medtronic project would go through, but he was approached three people on the City Council
or City Staff to see if he would be interested in having a billboard on his property. Mr. Hall
indicated that he was interested, so he contacted Clear Channel in good faith. He stated it has
been approximately ten months since conversations were begun with Clear Channel. He
indicated he has spent $10,000 and has been under contract with Clear Channel since February
15 in several renditions, because he had input from the representatives from the City of Mounds
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 10
View looking for places to put billboards. He stated he is in the business district with light and
heavy industrial properties, and no residential properties. He stated Mounds View is one of the
last cities with outside storage, and this is the type of area that billboards are supposed to be in to
support the business community.
Mr. Hall stated that when Mounds View was first conceived, it was too bad that the City was
split in half over a four lane county highway. He stated that what is there and what needs to be
there needs to be looked at. He stated he has gone through a great expense already, and that it is
rather disingenuous of the City to sit back and see what the residents want. He wondered why
the question does not say if an option is not selected for a billboard site, then it will cost
$850,000 in taxes for the City of Mounds View. He stated the ramifications need to be explained
as well, not just where would residents would or would not like billboards.
Mr. Hall stated the City has done a wonderful job in putting off this issue month after month. He
stated Medtronic is moving in. He asked where the good faith estimate is in letting Clear
Channel pick and choose spots for the billboards. He stated by not allowing billboards on
County Road 10, it is closing down 99 percent of the City of Mounds View to Clear Channel. He
stated Medtronic is not going to pay for it, and that the City of Mounds View will fork out
$850,000 per site.
Mr. Hall stated before a straw poll is done, the City needs to look at what was said to Medtronic,
what was said to Clear Channel, and what was said to him. He stated he started to look at
billboards and now the City is saying that it is not going to be good for his business. He stated
the City is taking revenue from two billboards between Sysco and Medtronic. He stated the City
is putting itself above private business. He stated he has a right to have billboards on his
property. He stressed he was asked by the City and worked out a good faith agreement with
Clear Channel. He stated this matter should be voted on tonight, and not be postponed any
longer. He stated it is costing grief and money for people.
Councilmember Thomas stated she hates billboards, and she can see billboards from where she
lives behind the Community Center. She stated this is not something she wants to see, and noted
she has been on record to protect the residents from what they can see from their homes. She
stated commercial areas are appropriate areas for billboards. She stated the need to protect
residential areas should be reflected in the Ordinance. She stated she knows how she is going to
vote. She stated the question is not appropriate to ask residents. She indicated that after looking
at the language for six weeks, she does not see what she would like to yet.
Tom McCarver, Clear Channel, stated that Clear Channel has made good faith estimates with the
City. He stated the economics are not the same as on I-35 and County Road 10. He stated that
he spoke with Mr. Hall to rework a deal that is financially viable, realizing what the City issues
are.
Mr. McCarver stated that in regard to Councilmember Thomas’s issue with billboards in general,
he indicated that the poles will be wrapped as much as possible, which is not a contractual
obligation, but it can be done at considerable cost to Clear Channel. He stated he spoke with Mr.
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 11
Hall about this. He stated he would like this matter resolved, and he was under the impression
that there would be a vote tonight. He stressed that Clear Channel has been working as hard as
possible to come up with a solution to please the City.
Councilmember Flaherty asked for a rendering of what the billboard will look like. Mr.
McCarver stated he would try to do that.
Councilmember Stigney commented that at the last Council meeting, the Ordinance was
approved and then reconsidered because the number of billboards within the City was not
restricted.
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/MARTY. To waive the reading and approve Ordinance 769,
an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code relating to Signs and Billboards.
Councilmember Stigney commented that this is a 30 year proposition and it is inappropriate to
have billboards on County Road 10 as one enters into the City. He stated the relocation meant
that the City would need to come up with alternate locations to put billboards in. He recalled that
City Administrator Ulrich indicated at the last meeting that the City has provided ample space in
which to relocate the billboards. He noted that if billboards were not such an eyesore, then
Medtronic would have kept them. He stated he had a problem with the past language that gave
preferential treatment to the Mermaid only. He stated it is best for the long term to keep
billboards off County Road 10, and that is how the Ordinance currently reads.
AMENDMENT MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/GUNN. To amend the Ordinance in regard to
Subdivision 6, Section 9, Item B, relating to location (and any other parts that need to be
adjusted), to remove Old Highway 8 and insert County Highway 10 south of Woodale Drive at
the entrance to Mounds View in the commercial area only.
Councilmember Stigney stated this is the opposite of what the City should be doing. He stated
for the next 30 years, the Mermaid will have up to two signs on County Road 10 to the exclusion
of any other place.
Mr. McCarver explained one sign is proposed.
Councilmember Stigney stated the Ordinance does not limit it to one sign. He stated billboards
do not belong on County Road 10. He stressed the City is going to spend money to beautify the
area, and now there will be billboards for the next 30 years for the preferential treatment of the
Mermaid only.
City Administrator Ulrich noted that there is a spacing requirement of 500 feet. He wondered
what the frontage is on Highway 10. Director Ericson stated he could not answer as to the length
between County Road H north to the Mermaid property.
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 12
Mr. Hall indicated he is not asking for two billboards on his property. He stated he is asking for
one billboard. He stated he would not have a problem in changing the Ordinance to read one
billboard per property owner (unless it is the City of Mounds View).
Councilmember Stigney stated that with a spacing requirement of 500 feet, it is possible that
there would only be one billboard. He stated that the amendment is to allow billboards on
County Road 10 and take them off Highway 8. He stated the Council needs to deals with it and
not the residents.
Mayor Marty stated that the billboard height limit in this Ordinance is not to exceed 45 feet. He
stated there would be a 45 foot billboard in town. He noted that in the past, there have been
discussions about billboard height of 35 feet in Mounds View and 45 feet along I-35W. He
stated this Ordinance is not amending the height requirements, so a billboard could be up to 45
feet right in town.
Mayor Marty indicated that he spoke with the residents that live on Old Highway 8, and noted
that they did not seem to be as concerned with billboards along the Old Highway 8. He noted it
is mostly public land except for Townsedge Terrace, and that would be up to Mr. Toberman. He
stated farther south, there is the possible reuse of the site of the Skyline Motel. He explained
Townsedge Terrace is down the hill from the Skyline Motel. He stated that unless there is a
billboard placed at the Townsedge Terrace entrance or on the Skyline Motel property, he does
not see it affecting the residents in the area.
Mayor Marty noted that he is concerned about billboards placed along County Highway 10,
because the City is trying to create a boulevard look with landscaping, lighted trailways, and a
City monument to beautify the area. He stressed that having billboards erected for 30 years is
totally contrary to the boulevard look. He stated the Comp Plan designates the area as business
light industrial, and while it is the business district, it is also the entrance to Mounds View.
Mayor Marty stated he received calls from residents about the signs that are there now, but they
are signs that represent the actual businesses that are there. He pointed out that anything can go
up on a billboard. He noted that when the City controlled the now-Medtronic property, the City
had control over what types of advertisements would be on the billboards, but in this case there
would be no control over the content of the billboards, and Clear Channel would have control
over what would be on the billboards.
Mayor Marty pointed out that billboards were used by the City to try and keep the taxpayers of
Mounds View from having to pay taxes to support the golf course. Mayor Marty stated that the
City got a good deal with Clear Channel, which would have paid off the golf course and left the
City with several million left over.
Mayor Marty stated it is his understanding after talking with City Staff, that the City is providing
adequate sites along Old Highway 8, US Highway 10 and I-35W for the number of billboards
that need to be relocated.
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 13
Mayor Marty stated that the first time the Ordinance was read and approved, County Highway 10
was removed because it was brought to the Council’s attention that there were enough land and
sites available without using County Highway 10. He explained the Ordinance was only
reconsidered to look into limiting the amount of billboards in the City, because it could end up
with several billboards.
Mayor Marty stressed that billboards need to be kept out of the corridor to achieve the boulevard
look.
Councilmember Thomas stated that the City is not done with the Medtronic project. She stated
this is about the Council doing its job. She stated if the Council pursues a concept of limitation
for sites that are appropriate for uses, the Council is not doing due diligence. She commented
that she feels a significant effort needs to be made to correct that. She indicated that the City
agreed to put up six billboards, and the City would find places to put them as a result of the
agreement with Clear Channel. She stressed that the City needs to stick to agreements that were
made in the past.
Councilmember Stigney stated the Council is not supposed to find sites, but rather provide
zoning on where the signs could go. He stated if Clear Channel is unable to negotiate site
locations, Medtronic agreed it would buy out two billboards in Phase 1, and the other two in
Phase 2.
Councilmember Stigney asked City Administrator Ulrich if adequate and ample space for the
billboard site locations have been provided by the City of Mounds View with the Ordinance as it
now reads. City Administrator Ulrich replied that if one looks strictly at the amount of space
available in the zones designated, there are areas where billboards can be located. He stated the
question is if they are acceptable with Clear Channel. He pointed out that the contract reads that
Clear Channel has the ultimate rejection authority, and can reject any location that the City
comes up with. He explained the City has to designate areas within the City. He stated that
based on footage, there are available sites.
City Attorney Riggs stated that the agreement with Clear Channel and Medtronic took many
months to finalize, and the agreement states that there is the ability of Clear Channel to reject
sites. He pointed out that the sites have to be workable. He stated there may be locations that a
sign may be able to be erected, but there may be no parties interested in doing that. He explained
the long term negotiations with both parties require the City to assist with where the signs can go
and where they are allowed in the City. He stated there are certain provisions that the City has to
fall back that are protections for the City, and some is open to discussion. He stated if there are
four sites approved and they are not workable, the City is not out of the woods. He explained it
is the Council’s policy and determination to decide where the signs go. He indicated Staff will
work with Medtronic and Clear Channel to see what locations work. He noted that City still has
more than 18 months to deal with the issue since there is a two year time period for the signs to
be moved.
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 14
City Administrator Ulrich stated that the one site along Highway 10 is the first interest in a
specific sign other than the Sysco discussion. He stated there has not been specific action on the
sign permit and necessary approvals for I-35W or Old Highway 8. He stated the City has some
discretion on where signs are allowed, and that the City should look at where the signs might best
fit. He noted that because this is the first indication of a permit, the City has not gone down the
road of approving one specific site anywhere within the City.
City Administrator Ulrich stated the City is already looking at different locations outside of the
major thoroughfares and putting them on County Road 10. He stated that in earlier discussions
with the Council, it was determined that County Road 10 is not an ideal location. He stated if
billboards were on Highway 10, they would be down near the business end.
City Administrator Ulrich pointed out there was some indication given to the business owner that
it would be a possibility, but it was premised on the fact that the City would have some design
control. He pointed out the City has not seen renderings on how the sign will look. He stated
this important if it is expanded to this location. He stated the City will have enough control to
dictate how it will look and that it will be a benefit to the City and not a determent.
City Attorney Riggs added that the situation has a lot of unknowns and it was his understanding
that the City would have a better idea of where the signs could go. He indicated this is the first
sign that someone has indicated where the sign will go. He stated this somewhat ties the hands
of the Council to make an informed decision to impose as policy. He noted the Ordinance may
be coming back based on where other potential possible sites may be.
Councilmember Flaherty stated that one of the issues he has is the integrity of the City. He
mentioned this goes back to the deal made with Clear Channel to offset the costs of the golf
course. He stated a better deal came along for the City, and the City promised Clear Channel that
it would create a workable deal to get out of their contracts. He stated the City reneged on the
contract with Clear Channel. Councilmember Flaherty stated that when Phase 1 started, and it
would be possibly under the City dollars to relocate the sign, clearly the location Mr. Hall is
talking about was in there as a possible location. He stated as Phase 2 came up, the attitude is
that Medtronic will pay for it if the City does not. He noted Medtronic will not pay for it. He
stressed Medtronic is a brand new corporation that is moving into the City, and the City fought
dearly to have them come in, and to make the assumption that they will pay for it, is not starting
off on a very good foot with such a large neighbor. He stated the City so far has not been 100
percent honest with the way it is moving forward. He stated this particular site was open for
discussion when it was the City’s dollar, and now that Phase 2 has came along, it is off the able.
He stated that is disingenuous to Medtronic and the City needs to find a workable deal and work
in good faith with Clear Channel.
Councilmember Flaherty stressed that he would like to see a rendering, because no one knows
what it will look like.
Mr. Sczcepanski stated that Clear Channel is a billion dollar corporation, and if the City says no
to Clear Channel, they will find sites somewhere else.
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 15
Mr. Sczcepanski stated other businesses will want a billboard on their property. He wondered
how much money the billboard would net per year. He wondered how many lawyers would be
trying to fight for billboards on other properties at $300,000 for 30 years. He urged the Council
to say no billboards on the entire corridor.
Mayor Marty noted that the City could set a precedent for other businesses on County Highway
10 to say that the City is giving preferential treatment to a specific business.
Mr. McCarver stated this is a “Cap and Replace” ordinance, which is in exchange to limit the
cap. He indicated this ordinance is used throughout the United States. He stated there is plenty
of case history and precedents that indicate it is perfectly fine to do this. He stated that all along
through the agreement, the intent of Clear Channel was to gain no more than what it has.
Mr. McCarver noted that he previously indicated that Clear Channel had three locations
including the Sysco site, one on I-35W and one on Mr. Hall’s property. He stated that Clear
Channel has still not found a workable fourth solution. He commented that during negotiations,
Old Highway 8 and County Road J do not work. He stated Clear Channel has been forthcoming
on where things can work and where they cannot. He stated if billboards have to be on County
Road 10, that the closer to I-35W, the better it would be for all parties. He stated most of County
Road 10 was thrown into mix, but it is not the ideal location. He noted that Clear Channel may
not be able to find a fourth workable solution.
Mr. McCarver stated he can supply a design rendering. He mentioned the three sites are happy to
use the construction standards and the standards could be added to the Ordinance. He noted that
it is the same framework as originally talked about with the only difference being the color of the
stone. He stated the renderings and construction standards could be attached to the permit
application.
Mr. McCarver stressed that Clear Channel is doing everything to fulfill its end of the agreement,
and he appreciates the comments about the spirited agreement and he feels that both sides have
worked fairly.
City Attorney Riggs stated that construction standards were based on the original proposal that
the City received, and were included in lease language. He suggested adopting additional
language to the Ordinance to make sure that is covered.
Mayor Marty stated this is another reason to postpone action to the first Council meeting in May
to get that language added, regardless where the billboards going. He noted this may delay the
issue for two weeks. He added he would like to find out residents’ comments from the Town
Hall Meeting on Saturday.
Mr. Hall pointed out the residents need to be informed about and understand the ramifications for
the decision.
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 16
Director Ericson noted that Medtronic is asking the City to consider County Road 10 site
favorably consistent with their ideals of what would be working in good faith with Clear
Channel.
Mayor Marty stated that Medtronic did not want billboards in backyard but they think it is okay
for Mounds View to put them in its front yard.
Councilmember Gunn stated Medtronic has taken two billboards and suggested the City should
take one.
Councilmember Thomas noted that there is a willing private property owner.
Ayes – 3 Nays – 2 (Marty, Stigney) Amendment Motion Carried.
AMENDMENT MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/THOMAS. To amend the Ordinance to allow
billboards on the north side of County Road 10.
Councilmember Stigney suggested the billboards could be incorporated into a Mounds View City
sign structure. He stated this would be fair to the businesses on the north side of County Road
10.
Councilmember Gunn stated that the amendment did not limit billboards to either side of the
highway.
Councilmember Thomas stated she was fine with billboards on either side.
Mayor Marty stated that the way the Ordinance reads is that there is a height limit of 45 feet in
any location, so that means there could be 45 foot billboards in town.
Councilmember Stigney stated that he assumed the language would be reverted back to where it
was before to the south side of County Road 10. He noted if the amendment covers both side of
County 10, it should be clarified.
Councilmember Flaherty stated that the purpose is to try to get this one site approved. He stated
that if this is approved, there should be no more billboards on Highway 10. He wondered what
can the Council do to do that. He stated he truly feels the Council had a good faith agreement
with numerous parties that the particular site would be open. He stated he feels that it was not
until Phase 2 when Medtronic stated they would pick up the cost if the billboards were not
relocated. He stated that when it is the City’s dime, the tune was changed.
Councilmember Stigney stated there was never any vote made by the Council to support that
position. He stated it is a bad deal to allow one billboard on the south side, and it makes it
doubly bad to allow on both sides. He stated Clear Channel now will be happy because they got
all of the sites.
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 17
Mayor Marty stated in the first discussions about buying out or relocating billboards, he stated he
would like to keep them out of town and he still maintains this. He stated they will be in the main
business corridor of Mounds View for 30 years.
Ayes – 2 Nays – 3 (Flaherty, Marty, Stigney)
Amendment failed for lack of a majority.
Mayor Marty pointed out that the Ordinance states that billboards up to 45 feet in height are
allowed anywhere.
AMENDMENT MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To restrict the billboard height on
County Road 10 to 35 feet, and restrict billboard height of all other sites to 45 feet.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Marty) Amendment motion carried.
Councilmember Gunn stated that the design elements need to be added to the Ordinance.
AMENDMENT MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To add the design elements to the
Ordinance.
Director Ericson indicated this would be added as Item I under Design Standards.
Councilmember Stigney stated that he would like to see a rendering, because the original concept
that was proposed for the golf course was quite a bit different than what was brought forward.
Councilmember Thomas stated that by putting this language it, it will require plans to be brought
to the Council when the billboard goes up.
Councilmember Stigney stated he does not know what the billboard looks like, so he cannot vote
for it.
Mayor Marty stated that when discussions were first held with Clear Channel, the Council did
not like having billboards. He commented that Clear Channel came to the City with cutting edge
billboards, and the City looked at four or five renditions. He noted that what the City ended up
with was not what the Council had previously authorized. He stated he would like to see the
renderings as to what is getting approved before the Ordinance is passed.
Ayes – 3 Nays – 2 (Marty, Stigney) Amendment motion carried.
Councilmember Stigney stated that he no longer supports the original motion. He stated he
would like to get feedback from residents in regard to the location of the billboards.
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/MARTY. To waive the reading and postpone indefinitely
Ordinance 769, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code relating to Signs
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 18
and Billboards.
Mayor Marty stated that everyone in Mounds View will be faced with this. He stated this was
posted as a topic for the Town Hall Meeting in the property owner and resident survey. He
indicated he would like to find out what the residents are feeling about this issue.
Councilmember Gunn stressed that all information needs to be provided to the residents in regard
to why this is being done, how this came about and what led up to it. She stated there is a lot of
information that they do not have.
Councilmember Thomas stated that this is mostly an excuse to put off the issue. She stated the
responsibility of the Council is to vote, and she commented that the Council makes a lot of
decisions that have a huge impact and it does not poll the community to see how they feel. She
stated that surveys are helpful but if every big decision was polled, the Council is not doing its
job. She stated she is not willing to try to do her job by the whims and breezes of a poll because
the results are always non-scientific. She stated she has heard from more than enough residents
to make a decision. She stressed that putting off the decision is irresponsible.
Councilmember Stigney stated that something as significant as putting billboards up on County
Road 10 for the next 30 years is something that warrants resident feedback. He stated the
Council should get resident feedback on all major issues. He stated it is the least the Council can
do is to postpone the decision. He stated it is a significant issue that needs additional attention,
and it is the Council’s responsibility to do that.
Councilmember Thomas stated that it was not a significant enough issue to postpone it before it
was changed in the first place. She stated the language that was changed was changed originally
in the first place. She indicated the Council has gone back and forth on this issue, and it has
always been the Council’s decision to make.
Councilmember Stigney stated that what was changed was to re-allow billboards on County
Road 10.
Councilmember Thomas stated that when the Ordinance was first brought to the Council, County
Road 10 was included, and it was taken out of the Ordinance at the last meeting, and tonight part
of it was put back in.
Mayor Marty agreed with Councilmember Stigney that this is a huge decision that will affect
everyone coming and going from Mounds View. He stated the Council makes hard decisions,
but it really hears about it when the decision is not the right one. He stressed residents to express
their opinions if they feel one way or the other, to let the Council know. He asked residents to
come to the Town Hall Meeting and let the City know they feel. He stressed this is a huge
decision that will go for 30 years.
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 19
Councilmember Flaherty stated he has no problem with public feedback on decision making, but
he does not believe the question as presented gives the entire scope of what the possibility is. He
stated he does not believe the question as it is stated should be on the Town Hall Survey.
Ayes – 2 Nays – 3 (Flaherty, Gunn, Thomas)
Motion fails for lack of a majority.
Director Ericson asked if the reconsideration of the Ordinance requires that it goes back to the
First Reading.
City Attorney Riggs indicated the Charter is not clear on that issue, but the Council has discretion
in the Readings for decision making. He stated that just because the Ordinance was
reconsidered, it does not have to go back to a first reading.
Mayor Marty withdrew his second to Councilmember Stigney’s original motion to approve the
ordinance.
Councilmember Stigney withdrew his original motion to approve Ordinance 769.
City Attorney Riggs stated that the withdrawals should have occurred at the time of the
amendments.
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/MARTY. To postpone Ordinance 769, an Ordinance
Amending Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code relating to Signs and Billboards, until the May 8,
2006, City Council meeting.
Councilmember Stigney asked Councilmember Flaherty what he expects to happen from now
until the next Council meeting. Councilmember Flaherty responded that input will be received at
the Town Hall Meeting, a rendering will be received, and it will be discussed at the work session.
He stated he feels it is warranted at this particular time.
Councilmember Thomas stated that the Council has already discussed this to a significant extent,
and that she does not believe there is any further information that can be deemed from the Town
Hall Meeting. She stated that she does not see that it actually changes anything.
Ayes – 3 Nays – 2 (Gunn, Thomas) Motion carried.
Mayor Marty asked Mr. McCarver for the renderings as soon as possible. Mr. McCarver stated
he will try to do that although he has not made application, but the drawings could be put on
white paper. He suggested the previous renderings could be used.
Director Ericson stated they would be presented at the worksession.
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 20
Mr. Hall asked if the question will be reworded for the Town Hall Meeting. Mayor Marty
indicated that the questions are only a draft version.
Mr. Hall stated that it would be a very daunting task to put all the information together on this
issue.
F. Resolution 6795, Step Increase for Nick Fleischhacker, Public Works.
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane explained a step wage increase adjustment is
recommended for Public Works employee Nick Fleischhacker that is consistent with the
Personnel Manual and Labor Agreements.
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6795,
Step Increase for Nick Fleischhacker, Public Works.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
G. Resolution 6796, Approving the Mounds View City Job Descriptions.
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane explained that Department Heads along with Staff
reviewed all descriptions within their department, to ensure that the Salary Compensation Report
and Pay Equity report to be done by Laumeyer & Associates is accurate.
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane explained that a meeting will be held on May 4, 2006,
with all City employees and Laumeyer & Associates.
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane noted that many of the job descriptions had not been
updated since 1997, and some job descriptions have many revisions and corrections.
City Administrator Ulrich complimented Assistant to the City Administrator Crane for putting all
of the job descriptions together, and noted she spent many hours coordinating with Department
Heads to put the job descriptions together. He pointed out this is an accurate reflection of the
jobs being done.
Councilmember Stigney asked if it is the Council’s intent to go through the job descriptions one
by one, as he had several comments. He wondered if comments should be funneled to Staff.
Mayor Marty added that he also has a few questions and comments.
Councilmember Thomas asked how far this would put the City behind with the Salary and
Compensation Study to not have it approved for another two weeks. Assistant to the City
Administrator Crane stated that this would delay it for a week or two, and that the July 1, 2006
deadline would probably not be able to be met for the Salary Compensation Study.
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 21
Councilmember Stigney stated that his changes are minor, and it would not make a difference in
the big picture. He suggested tentative agreement could be made by the Council.
Assistant to the City Administrator Crane suggested that the Council can ask the Department
Heads if there are any questions about the job descriptions.
City Administrator Ulrich suggested unless there are grievous errors, Staff could move ahead
with the consultant. He noted that a lot of the changes are fairly minor in terms of how they
impact the value of the jobs. He stated comments could be received in the interim and brought to
the Council at the next meeting so that the project is not delayed.
MOTION/SECOND: STIGNEY/THOMAS. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6796,
Approving the Mounds View City Job Descriptions, with minor changes to be given to Staff by
the Council.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
H. Resolution 6799 Approving the Plans and Specifications and Authorizing the
Advertisement for Bids and Setting a Bid Date for the Silver Lake Road
Sidewalk Improvement Project.
Director of Public Works Lee explained that plans and specifications have been prepared and the
estimated cost of the project is $546,905. He stated that a bid date will be set at July 6, 2006, as
advertisement for bids must occur at least three weeks before the bid date since the contract is
over $100,000.
Councilmembers Flaherty and Thomas left the meeting at 9:14 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/MARTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6799
Approving the Plans and Specifications and Authorizing the Advertisement for Bids and Setting
a Bid Date for the Silver Lake Road Sidewalk Improvement Project, as amended.
Ayes – 2 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Absent – 2 (Flaherty, Thomas)
Motion failed for lack of a majority.
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/GUNN. To reconsider Resolution 6799 Approving the Plans
and Specifications and Authorizing the Advertisement for Bids and Setting a Bid Date for the
Silver Lake Road Sidewalk Improvement Project, until all Councilmembers return to the
meeting.
Mayor Marty recessed the meeting at 9:16 p.m.
Mayor Marty called the meeting back to order at 9:25 p.m.
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 22
Councilmembers Flaherty and Thomas returned to the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/MARTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6799
Approving the Plans and Specifications and Authorizing the Advertisement for Bids and Setting
a Bid Date for the Silver Lake Road Sidewalk Improvement Project, as amended.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
I. Resolution 6800 Approving the Plans and Specifications and Authorizing the
Advertisement for Bids and Setting a Bid Date for the Hidden Hollow South
Street and Utility Installation Project.
Director of Public Works Lee explained that plans and specifications have been prepared and the
estimated cost of the project is $132,635. He stated that a bid date will be set at June 1, 2006, as
advertisement for bids must occur at least three weeks before the bid date since the contract is
over $100,000.
Director of Public Works Lee explained that the reason for the increased cost is due to the
increase of petroleum prices. He pointed out the actual cost will be based on the bids received.
He noted the costs will be borne by the developer except for an estimated $3,700 of construction
costs for the utility access trail that will be financed by the City.
Mayor Marty pointed out that there was a typo on the Resolution, and confirmed that it should
read the Hidden Hollow South Street and Utility Project. Director of Public Works Lee stated
that is correct.
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6800
Approving the Plans and Specifications and Authorizing the Advertisement for Bids and Setting
a Bid Date for the Hidden Hollow South Street and Utility Installation Project, as amended.
Director Ericson asked if the amendment ? of the increased estimated cost. Councilmembers
Thomas and Flaherty stated it does.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
J. Resolution 6801 Approval of the LELS Local 204 (Police Officers) 2006-2007
Labor Agreement.
Assistant to the Administrator Crane explained the terms of the negotiated labor agreement with
the LELS Local 204 (Police Officers) for 2006-2007.
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/GUNN. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6801
Approval of the LELS Local 204 (Police Officers) 2006-2007 Labor Agreement.
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 23
Councilmember Stigney stated he has a problem with the wording in the contract in regard to
insurance and that he does not support it.
Mayor Marty stated that uniform allowances should be addressed at the next contract negotiation,
because it was found that the costs stay the same or slightly gone down.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
K. Amundsen Fence/Retaining Wall Issue Update
City Attorney Riggs reviewed the Amundsen Fence/Retaining Wall Issue. He stated his opinion
did not change after reviewing the additional information because the City’s Code provisions that
were cited do not appear to be applicable to this situation.
City Attorney Riggs stated that in a memorandum to the Council, he cited a case due to a number
of reasons and it is one of a number of cases that is similar to this in regard to interpretations of
ordinances. He indicated the ordinance is something that is a question of law, and the court
would have its own interpretation if it went for review.
City Attorney Riggs explained the cited case also deals with ordinance vagueness and what
standards apply when interpreting ordinances. He stated that Staff interpretation has some
credibility, although it is not the final conclusion or the ultimate deciding point, and the courts
will look to that.
City Attorney Riggs stated that an additional point is that the underlying policy of the City Code
needs to be looked at when interpreting ordinances, because there are sometimes there are things
that are not covered. He stated that what the Council is attempting to do when adopting a zoning
ordinance needs to be considered.
City Attorney Riggs stated that when the ordinance is reviewed by the court, it is strictly
construed against the City. He stated this means that if someone complains that an ordinance is
adversely enforced against them, they get the benefit of anything that the court looks at or any
interpretations that have been made that may be in the favor of the individual that is complaining.
He indicated that this is why a City goes through a number of steps to build a record that applies
to the matter.
City Attorney stated the Council needs to looks at this case in the context of the property owner
adjacent to the Amundsens. He stated if the Council was to grant what the Amundsens are
asking for and somehow require deconstruction of the retaining wall, the Council has to look
specifically at how the City could defend or enforce that. He stated it is a potentially vague
situation where the City has built out a record. He noted that the issue will be likely construed
against the City. He noted this is the same response received by the League of Cities, and that
there would be an enforcement issue with the adjacent property owner.
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 24
Mr. Amundsen thanked the Council for bringing this matter forward. He commented that the
Council relies on multiple sources for input to make decisions, and that legal counsel is one of
these aspects. He stated legal counsel is responsible to advise on legal impacts and not on
administrative actions or responsibilities necessarily or solely. He stated the Council may have
legal advice that states that no legal issue exists; however, that response may not be the final
answer necessary for the Council to make the situation work. He indicated there is not a legal
issue, so the decision is in the Council’s hands. He commented that there is not always a legal
answer to every issue before the Council.
Mr. Amundsen stated that the Council was asked to determine if there is a setback for terraces,
retaining walls or other similar structures in the code. He stated that City Attorney Riggs advised
there is no setback requirement specified in the code. He stated the building department verified
that the adjacent property owner indicated he wanted to create a potential parking area and that
they advised the owner that it would have to be five feet from the fence in an eleven foot wide
area. He stated the fact is that the building department did not deny the permit for the parking
area, which does have a setback requirement. He stated if the adjacent property owner wanted a
zero setback for a fence, it would have required the property owner to follow a variance process
to get approval. He indicated that variances have almost always been denied for a zero setback.
Mr. Amundsen stated that the issue needs an answer so that he can move forward.
Mr. Amundsen stated that the other question is whether the area with a 23 to 30 inch high fence
should be next to the property line when the code does not specify its application. He stated as a
result, under Section 110108, if there is no setback specified, then it must be a denied use permit.
He asked if the Council wants to follow its past practice to deny variances for less than five feet
for parking areas.
Mr. Amundsen stated the Council must determine if it wishes to incur expenses as result of
another citizen’s action. He indicated he will have to do something about the liability that he
now faces because the fence no longer sufficiently limits his liability. He stated that if the City
does not allow the variance, then it will be supporting his position that he should not have to
incur additional expenses.
Mr. Amundsen explained the City was provided information that the code does not have a
setback specification and does not cover the situation, but the case quoted by City Attorney Riggs
needs to be heard by the district court for the applicants’ appeal. He stated that the building
department’s interpretation is questionable in the courts if it is not clear and in plain language
within the code. He stated that because nothing is in code, he is having a hard time saying that it
negates Section 110108, which says that it has to be in code or it is denied. He added that
Section 110105 says that if it is in code, on a permit or a document that the City has, that the
more restrictive of the restrictions has to be applied. He noted that there is not an allowed zero
setback for any structure except fences.
Mr. Amundsen asked the Council to direct the Community Development Department to require
the adjacent property owner to move the structure back to a five foot minimum setback for the
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 25
structure that was requested for the parking area. He noted this action by the Council will
support the code ordinance that is adopted and will support the primary objective and policy in
that the building code is to ensure public health and safety within the neighborhoods and
properties.
Valerie Amundsen, stated this has become more of a bigger issue, and that a citizen of Mounds
View needs to be able to look at the code and it needs to be clear. She noted that they have been
to the Planning Commission twice and they have not dealt with it there. She stated that because
it is not clear, the code says the City has to go with the more restrictive and safe option. She
noted that City Attorney Riggs indicated that the code is not clear. She stated the code needs to
indicate that the setbacks can be waived with the variance process. She stated this is not going to
restrict the City that retaining walls cannot be where they are needed. She stated that in a case
such as this, it is the Council’s responsibility is to err on the side of safety. She stated they are
cautious and concerned about the neighborhood for its safety, and that should be the Council’s
concern.
Ms. Amundsen stated that some people think they can do whatever they want on their property
and this is not true. She stressed that she is very familiar with the restrictions of the code when
their home was built. She noted that because of the practice that retaining walls can go over the
property line as fences, should not mean that this has become code. She stressed that the issue
needs to be addressed or sent back to the Planning Commission. She asked the Council to be
responsible and watch out for the community. She stated that virtually nothing is allowed next to
the property line other than fences.
Ms. Amundsen stated she feels like they have researched the issue well and are confident that it
will hold up. She stated they are not trying to make trouble for the neighbor, but rather to protect
their pool area and also to protect the perimeter of people’s property.
Councilmember Thomas stated that the structure is a retaining wall. She stated at some future
time, a surface may be improved and become a parking structure, but for now it is a retaining
wall. She indicated she did a code search for retaining wall and there are a couple of references
to retaining walls. She stated there is no specific reference for a retaining wall setback, but there
is an implication that retaining walls are allowed straight up to the property line. She stated that
it is as not as clear as it could be, and it should be sent back to the Planning Commission to look
at some of the issues, but just because there are references to retaining walls at property lines, it
does indicate that retaining walls are to be allowed next to the property line. She stated she
cannot see any violation by the adjacent property owner.
City Attorney Riggs commended the Amundsen’s research, and stated that the issue is implicitly
covered in the code.
City Attorney Riggs pointed out that the parking surface is a different situation than the retaining
wall issue.
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 26
Mr. Amundsen asked Director Ericson if the applicant asked about parking when he showed the
space to the City. Director Ericson stated that he may or may not have, but at some point, the
setbacks for vehicles were discussed when there was a vehicle was parked at the location.
Ms. Amundsen mentioned that their fence goes around the perimeter of the yard, and there is a
height limitation on fences in Mounds View. She stated that if she had a retaining wall next to
her own fence, the clarification on retaining walls could easily have been to clarify that the fence
could not be a certain height.
Ms. Amundsen stated the reference does not infer that it is in regard to adjacent properties, and it
does not address the setback issue. She stated it was an oversight when the language was added
that it was trying to address the fact that high fences are not wanted in the City. She stated that
when she built a retaining wall next to their fence, they were told that they need a setback. She
stated that somewhere the language has been changed. She stated the code does not think of
everything, and the City is doing a disservice to property owners. She stressed the City is called
to err on the side of caution and safety, and if the code is not clear, it says it should be more
restrictive.
Ms. Amundsen stated the City should give people the opportunity to ask for variances. She
stated the reality is that all kinds of structures can be built on property and the code cannot list
every structure, and that is why code is written in such a way that it is more restrictive than
permissive, and that when something is not specifically listed as permissible, it is not allowed.
She stressed that this is not just for their case, but for all citizens of Mounds View.
Councilmember Flaherty asked what the retaining wall is made of. Mr. Amundsen stated it is
made of green treated wood and anchored in cement. He stated it raised the earth approximately
two feet from its natural line. He stated it is a retaining wall for new earth, and noted that a truck
brought in a full load of grading fill.
Councilmember Flaherty confirmed that what caused the retaining wall is the additional fill. Mr.
Amundsen stated that is correct. Mrs. Amundsen indicated there was not a grading permit
issued.
Councilmember Flaherty asked Director Ericson if he talked to the neighbor and what his
reaction is. Director Ericson indicated he did not want to speak for the resident, but he believes
the resident would say that he constructed what was constructed based on the ability to grade up
to where the retaining wall was located. He stated there was some issue over what permit the
applicant did apply for, and a fence permit for a 23 inch high fence raised some issues. He noted
Staff visited the property and determined that it was not necessarily a fence that was being
constructed but a retaining wall with the intent to grade the area flat along the side of garage. He
stated that whether the applicant may have been simply leveling the area to clean up debris or
remove growth or weeds.
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 27
Director Ericson stated how the area will be used is the deciding factor to determine what the
setback is. He stated if grass is planted, then there is no issue, but if it is a parking pad, it needs a
five foot setback.
Mr. Amundsen commented that the property owner has used the space for parking once, and it
was brought to the building inspector’s attention at that time, and shortly thereafter the vehicle
was removed. He stated the intent was to use it as a parking area.
Councilmember Flaherty asked if one can terrace up to the lot line. Director Ericson stated he
would rather not use that term.
Councilmember Thomas stated the code indicates a terrace is a porch area.
Councilmember Flaherty stated that the only need for a retaining wall is because of a change in
grade. He stated the change in grade precipitated a retaining wall. He asked what a change in
grade means and what is in the code for that.
Director Ericson indicated there is no setback.
Mayor Marty asked if they needed a grading permit for a change in grade. Director Ericson
stated there is a threshold below which a permit is not required, and the Public Works department
has that discretion. He stated that when the permit was brought forward last year, Public Works
indicated that no grading permit was needed because it was not an area of fill substantial enough
to require a grading permit. He noted this is not in writing, but he asked the Public Works
department to review it and they indicated it was not a problem, and based on that, the
Community Development Department issued a permit for the work to proceed based on the fact
that it was a retaining wall with associated fill.
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To extend the meeting past 10:00 p.m.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Mayor Marty wondered if the permit was ever changed when the adjacent property owner first
came in and initially applied for a permit for a 23 inch fence. Director Ericson stated it does not
really matter if it was changed, as the permit was issued for work to proceed, and whether it
shows up as a fence or retaining wall is immaterial. He stated the end product is what the City is
looking at.
Mayor Marty stated that it has been mentioned that if something is not listed in the code, then it
is not allowed. He stated that the City has discovered that there are a number of holes in the code
to look into and readdress. He stated that unfortunately for the Amundsens, they discovered the
holes for the City due to their situation, and because of that, it would probably be grandfathered
in because it has not came up in past. He stated this type of work has been done in different parts
of the City, but if it is not listed, that is to protect the City from people bringing in different
things.
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 28
Director Ericson stated that the City has to look at the intent, and every code needs the clause that
states if it is not explicitly permitted, then it is not allowed. He commented there are holes to
allow what one would naturally see in any residential district. He stated birdhouses are not listed
in the code, and by strict interpretation of the code, it would not be allowed. He stated there are
features that may not be contemplated but they are not intended to be restricted because they do
not show in the code. He stated that certainly birdhouses are allowed in the City.
Director Ericson stated that the fact that there is not an interpretation or a definition of a retaining
wall in the code does not change the fact that this is something that is not unexpected in a
residential district or between property lines. He stated it is a feature that is commonly used in
landscaping as well as to demarcate where a property line is. He stated that because it is not
strictly permitted, the City has latitude to have the discretion to say that it is allowed by virtue of
the fact that it is same or similar or permitted as part of the residential landscape. He stated he
disagrees because it is not strictly defined that it not is permitted.
Councilmember Thomas stated that the situation is not just about the Amundsens, but rather that
the City needs to look at the situation across the board. She stated she does not believe the
provision applies to this particular situation. She stressed there is a strong implication in the
code that retaining walls are allowed at property lines, even though there may not be a definition.
She stated that if the issue goes to court, it will come down to what has been the City’s past
practice, the consistency of interpretation, and the implication of the code. She stated the City
does allow retaining walls on the property line, but the code does not say how it is applied.
Director Ericson explained the Planning Commission looked at whether there should be a
definition of a retaining wall in the code and if there should be a setback for a retaining wall in
the code. He mentioned they also looked at issues relating to fences and terraces, and they have
not taken official action, they have directed Staff to bring forward additional research. He stated
the Planning Commission’s intent is to add a definition of what a retaining wall is and indicate
that retaining walls are allowed up to the property line. He stated that the Planning Commission
felt that there was not a need to add the definition of a terrace, as it was defined similar to a patio
in the code. He stated the Planning Commission felt there should not be a setback for fences and
the code should remain as it currently states. He explained the Planning Commission will be
bringing forward a recommendation that addresses retaining walls, and the recommendation will
be that retaining walls are allowed up to the property line and a definition of a retaining wall will
be added.
Mrs. Amundsen stated the code makes references to ornamental items that can be moved. She
stated that there is a definition in the code that defines that a structure is permanently cemented in
the ground. She stated one has to be careful in comparing a birdhouse to a structure as they are
not similar.
Mrs. Amundsen asked City Attorney Riggs what his opinion is on the fact that the code states
that when something is not specifically allowed, that the City should err on the side of the more
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 29
restrictive. She wondered how this phrase is being overlooked in this situation. She stated that
all parties agree that is a vague situation and there is no clear cut answer.
City Attorney Riggs stated it is a policy decision in the interpretation, and it is something that
needs to be filled in. He stated that every code has that provision and no code is perfect. He
stated the courts will look at the past fact patterns of the community and the overall broad
interpretation of how the code has been utilized. He stated that this would be very strong for a
court to look at.
Mr. Amundsen stated a single sentence would be considered vague, and a strong position would
be that it is specifically included in the setback code. He stated the Council needs to make a
policy decision in regard to if a neighbor is dissatisfied with the way that the Community
Development Department has decided something and that the past practice is to deny zero
setback, what is the policy going to be. He wondered if zero setbacks will not be allowed or if
they will be allowed at the discretion of the City Administrator. He stated that the current
administrative variance allowance specifies that the City Administrator can determine up to two
feet. He wondered if the Council will follow the current policy or change policy this evening and
allow it to be at the discretion of Community Development department.
Councilmember Thomas stated past practice has been to allow retaining walls with zero setbacks,
so to do anything else would be the change of policy. She indicated the Council has given other
structures setbacks. She stated the City would have a significant amount of properties to deal
with if the policy was changed.
Mayor Marty recalled that several years ago, the Community Development department was given
some discretion so that everything would not have to come to the Council. He stated that
perhaps this is a point where setbacks need to be looked at, too. He stated he was under the
impression that even if the Community Development Department approves something, that it
still had to go before the Planning Commission for a cursory evaluation.
Director Ericson stated the administrative variance process is irrelevant in this situation. He
stated there are some checks and balances in regard to an administrative variance process, and it
does not give the Community Development Director any latitude to grant setback variances. He
explained it allows for a reduction to not less than 25 percent of the setback required, but
adjoining property owners have to be notified, and if there are no objections, Planning
Commission performs a cursory review. He stated if a property owner rejects the reduction, there
would be a full variance process. He stated this is only for setback variances.
Mayor Marty asked if it was acceptable that the area filled is not planted or sodded. He
wondered if it would nullify the process if the individual were to park a car there again.
Director Ericson stated that specifically with regard to the property owner on Pleasant View
Drive, if a vehicle is parked there, it would be in violation of City code, and the property owner
would receive a notice of violation. He stated this has not occurred since the property owner
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 30
was informed of the code. He stated it does not nullify the grading or the retaining wall if a
violation was to occur again.
Mayor Marty wondered if the property owner could put in gravel instead of landscaping.
Director Ericson explained a resident can have some landscape rock along the property, but the
moment the area is used for parking, it becomes a parking area.
Mayor Marty asked if there is any leeway to bring the structure down. Director Ericson
explained the structure is 24 inches tall, and the fill is at that level or an inch, so he was not sure
what could be brought down.
Mayor Marty wondered if it came up as high as the structure. Mrs. Amundsen stated it does.
Director Ericson indicated that the property owner is willing to cut off the 4x4 posts so it is level
with retaining wall.
Councilmember Stigney asked if the Planning Commission came up with any recommendations
regarding retaining walls up to edge of the property. Director Ericson reported that the Planning
Commission felt that a retaining wall up to the property line was appropriate, and that they would
make an amendment to explicitly permit that in the same section where fences are permitted and
defined as to where they are allowed and what the appropriate setback is. He stated the Planning
Commission felt that there was no difference as a fence in that regard and adding the definition to
the code would be a worthy amendment.
Councilmember Flaherty wondered if the adjacent property owner is willing to make any
movement or concessions. Director Ericson explained that the property owner indicated he
would cut down the 4x4 posts to make the area flush with the rest of the retaining wall. He
stated his position agrees with Staff’s position that the retaining wall and the grading is
consistent with City code, past practice and past policy.
Mr. Amundsen stated that they were hoping to have the structure moved back two feet. He stated
he is going to need to spend money to rebuild the fence as a result of the neighbor’s activity.
Mrs. Amundsen stated they will incur costs although they do not want to, because they are
concerned about safety. She stated it is annoying that they are put in this predicament when the
pool has been there over ten years.
Mayor Marty stated that he really does not see a solution that is going to make anyone happy. He
stated that unless the property owner starts parking his car in the area, the structure cannot be
moved back.
Mr. Amundsen stated that he continues to be frustrated because when he spoke to the neighbor,
he indicated that he wanted to build a parking space. He mentioned he talked to Director Ericson
about parking at the last meeting. He stated he is confused why the Council does not see the
same intent.
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 31
Councilmember Thomas stated that the two issues have no relation to each other. She stated a
retaining wall is not a parking surface. She stated that from a legal standpoint, a retaining wall
might allow for a parking surface, but it is not the same thing. She noted that regardless of
whether a parking surface is created, it is still a different structure that is not related.
Mr. Amundsen asked City Attorney Riggs that when the act of an individual indicates intent.
City Attorney Riggs stated that it depends on the issue.
Councilmember Thomas stated that if the car is parked closer, there is a clear code violation, but
until that happens, there is not a code violation. She noted it comes down to a matter of
subjective interpretation and she cannot see that there has been a code violation for the Council
to enforce.
Mayor Marty stated the Planning Commission needs to clear up the code.
Mr. Amundsen confirmed that the Council’s policy is that retaining walls can be built up to the
property line and that this policy is set by non-action. He confirmed that in past practices, the
building department has approved permits for retaining walls up to the property line, will
continue to stand.
Mayor Marty stated that is correct until it is changed. He noted the Planning Commission will
start looking at the code.
Councilmember Flaherty commented that the adjacent property owner is not before the Council
to determine if there is an amiable situation.
Mr. Amundsen stated he is asking the Council to have the other party be engaged. He wondered
if the building department could assure that the additional six or eight inches will be removed by
the adjacent property owner. Mr. Amundsen pointed out that he will still have to put up more
fencing and find remedies to pay for the additional fencing
City Administrator Ulrich stated there is nothing precluding the City from getting all parties
together to work out an agreement. He stated the City would be willing to potentially mediate
this issue.
Mrs. Amundsen asked if City Administrator Ulrich would set up the meeting with the adjacent
property owner. City Administrator Ulrich indicated he would.
Mrs. Amundsen stated she they are reasonable and concerned citizens and that they hope to leave
with the impression that they never intended to be bad neighbors. She stated they plan to live in
the neighborhood for many more years. She indicated that unless something can be worked out
in the next couple of weeks, they will be forced to spend money to improve the fence. She stated
they will probably come to the Council if the situation cannot be resolved with the neighbor. She
commented that they feel forced into that situation.
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 32
8. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Marty asked to remove Item C.
A. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., Monday, May 8, 2006 to Reconsider an
Expired Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage at 2832 Woodale
Drive.
B. Set a Public Hearing for 7:10 p.m., Monday, May 8, 2006 for a Second
Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 772, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 7
of the Mounds View City Charter.
C. Resolution 6797 Designating the 2005 Mounds View Citizenship Award.
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To Approve the Consent Agenda Items A and B.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
8C. Resolution 6797 Designating the 2005 Mounds View Citizenship Award.
Mayor Marty pointed out that Mr. Frank Silvas was nominated and received letters of
recommendation. He explained that Mr. Silvis will be recognized at the beginning of the Town
Hall Meeting on Saturday.
MOTION/SECOND: MARTY/FLAHERTY. To waive the reading and approve Resolution
6797 Designating the 2005 Mounds View Citizenship Award.
Councilmember Flaherty commented that there were numerous letters of recommendation for
Mr. Silvis and he is very deserving of this honor.
Mayor Marty noted that two individuals were nominated this year, and he hopes that the other
individual gets nominated next year as he is also very worthy.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
9. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/THOMAS. To approve the Just and Correct Claims as Presented.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. April 10, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 33
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/MARTY. To Approve the April 10, 2006 City Council
meeting minutes as corrected and with corrections that Staff received.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
11. REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
1. Mayor Marty
a. Ramsey County League of Local Government Presentation.
Mayor Marty reviewed that the Ramsey County League of Local Governments will have a
presentation on the threat of an influenza pandemic on Thursday, April 27, 2006, from 7:00 p.m.
to 9:00 p.m. at the Little Canada City Hall, in regard to what local governments can do. He noted
this is a public meeting, but they are asking for RSVPs to (651) 222-7409, Extension 203.
b. Garbage Cans on Disc Golf Field.
Mayor Marty noted that some individuals are asking if three garbage cans can be placed on the
Disc Golf Field, because there is no place to throw trash.
c. Announce the Town Hall Meeting on Saturday, April 29, 2006.
Mayor Marty stated the 2nd Annual Town Hall Meeting is scheduled for Saturday, April 29, 2006
at 9:00 a.m.
B. Reports of Staff
1. Community Development Director Ericson
a. Medtronic Permit Fee Update
Director Ericson reviewed that in regard to the Medtronic project, the valuation for the buildings
are $26 million more than anticipated. He noted that G&H Consultants were contracted to
conduct the plan review and would be compensated 25 percent of the plan review fees. He noted
the Resolution included a maximum dollar amount, and due to the increased building valuation,
the fees will be higher. He noted Staff will present a Resolution at the next Council meeting to
revise the original agreement.
b. Premium Stop Update
Director Ericson reported that nothing of significance was found when the tanks were removed
on the Premium Stop property, and that the inspector indicated that the site was fairly clean. He
stated copies of Phase 1 and 2 environmental analyses will be reviewed, but it has been
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 34
demonstrated that it is a clean site. He noted the City will be seeking Minnesota Pollution
Control concurrence that it is in a clean site. He noted the City is working on the title work, and
it is conceivable that this item may be back before the City Council to obtain authorization to
acquire the property on May 8, 2006. He noted that the property owner did everything that was
asked of him.
2. City Administrator Ulrich
City Administrator Ulrich explained that a draft questionnaire has been prepared for the Town
Hall Meeting. He stated that the survey does not have to be conducted and it is not scientific, but
it does give residents that attend the Town Hall Meeting the chance to give opinions and
feedback.
City Administrator Ulrich reviewed some of the questions on the survey. He wondered if the
Council wants to proceed with the survey or change any of the questions.
City Administrator Ulrich agreed that it would be difficult to give all the background information
to the billboard question. He stated it is a question that would have some obvious answers.
Councilmember Stigney stated that something should indicate that the billboards will be in the
City for the next 30 years.
Councilmember Thomas stated that County 10 should be broken up as a definition. She stated
that no one is proposing it for the length of County Road 10, and it should be presented as it is
being proposed.
Mayor Marty suggested adding the language “south of Woodale Drive to the Mermaid” on
County Highway 10.
Councilmember Thomas suggested the questionnaire could be double sided to allow for a place
for people to write in comments.
Councilmember Stigney suggested adding “in accordance with the current street policy” to the
seventh question. The Council concurred.
Councilmember Stigney suggested that the preference of bonding or TIF for the funding source
should be asked for the current street reconstruction projects.
Councilmember Thomas stated that gets into the specifics and it may get too complicated.
Director Ericson stated this could be a problem if a person answering does not know what TIF is
or what the implication is.
Mayor Marty suggested leaving the question as it is as more of a general question without having
to go into the details.
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 35
Councilmember Stigney wondered how a resident can answer the question if the impact of the
funding mechanism is not discussed. He stated the current policy says the neighborhood is asked
how it wants it reconstructed.
City Administrator stated that last year when this question was adopted, the City was in a
different place with the street improvement plan. He suggested there is less of a need to ask a
street question.
Councilmember Thomas stated that it is a decent question because it encourages residents to take
part in the process, but she does not want it to get too complicated.
The Council, with the exception of Councilmember Stigney, agreed to leave the question as
stated.
Councilmember Stigney stated that the eighth question does not indicate what the funding source
is.
Mayor Marty suggested this question should be removed because the second option is not an
option anymore.
Councilmember suggested that the second option should read that no changes are needed.
Councilmember Stigney stated that it does not define the fitness center that is being considered.
He asked if the question can be pulled.
Councilmember Thomas stated this question might be difficult to work out right now with the
current situation.
The Council agreed to remove the question.
Mayor Marty stated that Staff made good choices on the questions that will be asked.
City Administrator Ulrich stated that the church indicated that April would be the last month that
they would be occupying the building. He noted the City will be sending a final invoice for
services and space. He noted they were paying $1,500 per month to Canyon Grill for the space
they were occupying, so this will be empty space.
Mayor Marty asked if they have a contract with Canyon Grill. City Administrator Ulrich stated it
appears to be a 30 day contract, and City Attorney Riggs is reviewing.
City Attorney Riggs stated there is a 180 day notice provision in the lease, but it is not there any
more. He stated that they appear to be on a 30 day term at this point, although the City is the
successor under the lease. He noted Staff will resolve that and send a notice to clarify what is
going on.
Mounds View City Council April 24, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 36
Councilmember Thomas stated that the City was clear when the situation was terminated with
Canyon Grill that was set up as a 30 day term.
City Administrator Ulrich stated that the church indicated when Canyon Grill left that they were
interested in continuing the lease, and never gave any indication that they were leaving.
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, May 1, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.
Next Council Meeting: Monday, May 8, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.
13. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:11 p.m.
Transcribed by:
Annette Anderson
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.