HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1983/05/16u
A
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA SESSION
May 16, 1983
7:00 p.m.
1. Presentation of the 1982 Financial Statement and Management
Report by Finance Director Brager and representatives of
DeLaHunt and Voto.
2. Consideration of staff memorandum regarding proposed Special
Assessment Debt Service Study.
3. Consideration of Resolution No. 1604 Adopting the 1984
Budget Calendar.
4. Consideration of Recreation Activity Fund Budget.
5. Continuation of discussion on Rice Creek Watershed Board
Reorganization (see material handed out at May 9, 1983
Council Meeting).
6. Consideration of staff memorandum regarding Hnollwood Drive
Streetlight Petition.
7. Consideration of memorandum from Civil Service Commission
regarding Police Chief position.
8. Consideration of Planning Commission recommendation concerning
Tony Poppelaars proposal.
9. Consideration of Planning Commission recommendation concerning
Leonard Babinski proposal.
10. Consideration of Planning Commission recommendation concerning
Norb Yenish Motel proposal.
11. Consideration of staff memorandum regarding Appendix E of
the Minnesota Building Code, Automatic Fire Suppression Systems
(copies handed out at May 9, 1983 Council Meeting).
TO: Mayor & Council
9aFROM: Finance Director -Treasurer Brager
DATE: May 11, 1903
RE: COST OF 1982 AUDIT
The agreement for auditing/accounting services entered into with
DeLaHUNT VOTO & CO., LTD. proposed a total fee for 1982 not to
exceed $11,200. As the attached billing indicates the total fee
was within $139.50 of budget. This amount was adjusted in order
that the total billing would not exceed the original estimate.
Should you have any questions do not hesitate to contact me.
DB/ds
Enclosures: May 9, 1983 letter from Robert J. Voto
Copy of May 9, 1983 billing for professional services
c
DELAHUNT VOTO x CO., LTD.
� I• Ihuh Lll.r Ihulrlenndl Ilm;ding a ;11111 !1N1 '"� c Nhr� I!. � I.
w
J-
f'
31
May 9, 1983
Mr. Donald Brager,
Finance Director
City of Mounds View
2401 Northeast Highway 10
Mounds View, Minnesota 55112
Dear Don:
(IkIII11UPUIIIR A((OUNTANTS
�• u I�..m•UI. 1!bt
"U\IIP I D4 Ht \L IIIIIIIIU
W 1IIIIII 1111111 II•\
II\II IIIII I, NI %Hit,1%, ll'.1
I11 pill It 1. 111 II.1%. 11•\
Congratulations on surviving the 1982 City Audit and related work. Also,
congratulations to your staff.
At the exit conference, you inquired about our time and estimated fees and I
responded that we were over but within 5% to 10% and that we were satisfied.
That data was based (in part) upon our estimate of time required to complete our
work.
Our work is now complete and actual hours and costs are known. I am very happy
to say that were within $139.50 of budget. In reality, Don, you should consider
this to be one of the more significant events affecting your City during the
past twelve months. As you well know, the City's finance staff is "bare -bones"
and not staffed at a level to enable all of the year-end work to be done without
a great deal of added time and pressure. Accordingly, our 1982 Contract
included a clause regarding accounting services. The fact that we come in at
budget is reflective of the efforts of you and your staff rather than only our
efforts.
Again Don, congratulations for a job well done. We look forward to working with
you and your staff during the coming months and years.
Sincerely,
DE LA HUNT VOTO a CO., LTD.
AfW
Robert J. Voto, CPA
RJV/llk
cc: Correspondence File
NINUIRS 01 N!i v:ll \•. IN'lll! II 01 119111111, I.1 lilt, " I I11 •J \.•.11 e PRIH II ( /HIP WIIS I'M Ill I SIC 110N
I •--` -__ -- KIRS NIA SI !l ON 9 NilN lli l!II I'171111 1( 10% 1 NCH0
\\ LP ill li4! !I'��'•l l UII II IR$.SSWIIAIII IN � VI4NI.UI \ \SSt 1(IAIR W I11 S111001 III151NHS UI(I(IAIS
DELAHUNT VOTO x CO., LTD.
Bull Idtr I'l ule\uun.11 Ilund;uR • 11101 11,\I 'A • V, h,W h�.n 1.;1 :•
May 9, 1983
City of Mounds View
2401 Northeast Highway 10
Mounds View, Minnesota 55112
For professional services rendered:
(I R I II I I D P081IC A( COUNTANTS
�n , I .,• Ln f:hl
f n111u I Ibl .111 \1 IIIIINIb
B1111P1 I Mill 11'\
II\In (III 1 111111UU\, 11'\
unuun 1, Iv ua,. n•\
Completion of final field work on City audit for the year ended December 31,
1982 and the furnishing of twenty-six copies of the 1982 Annual Financial Report
and fifteen copies of our Mdnagement Report and (recommendations related thereto.
Assistance to City and City Administration to:
• Adjust and close the City's financial accounting records at December 31,
1982 and convert the City's cash basis records to the accrual/modified
accrual.
• Analyze and review of special assessment data including December 31, 1982
ending balances and systems of accumulating and converting Ramsey County
data to year-end useable balances.
• Compilation of the City's 1982 Annual Financial Report, in accordance with
the "Minimum Reporting Requirements - City Financial Reporting" prepared and
issued by the Office of the Minnesota State Auditor.
PARTNERS:
Robert J. Veto
Robert G. Tautges
SENIOR STAFF AUDITOR:
Timothv Engel
SEMI -SENIOR STAFF AUDITOR:
David Mol
JUNIOR STAFF AUDITOR:
D. Kenneth George
S'TA'TISTICAL 'TYPISTS AND
REPORT PROCESSORS
i5-ij2
Hours
@ $60.00
$ 930.00
50-3/4
Hours
@ $48.00
2,436.00
12-1/4
Hours
@ $34.00
416.50
145-1/2
Hours
@ $26.00
3,703.00
94-1/2
(lours
@ $22.00
2,079.00
87
flours
it $15.00
1,305.00
ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORTS 26 Copies @ $15.00 _ 390,00
Total $11,339.50
Less: Fee Adjustment - Per Contract $ 139.50
Interim Billing _ 11977 0D J 116.50)
iBALANCE DUE LIL123.OU
I hereby certify that the above claim is just and currect Atli
that no part of it has been paid. -F%; Robert J. Vot , Prusidant
All hla(a1 U1 .AMIRl1 \�-P,-,1111 111111 II II II {'l 11111 1M I'01101, Nl.kNII\ORM III HI IIIIN
11\ MINNISO '(till UI IIRIII II 11111 41111..IA. IS
MLNII II'AI I��. r„ 1 UII!I IR'• ^N • ..1p+NI'.I II '. ••nnl IA nI I'�UI N �' nn lu •V,HSIIII II IRIS
`� ,
1'01 Mayor h Council
i�
plioMI I Inanco Dlroctor-'rrcmnoror 11ragar
DATN 1 May I I , HA I
111:1 1111:CIAI, AS;;I:;;IMLNT DI:11T :INRVICH' I I'UD1'
ile, Ve l'ml of Iho CILV'a Ij, in public improvement projects were
flnnneo,l by a romblo.11lon of mpvckil iu;sessmonts against benefited
properly ownl-I!; '111ul a .Ioncrul Lax levy. The payments of assessments
and tho colluoLlon of Chu guuural Lax levies have been used to pay
principal mill InLeront on bon(.ls issued to finance construction of
thouo projocln,
In Chu pant) dua to favorable interest rates on investment of funds
and duu Lo prepaymunL of special assessments, a portion of the
orlyln,111y nolivAule,l general property tax levies have been reduced.
The banln of thunn roductions have been the findings presented to
this City an a feuult of special assessment debt service studies by
olltsido financial consultants. The last study was performed in 1979
by Ehlers and Asuoeiates. Since that time interest rates on invest-
munts have fallen as has our rate of collection on outstanding special
anuoesmonts, Therefore, another study should be conducted prior to
cortification of the property tax levy in October.
1 have, roquested and received a proposal for such a study from our
auditors. A copy of their proposal is attached for your consideration.
Tho proposal states that they will complete the study and special report
for a total fee not to exceed $5,000.
I have reviewed a copy of a similar report that they prepared for the
City of New Brighton. That report is much more thorough and compre-
honsive than the 1979 report which was prepared for us by Ehlers and
AnuuclaLes. I therefnre, recommend the study beina performed
by our auditors,VDeLaHUNT VOTO & CO., LTD.
The auditors state on page 3 of their proposals that these services
relate entirely to special assessment debt service funds of the City.
Accordingly the cost of such a report could be charged entirely to a
closed bond fund rather than the operating funds (general fund) of the
City. The water works improvement bond fund of 1960 is presently a
closed bond fund as all outstanding bonded indebtedness of the fund
has been retired. As of December 31, 1982 the fund had cash and in-
vestments of $19,428. I would recommend that the cost of the special
assessment dedt service study be paid for from that fund.
I would appreciate Council direction on this matter. Should be have
any questions do not hesitate to contact me.
`DB/ds
`iw/, Enclosure: May 9, 1983 proposal from DeLaIIUNT VOTO & CO. LTD.
DELAHUNT vo ro ,& CO., LTD,
III I h Idlr Pro lr\\lon.d Ilo d,Lug • 111(11 I t%%, 'II• • 1M att Ilr.6, 1 4.. 111-,
May 9, 1983
Mr. Donald Brager
Finance Director
City of Mounds View
2401 Northeast Highway 10
Mounds View, Minnesota 55112
RE: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEBT SERVICE STUDY
Dear Don:
,(
(;P.111110 IntlR A(((A NIANIS`
um Vp III ❑1 ♦I. 01111111.
Cl illl In 11'n�l II'\
II\Il qll� I 111 WIII I\. I V%
ul llil Nl ,, I II I(As I I.%
Pursuant to your request, we herewith present a proposal to perform a Debt
Service Study relating to the City's various special assessment bonds.
The purpose and intent of a Special Assessment Debt Service Study is to
generate cash projections of future transactions relating to individual bond
issues and debt service accounts or funds. These cash projections, in turn,
are analyzed, reviewed and interpreted to allow the City to manage these
funds. Additionally, historical special assessment prepayments and recent
high investment interest yields My result in a situation whereby the City may
be developing additional reserves in the Special Assessment group of funds.
The information generated by a Special Assessment Debt Service Study may allow
the City to utilize various options relating to the ultimate use of those
reserves. The Report we prepared for the City of Shoreview is the best
example I can provide as to the scope and contents of such a Study. Please
refer to that resort as an illustration.
The scope of our proposed Special Assessment Debt Service Study for your City
will be twofold. First, we will prepare and compile cash -flow projections for
each of the City's definitive special assessment bonds (at December 31, 1982)
to the maturity of each bond issue. 111c financial data to be projected is
generally as follows:
RECEIPTS/REVENUE:
• Special Assessments including interest
• General property taxes including State aids related thereto
( • Interest on investments
• Other items as appropriate
DISBURSEMENTS EXPENDITURES:
• Bond principal and interest
• Other items as appropriate
I
MIAIIiIRS UI NII A I15NIM11I t'Il CIR III II II I'I iII111 AI. nI NISN11•I'nIVA111,(7%1PANIISI'RACIICI SKIION
,SIN' A SO(II I1111 (191 ITIlll( At ( IIIINI "O'l
Ill IFAI 11%41,1I .d111-I,vi(111111^II unr)()1 UIISWCSS OI(ICU(S
Mr. Donald Brager
May 9, 1983
Page 2
We anticipate multiple cash -flow projections for each of the City's Debt
Service Accounts. The use of multiple projections will allow us to analyze
the results based upon several "what if" sets of criteria (i.e. variable
collection rates for receipts/revenue combined with variable interest rates
for investment interest earnings). Each of these cash -flow projections will
be reviewed for accuracy and reconciled to the City's financial accounting
records and 1982 Annual Financial Report prior to being analyzed further.
Second, we will perform an analytical review of the various cash -flow projec-
tions and interpret the results for each bond issue. Additionally, we will
summarize the results and provide the City with an over -view of the cash -flow
projections and our analytical review and interpretations. As part of our
review, we will detail options available to the City, as -well -as recommended
courses of action when and where applicable.
We will provide for an exit conference with City Staff to review drafts of the
various cash -flow projections and our analytical review and interpretation prior
to final delivery of the final Report.
We have performed such Reports for several suburban cities during the past two
years (Shoreview, White Dear Lake, New Brighton, Chanhassen, Oak Park Heights,
Little Canada). Please feel free to contact those cities to evaluate the value
of such a Report.
Based upon past reports and the volume of activity (at your City) to be
projected, analyzed and interpreted, we anticipate the cost of this engagement
to be $4,500 to $5,000. This estimate is based upon our standard rates and
estimated hours as follows:
Partner 15 Hours @ $60.00 $ 900
Manager 45 Hours @ $48.00 2,160
Electronic Data
Processing 25 Hours @ $34.00 650
Other Professional
Staff 25 Hours @ $24.00 600
Statistical Typists
and Report Processors 30 Hours @ $15.00 450
Total 140 $4,960
The above estimate has been prepared based upon our knowledge of the City and
our past experience in preparing such Reports. We agree to complete this study
and special report for a total fee not to exceed $5,000. Should our actual
hours be less than the estimated hours, you will be billed the lessor amount,
based upon actual hours.
The above estimate is based upon our staff preparing most of the input data from
City records. However, much of the following data input can be prepared by City
staff.
Mr. Donald Brager
May 9, 1983
Page 3
• Preparation of various data input forms as follows:
- Fund Master File Maintenance
- Assessment Schedules - Regular
- Assessment Schedules - Other
- Debt Payment schedules
Tax Levy Schedules
- Beginning Fund Cash Assets
Should City staff be able to provide substantially all of the above input data
(on our input forms), we would be able to decreasr, our estimate by $500. If
this can be done, we agree to complete this study and prepare the special report
for a total fee not to exceed $4,500 instead of the $5,000 listed above. Please
advise us as to your decision.
The scope of our services to prepare a Special Assessment Debt Service Study
relates entirely to the Special Assessment Debt Service Funds of the City.
Accordingly, the cost of such a Report could be charged entirely to a Closed
Bond Fund rather than the operating funds of the City.
Should your City decide to have us perform such a study, please sign the
enclosed copy of this engagement proposal and return it to us. We will be
able to begin work on the initial phases of this study upon approval by your
City.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
DE LA HUNT VOTO & CO-, LTD.
Robert J. Voto, CPA
Approved:
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
By:
Mayor
Date:
By:
City Manager
Date:
j
RESOLUTION NO. 1604
CITY OF HOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1984 BUDGET CALENDAR
WHEREAS, the City Charter prescribes the requirements for
a Budget Calendar under 7.04; and
WHEREAS, the City Staff has reviewed the requirements of
that section - 7.04 and determined the following:
6
June
1983
- Staff submit recommendations for
staffing for 1984 to Council
13
June
1983
- Revenue Sharing Proposed Use
Hearing, 7:40 p.m.
Week of
June 20, 1983
- Department Heads first round -
departmental budget meetings with
Administrator and Finance Director
5
July
1983
- Staff submit review of adequacy of
license and permit fees and
V
recommendations to Council for
review
5
July
1983
- Revenue Estimates submitted to
Council
5
July
1983
- Staff submits first draft of
departmental budgets to Council
Week of July 11, 1983 - Department Heads second round -
departmental budget meetings with
Administrator and Finance Director
18 July 1983 - Staff submit revenue sharing
recommendations to Council
18 July 1983 - SLaff submits and reviews with
Cnuncil second draft of
departmental budgets
l August 1983 - Staff submit utility budget and
rate recommendations to Council
I August 1983 - Staff submit preliminary Budgets
I to council for review
RESOLUTION NO. 1604
Page Two
29 August 1983 — Proposed Budget submitted to
Council
6 September 1983 — Council Agenda Session
12 September 1983 — Revenue Sharing Budget Hearing,
7:40 p.m.
No later than — Council finali•r.e budget and adopt
6 October 1983 resolutions authorizing budget and
tax levy
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Mounds View adopts the above calendar for the 1984
Budget process.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Adopted this 23rd day of May, 1983.
Mayor
Clerk —Administrator
14"
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator
FROM: Engineering/Planning Technician fi
DATE: May 5, 1983
SUBJECT: KNOLLWOOD DRIVE STREET LIGHT
This memo and street light petition request is a revision to the one
which was submitted to you on April 21, 1983. Two separate locations
have been discussed in the past and a third location is being re-
quested at this time. The request, to the present, has included the
following locations:
1) The initial request was for the installation of a street
light between 7729 and 7739 Knollwood Drive since a pole
exists along the rear property lines. The owner of 7738
did not sign the petition, so without: a Council determi-
nation that a light at this location is in the interest
of safety, a light could not be placed at this location.
2) A pole presently exists between 7749 and 7759 Knollwood
Drive. The same situation exists here. The Owner of
7749 Knollwood Drive would not sign the petition so with-
out a Council determination, a light could not be placed
there either.
3) Lastly, the people in the neighborhood would like the
light placed between 7718 and 7728. The petition has the
required number of signatures for the placement of a light at
at this location. A pole exists at the rear property line
between these two addresses, although there are one two
large trees between the existing pole and the street.
I have spoken to acting Police Chief Smith, and it is his opinion'that
a light between 7718 and 7728 Knollwood Drive would be the best of
the three choices. Since there is no light• at the corner of Knollwood
and County Road I and because, according to the residents in the area,
the southern part of Knollwood has had the most vandal occurrences.
I then spoke with Don Zettel from N.S.P. and they do not favor placing
lights in locations where the wires would have to go through existing
trees, especially when another location just one lot north does not
have any trees that would create a problem.
In summary, from an installation standpoint, placing the light between
7729 and 7739 as originally proposed would be the best. A property
owner directly affected has not signed the petition (they are, in fact,
moving out of their home), so they would have to determine that the
placement of a light at this location is in the interest of the health
and safety of the area. This block is part of the police department's
Clerk -Administrator
Page 2
May 5, 1983
Block Watch Program. Following discussion with N.S.P. and hearing
their thougths concerning placement of lights where trees exist, I
once again spoke to Acting Police Chief Smith and he concurs that
the placement of a light between 7729 and 7739 would be the best of
the possibilities.
Should you have any questions concerning this item, I would be happy
to discuss them with you.
FJK/bc
Attachments
SA ' I j o 0 0
Rod o Co s� I t, 1.I ` I R pI
,Ott
0
I
�ptJ P j V0 � 0�0
III
95 -.MI i1
c: y• i N71� ... 6••, it ,o ' u "�
y 9 ,+s WO
DrlvKnolewoo `) s' KNOLL !0`s(;D'-x+V�[ s DRY $ IBM -N.
t.a.' ui nit
X •� �- r o
WO W N • C% 0 •�rLt
Grovelan . v - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ LOT-
I� '
Road Z EN -rzs -.T rt-���--
+^
Nm115 as
15
V4a S i 94
V A r+ i R i• "10 , i jo r 0 , i IO.S CA1 jJ �iJ
fll y o u s • •°
Op 0
Silver Lak W
.J r
Road — •$zd---- p .,U
v CU R'
Jp ,
\ ` 0° •,
?_
JW
•Q ' Jn � / 'J is �/ !' � t / ' • •�� ' r
Z z A1 R
R -
` GJ
K g
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City CUnIICil
FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development
DATE: May 10, 1983
SUBJECT: POPPELAARS DEVELOPMENT
Attached please find the following items regarding Tony Poppelaars
proposal:
1) Planning Commission Resolution No. 75-83
2) Planning Commission Minutes of May 4, 1983
3) Chapter 48 and 49 Reviews
I believe all Council members are quite familiar with Mr. Poppelaars'
proposal. Some of the key issues of this proposal include:
1) The Planning Commission reviewed and granted a variance to
allow development within the 100 foot buffer area and from
20 to 10 feet for side yard setbacks.
2) That the two lots be combined into one lot in order for
the applicant to request wetland credits as identified in
Chapter 48.
I 3) Chapter 48.06, Subdivision 4(A)(1) allows modifications of
dimensional requirements for the purposes of protecting
wetlands. A 10 foot side yard setback reduction being
proposed falls under this dimensional modification.
4) The property must be redesignated from R-3, Medium Density
Residential to R-4, High Density Residential since the
zoning map has never been revised per the last Code revisions.
5) A conditional. use permit be granted to allow filling a por-
tion of flood plain per the requirements of Ordinance No. 49.
6) An easement be conveyed over the wetland area for drainage
purposes.
7) Performance and maintenance of the weir and control struc-
ture to be the owner's responsibility.
Please review Chapters 48 and 49 review which is attached at the back
of this packet of information for a review of wetland and flood plain
issues as they relate to this proposed development.
A site plan of the proposal will be available at your meeting on
Monday.
/bc
Attachments
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RES(1LIITION IIO. 7'i-II'I
CITY OF MOUNW; VIEW
r COUNTY ON RAW;::Y
SPATE OR M[HNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION,
REZONING, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
AND APPROVING VARIANCES FOR T014Y POPPELAARS
WHEREAS, Mr. Tony I'uppulaars has rc(lucsted Lu construct a 10-
unit building at 7664 (approximately) Woodlawn Drive; and
WHEREAS, the proposed location of this building and lot is
within the 100 foot buffer zone of a designated wetland; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 48 of the Mounds View Municipal Code governs
development within the buffer areas; and
WHEREAS, the lot• upon which this building is to be located is
also within a designated flood plain area; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 49 of the Mounds View Municipal Code governs
development within flood plain area; and
WHEREAS, both Chapters 48 and 49 allow development within
buffer and floodplain areas, respectively, under certain conditions;
and
WHEREAS, wiL•h the development to occur as proposed and/or for
the developer to receive credit for wetland areas on the property,
approval must be granted for the following:
1) A minor subdivision combining 2 lots into 1;
2) A rezoning from R-3 to R-4;
3) A conditional use permit to fill a portion of the flood
plain area;
4) Two variances, one to allow development within the 100
foot buffer area, the other approving a 10 foot variance
to the side yard setback; and
WHEREAS, in order for the developer to receive wetland credits
as outlined in Chapter 48, a lot combination of 2 lots into 1 is neces-
sary; and
WHEREAS, since the existing zoning of the property is R-3, Medium
Density Residential, a rezoning to R-4, Iligh Density Residential is
required for the proposed use, and
WHEREAS, a rezoning is being recommended since the intended use
of the property is consistant with the Comprehensive Plan designation;
and
Resolution No. 75-83
Page 2
n
WIII:ItI;A:;, the I'lanuiug Cuumii:;niun i,l(!nti l it-:. the following iLe111
as hardships to justify the granti.nq of the vnri,uncc:::
1) The property was aequinsd by Mr. Poppclaars well before
the existence of the Wetland Ordinance.
2) The present condition was not developer created.
3) The inability to develop the lot to make use of the
property would exist• should the variance:: be denied.
4) Paragraph 48.06, Subdivision 4(A)(1) allows modifications
of dimensional requirements of Lhe. Zoning Ordinance to
further purposes of Chapter 48.
NOW, THEREFORE, RN. 'I'T RESOLVED Ihal the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends to the City Council approval of a minor subdivi-
sion combining two .lots under consideration into one.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that contingent- upon approval being
given to combine the two lots into one and Hie applicant recording
deeds in fact• combining the two lots into one lot, the Mounds View
Planning Commission recommends to the Mounds View City Council the
following:
1) A rezoning of the properly from 11-3 to R-4.
2) A density credit- being granted on the development•.
3) A conditional use permit be granted for the filling of
a portion of the flood plain, since the proposed fill
will alter the flood height by an .immeasurable amount.
4) Conveyance of easement to the City for drainage purposes
over wetland area.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends
the development agreement include the following:
1) Performance and maintenance of the weir and control
structure to be the owner's responsibility.
2) That the wetland area to the 903 contour be protected
during the construction period based upon the City
Engineer's recommendation.
3) A landscape plan be submitted to include:
a) Appropriate vegetation to the 903 contour.
b) Earth berming to be provided along the Woodlawn
Drive boulevard designed so as not to impact•
adjacent properties.
ResoluL•ion No. 75-03
Page 3
UL IT FURTHER IU;SOI.VI?D that the Plnnninq Commi:;rion recommends
to the Parks and Recreation Commission that it park land credit be
given for the casements taken as a resull of the wetlands;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs
staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to
approval of the minutes.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Adopted this 4th day of May, 1983.
rman
Director of Public Works/
Community Development
PROCEEDINGS 01: THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
h 4AM"Y (;OIIN'I'Y, iI1MiJI:SO'I'A
UNAPROVED I;c;;ula4, 1983
playy 498
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Ilwy. 10, Mounds View, MP! 55112
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mounds View Planning Commission was called to 1. Call to
order by Chairman mountin ❑t 7:36 1'M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Quick, Warren, 2. Roll Call
Anderson, Fors and and Chairman Mountin.
It was noted Commissioners Miller and McCarthy had
excused absenscs.
ALSO PRESENT: Engineering/Planning Technician Kampel
and Councilmember Blanchard.
Motion/Second: Warren/Quick to approve the April 6, 3. Approval of
I 3 m�$ inutes as presented. Minutes:
�.�. C 5 ayes 0 nays April 6, 198
•--- Motion Carri
There were no resideuts requests or commicnts from 4. Residents
the floor. quests and
Comments f
the Floor
Technician Kampel stated the proposed development has
5. Tony Poppelae
been before the Planning Commission and City Council
7662/7664
many times, and reviewed it.
Woodlawn Dr.,
Development
Mr. Poppelaars stated he was concerned with the berming
Proposal, Wet
requirement, as he did not feel it would help with the
lands Altera-
parking, but would create run-off for the neighbor to
tions Permit
the south. He stated he would prefer to have "No Park-
Review, R-3
ing" signs installed along the street.
Residential
Dstr.,
The Planning Conuuissioners reviewed their reasons for
Case 125-83
requiring the berming, and decided they would not set
the specific requirements, but rather leave that up
to an engineering firm.
There was considerable discussion among the Commissioners
of proposed Resolution No. 75-83, with concern being
expressed regarding the variance for the buffer zone and
the 10' setback, and run-off, and :hether any criteria
had been established to measure t! run-off. Technician
Kampel informed the CO:Oinissionerf at cri:::•ria was
Mounds View Planning; Commission May 4, 1983
Regular Meeting Page Two
----availa--------------------- UNAPPROED
ble.
Motion/Second: Anderson/Warren to adopt Resolution
No. 75-� recommending approval of it minor subdivi-
sion, rezoning, conditional use permit and development
proposal and approving variances for Tony Poppelaars.
5 ayes 0 nay:;
motion Carrie
Technician Kampel presented a revised site plan, point-
6. Morb Yenish,
ing out the changes the developer had made per the
2149 Program
Planning Commissions rcqucsL.
Ave., Dvlpmt.
Proposal, Maj
Mr. Bachman stated he had not had an opportunity to
Subdivision,
review the suggested easements and that he would
B-3 Highway
like to have the flexibility with the 10' with each
Business Dstr
lot, as they are developed.
Conceptual
Approval,
There was discussion among the Commissioners concern-
Case 126-83
ing the easements and care of the slciuumer.
Motion/Second: Quick/Anderson to adopt Resolution
No. i , recommending approval of Lhe development.
5 ayes 0 nays
Motion p—iie
It was noted that Mr. Bourke was not present.
7. Ken Bourke,
8249 Spring
Technician Kampel reported the applicant's request
Lake Road,
is identical to the one reviewed by the Planning
Minor Subdv.
Commission on July 1, 1981, and approved by both
R-1 Single Fm
them and the Council. However, the applicant was
Case 127-83
not able to pay the special assessment at that
time, and the 60 day time limit expired, and an
extension was denied by the City Council.
Motion/Second: Forslund/Anderson to adopt Resolu-
tion No. 77-83.
5 ayes 0 nays
Motion Carrie
Technician Kampel reviewed the applicant's request,
8. Leonard Babin
and presented the site plan. lie noted that the City
Lots 8-23, B1
will be doing a -re-surfacing project on Bdgewood
3, Greenfield
Drive and stated they would like to be able to
Plat 2, Major
coordinate with the developer, so as to have the sewer
Subdivision,
and water connections in before the street is resur-
Rezone from
faced.
R-1 to
Dvlp. A�,,va
Mr. Malmin stated he was present to represent Mr.
R-1 Sin
Babinski. Ile reported they have hired an engineering
Family Rsdt.
firm, who feels their plan is good.
Case 128-83
CHAPTER 48 REVIEW
POPPELAARS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The following is a detailed review of Chapter 48 and a determination as
to whether section applies to proposal, whether proposal meets the
required criteria; and what decisions need to be made by the. Planning
Commission and City Council.
48.01, Subdivision 3, subparagraphs D, R, P, and I are being used to
accomplish protection of wetland.
48.03 covered in other portions of report.
48.05, Subdivision i., requires a permit to alter wetland buffer area.
48.05, Subdivision 2, prohibits building in wetland.
.•48.05, Subdivision 4 will only apply if lots are required to go through
minor subdivision process to combine lots into one parcel of record. It
is recommended obtaining an easement over the wetland (south of contour
903) area.
48.05, Subdivision 5, A and B can only be met if lots are combined and
considered as one parcel. Section C requires a variance. Property is
unbuildable if variance is not granted, thus denying use of the property
for residential purposes.
48.05, Subdivision 6 - If parcels are not combined then they become non-
conforming due to size, width, setback and Lhus need variance findings.
if lots are combined then only non -conforming due to setback.
48.06, Subdivision 1, A, B and C are activities proposed by applicant and
thus require an alteration permit to complete.
48.06, Subdivision 2:
A) Proposal will not cause potential danger to life or property.
B) Proposal is in conformance with Comprehensive Plan and will
have minimal impact on adjacent wetland.
C) Wetland will have very minimal alteration (construct drainage
weir).
48.06, Subdivision 3, A - No wetland filling proposed.
48.06, Subdivision 3, B - A slight amount of dredging may be necessary
to construct drainage weir at edge of parking. Subparagraphs 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5 have or will be met. Permit should restate conditions.
48,06, Subdivision 3, C - 3, 4, 5 and 6 should be cited in permit.
48.06, Subdivision 3, D - Applicant propooes to discharge site runoff into
wetland through a weir on edge of parking lot. Subparagraph 1, 2, 31
4 and 5 appear to be met but should be restated in permit.
48.06, Subdivision 3, E - No building or development except the weir/
skimmer is to be located in wctl; .d.
Chapter 40 Revicw
Page 2
48.06, Subdivision 3, P - Applicant will. bo removing vegetation withit
buffer area. This will be necessary to allow placo_ul• oaof strUCtures,
parking lot and residential use of propurly.
48.06, Subdivision al, A, 1 - PurmiL will bo necessary to allow a reasonable
residential use of the property. ApplicanL must- and proposes to comply
with Chapter requirements. (Note; This section allows the City to limit
size, kind and character of proposal to insw-c compliance. This section
also allows modification of dimensional req uiremegts of Zoning Ordinance
to further purposes of wetlands chapter (i.n., reduction in setbacks).
48.06, Subdivision 4, A, 2 - City needs to ustablinh amount of surety
necessary to insure compliance.
48.06, Subdivision 4, A, 3 - Proposal is being coextensively processed
with development approval.
48.06, Subdivision 4, D - Applicant's drawing includes items 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 9 and 10. Items 7 and 8 are obL•ained from CiLy records for street
improvements and City topo and aerial photos.
48.06, Subdivision 5 - Should be stated in permit.
48.07 - Does not apply.
48.08, Subdivision 1, A - May be used if minor subdivision is required
48.00, Subdivision 1, 0 - Applicant proposed to shift density from wetland
area to buffer area. Calculations on density transfer indicate applicant
could have a gross density of approximately 16 units but is proposing
only 10 units.
48.08, Subdivision 2 - Density and park land crediLs must be stated in a
recordable document.
48.09 through 48.13 - Covers administrative items.
48.14, Subdivision 1 - Gives Planning Commission variance authority.
48.14, Subdivision 2 - Lists 5 criteria for variances. Most recent revision
of site plan appears to meet the intent of all 5 criteria. Suggest- Plan-
ning Commission and City Council review, discuss and make specific findings
for each item.
48.14, Subdivision 3 - Planning Commission and City Council could request
additional specific information to be furnished if necessary to determine
effects of proposal.
48.15 - Administrative item.
CIIAPTHR 49 REV11M
POPPELAARS DEVELOPBIUM PROPOSAL
The following detailed review of chapter 44 idenl.ifir.:: the issues to be
resolved. The Planning Commission and City CUUIICil should note time
frames spelled out in Ordinance.
49.01, 49.02 and 49.03 - Administrative and purpose suctions.
49.02, Subdivision 9(1) - Sets minimum floor elevation of. 905.
49.04, Subdivision 1(d) - Allows parking and lawn area in flood plain
zoning district (FZD) which will not adversely affect capacity of flood -
ways, drainage ditch or drainage systems.
49.04, Subdivision 2(b) - Requires conditional use permit for filling in
FZD.
49.04, Subdivision 3(a) - Prohibits conditional use permit which will
increase flood heights. It is staff's determination proposed filling will
not alter the flood height by a measurable amount.
49.04, Subdivision 3(b) - Applicant's proposal meets criteria. Criteria
should be stated in conditional use permit.
49.04, Subdivision 3(d)(2) - Autos will be "stored" in FZD but can be
moved in event of flood warning.
1
49.05 - Applies only if minor subdivision is required. If so, all condi-
tions are met by proposal.
49.06 - Not applicable.
49.07, Subdivisions 1, 2 and 3 - Administrative procedures.
49.07, Subdivision 4 - Provides for Planning Commission review and
recommendation to City Council. Council will mold public hearing.
49.07, Subdivision 4(a) - Notice of hearing and data must be sent to
the Commissioner of Department of Natural Resources.
49.07, Subdivision 4(b) - Process has not been strictly followed due to
wetland alteration issues. Planning Commission should note time frames
stated.
49.07, Subdivision 4(c) - Administrative procedures.
49,07, Subdivision 4(d) - Planning Commission and Council procedures.
49.07, Subdivision 4(e) - Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 apply
to proposal and during staff review appear to be met.
( 49.07, Subdivision 4(f) - Council decision time frame.
49.07, Subdivision 4(g) - Allows placing of conditions deemed necessary
to meet purposes of Chapter 49.
Chapter 49 Review
Page 2
49.08 - Not applicable
49.09 and 49.3.0 - AdIIIiII.i.:;traLivt! jjrocudItI'v;;.
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development
DATE: May 10, 1983
SUBJECT: BABINSKI REZONING, SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
Attached please find Planning Commission minutes of May 4, 1983,
Planning Commission Resolution No. 76-83, staff report and site plan
for the proposal by Mr. Leonard Babinski to:
1) Resubdivide the property under consideration from 16 lots
into 12 lots.
2) Rezone the 12 lots from R-]., Single Family Residential to
R-3, Medium Density Residential.
3) Construct twelve 4-unit buildings upon each of the newly
resubdivided lots.
Key issues relating to this development include:
1) Density relationships between the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Code (see discussion below).
(
2) Major subdivision is required since a changing of property
lines is being proposed and the property is more than two
acres in size.
3) The possibility exists that the force main which is presently
on the east side of Edgewood will be phased out of service
sometime in the future. For this reason, a 15 foot easement
along the west property lines was required for possible
future installation of a gravity main.
4) Staff suggested that the Planning commission consider the
requirement of installation of curbing on Edgewood and Bronson
drives for traffic control purposes (see "parking #3" on
planning report). The Planning Commission did not concur with
this suggestion.
5) The conditions of Ordinance No. 49A have been met.
6) Setbacks, parking and open space requirements have been met.
7) The application has been submitted to Rice Creek Watershed
District for approval. Staff has not received a permit from
Rice Creek Watershed District to date.
There was considerable discussion amongst the Planning Commission
members as it related to the Comprehensive Plan versus Zoning Code
designations for Medium Density Residential. Please refer to paragraph
May 10, 1983
Page 2
2 under "zoning and land use" for an explanation of inconsistancy
noted between the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code as it
relates to densities. To summarize the Planning Commission recommen-
dation on this topic, approval was recommended based on the fact that
an R-3 zone seemed an appropriate use for the property and also
because the Comprehensive Plan denoted the area as being Medium Density
Residential, even though densities recommended by the Comprehensive
Plan do not coincide with what is being proposed. By recommending
approval, the Planning Commission has concluded that the Comprehensive
Plan designation of Medium Density was intended to include areas zoned
as R-2, Single and Two Family Residential and R-3, Medium Density
Residential. Since there are discrepancies between the Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Code, the Planning Commission is reviewing the Compre-
hensive Plan and Zoning Code density relationships for possible
inconsistancies. In the meantime, the City Council is receiving a
recommendation of approval for this development because the Planning
Commission concurs that an R-3 zoning classification would be an
appropriate use for the property.
A public hearing for the major subdivision and rezoning has been
scheduled for the City Council meeting on May 23, 1983.
/bc
Attachments
•
MOUNDS VIEW I'LANNINO COMMISSION
It1{SOI,11'I'ION NO. 76-81
F CITY UP MUNNUS VIEW
l COUNTY LIP RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL UP PLANNING LASE IZS-B:I
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed an
application by Mr. Leonard Bahinski to resuhdivide the property
under consideratloo from lLN existing; 16 iois to 12 lids, to rezone
these 12 lots from R-I to R-1, and to vnnstrnrt a 4-unit building
with accompanying garage upon each of Lhe.se 12 logs; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan denotes the area as Medium
Density Residential; and
WHEREAS, the proposed R-1 •none alsn corresponds to Medium
Density in Lhe Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, all proposed lots meet minimum Zoning Code
requirements for R-1 devrl(Ilnnents; and
WHEREAS, all proposed buildings meet minimum size and setback
requirements; and
WHEREAS, Lhe numhu r of parking spaces meet minimum Zoning Code
requirements; and
WHEREAS, the CILy Engineer has reviewed Chu revised drainage
proposal for conformity to Ordinance 49A and finds that the
requirements of Ordinance No. 49A have been met; and
WHEREAS, both the Police and Fire Depnrtments have reviewed
this proposal and find no adverse conditions;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the fallowing:
l) The preliminary plat resubdividing the 16 lots into 12
lots.
2) Rezone all 12 lots from R-1 Single Family to R-3 Medium
Density.
3) OevelopmenL of Welve 4-unIL buildings with accompanying
garages an each of thusc lots per the site plan dated March
30, 1983,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the approval should be contingent
upon the following:
l) Approval from the Rice Creek Waturshed District he
received,
Resolution Wu. 76-0.1
Page 2
2) A landscape plan bring; submit ivd which will brcnmv pnrL of
the dove lnpIII ,at al; I'll rmrnL.
BE 1T FURTHER RRSt11.VR11 that should any revisions be made to
the preliminary plat ruItowinii Planning; Commission approval, the
Planning Commission requests a rinal review or the proposal.
BF. IT FURTHER RBSULVRD that the Planning Commission diroccs
staff to forward this resolutinn to the City Council prior to
approval of the mintues.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Adopted this 4lh day or may, IgHi.
Chairman
Director of Public Works/
Community Development
Mounds, View Pl.anninl; Cononissinn May 4, 1983
Regular Mecti.ng
-------- --- Page Two
^ available.-------------�I��•r����011ED
f Motio»/Second: nnJrr:; n/llarrii; Co nduhl Rosnlul.iin
�u 75-33, reconuocuding appruvnl ul a mill()]. rubdivi.-
sion, rezoning, conditional use permit and development
proposal and approving variances for 'Pony Poppelaars.
5 ayes 0 nays
Motion Carri
Technician Kampel. presented a revised site pian, point- 6. Norb Yenish,
ing out the changes the developer had made per the 2149 Program
Planning Commissions request.
Ave., Dvlpmt
Mr. Bachman stated he had not had an opportunity Co Proposal, Ma;
review the su PI y Subdivision,
like to have thesflexibilitytwithdthea10' with t he leach Bus Highway
lot, as they are developed. Business Dst�
Conceptual
There was discussion among the Conunissi.oners concern- Approval,
ing the easements and care of the skimmer. Case 126-83
Motion/Second: Quick/Anderson to adopt Resolution
No. /4-63, recommending approval of the development.
5 ayes 0 nays
Motion Carrie
It was noted that Mr. Bourke was not present. 7. Ken Bourke,
Technician Kampel reported the applicant's request Lake Road,
is identical to the one reviewed by the Planning Minor Subdv.
Commission on July 1, 1981, and approved by both
them and the Council, However, the applicant was Cas Single F
not able to pay the special assessment at that Case 127-83
time, and the 60 day time limit expired, and an
extension was denied by the City Council.
Motion/Second: Forslund/Anderson to adopt Resolu-
tion No. 11-83.
5 ayes 0 nays
Motion Carrie
Technician Kampel reviewed the applicant's request,
and presented the site Ile
8• x
plan. noted that the City
will be doing a -ce-surfacing
project on lidgewood
Drive and stated they would like to be
3, Greenfield
able to
coordinate with the developer, so as to have the sewer
and water connections in before
Subdivision,
the street is resur-
faced.
Rezone from
R-1 to R-3,
Mr. Malmin stated lie was present to represent Mr.
Babinski. Ile
Dvlp. Approva
Single
reported they have hired an en ing
inee
g g
firm, who feels their plan is
Fam
Family Rsdt,
y28-83
good.
Case
Mounds
view Planning,
Cum:ni:o::it IPt;i9
;
j1
4, 1989
Regular
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Meeting,
dd„,,jjjj"
5 '�{`I
l�UEDllay
Page Three
The Planning Commission discussed putting "No Park-
ing" signs up, and potential problems with parking
from patrons of the Del Rae Ballroom.
Motion/Second: Anderson/Quick to adopt Resolution
No, 76-8 , recommending approval.
5 ayes 0 nays
Councilmember Blanchard reviewed an article from the
evening paper regarding action the City of Little
Canada is taking, where they have given a 90 day
notice to cease an auto repair shop out of a home
in a residential district. She stated she has
already received one phone call about it, asking if
similar action could be taken against the radiator
repair shop on Highway '10. She noted that the
radiator shop won their Court case only for their
sign, not for the rezoning.
There was discussion among the Commissioners, with
the concensus being they would like to see something
done about violations of this type, but they feel
they have no authority and their hands are tied,
and it is up to the Council to pursue the matter.
Technician Kampel reminded the Commissioners of the
special meeting on May 12 at 7 PM regarding the
Zoning/Comp Plan.
Technician Kampel reported he had given the Commissioners
copies of the City of St. Paul's deaf child sign policy.
He stated the question had come up as to how a person
could have such a sign erected. After checking with
the County, he was told that it is up to each City to
establish their own policy, for City streets.
The Planning Commmissioners asked Councilmember Blanchard
to bring the matter to the City Council, and ask the
advise of Councilmember Hanlcner.
Technician Kampel reported there will be a requested
rezoning of the apartment building -at Sunnyside and
Highway 10 to an R-0 zoning on the next agenda.
Chairman Mountin reported the attendees of the
April 20 agenda meeting were Commissioners Miller,
Anderson, Warren, Quick and Mountin, Technician
Kampel, and Clerk/Administrator Pauley.
Chairman Mountin reported there will be an Aircraft
Noise Committee Meeting meeting at Metro Square
on May 6, which 'technician Kampel will be attending,
if anyone else was interested in attending.
W
Motion
9. Discuss Past
Council Acti
and Next Age
10. Chairman's
Report
CASE: 128-83, Item 8 on 5/4/83 Planning Commission Agenda
ITEM: Major Subdivision (Replat•ting/Proporty Line Change)
Rezone all 12 Lots from R-1 to R-3
Development Approval (12 4-Unit Buildings)
pw` APPLICANT: Leonard Babinski.
1 LOCATION: Between Edgewood Drive and Greenfield Avenue North of
Bronson Drive
Legal. Description: Lots 8 Lhru .13, Block 3
Greenfield Plat 2
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Applicant Proposes to:
1) Resubdivide the property from the existing 16 lots to 12 lots.
2) Rezone these 12 lots from R-1, Single Family Residential to
R-3, Medium Density Residential.
3) Construct a 4-unit building and accompanying garage structure
upon each of these 1.2 lots.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
Zoning and Lane Use:
1) Existing zoning on the property is It-1, Single Family Residential.
The existing zoning for the properties surrounding the parcels
under consideration are shown on Exhibit 4. The applicant is
requesting a rezoning from its present R-1, Single Family Residen-
tial zone to R-3, Medium Density Residential zone. R-3, Medium
Residential zones include structures up to and including 6 units.
A fourplex structure is a permitted use in a R-3 Residential zone.
2) The Comprehensive Plan denotes tie area in question as being
Medium Density Residential. Medium Density, per the Comprehensive
Plan, is defined as being 3 to 6 units per acre. This property is
4.05 acres in size, with 48 residential units proposed. This
equates to a density of just under 12 units per acre.
It should be noted that there is a contradiction between densities
recommended by the Comprehensive Plan and those which, when equated,
are required based upon the existing Zoning Code. For example,
the Comprehensive Plan recommends Low Density Residential (Single
and Duplex dwellings) as 1 to 2 units per acre. This equates out,
for both single and duplex dwellings needing, minimally, 1/2 acre
lots (21,780 square feet). This figure is nearly twice the lot
size required for single family lots and over 9,000 square feet
greater for duplex lots based upon Zoning Code requirements.
The same applies to the Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium
Density Residential. The Comprehensive Plan recommends 3 to 6
( units per acre for Medium Density Residential. Using the most
dense figure, 6 units per acre, 7,260 square feet of property per
unit would be require based upon the romprehensive Plan, whereas,
CASE 120-03
Page 2
2,500 square feet of property her unit would be required based
upon our cxisti.ng Zoning Code. Once again, the Comhrehmisive
Plan recommends a larger lot area per unit.
This discrepancy seems to have occurred as a result of a differing
planning philosophy. The philosophy Of the Comprehensive Plan
foresees large lots with extremely low density as being desirable.
The Zoning Codn's philosophy sees medium ::izc lots with a medium
density as desirable anr, required.
Summarizing the above, a fourplex proposed on each of these lots would
meet minimum Zoning Code requirements for medium density residential
zones (R-3) but would not meet Comprehensive flan rccommeudations.
(Recommended 3 to 6 units per acre; 11.0 units per acre proposed.)
Major Subdivision:
1) By definition, any change in property lines which necessitates
City approval before new deeds can be filed constitutes a subdi-
vision. Since this development proposes to change lot line
locations and, since the area is over 2 acres in size, approval of
a major subdivision is required.
2) All proposed lots meet minimum n(Juare footage and frontage requ'
ments for fourplex dwellings. All lots also meet the requireme
for square footage based upon recommends changes to the Zoning Code
(14,000 square feet for R-1 corner., R-2 and R-3 is being recommended)
Utility Services and Trash Collection:
1) The property is served by sanitary sewer and water on both Edgewood
Drive and Greenfield Avenue.
2) These mains are adequate in size to accommodate the fourplex
buildings being proposed.
3) An area for trash collection is being provided for each fourplex
building.
4) A sanitary sewer force main is located in the boulevard area of
Edgewood Drive adjacent to this proposed development (see Exhibit
3 for location of force main). This force main is located approxi-
mately 10 feet west of the front property line of the lots which
front on Edgewood Drive and is used to bring sewerage from the lift
station located at County Road 1 and Edgewood Drive to an existing
gravity sanitary sewer main located at Bronson Drive and Greenfield
Avenue. The City may someday phase out the use of this lift station
and install a gravity main from the lift station area to the existing
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) main located center
within the 30 foot easement which traverses the property under
consideration. This MWCC main is located approximately 40 feet
deep and .it is suggested that a utility easement of 15 feet be pro-
vided along the front property lines of the lots
CASE 120-03
Page 3
fronting Edgewood Drive for the possibly: ftauru installation of
the gravity sanitary sewer main. Thin ca::umcut would not require
an alLcraLion Lu Lhe dcve)opmunL pl:ms so-; submiLted with Lhe
exception of the placement of this casement.
Parking:
1) The Zoning Code requires 2!; parkinq spaces per unit with one
being a garage, (10 total for a 4-unit building.) This require-
ment has been met.
2) 9�- by 20 foot parking spaces are being provided.
3) Edgewood Drive is used as an on -street parking area for City hall
Park during the summer softball season. The parking situation on
Edgewood Drive should be discussed as a part- of the development
review. Improvement of the curbing for traffic control may be
necessary to keep vehicles on the driving surface and not on the
boulevard in front of these homes. Cuncrete curbing is proposed
for all parking and driveway areas.
Drainage:
1) The developer io proposing 3 drainaUu area (900 contour - overflow
to 907) along the rear property lines. During rainfall events
water is proposed to flow, via a G inch drain tile system to a catch
basin then connect up to the exiistinq 24 inch storm sewer pipe on
Edgewood Drive by way of an S inch reinforced concrete pipe. The
location of the 24 inch storm sewer as shown on the site plan is
not in its correct location. The storm sewer is not in the center
of Edgewood Drive but on City park property (see Exhibit 3).
Initial review of the applicant's drainage plan and calculations
indicates that the applicant proposes to detain only 50 percent of
the storm water created by development-. This see:ns too low to meet
Chapter 49A requirements. Staff estimates the existing 5 year, 24
hour runoff to be 2.35 acre-feet and the 50 year, 24 hour runoff
to be 11.94 acre-feet, thereby requiring ponding of up to 9.59 acre-
feet, less soil infiltration and discharge to drain tile and storm
sewer. Discharge system appears to be adequate to meet Chapter 49A
requirements but provisions should be made to better handle spring
melt before ground thaw. The proposed drainage system should be a
private system until it enters the Edgewood right-of-way. Staff
recommends an additional manhole be installed near east right-of-way
line and that applicant accept all responsibility for drainage
system maintenance (example; cleaning of manhole sump at rear lot
line). Approval should be contingent on meeting Chatper 49A require-
ments.
Setbacks:
1) Minimum setbacks fnr buildings and parking area have been met.
CASE 120-03
Pagc A
2) A 30 foot sewer casement exists between lot:; 14 and 1.5 and I,oln
16 and 17 of Greenfield Plat 2. 140 huild.i.ng con:;truction is
being proposed over this easement.
Open Space Requirements:
1) The open space requirements of 625 ;square feet• per unit has Lcen
met for all 12 buildings being propose:.
11
4
•J'NYIC
iAII
1'Mn
MAW
IFVAA 14 " 1P1 i '•' 1'�.rn „ r I� II
1�I �I�IIAY%1� i11I111 n� � \\ 1'4 r I
•'1 f'I; i r61 m.\ rmP II IW IlAlwnl
�IIIIjIIII I I \\ .I o�+l+na wir Anu am.m nYl
'.� II r \ .II m mAd .nnu I'rA<III
'� I Imwiml 11 nrlwn0
'ICI 1 r .. I `•� �. J
II � )M' • IN YN we
hl
row
..� i�i\•I• \F a .. .� I ire �. r I _ u.rl• ;
I ` �
I'
10
•I '�I i� iA � 1nYnl •If
6*i01 1
If ",
• Y t n 1% r ^ -
1 Tt
L 4 296. A13
14 i Ij 12 10 N I I. ol.�.
1 y .;.. ... W 1 ~ 1 al 3
'2b � 2 29 c
g
to . ` i i 3 `
D. R r!,.$�31
�d� Sl
q') 4 26 I rtit.lQO.'
8 ? IS'. 16 _ '.J __ L.�y� 2]a2�� — 3GROBERG
26
,- 14 25 - Z�A 71_ —
_.X "L9C.G' _ N --- f -
„�
o, `8 f 7 24 17 6
. Lno.c. 1
4WN g I,-n I
16
0 19 6 2] 1. �.
2 11 12 1 _ h o� 7
9 I 10 11 1- 20 .3 Lj 22- '_.1�011. LZQ tin
0 21
AREA IS
EA �F
I�Z , � zo ���
= ' ---r—
I
1 0 14 y I 3
NDr ,I EZON1 (Li 9 J Q two
'-- -
P� r :1) W 1 la `� 14 L
12
LL
4 C e A' 1 '' w O 13 1 0 4 7 ----�-iki! •. —_.t
23L1fLL]� _ 6 1 ,cos—ll
12 11 - _ n7o i T
151&3
IS IE u Ic
�P 3 ° t 2e a
Sid
n �Lr.N illl) Wait I%"I Ts N w Bf26f�FS9P!'--- ---- .
c7;1, cc e ISAW
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 22 i '� ^ I C0 sl'37 I 6000,-a
WAT[R WOIIKS SYSTEM 21 40 2 . 3a 2
m { I
G 42.s 20
id
6RON5ON PR•
n
0
lu
UfIPIl' WA' 100
WATERMAIM
FORCE MAIM
SANITARY SEWER
STORM SEWED
I I INOFTN
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1 L
— — — — — — — —
w
z
W
a
W
L
Z
6RON5ON DRIVE
12
yp7� V h
a ` �t f ;fci a f~ W aYrl 3
r 10 0.
m 9 \ r b
Igo / N �p�L 1 »,I Y.iyac,./. , uu
�_.i.I�' I ) � 28 s.Dr:2S 1lai�� I I.,7.,•, 'll
Df\-fin .._..._L _� _ 10 4 �J • •• IL
•�� M ;
IS - 18 4 I 27 ( 2zdu.�
° ROB
17 ii
In Q7 I r
6 25
��'ZL_ .X LiO..
a
�
7 24 — I1 �I1 6 DLAWN ♦L9x. 17-.
w �_u - _i9Stp 'III..�
r w •-I - Z9C.i1_ �.
2
6 I 9 I 10
u
I I 20 _i---730, IS..
MOvNC' �IEV;
Cf J
:Cis, �%• Sin --.-
PARK.
CITY OF MOVNOS VIEW
WA'TLI% WCR,te Dr,.T[rt
U 14 I •� ,, 1 I - oho
-
�
W
a LS
I fL
Z O 13 10 12
w
L U—
• - W _? ' L ICE_-- _ _ = ... I fLe -ilk
a' ---12----- III----- �
O _
t5 0 10
R13+CIIII .� �.l.N illll D.t l(t)i,l 1 5 J 17T'-- 't
22LG ell n
I GO ' LL37 I e 60001 6 ,
21, 10
!_ 2 36
2
20 0•3
LL I 3 35 3 I I
't etn /d
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council.
rFROM: Director. of Public IJorks/Community Development
DATE: May 11, 1983
SUBJECT: NORB YENISII MOTEL DEVELOPMENT
Attached please find the following items regarding the proposal by
Mr. Norb Yenish to construct a 98 unit motel:
1) Planning Commission Resolution No. 74-83
2) Planning Commission Minutes of May 4, 1983
3) Staff Report
Key issues relating to this proposal are:
1) A major subdivision is required since the property is over 2
acres in size.
2) Approval is being requested for a 98 unit motel to be constructed
in 2 phases. The first phase to be 70 units with the necessary
parking and phase 2 to be an additional. 28 units with the addi-
tional parking necessary. The applicant has mentioned that should
financing allow construction of all 98 units initially, they would
like to receive approval to do so. Council may wish to limit time
between phases 1 and 2.
3) The davelnnment meets Ordinance No. 49A requirements. The
developer will be submitting a drawing showing the exact location
of the easement over the pending area. Such an easement will
cover the area required to pond storm water generated by the motel
site and the McDonalds restaurant. Not including the easement on
the attached drawing was an oversight on the part of the developer.
4) The Planning Commission has reviewed the element of providing
access to properties immediately north of this motel site. They
have accepted the 66 foot right-of-way which presently exists
near the eastern edge of this plat as the means to gain access
to these properties. Staff requests that the City Council also
review this item. A sketch of a possible street layout is
attached to the planning report as Exhibit 3. It is staff's
opinion that a northern access right-of-way through this parcel
which lines up with the existing street between the gas station
and the Country Inn restaurant would provide better traffic circu-
lation through this area should the property north of Programmed
Land First Addition develop. Should a right-of-way be desired,
the location of the pending area may have to be modified.
5) The Planning Commission has recommened to the City Council that
the pending area for this development be the sole ponding area for
all of Block 3, Programmed Land First Addition.
6) The application has been submitted to the Rice Creek Watershed Dis-
trict for permit approval. Staff has not received the permit to
date.
/be
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION 140. 7,1-83
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSNY
STATE OF MINNI ;OTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OP PLANNING CASE 126-83
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Conunisnin has revi.owed the
development ul' Mr. Nurb Yeni:;h lu t:un:;LrucL a 78-uuiL motel
(70 units in Phase I, an additional 28 uni.tr; in Phase II) and a major
subdivision, 1 lot into 2; and
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has received and
reviewed the report from City staff regarding Lhis request; and
WHEREAS, the existing zoning of the property is B-3, Highway
Business District; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan designates the property as
Highway Commercial/Industrial P.U.D.; and
WHEREAS, the proposed use conforms to both the existing zoning
and the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposal meets Zoning Code requirements for lot
size and screening; and
WHEREAS, modification to the site plan is necessary to maintain
a five foot setback between parking lot and property line;
WHEREAS, it is recommended that the proposed pending area on
lots 2 and 3 be used for this motel development in addition to all
future development on any lot in Block 3, Programmed Land First Addition,
and such pond should be of sufficient size to accommodate the storm
water generate by the development; and
WHEREAS, the Block 3 drainage plan has been reviewed by the City
Engineer and determined to be in conformance with Chapter 99A; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has addressed the issues of
access to adjoining properties to the north of this development and has
accepted the existing 66 foot street right-of-way access as shown on
the Programmed Land First Addition plat as a means to provide access to
these properties; and
WHEREAS, the two proposed lots meet minimum Zoning Code require-
ments;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends to the City Council approval of a major subdivi-
sion preliminary plat (1 lot into 2, over 2 acres) for Mr. Norb Yenish,
as shown on the attached site plan.
Resolution No. 74-83
Page 2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commissi
recommends approval of the nwtal dcvelulmwnl Lased upon the siLe plan
dated April .14, 1981. Thin .'grprnval rnrnnunrndat.inu nhould be conLi.n-
gent upon and development to include:
1) The proposed storm waL•or pondin{l area shall be retained
as the sole pondiuq area for a1.1 of Block 3, Programmed
Land I'.ir:;l Addition.
2) The exisLing skimmer be modi.f).ed to allow emergency
overflow in Lhc event• that the skimmer inlet becomes
plugged or frozen.
3) 'file developer willb0 re::ponsiblr for Lhe performance and
maintenance of the skimmer for the standard 7-year period.
4) Rice Crock Watershed District approval.
5) 'That approval i:; ,I ranted for a 11110sed qpr. of: development
where initial construction shall consist of 70 units with
adequate parking as Phase 1 and ,.ill additional 28 units
(98 units total, with additional ale(juate parking being
provided) as Phase ]I.
6) l.n.i.tial storm water ponding area .hall. be adequate in areal.
and volume for the 98 unit bUi.lcii.ng with accompanying -
parking in addi.Lion to storm water yencraLed by McUonalds
Restaurant. As a minimum, tho poncling area required by
McDonalds site and proposed 98 unit motel site, shall be
covered by a drai.nacic and utility ea::ement.
"t
7) Parking lot meeting setback requirements.
DE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs
staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval
of the minutes. }
Adopted this 4th day of May, 1983.
r
ATTEST:
Chairman
(SEAL) -
Di--r.Octor-ZT Pu—b1>.c Works/
Community Development
`i
Mounds View Planning Commission May 4, 1983
Regular Meeting Page Two
--------------------------------------U
-----------------------------
available. NAPPR
OWED
Motion/Second: Andersen/Wnrren ru adopl ItosoluLinn
No. 75 8J, rccouuucndinl; approval ul ;i minor subdivi-
sion, re::oninl;, condiLional use permit and dovelnpmenL
proposal and ,npproving vnrinnves for 'font/ 1'nppolaars.
5 ayes 0 nay;; Ilol[on Carrie
Technician Kampel presented a revised :;ire plant, point- 6. ;Nor b Yenisht;
ing out the Changes Chc developer had made per the 2149"PrOgr`t
Planning Commissions rcqucsL. Ave., Dvlpmt,
Proposal, Maj
Mr. Bachman stated he had not had an opportunity to Subdivision,
review, the sugg::sted casements and Chat he would B-3 Highway
like to have the flexibility with the 10' with each Business Dstr
lot, as they are developed. Conceptual
Approval,
There was discussion among the Commissioners concern- Case 126-83
ing the easements and care of Lhc skinmter.
Motion/Second: Quick/Anderson to adopt Resolution
No.77i--T, reconuncndi.ng approval of Lhe developmcnC.
5 ayes 0 nays I•lotion Carrie
r
It was noted Chat Mr. Bourke was not present. 7. Ken Bourke,
8249 Spring
Technician Kampel reported the applicant's request Lake Road,
is identical to the one reviewed by the Planning Minor Subdv.
Commission on July 1, 1.981, and approved by both R-1 Single Fm
them and the Council. However, the applicant was Case 127-83
not able to pay the special assessment at that
time, and the 60 day time limit expired, and an
extension was denied by the CiCy Council_,
Motion/Second: Fors lund /Anderson. to adopt Resolu-
tion No. 17-83.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion
Technician Kampel reviewed the applicant's request,
8. Leonard Babin
and presented the site plan. Ile noted that the City
Lots 8-23, B1
will be doing a -re-surfacing project on Edgewood
3, Greenfield
Drive and stated they would like to be able to
Plat 2, Major
coordinate with Cho developer, so as to have the sewer
Subdivision,
and water connections in before the street is resur-
Rezone from
faced.
R-1 to R-3,
Dvlp. Approva
I Mr. Malmin stated he was present to represent Mr.
R-1 Single
Babinski. Ile roporecd they have hired an engineering
Family Rsdt.
firm, who feels their plan is good.
Case 128-83
CASE: 126-83, ltum 6 on 4/6/83 Planning Commission Agenda
ITEM: Major. Subdivision (1 LoL. into 2 - Approximately 4.G Acres)
Development Proposal (10 Unit Motel)
APPLICANT: Norb Yenish
LOCATION: 2149 Program Avenue (Approximalcly)
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Applicant requests concepl'ual approval only La construct a 70 unit
motel on Lot 2, Block 3, Programmed Land virsL Addition. Plan shows
a proposed future addition which is part of the concept review but
may not be included in iniLial duvolopmenl. oppl'oval.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
Zoning and Land Use:
1) Existing zoning on the property is B-3, Highway Business District.
Motels are a permitted use under the I1-3 zoning classification.
2) Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation is Ilighway Commercial/
Industrial Planned Unit Development.
3) Lots 2 and 3 of Block 1 are held in common ownership.
4) Following subdivision, Programmed Land, Inc. is intending on
fr selling the west part of Lot 2 to Mr. Yonish.
Subdivision Considerations:
1) Lot 2, Block 3, is approximately 4.6 acres in size. This lot
is proposed to be subdivided into a west lot (2.25 acres, motel
site) and cast lot (approximately 2.35 acres).
2) A frontage distance of 56.45 feet is being proposed along Program
Avenue. The Zoning Code has no minimums for lot frontage in any
"B"(Business) zones, nor are there any minimum square frontage
requirements for "B" zones.
3) The subdivision, as proposed, meets 'Zoning Code requirements.
4) Building and parking setbacks have been met.
Utility Services:
1) Both a 10 and 6 inch watermain are located on Program Avenue
in addition to an 8 inch sanitary sewormain. The Plan has been
submitted to the Fire Chief for comment and his recommended
changes should be incorporated into the site plan revisions. A
copy of his letter is attached.
Parking, Screening and Access:
1) The site plan for initial construction shows 71, 9 x 20 foot
parking spaces in addition to 1, 12 x 20 foot space for the handi-
capped. Based upon current Zoning Code requirements, 80, 9h x 20
foot regular parking space^ plus 2, 12 x 20 foot handicapped are
CASE 126-83
Page 2
required (82 total). The revised sjL(, plan c:hould show this
revision. t
vuture building expansion proposes Lo add on additional 42 units
to the building (112 units toUll). WiLh this future expansion
and based on our current 'toning Code, 129 total parking spaces
(126- 94 x 20 foOL, 3 -12 x 20 fool). Plans which were submitted
with the current- development show 123 spacen. In addition, the
parking aisle width should be increased from 22 to 24 feet.
2) Staff has recommended to the appl.icaul, Thal: a form of screening
be provided betwoai the motel. site and the single family home
to the west. Tile revised site plan should include screening of
this property by way of a solid type of fencing along the west
properly line approximately 200 feel north of the southwest corner.
The remainder of the property line should be fenced which will
provide a barrier between the parking area and the adjacent prop-
erty. (Not necessarily a visual barrier.)
3) Staff has also recommended that access be provided from the motel
site to the various eating establishments in the immediate area.
Location and type of pedestrian acre:;:; to the nearby restaurants
should be reviewed.
4) Exhibit 3 (attached) shows the location of a possible street
right-of-way access through the parcel under consideration to the, -
property to the north. Minimal site plan alteration would have
to take place using this street configuration. Planning Commissioni-.a
Council may want to review area wide access to determine if access to the
north through tile parcel under review should, in fact, be provided.
A 66 foot right-of-way presently exisLs near the east side of the
plat providing access to properties to the north (see Exhibit• 2).
Circulation in this area could be improved by providing a north/
south street which lines up with the existing Clifton Drive as
opposed to a street further east. Should the Planning Commission
elect to recommend a right-of-way through this parcel, the site
plan should be revised somewhat to show the right-of-way/street
access from it to the motel site. The District 2 planning study
conducted by Midwest Planning for the entire parcel bounded by
County Road II-2, highway 10 and Interstate 35W identified a
possible north/south street at this location (see Exhibit 5).
Drainage:
1) The applicant has submitted a preliminary grading plan for the
entire Programmed Land lsl• Addition which was prepared in 1973.
A section of this plan is attached to this report as Exhibit 4.
2) The revised site plan should show easements over the entire
ponding/catchment area as shown in Exhibit 4 sufficient to store
storm water generated by the motel site in addition to water
entering the site from adjoining properties. Additional ponding4
area may be required when other lots are submitted for development
approval.
CASE 126-83
Page 3
3) Storm water from the motel si.tc is proposed Lo flow to the
catchment (holding) area near thu nouthurn property line and
flow to the east through the akinnncr and into an existing
storm sewer culvurL under Program Avunae and behind L•hc Country
Inn restaurant, eventually flowi.nq .into all Uxi.sting ditch south
of the Country Inn. The water ultimaLely flows into Rice Creek.
A drainage plan for the entire Programmed Land Addition will be
available at the meeting.
4) The City Cnginecr wilt review thu sLurm woWr runoff calculations
and pondi.ng volumes/arr_a for Lhi:o area w111:11 i ,-Coived. Approval
should be contingent• upon City Engineer approval. The Rice Creek
Watershed District will also be rev.iewinq Lhin proposal and a
permit issued as a condition prior to final approval by the City.
Landscaping:
1) The applicant• will be submitting a landscaping plan at a later
date.
Development• Agreement:
1) A development agreement should be wriLLen and bonding required
which includes the following:
a) concrete curb and gutter
b) paving
c) landscaping (sidewalk, plantings, sodding, etc.)
d) parking lot• striping
e) detention/catchment pond construction
Applicant revised his request to receive development approval to construct
a 98-unit motel with 70 units to be constructed initially as Phase I and
an additional 28 units to be constructed at the same time or at a future
date as Phase II.
MEMO TO: Planniml Cunnui:;:;iou
FROM: En(ji.necring/Planni.n(.I 'Technician =I�
:
DATE: Aliri). I1, 1713
SUBJECT; SUPPLEME PAL CUi4Nl{N'1'S TU 9'1111, Now) Hmsll MOTEL PROPOSAL.
(SEE ORIGIN*wl, PLANNING REPORT, COPY ATTACHED)
Some questions camp uP at Lhc la:;t I'Linninq Commis:;ion mooting
regarding the above proposal which staff would like to clarify.
The first concerned the issue of the lot in cluo:;L•ion being part of
a designated P.U,D. in the Comprelions ivo Plan. Staff has contacted
Attorney Meyers on this item and it is his opinion that the P.U.D.
classification in the Comprehensive Plan is it tool for the City to
encourage developers to plan their rnti.re property at once as
opposed to a piecemeal type of planning. Even though the City has
designated the area as Highway Commercial/Industrial P.U.D. in its
Comprehensive Plan, it is the zoning that determines what the use will
be and developers may still plan and/or develop their properties on a
lot by lot basis. The CiLy, at this point, would be hard pressed to
require all property owners to plan the use of their properties at one
time. This would apply to all of the PinceresL (Heim) properties in
addition to the Programmed Land Properties. We would be able, because
of the subdivision process, require the owners of. Programmed Land to
state the future use of Lite east one -hall' of Chu lot which is currently
(ice being subdivided. The property is zoned commorci.al, so the future use
of the property may be stated as being commLrcial. So, it is Mr. Meyers'
opinion that this lot is not part of a total P.U.U. area (it is not
zoned P.U.D.) even though the Comprehensive Plan states it should be,
and thus we cannot require the properly owners to designate use and a
plan for the entire area at this time unless the Planning Commission
can convince the owners to do so.
The second item was regarding the responsibility for the skimmer
structure which is presently located on the north side of Program
Avenue. Since the City will be requiring the area to be easemented,
the City will assume responsibility for the structure unless it is
written in the development agreement and agreed upon that the developer/
owner will take responsibility of it. It is recommended that in the
development agreement, the 'standard seven year bond be posted for
the maintenance of the structure. During this seven year period, the
developer/owner will be reponsible for the structure. Following this
period, the City could assume responsibility for it.
A third item which was brought up at the last meeting was as it relates
to setbacks between the motel building and the adjacent non -conforming
single family home. Chapter 40.05, Subdivision A of the Municipal
Code states that the minimum setbacks as stated in Subdivision C of
the same Code section applies to zoning districts, not land use. The
zoning district in L•his area is B-3, Highway Commercial and thus set-
backs as they relate to B-3 zones would apply to all lots within that
Planning Coimnission
Page 2
April 13, 1983
rl
D-3 zone, even though a residential structure exists on one of thesL
commercial lots. Thus, the minimum sclback hclwaan the motel
structure and the lot line which soparate:: the metal from the single
family home would be 10 feet. The site plan is proposing 30 feet.
Rice Creek. Watershed District approved a permit (73-G4) on January
16, 1974 based on Lhc following data:
1) Total drainage area 20.7 acres.
2) Total ulL•imaL•c impervious 7.3 acres (36%).
3) Pond storage volume below 884.5 of 0.8 acre-feet.
4) Outlet discharge of 6.0 cubic feat par second or greater.
5) Ten year, 2 hour design storm which is a 2.5 inch rainfall.
Chapter 49A requires the following:
1) Maximum rate of discharge for undeveloped property be at a
rate equal to the 5 year storm which in estimated to be 10
cubic feel• per second.
2) Runoff between 5 year, 24 hour and 50 year, 24 hour event k'
must be detained on site. This is estimated to be 4.44
acre-feet for total development-, and 0.63 acre-feet for
proposed development.
Initial analysis would conclude that either the runoff assumptions
for the Rice Creek Watershed permit were too low or that proposed
development will utilize over 75 percent of the proposed 0.8 acre-feet
of storage. Staff, therefore, concludes that the proposed catchment
(pending) area may be significantly undersized for total (20.5 acre)
development to meet current requirements for Chapter 49A.
Staff recommends applicant:
1) Reevaluate storm water runoff taking into consideration the
proposed and future development.
2) Resubmit data to Rice Creek Watershed District for update
and reapproval, if necessary.
3) Establish drainage easement over catchment and future develop-
ment on the balance of the lot being subdivided. Additional
future drainage casement may be required when land use and a
more exact determination of impervious area can be made.
4) That existing skimmer be modified to allow emergency overflow
in the event that skimmer inlet becomes plugged or frozen.
Planning Commission
Page 3
April 13, 1.003
A revised site plan is attached for your reviow at the April 20th
meeting.
If you have any quostions, please contacL me.
PJK/bc
Attachments
ILA I[ 1
CO .Jleb lul .11111 1 .
l IMA.!I II ...I.I p. iI L_ It
1\li �I
1. lrl r.l � � , \ � 1 11.1 T1y 11 Ib Dllluunp
� it � Mb�m obr IW Uw11 nVl
�1 ' I br uutl worn VAlbl
QI .I r \ T.Ou111nA 01111.V.ILJ
1 NA wo Ifll'
1114V1
VINO �' ' r A
LAA[ a qll .�i ...
IAA. I y.. J r• I
6I9ISA0 � — ! Y \\•I� I II ..•x � j� �1 I �.I• r
<' � s •nc ali ` i � I
wl
�L � M4Y 1.41 • � \ \ � I'
IryI� I1. / 41 I
�!'�.... 441n 11 II^ .. ill LI ! •i .,I�\•\'.\,� y •• •'. x. I
I
4 Vi p1 y
•� TIW41• Aral — II, j �il�l � . 1 , r,i., � 1
Iw.l 1 AN O- II _ 'i
���0IIpIr44u[ Ip rN .N gip- All SI
,I 4
r [MIr lae yy—.� •l. ;L_ II � .'ail I I -�l:..
SiT� Of PKQFO%P 70 MIT MOTEL - Z
fli
II i
EMU
MI�Y<11� 0 11//U LJ IJ�Y
IWiIngl IYIU///
r+
�xH18�'T Z.
o SITE OF PROPOSED 70 UNIT MOTEL
6 {PROPOSED 505PlVM)lON LINE
r r
P
o +
'0 3
O,+
a,
AP ti
c
,Ile to
r
L I n
1.'IA t.
((Ao
Y1e�
I• ]i , \\\iii
1
This is a
sources a
vised and
This draw
purposes
rained.
High'
Aven
R
`Io
1 \ ,�♦�r(,t � 1.1 I�11 �
A`G
4ft-
NAN
P; f7NXrlf
lit *Z-Z� Al � lk
t., . 10
& �Rvl - Vp
4'ro.
It
f4r.
-42
Wit,
ha 1llv �fi '��:' t tl,I .I �/ �'l y/ , lam .u'. r a AliA .. 1"OVI -4.). S.
Axlk
k14 ZI
f �144kk
j.a. 4 .;1..
VN -j
kk:
VA
�VY IA I
TRAYNOR, HERMANSON 6 HAHN, ARCHITECTS, INC. 311 MED. ARTS IILOG.
I
PROJECT IIESCRII"I'IQ%,
PROJECT NAME: NOTI'.I. FOR NORD YRNISII
OWNER: Norbert Yeui:rh
DEVELOPER:
PROJECT
COX 15G • ST. CLOUD, MN 56001 • 2514760
pi•bliciry ?2, I'IH1
DESCRIPTION: The motel project shall consist of n 70 unit motel built to
Best Western quality standards. Total parking 72. The
building shall be designed fora possible future addition.
LOCATION: It is desired to locate the project in the proposed Hounds View
site, which is adjacent to a Mcikulaid's restaurant. The lot is
a portion of Parcel 1, Block 3, 2'4 acres,
There is a 6" water main avallable, 2" g:Is :md underground power
and an 8" existing sanitary sewer on the south side of Program
Avenue with stub -out.
/ BUILDING: 111e building will be "I." shaped, Lwo stories: with space for expansion.
1
The construction shall be load -bearing; concrete block walls
between rooms with precast prestressed concrete plank floors.
Exterior walls shall be brick and cement pl,lster. The roof
system shall be wood trusses with a::phalt shingle roof.
SITE: The site shall he complete with bituminous parking, drives,
cement walks, bcrmcd lawn areas and plantings.
AMENITIES: It is ant clp:Ited that the motel should IpIVP a high occupancy
rate due to the proximity Lo Highway 10 and 35W. The relation
to a restaurant would aisn gre.rely enhanCe the motel,
TIME
SCHEDULE: It is hoped that if favorable actlon is taken by the Planning
Commission, that drawings can be completed by the first part
of May and bids taken for Spring construction with completion
and occupancy by January 1, 1964.
FINANCING: The financing for this project shall be by private sources.
MARKETING: Ilia project shall be suited to an occupancy bnsically by
business men and their families due to the proximity to
Highway 10 and 35W.
,
DATE APPROVED: 5/9/83
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
April 25, 1983
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mounds View City Council was called to order 1. Call to Order
by Mayor McCarty at 7:31 PM on April 25, 1983.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilmembers Linke, Hankner, 2. Roll Call
anc a_r ann—Elayor McCarty.
It was noted that Councilmember Doty was absent
on vacation.
ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Meyers, Clerk/
minAdT Orator Pauley and Public Works/Community
Development Director Johnson.
Motion/Second: Hankner/Linke to approve the April 3. Approval of
II I9S3 minutes as corrected. Minutes:
April 11, 198'
4 ayes 0 nays
Motion Carrie
There were no residents requests or comments from 4. Residents
the floor. Requests and
Comments from
the Floor
Mayor McCarty noted that Item K, approving Reso- 5. Approval of
lution No. 1599, approving claims against the City Consent Agend,
in the amount of $123,924.10, should be added to
the consent agenda.
Motion/Second: Linke/Blanchard to approve the consent
agenda an waive the reading of the resolutions.
4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carrie
Motion/Second: Blanchard/Hankner to approve the 6. 2nd Reading ai
seco�nc rearming and adoption of Ordinance No. 337, an Adoption of
ordinance amending Chapter 107 of the Municipal Code Ordinance No.
entitled, "Bingo, Raffles, and Gambling Devices", 337
and waive the reading.
Councilmember Linke - aye
Councilmember Hankner - aye
Councilmember Blanchard - aye
Mayor McCarty - aye Motion Carriec.
Mounds View City Council
Regular Meeting
April 25, 1983
Page Two
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion/Second: Linke/Blanchard to approve the 7. 2nd Readi oily
second reading and adoption of Ordinance No, 335, Adoption
and ordinance amending Chapter 39 of the Municipal Ordinance
Code entitled, "Signs and Billboards", and waive 335
the reading.
Councilmember Linke - aye
Councilmember Hankner - aye
Councilmember Blanchard - aye
Mayor McCarty - aye Motion Carried
Motion/Second: McCarty/Hankner to have the first 8. 1st Reading of
rea ing o Ordinance No. 338, adopting the 1982 Ordinance No.
long term financial plan, and waive the reading. 338 Adopting
1982 Long Term
4 ayes 0 nays Financial Plan
Motion Carried
Mayor McCarty closed the regular meeting and opened 9. Hanson/Dalberg
the first public hearing at 7:40 PM. Rezoning and
Consideration o
Director Johnson reported the applicant has applied Minor Subdivi-
for a conditional use permit, rezoning and subdivision sion and 91`ji.-
of property along Silver Lake Road. He stated the tional Ust
Planning Commission has reviewed the request and Permit - Puulic
recommended the Council proceed and grant approval. Hearing
Mr. Dalberg stated he had no comments to add.
David Holmes, 7723 Groveland Road, stated there are
already two double bungelows and one apartment
building between County Road I and Highway 10, with
all that property at one time being zoned residential.
He stated he is concerned that if the property is
continued to be rezoned, it will lose it's residential
status, which he does not want. He stated his property
abutts the Dalberg property, and he would like it left
single family residential,
Bruce Wolf, 7685 Groveland Road asked exactly where
the proposed development would go, Director Johnson
pointed it out on a City map.
Craig Zuidema, 2809 County Road I, stated he lives
adjacent to the duplexes on Silver Lake Road and he
has not had a good experience with them as neighbors.
He stated he feels there are enough duplexes and
apartments in the neighborhood.
Mayor McCarty closed the public hearing and reopened the
regular meeting at 7:49 PM.
Councilmember Blanchard asked if the townhouses would
be for rent or sale. Mr. Dalberg replied they would
be for: sale,
Mounds View City Council April 25, 1983
Regular Xecting Page Three
------------------------------------------------------------------------
e'-, Director Johnson pointed out the subdivision is for
a group of buildings, not for each of the proposed
units.
Councilmember Hankner noted that the majority of
the zoning in the area is R-2 and R-3.
Mayor McCarty stated he felt the density would be
too high with townhouses and asked Mr. Dalberg if
he would be agreeable to having R-2 lots on Silver
Lake Road.
Mr. Dalberg replied that he had originally asked
for R-2.
Mayor McCarty stated that he does not agree
with the Planning Commission recommendation, as the
Council is following the Comp Plan and the Planning
Commission seems to have deviated from it. He
stated Mr. Dalberg has the option to withdraw
his request and go back to the Planning Commission
if he would like.
Director Johnson explained the differences in
zoning between R-1, R-2 and R-3.
Mr. Holmes stated he was against R-2 and would like
R-1 zoning.
Mr. Zuidema stated he was not in favor of R-2, as
it would be rental property.
Mr. Wolf stated he did not want the development.
Motion/Second: McCarty/Linke to approve the first
reading o Ordinance No. 339, amending the R-3 to
R-2, in compliance with the Comp Plan, with the
applicant's consent and agreementfrom R-1 to R-2,
rather than R-1 to R-3, and taking into account
the recommendation of the Planning Commission,
to change the zoning from R-1, and waive the
reading.
4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carrie.
Motion/Second: McCarty/Hankner to table Resolu-
tions No. 1597 and 1598 until such time as Staff
has the opportunity to confer with the applicant
on these resolutions and redraw the development
agreement.
4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carrie,
Mounds view City Council. April 25, 1983
Regular Meeting ----Page Four
------------------------------------------ -- - ---- --•-------
Mayor McCarty closed the regular meeting and opened 9B. Ordinanc§Q.
the second public hearing at 8:17 PM. 336, AmeF 09
Chapter ti
Director Johnson explained the proposed amendment Public Hearing
to Chapter 48.
Mayor McCarty closed the public hearing and reopened
the regular meeting at 8:18 PM.
Motion/Second: McCarty/Blanchard to adopt Ordinance
Ao, , amending Chapter 48 of the Municipal Code
entitled, "Wetlands Zoning Ordinance", and waive
the reading.
Councilmember Linke - aye
Councilmember Hankner - aye
Councilmember Blanchard - aye
Motion Carried
Mayor McCarty - aye
Director Johnson reported that now the ordinance had
been passed, Dynamic Designers has a proposal for an
additional alteration of wetland, and asked when the
Council would like to discuss it.
Mayor McCarty replied they would discuss it at their
next agenda session.
Director Johnson reported that two bids were 10.
Consideration
Staff Report
received, one from Iayne Minnesota in the amount of
from Keys Well Building in the
of
Regarding Re -
$8,921.50 and one
amount of $8,600, but that with the 130' of fill
pair to Well
which must be removed, Attorney Meyers has advised
No. 6
that the removal be looked at as a variable amount
and that the Council move ahead and authorize the
work with one contractor. He also noted that it
appears that Keys ommitted a $1,000 item from their
bid, and that on all major repair items,iayne was
lower in price. He stated both firms gave prices
per hour for removing the fill.
Motion/Second: McCarty/Hankner to accept the low
proposal, contingent upon resolution of the $1,000
question.
Motion Carried
4 ayes 0 nays
Mayor McCarty asked for a clarification on emergency
repair authorization. Attorney Meyers explained that
if the Council declares an emergency, then the bidding
process and so forth does not have to be followed.
Mounds View City Council April 25, 1983
Regular Meeting Page Five
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion/Second: McCarty/Linke to approve the re- 11. Consideration
quest tom obert Eigenheer to transfer Develop- of Request
ment Agreement No. 82-54 to Good Value Homes, from Robert
with the addition of Items 14 and 15 to the Eigenheer to
development agreement. Transfer Dvlp
Agreement No.
4 ayes 0 nays 82-54 to Good
Value Homes
Motion Carrie
Mr. Peterson of Good Value Homes stated they would
like to obtain building permits for four lots on
County Road I and 3 lots and Edgewood.
Attorney Meyers advised the bond would have to be
expanded.
Motion/Second: McCarty/Linke to authorize the
transter, with three conditions, that the developer
be allowed to obtain 7 building permits, 4 for lots
fronting on County Road I and 3 for lots fronting
on Edgewood between County Road I and Edgewood Circle,
to approve the Engineer's recommendation that the
developer provide construction inspection and have a
professional engineer certify to the City that the
j ~ street and utility improvements were installed accord-
ing to the specifications and plans, and extend the
performance bond to meet all conditions of the develop-
ment agreement.
4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carrie
There was discussion among the Council of previous 12. Consideration
motions made at the last meeting, regarding tabling of Action Re -
versus postponing action, garding Mqund:
View DFL Use
Councilmember Hankner stated she has spoken to of City Corpo
Counsel and would like additional time before discussing ate Name
further, in order to receive a written opinion.
Motion: Hankner to extend the postponement to the next
regu ar meeting.
4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carrie,
Director Johnson reported he had attended the 13. Report of
national planning conference in Seattle. He Director of
stated the next conference will be held in Minnea- Public Works/
polis and he will be proposing some topics for Community Dvl;
discussion.
Director Johnson pointed out he had now worked for
the City for one year.
Mounds View City Council April 25, 1983
Regular Meeting Page Six
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Meyers had no report. 14. Report q`
AttorneIs
Councilmember Linke reported he had attended the 15. Reports of
dinner meeting for the Ramsey County League of Councilmem
Local Governments on April 20.
Councilmember Hankner had no report.
Councilmember Blanchard had no report,
Mayor McCarty asked that pumping be checked on
holding ponds.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported he would be 16. Report of
attending the vote on the PELRA bill. Administrator
Motion/Second: Hankner/Blanchard to adjourn the 17. Adjournment
meeting at :09 PM.
4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carri
Respectfully submitted,
i.
Donald P. Pauley
Clerk/Administrator
i