HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1983/05/23CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
May 23, 1983
7:30 p.m.
A G E N D A
1. Call to order
2. Roll Call - Linke, Hankner, Blanchard, Doty, McCarty
3. Approval of Minutes: May 9, 1983 (Regular Meeting)
4. Public Hearings - 7:40 p.m. - Poppelaars Conditional Use Permit
and Rezoning (Ordinance No. 341,
Resolution No. 1612)
7:50 p.m. - Leonard Babinski Major Subdivision
Preliminary Plat and Rezoning
(Ordinance No. 340, Resolution No.
1609)
8:00 p.m. - Norb Yenish, Mntet, Develooment,
Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat
i (Resolution No. 1607)
i
8:10 p.m. - Hanson/Dalberg Rezoning
(Ordinance No. 339)
5. Residents Requests and Comments from the Floor
------------------------------------------------
CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKTNG PLEASE GIVE YOUR
FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES
------------------------------------------------
6. Approval of Consent Agenda
ITEM A. Authorize Mayor and Clerk -Administrator to Enter into
a Contract with DeLaHunt, Veto & Co. for a Special
Assessment Debt Service Study at a Cost not to Exceed
$5,000 to be Funded out of the Water Works Improvement
Bond Fund of 1960
ITEM B. Approve Resolution No. 1604 Adopting the 1984 Budget
Calendar
ITEM C. Approve Resolution No. 1606 Adopting the 1983 Recreation
Activity Fund Budget
.,
-continued-
AGENDA
May 23, 1983
Page Two
6. Approval of Consent Agenda (cont.)
ITEM D. Approve Resolution No. 1605 Authorizing the Installation
of Streetlight
ITEM E. Accept Resignation of Shirley Buntrock from the Mounds
View Festivities Commission and Approve Resolution No.
1597 Commending Shirley Buntrock for Two Years of
Dedicated Service on the Mounds View Festivities
Commission
ITEM F. Accept 1982 Financial Statements and Auditor's
Management Report and Recommendations
ITEM G. Set Revenue Sharing Proposed Use Hearing for 7:40 p.m.
on June 13, 1983
ITEM H. Approve Resolution No. 1611 Approving Planning Case
127-83 A Minor Subdivision Request
ITEM I. Approve Resolution No. 1610 Appointing Signatores for
POST Board Training- Reimbursement Munies
ITEM J. Licenses for Approval ,
ITEM K. Approve Resolution No. 1598 Approving Just and Correct
Claims Against City Funds
7. Consideration of Report from TKDA, Inc. Regarding Bids for
Water Treatment Plant Modifications
8. Cnngi_(lnratinn of nlg ng .�.viiu :^'' .LJJ1Gn RCl:V11Wicii'd Llun diid
Resolution No. 1608 Regarding Mr. Donut
9. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Pro Women's Wrestling
10. Report of Director of Public Works/Community Development
11. Report of Attorney
12. Report of Councilmembers - Linke, Hankner, Blanchard, Doty, McCarty
13. Report of Administrator
14. Adjournment
J
PROCEEDINCS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
1 I RIu%ISEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
V � @
� ' .''� a '; SsI -�•�.. RegularMeeting��' '' May 9, 1983
" U L. Mounds View City Hail
2401 Ilwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
----------------------------------------------------------
The Mounds View City Council was called to order
by Mayor McCarty at 7:31 PM on May 9, 1983.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilmembers Linke, Hankner,
anc ar Doty and Mayor McCarty.
ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Meyers, Clerk/
A inistrator Pauley and Public Works/Community
Development Director Johnson.
Mayor McCarty asked that the agenda be deviated from
to allow Finance Director Brager to present the
financial statements for 1982.
C h'inance Director Brager presented the Council with
the 1982 financial statements and stated he would
like to set up a date to have the auditors come in
and go over the report in more detail. He stated
that he had prepared a summary report, which was
included with the statement.
It was agreed that the auditors should come to the
next agenda session, on May 16.
Motion/Second: Linke/Blanchard to approve the
April Z�, T4$3 minutes as corrected.
4 ayes 0 nays 1 abstain
Councilmember Doty abstained from the vote as he had
not been present at the April 25 meeting.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of
Minutes:
April 25, 1983
Motion Carried
John Wells, 8020 Groveland Road, asked what was 4. Residents Re -
being done about the zoning violation of the radiator quests and
repair shop on Highway 10. Comments from
the Floor
Attorney Meyers explained that the Planning Commission
has reviewed the home occupations ordinance to see
if they want to make any changes. He stated the
owner's defense is that he is running a valid home
occupation, even though he acknowledges that it is a
zoning violation. Attorney Meyers stated that the
position of the City will be a civil suit, since
Mounds View City Council
Regular Meeting May 9, 1983
-------------------
----------- Page Two
---
ere is a violation of the zoning ordinance, and the
defense of a home occupation is not valid in this
case. He stated that another point to consider would
be unequal enforcement of the law, and recommendedthat the Council authorize him to commence with civil
proceedings. He stated lie feels the facts are in
L"he City's favor.
Maor McCarty
asset
ide temporarilyasked totallow hat uRepresentative oDaneKnuth
to speak, and then the issue would be returned to.
Representative Knuth stated there are two issues going
on in the Legislature presently that affect Mounds View,
with one being the airport issue. He advised that the
House has passed it out of the Committee on Local and
Urban Affairs, and in the Senate it has passed the
Local and Urban Government Committee and gone on to
the Rules Committee, who will be deciding on May 10
if they should refer it to the Transportation
Committee. He stated that if it does go on to the
Transportation Committee, there is a good chance it -
will
esession.
ed that h
understands that iftheSenate takes dno action, the
r House of Representatives will not bring it up under
special orders. He also recommended that the Council -
members call the members of the Rules Committee, to
let them know Mounds View's position.
Representative Knuth stated the other issue involving
Mounds View is local government aid, of which several
proposals have affected Mounds View. He explained
that ender ti,c.i, ,
USL
asse
House tody on the
floor, no City WcouldJlose pmore dthanawhat they
could raise in one-half a mill, and that for Mounds
appr
however, thatdheecouldonolt matuaranteeLe
000eHWouldstated
not
be any further surprises later on,
The Council thanked Representative Knuth for taking
the time to speak to them, and also for all the work
the three Representatives have done on the airport.
Mayor McCarty returned the agenda to the zoning
violation issue.
Donald Gross, 8060 Groveland, asked if the radiator
repair shop had taken out a building permit for the
attachment he put on his garage, and '- so, why
was one issued when he was already in violation?
Clerk/Administrator Pauley replied that a permit was
issued,because they could not legally refuse to issue
a permit if the building is in compliance with all
regulations as far as size and location. He explained
that the use of the building was a sr•,:,rate issue.
Mounds View City Council May 9, 1933
Regular Meeting Page Three
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Councilmember Linke stated that the Building Inspector
had monitored construction very closely to insure that
the addition was in compliance.
Motion/Second: Linke/Blanchard to authorize City
Attorney Meyers to pursue civil remedies in the
radiator repair shop zoning violation.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carrie
Attorney Meyers stated he would like to speak to any
resident present who was concerned with the zoning
violation, and get their names and addresses.
Motion/Second: Blanchard/Doty to approve the con- 5. Approval of
sent agenda as presented, and waive the reading of Consent Agend:
the resolutions.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carrie,
Motion/Second: Doty/Hankner to approve the second 6. 2nd Reading a:
reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 338, adopting Adoption of
the 1982 Long -Term Financial Plan, and have Clerk/ Ord. No. 3
Administrator Pauley give a brief explanation. An Ordinan
Adopting the
Councilmember Linke - aye 1982 Long -Teri
Councilmember Hankner - aye Financial Pla,
Councilmember Doty - aye
Councilmember Blanchard - aye
Mayor Warty - aye Motion Carrie,
Clerk/Administrator Pauley briefly explained the
1982 Long -Term Financial Plan.
Mayor McCarty noted in the last two sentences of
the ordinance where 1982 should be changed to 1983.
Director Johnson reviewed his memo of May 5, 1983 7. Consideration
to the Council, outlining possible solutions to of Drainage
the drainage problem on St. Stephen's Street. He Improvements
explained what 48.07(B) entails as far as work for St. Stepht
that is classified as repair work. Street:
Councilmember Doty stated lie felt that if the ditch
was once there, this would be repair work and not a
wetlands alteration.
Councilmember Blanchard asked if the construction
easements would be temporary. Director Johnson
replied that they would be, and the property would
be resodded.
V�
Mounds View City Council May 9,
Regular Meeting ---Page-FouOS
i---------------------------------------------------------
Motion/Second: Doty/Linke to proceed with the work, mv'a
class— ed as 'repair" under 48.07(B), and direct Staff
to obtain Che necessary construction easements, and lF
prepare plans and specs for obtaining bids, and
to obtain a legal land survey as to the exact *[0
location of the existing 15 foot easement, with the
amount not to exceed $8,300.00, with the SWM fund
to be the source of funds.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Ca
Clerk/Administrator Pauley advised the Council that
they would probably have to go to bids, due to the
cost of the project.
Motion/Second: McCarty/Blanchard to rescind the
previous motion.
5 ayes 0 nays
Motion/Second: Doty/Linke to proceed with the work,
classed as repair" under 48.07(b), and direct Staff
to obtain the necessary construction easements, and
prepare plans and specs for obtaining bids, and
to obtain a legal land survey as to the exact
j location of the existing 15 foot easement, with Legal
fees and survey costs to come from the SWM fund.
5 ayes 0 nays
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported that at the last
Council meeting, they had several issues before then
relative to this property, and that a public hearing
was held, with several items considered, and basically
three actions required, an ordinance rezoning the
property from R-1 to R-3, a resolution approving the
subdivision of the property and a conditional use
permit, and the execution of a development agreement.
At that time, the resolution was tabled and referred
back to Staff, with the Council rezoning the property
from R-1 to R-2, desiring duplexes rather than multi-
ple family. The first reading of the ordinance was
held, but the second reading will not be presented
to the Council until an acceptable subdivision and
development agreement has been worked out.
Director Johnson reported that Mr. Dalberg had
originally applied for R-2 zoning, for the division
of the northerly most lot in half, then the three
lots to R-2. The Planning Commission at their agenda
I� session advised that they could not agree with the
widths , and based on that, Mr. Dalberg came back with
his new proposal. He stated Mr. Dalberg has asked
for consideration of the utilization of the land for
better use of the property, and as a transition
Motion Carried
Motion Carried
Consideration
of Staff Memo
and Letter fro
Mr. Dalberg
Requesting
Continuance of
Rezoning Reque
Mounds View City Council
Regular Meeting
------------------------------------------------------
between the different zonings in the area. Director
Johnson outlined Mr. Dalberg's new proposal.
Mr. Dalberg stated he can meet all the requirements
of the City for square footage, and that the buildings
would be 100 feet from the rear of the lot line, putting
200 feet between buildings. He pointed out his proposal
would be a better tax value for the City with six units,
but the City would not agree to waive the frontage
requirements.
Mayor McCarty pointed out that in order to comply with
requirements for R-2 zoning on the three existing lots
on Silver Lake Road, which were two at 75 and one at
85', Mr. Dalberg did not have the required frontage
and would have to go with R-1. He recommended Mr.
Dalberg go back to the Planning Commission and go over
his proposal with them and review the Comp Plan. He
stated the fee would be waived and Mr. Dalberg could
go back under his last application.
Mr. Dalberg stated he was concerned with the time
factor and did not want to go back to the Planning
Commission.
Councilmember Hankner reported she had spoken with
several Planning Commissioners, and their reasoning
for their decision was to have a transition for
zoning. She stated she would feel more comfortable
with Mr. Dalberg going back to the Planning
Commission. She also asked if another public hearing
would be required.
Director Johnson stated he could not guarantee the
Planning Commission could discuss the proposal at
their next agenda session, since the cut-off date
was May 1, but it would be up to the descretion
of the Chair of the Commission.
Attorney Meyers stated that a first public hearing
had been held, and if they were not having a second
reading, he would recommend another notice be sent
out, and they could continue the second reading
and notify all the people involved.
Motion/Second: McCarty/Hankner to postpone until
t e next regular Council meeting, Ordinance No. 339,
and notify the effected property owners and re-
publish the public hearing notice, with the hearing
to be at 8:10 PM on May 23.
5 ayes 0 nays
Director Johnson.stated he would inform the Planning
Commission, by memo, of the Council's position.
May 9, 1983
Page Five
Motion Ca
•
E
Mounds View City Council
Regular Meeting
------------------------
May 9, 1983
Page Six
-----------------------------------------
i" Director Johnson reviewed his memo of May 5 to the
Council, concerning the installation of water and
sewer services to lots 17, 18 and 19 of the Edgewood
Square Addition.
Mr. Peterson stated he was not prepared to address
the issue of whether the lots were in the wetlands,
and he is not asking to build on the lots, but
is asking to put services in for lots 17, 18 and 19
He stated that Staff has advised it would require
Council authorization. He stated that he feels
someday in the future, the lots may be buildable,
and they would like to put all the services in at
once, even though they would not be building on
those lots at this time,
Mr. Peterson stated that Staff had expressed concern
that if the City allows the services to be put in,
Good Value Homes could come back and say they must
be buildable. Mr. Peterson stated that Good Value
Homes is willing to sign a statement saying they
will not build at this time.
9. Consideration
of Request frc
Good Value Hon
for Installa-
tion of Water
and Sewer Svc.
to Lots 17-19
of Edgewood
Square Addn.
7
Mr. Peterson informed the Council that in research-
ing the proposal, he has found that the services
were approved originally, when Bob Eigenheer presented
the plan to the City, but he is still going ahead to
ask Council approval again. He pointed out that
Good Value Homes does know of the surface water
problem in Mounds View and they were aware of the risk
with the three lots in question when they purchased
them.
Mayor McCarty pointed out that reapportionment of
tch>—serwiets assessments to these lots %ould never be approved,
and the improvements would have to be paid for by
the developer, as it is not a public improvement
project, and he reviewed how the apportionments were
made to the lots.
Director Johnson stated that Staff is concerned with
getting a clarification from the Council on the
installation of services.
Attorney Meyers recommended that the City not allow
the connections, as it could be interpreted that the
City intends to allow eventual development of the lots.
Motion/Second: McCarty/Doty to not allow services to
otL s 11,, 16 and 19 in the Edgewood Square Subdivision.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
983
Mounds View City Council May 9, 1
Regular Meeting Page Seven
------------ -------
Mayor McCarty stated that in reference to the plans
that were approved, granting services to lots 17, 18
and 19, they were approved at the same time easements
were given, which is not compatible, and was an over -
site.
Park Director Anderson reported the Park Board has been
dealing with the issue of leaf composting for the past
few years, and it has come to the City's attention that
�*
Ramsey County is considering expanding their compost
1�
program, and they are considering Mounds View as a
He reported the Park Board had reviewed
L IJ
.;,�
possible site.
it and feel very positive about it, as it would cost
�r
the City basically no money, with the funding coming
from the County. Some locations they discussed were
Ardan Park, or Greenfield Park, or the old Moega Farm.
It was the concensus of the Council to have Staff draw
.=
up the necessary resolution for the proposed compost
project.
2'
Councilmember Blanchard asked the status of the problem
with the delivery of the City newsletter. Park Director
Anderson replied there had been many problems with
'
delivery this time, and they are looking at other options.
He stated he would be getting back to the Council with
a report.
Councilmember Hankner reported she had still not 10.
Consideration
Action Re -
received a written report from her Counsel, and hopes
would
of
garding
to have it very soon. She stated she prefer
to table action until she receives it.
View DFL Club
Use of City
Motion/Second: McCarty/Doty to direct Staff to
Corporate Nam-
notiTy the Mounds View DFL Club not to use the
City's name on their literature.
Motion Carrie
4 ayes 1 nay
Councilmember Hankner voted against the motion, stating
she would prefer waiting for a legal opinion, and she
did not feel the motion differed from motions made at
previous meetings.
Councilmember Linke asked for clarification of how the
notice was to be made, and by whom. Mayor McCarty
replied that it would be by Staff, which the Council
interpreted as not to be City Attorney Meyers, and
it would be in the normal manner used by Staff to
notify people of violations.
Director Johnson reviewed his memo of May 9 to the 11. Report of
Council, concerning the Mr. Donut development Director of
proposal, and reviewed the changes the applicant Public Works/
has made in his proposed development. Comm. Dvlpmt.
Mounds View City Council May 9, 1983
Regular Meeting Page Eight
---------------------------------------------------------------------
He advised that the applicant would like the
Council to amend the development agreement to allow
the proposed changes. lie stated that if it is sent
00
back to the Planning Commission, it would not get
fir'!
back to the Council for approval in time to get
construction started and completed before the Septem-
ber 1 scheduled opening.
"'o
Councilmember Linke pointed out the conditional use
" ""
was put in place in April 1981, and according to
40.23(C)(3), the applicant has exactly one year to
�s'`�
put it into force, and if a continuation is required,
OP
30 days notice is necessary prior to the expiration
date, which the applicant did not follow, and thus,
the entire proposal is a dead issue and must start
`
at the beginning.
Motion/Second: Linke/Hankner that pursuant to
40.23 Sub. C 3), this proposal should go back
through the process,
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Mr. Welch protested that he was not aware of the
time limitation on the conditional use. Attorney
Meyers replied it is required by ordinance.
Director Johnson reviewed the memo of May 9 regarding
filling on the Waste property. He reported Mr. Waste
proposes to fill approximately one acre of property,
and will lose approximately two acre feet of natural
ponding on the property.
Attorney Meyers pointed out the City can require a
development agreement, as it falls within Chapter 59,
and they should have some type of plan from Mr. Waste,
and an agreement regarding covering and also some
security to insure compliance.
There was discussion among the Council of the amount
of fill to be put in, and the problem the owner is
having with unauthorized use of dirt bikes on his
property.
Motion/Second: McCarty/Linke to approve the fill
application from Mr. Waste, contingent upon receipt
of a grade plan, to be approved by the Community
Development Director, and that security be posted
to insure compliance, with release of the bond at
the time of completion of the project, and to
insure there will be no violation to Ordinance 49A.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Mounds View City Council
Regular Meeting
Director Johnson reported Well #6 had been televised
and appears to be in good condition,
Director Johnson reported the Edgewood Square develop-
ment started today, and they hope to be finished with
the installation of services within three weeks. Knoll -
wood Green has also started.
Director Johnson reported he will be attending a seminar
in Madison next week.
Attorney Meyers had no report.
Councilmember Linke reported he had been in contact
with the City of Spring Lake Park regarding the
proposed traffic light for Pleasant View and Highway
10. He reported they are looking for conceptual
approval and reviewed the tentative figures he
had been given on the costs involved, and where
the funds were to come from, with Mounds View's
share to be approximately $7,463, not including
operational costs.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported the Highway
Department will be holding a public hearing and
recommended the City notify those residents who
would be involved.
Mayor McCarty recommended the matter be referred
to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Linke
pointed out that the final decision will be with
the Council and asked if the expenditure would be
approved by the City.
Motion/Second: McCarty/Doty to authorize Council-
men er in a to take the Pleasant View/Highway 10
signal proposal from Spring Lake Park to the
Planning Commission and, working with the liason,
Councilmember Blanchard, further determine the
disposition of the matter.
5 ayes 0 nays
Motion/Second: Doty/McCarty to amend the previous
motion to include that the property owners directly
impacted in the City of Mounds View by this proposal,
be notified of the plans that have been discussed,
so they know exactly where they are at right now.
5 ayes 0 nays
May 9, 1983
Page Nine
W
12. Report of
Attorney
13. Reports of
Councilmember
I
Motion Carrie.
V
Motion Carrie(
Mounds View City Council May 9, 1983
Regular Meeting Page Ten
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor McCarty asked Councilmember Linke to inform
Spring Lake Park that the matter is going to the
Planning Commission, and he also asked Staff to
identify the source of funds.
Councilmember Hankner expressed concern with the way
the meeting minutes are being handled, as far as
changes being made prior to the regular meetings,
without all the members being notified, and asked
that some type of policy be set up.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley explained that once the
minutes are received from the recording secretary,
he makes obvious changes, such as spelling or typos
or any blatant errors, but he does not edit the
minutes. He recommended that any changes to the
minutes after receipt of them from the recording
secretary, be made in the same manner that changes
occur to the City code, that it be dashed out and
the new material underlined. He added that once
the minutes are approved, the finished copy would
be a clean copy.
It was aggreed by the Council that they did not want
to interfer with administrative work and they agreed
to Clerk/Administrator Pauley's suggestion of noting
changes to minutes.
Councilmember Blanchard reported she had attended the
May 4 Planning Commission meeting, and reviewed the
action they had taken. She reminded the Council of
the special meeting on May 12 to bring zoning into
compliance with the Comp Plan.
Councilmember Doty reported he had been on vacation
at the time of the last Council meeting,
Mayor McCarty had no report.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reviewed the costs and
revenues for Clean -Up Day, and stated the final
report will be forthcoming.
He reported he had received a phone call, informing
him of the settlement of the 320 contract, and that
he will be drafting a contract for the Council to
approve, which should be ready within the next 30
days.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported he had been asked
to serve as chairman for one of the committees for the
Ramsey County civil defense. He stated he did not
feel it should involve a significant amount of his time.
He also reviewed the procedure to be followed in any
emergency, stressing that all Council members were to
report directly to City Hall first.
Mounds View City Council
Regular Meeting
May
May 9, 1983
---------------------------------------------------------
Eleven
C1erk/Administrator Pauley advised that he has a list
of the members of the Rules Committee, for any Council -
member
•
who wanted to contact them. He also reported
he had personally contact two of the Senators on that
Committee, with one saying no and the other having a
..
strong willingness to consider the City's position on��na
the airport issue.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported Building Inspector
Rose
would be present at the next agenda session to
discuss Appendix E of the Minnesota Building Code,.r
regarding automatic fire suppression systems.
r
Clerk/Administrator reported he would be out of townr�
on May 11, 12 and returning in the late afternoon on
the 13th.
Motion/Second: Doty/Linke to adjourn the meeting at
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carrie.
Respectfully submitted,
Donald F. Pauley
Clerk/Administrator
�J
ORDINANCE NO. 341
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTI' OP RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF MOUNDS VIEW
BY AMENDING CHAPTER 41 ENTITLED, "SPECIFIC RE20NINGS"
The Council of Mounds View does hereby ordain:
41.12 Pursuant to Chapter 40.23, the official Mounds View zoning
map is hereby amended to reflect the following rezoning:
Subdivision 1.
Legal description will be provided
Monday evening by the developer
This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its
publication.
Read by the Council of the City of Mounds View on the day of
, 1983.
Read and passed by the Council of the City of Mounds View this
day of , 1983.
ATTEST:
Mayor
(SEAL)
Clerk -Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
CITY OP MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSIiY
STATE' OF MINNESOTA
MOUNDS VIEW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO.83-59
'PONY POPPELAARS__
'PHIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of
19 , by and between the CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW,
County of Ramsey, State of Minncsot.i, party of the first part,
hereinafter called the "City",
and Tony Poppelaars —
party of the second part, hereinafter called the "Developer",
W I T N E S S E T II:
WHEREAS, the Developer, in consideration of the
i construction of a 10 unit apartment building
and the issuance of permits thereof, hereby agrees with the City to
perform all of the acts required herein and to conform to all of
the conditions set forth as follows:
1. Wherever the word "City" appears herein, it shall mean
and include the City of Mounds View and also said City's agents and
employees; and wherever the word "Developer" appears herein, it
shall mean the developer., and any of its agents and employees.
Wherever the words "development site" appear herein, it shall mean
the premises described in the following exhibits:
Exhibit 1 (legal description)
Exhibit 2 (site plan)
Exhibit 3 (building Plans & Specifications)
Exhibit 4 (Ordinance No. 48 Surety )
Rev. 4/13/81
the City in the processing, review and evaluation of the proposed
development and in the inspection of. all work performed pursuan ^
to said contract. Such costs shall include but not be limited to
the administrative, legal, and enginocring expenses incurred herein,
and such other expenses as authorized by said Chapter.
13. Developer agrees that the City can Lerminate development
of the development- site or the construction of any building struc-
tures thereon if in the City Council's opinion the terms of this
Development Contract have not been conformed to by the developer
and the said Developer herein agrees to cease construction and
waives its right of recourse, claim, suit or action against the
City. In addition, in the event the Developer fails to conform to
the conditions of this Agreement, the City shall be entitled to
enforce it pursuant to the terms of this contract and/or the provr''
sions of the Mounds View Home Rule Charter, Chapter 26 of the
Municipal Code, or applicable Minnr_soLa Statutes. The Developer
herein agrees that in the event the City is compelled to enforce
any of the provisions of this contract by court action and judgment
is rendered in favor of the City, that all costs, disbursements
and reasonable attorney's fees will be paid by said Developer, its
heirs, successors and assigns.
14. The Developer shall furnish to the City at the time of
the execution of this Contract a cash bond, a corporate surety bond,
an irrevocable letter of credit or any other negotiable instrument
approved by the City Attorney, which the Developer agrees to keep in
full force and effect during the term of the obligation created
herein in the amount of 11,000 (eleven thousand)
Dollars, wherein the
-4-
EXHIBIT 2A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 83-59
In addition to the foregoing conditions, Developer agrees to the
following:
1) Performance and maintenance of the weir and control
structure to be the owner's responsibility.
2) The wetland area to the 903 contour shall be protected
during the construction period in a manner which meets
with the approval of the City Engineer.
3) An easement be dedicated for drainage purposes which
encompasses all area within the 903 contour as shown
on the site plan in addition to 10 foot drainge and
utility easements also as shown on the site plan.
4) A landscape plan be submitted which includes the
following:
a) Appropriate vegetation to the 903 contour.
I b) Earth berming be provided along Woodlawn Drive
boulevard designed so as not to impact adjacent
properties.
5) Work authorized by the wetlands alteration shall begin
within ninety days from the date of issuance of the permit.
FOR THE CITY:
Date:
FOR THE DEVELOPER:
Date:
RESOLUTION NO. 1612
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
MINOR SUBDIVISION, WETLANDS ALTERATION PERMIT
AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 83-59 FOR TONY POPPELAARS
WHEREAS, Tony Poppelaars has submitted plans for the
approval of a 10 unit apartment building with accompanying parking
facilities to be located on Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2, Park View
Terrace; and
WHEREAS, the proposed development area lies within a designated
wetland zoning district as delineated on the wetlands Zoning District
Map; and
WHEREAS, per Chapter 48.05, no development shall be allowed
within a wetland zoning district without first having obtained a
wetland alteration permit from the City; and
WHEREAS, the proposed development area also lies within a
designated flood plain; and
WHEREAS, since the applicant is proposing to fill a portion
of the flood plain as a result of the proposed, aconditional use
permit is required; and
WHEREAS, in order for the developer to receive wetland
credits as outlined in Chapter 48, a minor subdivision to combine
the two lots under consideration into one is required; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this develop-
ment proposal and has recommended approval with conditions by
adopting Resolution No. 75-83; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has also reviewed this development
proposal and its application to the Municipal Code, specifically
Chapter 40, 42, 48, and 49; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on May 23, 1983 to
receive comments from all interested persons;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council grant the following:
1. A conditional use permit to allow the filling of a
portion of the flood plain as shown on the site plan
identified as Exhibit 2 of the development agreement.
RESOLUTION NO. 1612
Page Two
2. A wetlands alteration permit to allow for construction
within the 100 foot buffer area. Conditions of this
permit include:
a) Dredging shall be limited to the conditions as
outlined in Chapter 48.06, Subdivision 3 B.
b) The following conditions as they relate to discharges
shall be met:
1. Erosion control measures and retention facili-
ties shall be put in place prior to commence-
ment of each development construction site so
as to limit soil loss from the development site
to not more than five (5) tons per acre per year.
2. Sediment yield from construction sites adjacent
or tributary to wetlands shall not be more than
two (2) tons per acre per year.
c) c) The following conditions as they relate to storm
water runoff shall be met:
1. Storm water runoff from a development may be
directed to the wetland only when substantially,
as determined by the Council, free of silt, debris,
and chemical pollutants, and only at rates which
will not substantially, as determined by the
Council, disturb vegetation or increase turbidity.
2. The proposed action shall not cause storm water
rnnnff from the wetland to take ol.are at A rRt?
which would exceed the natural rate of runoff.
3. The quality of water infiltrated to the water
table or aquifer shall remain substantially, as
determined by the Council, unchanged by the
development of the site.
4. The allowed total increase in runoff, in combina-
tion with total fill allowed, shall not cause the
total natural flood storage capacity of the wetland
to fall below the projected volume of runoff from
the whole developed wetland watershed generated by
a six inch rainfall in 24 hours.
5. The allowed total increase in runoff, in combina-
tion with the total fill allowed, shall not cause
total natural phosphorus stripping capacity of the
wetland to fall below the project phosphorus pro-
duct•ion from the whole developed wetland watershed.
RESOLUTION NO. 1612
Page Three
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
approves a minor subdivision to combine Lots 1 and 2, Block 2,
Park View Terrace into one lot contingent upon the applicant sub-
mitting to the City appropriate documents for combining the lots
and that all other permits and approvals contained in the resolution
are also contingent upon the submittal of the required lot combination
documents;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
approves Development Agreement No. 83-59, a copy of which is attached
to this resolution.
ATTEST:
Adopted this 23�-d day of May, 1983.
Mayor
Clerk -Administrator
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF 11AMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Mounds View City
Council will meet on Monday, May 23, 1983 at 7:40 p.m. at
Mounds View City liall, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View,
Minnesota, 55112 to consider a conditional use permit and
rezoning of property located at 7662 - 7664 Woodlawn
Drive. Legal Description of the property is as follows:
Park View Terrace
Lots 1 and 2, Block 2
Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to this
matter may be heard at this meeting.
Donald F. Pauley
Clerk -Administrator
(Bulletin: May 12, 1983)
440L - /
l:SU /.& -
MEMO TO Clt.y Cuuurll and Clerk-AdminleIrator
FROM: HngIover lnll/1'Iannl[lit
Teohnlrinu
DATK: May 18, 198:1
SIIBJKCTt BADIN81K1 PROPOSAI,
Per City
Council re(loon t at your
May 16th
agenda meeting,
the
following
In a Ilaling of the
propertleN whleh norround
the
proposed
Ilnhlnakl development,
tilt, uae
of the property
and
I n I t I n I
year bullt:
Year
Address
Iise
Built
7618
Hdgewood Drive
4-1101
Resldentlnl
1964
7624
Edgewood Drive
4-Unit
Residential
1981
7640
Edgewood Drive
17-Unit
Residential
1969
7660
Edgewood Drive
4=Unit
Rasiaentini
1967
2426
County Road I
4-Unit
Residential
1967
2408/2410
County Road I
Tom Thumb/l,aundrnmat
1972
7625
Edgewood Drive
Single
Family Home
1978
7635
Edgewood Drive
Single
Family Home
1977
7639
Edgewood Drive
Single
Family Home
1977
7641
Edgewood Drive
Single
Family Home
1977
7643
Edgewood Drive
Single
Family Home
1952
7630
Greenfield Avenue
Single
Family Home
1966
7644
Greenfield Avenue
Single
Family Home
1969
7656
Grac.-, icld Avenue
Single
Family Home
1976
7658
Greenfield Avenue
Single
Family Home
1951
7660
Greenfield Avenue
Single
Family Home
1963
5394
Edgewood Drive
Bel Rae
Ballroom
1964
7501
Greenfield Avenue
23-Unit
Residential
1970
7511
Greenfield Avenue
23-Unit
Residential
1970
7521
Greenfield Avenue
I7-Unit
Residential
1969
7531
Greenfield Avenue
17-Unit
Residential
1969
7631
Greenfield Avenue
17-Unit
Residential
1969
7641
Greenfield Avenue
I7-Unit
Residential
1969
7651
Greenfield Avenue
I7-Unit
Residential
1968
7661
Greenfield Avenue
17-Unit
Residential
1968
2370
County Road I
23-I1nit
Residential
1968
Also attached is a map allowing year buildings were built,
Ordinance No. 340 approving the rezoning from R-1 to R-3 and
Resolution No. 1609 approving the preliminary plat.
Should the City Council approve the preliminary plat, the
developer would then prepare the final plat for Council
approval. Per Code, the developer has six months in which to
prepare the final plat, should preliminary plat approval be
given.
Clerk —Administrator and City Council
Page 2
May 18, 1983
In addition, per Planning Commission Resolution No. 76-83, should
any revisions be made to the preliminary plat following Planning
Commission approval, the Planning Commission has required a final
review of the proposal.
Should you desire additional information prior to the public
hearing on May 23, 1983, please contact me.
FJK/bc
I —
r t1
. ii �MM YAGAN iiDir
17fiEii
oe s t +
•� . S , 14 13 .19G1 /97Z i N 23 UNIT
i t'...T.. -190 w NO
i fl 3
to t /%fl(i ` Q
�o ° 1167 >rt "+1 ,�/.,
ice' o
DR. n �5/f /971�1976 11 UIVf( 4
1948
�15 - �y� )9�>•��� 49 11 UNIT
r 14 'UNIT /9%%�F /�1G6
5 a o f T 11 UNIT 4v 6
- So 2914041 5Iq(oq
s e 23 11UNtT l ca
Lmaj-
» Iz /
2 981 " _.mil. .--
9 i 10 11 pax 9 � 22 Nq(A�n � M93Rc•
196f1 —' 11 UN IT
Io z 1
- 19Gq '
11 z f 20 7 -5L.LD_,.,
I �
I� uulT� ; ti
I Q
ND'• +IEw t 12 W 19 J Igbq Q
Lal _
' : 13 Li I B — v)
LL c,o n �///yyyy - - Z varro I170 to
:O y 14 11 LLB ,
_C _._ _ __ _ _ - _ 1C�LtL-
-./0 .. LLl--
15 'E 23 UNIT 1970
D
i13, !
f7II�rLC 11A1 .� I+.c.Mi)1)t D\t.li t1141
q VI\VI\JVI'1 -
rl T1��
i 1.14 nT1T T(�
CITY OF MOUNDS\ VIEW Z?.
rf � 4.Koc. W
W HT[R WDRIlS SYSTCM 21, to
i 44 %ITT e
q1
C e. I 2/
I 4a
A tto .
P
RESOLUTION NO. 1609
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE
RESUBDIVISION OF LANDS FOR LEONARD BABINSKI
WHEREAS, The City of Mounds View has adopted subdivision
regulations, copies of which have been filed with the Ramsey
County Register of Deeds and Register of Title; and
WHEREAS, this proposed subdivision has been reviewed by
the Mounds View Planning Commission; and
—
WHEREAS,
the Mounds View Planning
Commission has recom-
mended
approval
to the City Council by adopting
Planning Commis-
sion
Resolution
No. 76-83; and
A
WHEREAS,
a public hearing was held
on this proposal by the
r City
Council on
May 23, 1983, pursuant to
notice of the time and
place
thereof which
was published once if
the official City news-
- paper
at least
ten days before the date of
the public hearing;
r and
d-
r
WHEREAS,
all person interested in
the subdivision were
heard
at this hearing;
and
WHEREAS, the preliminary plat meets minimum Zoning Code
requirements;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council approves the preliminary plat of the major subdivision as
proposed by Leonard Babinski as shown on the site plan dated
March 30, 1983
Ar ® Adopted this 23rd day of May, 1983.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Mayor
Clerk -Administrator
r�
ORDINANCE NO. 340
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCI' AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF MOUNDS VIEW
BY AMENDING CHAPTER 41 ENTITLED, "SPECIFIC REZONINGS"
The Council of Mounds View does hereby ordain:
41.11 Pursuant to Chapter 40.23, the official Mounds View zoning
map is hereby amended to reflect the following rezoning:
Subdivision 1
Greenfield Plat 2, Lots 8 through 23, Block 3, are
hereby rezoned from R-1 to R-3
This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of
its publication.
Read by the Council of the City of Mounds View on the day
of , 1983.
Read and passed by the Council of the City of Mounds View this
day of 1983.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
yor
Clerk -Administrator
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE 1S HEREBY GIVEN that the Mounds View City
Council will moot• on Monday, May 23, 1983 at 7:50 p.m. at
Mounds View City Hall, 2401 May
10, Mounds View,
Minnesota, 55112 to consider a rezoning from R-1, Single
Family Residential, to R-3, Medium Density Residential
and a major subdivision (replatting) of 16'lots into 12
lots. Legal Description of the property is as follows:
Greenfield Plat 2
Lots 8 through 23
Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to this
matter may be heard at this meeting.
Donald F. Pauley
Clerk -Administrator
(Bulletin: May 12, 1983)
T _, .. K 1,
RESOLUTION NO. 1607 19100 j fto
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNF:SOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING TIIF. PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR PROGRAMMED LAND, INC.
WHEREAS, Programmed Land, Inc. has submitted a proposal to
subdivide a lot totalling 2.24 acres into two lots; and
WHEREAS, the plans have been reviewed by the Mounds View
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended to the
City Council approval of the preliminary plat by adopting
Planning Commission Resolution No. 74-83; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on
the proposed major subdivision on May 23, 1983, and all persons
Interested in the subdivision were heard at this meeting; and
WHEREAS, the subdivision meets minimum Zoning Code
requirements;
NOW, THEREFORE, DE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council approves the preliminary plat of a major subdivision as
proposed by Programmed Land, Inc. pursuant to the site plan dated
April 22, 1983;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that prior to the City Council
approving the final plat, the necessary documents dedicating to
the City drainage easement of sufficient area to meet the
requirements of Ordinance No. 49A and notice of permit approval
from Rice Creek Watershed District shall be received.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
C
Adopted this 23rd day of May, 1983.
Mayor
Clerk -Administrator
I
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSLY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Mounds View City
Council will meet on Monday, May 23, 1983 at 8:00 p.m. at
Mounds View City Nall, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, Minne-
sota, 55112 to consider the major subdivision request of
Mr. Norb Yenish, to subdivide Programmed Land First Addition,
Lot 2, Block 3, from 1 lot into 2.
Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to this
matter may be heard at this meeting.
(Bulletin: May 12, 1983)
Donald F. Pauley
Clerk -Administrator
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and C.iLy Council
FROM: Engi.necring/Planning Technician
DATE: May 17, 1983
SUBJECT: DALBERG/IIANSON REQUEST
Per the City Council's request, the Planning Commission reviewed
the proposal by Mr. Dalberg to rezone a newly created south lot
from R-1 to R-2 and rezone the newly created north lot from R-1
to R-3. The Planning Commission also reviewed the motion by the
Council on the rezoning from R-1 to R-2 on both lots which front
Silver Lake Road.
Attached please find Resolution No. 78-83 in which the Planning
Commission concurs with the City Council's decision to rezone the
two newly created lots which front Silver Lake Road to R-2 not R-3.
The Planning Commission also is recommending that the subdivision
take place prior to the rezoning of the lots.
PJK/bc
Attachment
RESOLUTION NO. 78-83
CITY OF MOUNDS V1RW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
5TAT11, OF M l NNE OTA
RESOLUTION PROVIDING ADD1T10NA1. INPUT TO T111; CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING REVONING REQUEST 117 SAM DALBEW; AND (ILENN HANSON
WHEREAS, on February 2, 1983, the Mounds View Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. 73-83 recommending approval to the City Council
of the following:
1) The rezoning of two lots which front Silver Lake Road from
R-1, Single Family Residential to R-3, Medium Density
Residential.
2) A minor subdivision (3 lots .into 2).
3) A conditional use permit for the construction of townhouses
in an R-3 District.
4) Development approval for the construction of townhouses; and
i WHEREAS, these recommendations were reviewed by the City Council
at their regular meeting on April 25, 1983; and
WHEREAS, the City Council at their April 25, 1983 meeting approved
the first reading of an ordinance to rezone the 2 lots which front Silver
Lake Road from R-1, Single family Residential to 11-2, Single and Two
Family Residential not to R-3, Medium Density Residential as had been
requested by the applicant and recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, on May 3, 1983, Mr. and Mrs. Dalberg and Mr. and Mrs.
Hanson submitted a letter to the City Council requesting a continuance of
the review on the rezoning of the properties; and
WHEREAS, in this letter, the Dalberg's and Hanson's asked the
City Council to consider the possibility of rezoning the south 100 feet
of the property fronting Silver Lake Road to R-2 and rezoning the north
133 feet to R-3; and
WHEREAS, following a lengthy discussion at the City Council meeting
of May 9, 1983, the City Council postponed the second reading of the
ordinance to rezone both lots to R-2 in order to receive Planning Commis-
sion input on the revised request and to conduct another public heairng;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this item; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission concurs with the City Council's decision to rezone the two
lots fronting Silver Lake Road from R-1, Single Family Residential to R-2,
Single and Two Family Residential;
Resolution No. 70-83
Page 2
I
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that should the applicant not be satisfied
with the Council's decision to rozone both
wlots
ould be processed can
asubmit
an alternate proposal and the application
now
application;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends
subdivisionthat the
he
ning
lots and
that• the legal description pofce prior to t
the parcels to be rezoned f
rezonedbyhrecorded.
ATTEST;
(SEAL)
Adopted this 18th day of May, 1983.
C airman
Director of Public Works/-
-Community Development
3
E
.-N
C I TY OF' MOUNDS V I EW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Mounds View City
Council will meet on Monday, April 25, 1983 at 7:40 p.m. at
the Mounds View City hall, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View,
Minnesota, 55112, to consider the request by Glenn Manson
and Genevieve Dalberg to rezone properties located at
approximately 7734 and 7742 Silver Lake Road from R-1, Single
Family Residential to R-3, Medium Density Residential.
Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to this
matter may be heard at this meeting.
(Bulletin: April 14, 1983)
Donald F. Pauley
Clerk -Administrator
ORDINANCE NO. 339
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF
MOUNDS VIEW BY AMENDING CHAPTER 41 ENTITLED,
"SPECIFIC REZONINGS"
The Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ordain:
SECTION I. 41.10 Pursuant to Chapter 40.23, the official
Mounds View Zoning map is hereby amended to
reflect the following rezoning:
Subdivision 1. The North 103 feet of Lot 56,
Auditors Subdivision No. 89, Ramsey County,
Minnesota, except the West 216.60 feet and
the South 130 feet of the North 233 feet of
Lot 56, Auditors Subdivision No. 89, Ramsey
County, Minnesota, except the West 216.60
feet is hereby rezoned from n-1 to R-3.
This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its
/1 publication.
- Read by the Council of the City of Mounds View on the 25th
day of April , 1983.
Read and passed by the Council of the City of Mounds View this
day of , 1983.
ATTEST:
Mayor
(SEAL)
Clerk -Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
CONSENT AGENDA
May 23, 1983
The Consent Agenda is a technique designed to expedite handling of
routine and miscellaneous official business of the City Council.
The entire Agenda may be adopted by the Council in one motion. The
motion for adoption is non -debatable and must receive unanimous
approval. By request of any individual Councilmember, any item can
be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed upon the Regular Agenda
for debate.
ITEM A. Authorize Mayor and Clerk -Administrator to Enter into
a Contract with DeLaHunt, Voto & Co. for a Special
Assessment Debt Service Study at a Cost not to Exceed
$5,000 to be Funded out of the Water Works Improvement
Bond Fund of 1960
ITEM B. Adopt Resolution No. 1604 - Adopting the 1984 Budget Calendar
ITEM C. Adopt Resolution No. 1606 - Adopting the 1983 Recreation
Activity Fund Budget
ITEM D. Adopt Resolution No. 1605 - Authorizing the Installation of
Streetliahr
ITEM E. Accept Resignation of Shirley Buntrock from the Mounds View
Festivities Commission and Adopt Resolution No. 1597 -
Commending Shirley Buntrock for Two Years of Dedicated
Service on the Mounds View Festivities Commission
ITEM F. Accept 1982 Financial Statements and Auditor's Management
Report and Recommendations
ITEM G. Set Revenue Sharing Proposed Use Hearing for 7:40 p.m.
on June 13, 1983
ITEM H. Adopt Resolution No. 1611 - Approving Planning Case 127-83
A Minor Subdivision Request
ITEM I. Adopt Resolution No. 1610 - Appointing Signatores for
POST Board Training Reimbursement Monies
ITEM J. Licenses for Approval
General - Expire 6/30/83
B & L Home Improvement, Inc. - New
D & D Home Improvement, Inc. - New
Scott Builders, Inc. - Renewal
Twin City Storm Sash, Inc. - New
Masonry - Expire 6/30/83
Norsk Concrete - Renewal
As halt - Expire 6/30/83
Darrel 's Contracting - New
Sewer and Water - Expire 6/30/83
H.D.H. Construction, Inc. - New
Other - Expire 6/30/83
Jack Newberry - New
(Fence Installation)
ITEM K. Adopt Resolution No. 1598 - Approving Just and Correct Claims
Against City Funds
C
V
RESOLUTION NO. 1606
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
SPATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1983 RECREATION ACTIVITY FUND BUDGET
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds
View that the budget of the Recreation Activity Fund for calendar
year 1983 shall be:
Department
Estimated Estimated
Revenues Expenses
Youth Recreation Programs $ 40,289 $ 36,331
Adult Recreation Programs 41,232 33,082
General Recreation Programs 859 1,354
Swimming Programs 18,639 11,205
FUND TOTALS
$101,019 $ 81,972
Adopted this 23rd day of May 1983.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Mayor
Clerk -Administrator
Estimated
Profit
(loss)
$ 3,958
8,150
( 495)
7,434
$ 19,047
RESOLUTION NO. 1605
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF STREETLIGHT
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has received a petition
from residents along Knollwood Drive requesting a streetlight
between 7729 and 7739 Knollwood Drive; and
WHEREAS, the petition does not include the signature of
one property owner whose lot- is directly affected by the proposed
streetlight location; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1354 amending Resolution No. 1069
authorizes the City Council to install streetlights at locations
where property owners have not consented to that location, when
the public health, safety and welfare is a factor; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the place-
ment of a streetlight between 7729 and 7739 Knollwood Drive would
be in the interest of the health, safety and welfare of the resi-
dents of the area;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Mounds View orders the placement cf a stLeaLllgnL between
7729 and 7739 Knollwood Drive.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Adopted this 23rd day of May, 1983.
yor
Clerk -Administrator
�, � (.(.d../.' /1.1 �. �,�� �rl`�J ..� .-/; :�,.,c.r ; �o.,t, f, � .tea .•nJ
i/J�ur r.:lw.a �/ �.% i•a.�C2cLl�i7 1 v n-+u u [rn.C.
4i f7Y/-{/u-we�C�s7� ]. /-f.�F.C/1 ✓J
.ii7...q �.,� .ry /re,�J[2.�. � .l�eC.-/yam .fin-C,, ' .3 /��.PL Q�i�e/�et7%lt�sr-,e•..e.ew
�CQ � r � i/CIti/� l� ,�C�(C'Q,. .i�.iiGG.41y//(7 ._•/Cl--C-�,J��j .r�i6�CtCGV .CCa+K I���1 ' �C�
�21N�� U! � �( F=•V� ✓/7[Gr(.(. /V7KL.G> •![.�%�i1ll/ �-F..L/(.C�iIHivu2Cn✓
/QU, ��n•�-6'�✓.r. tij ai [IL,'.C�'1,.:a,[J .Gr�4 ,74..c,<.e� . �F[.' d-'U�r. �z.FiL e�l.ei•,�
'77Le s -t '�tG�.t'�`C� J/ci. .4C7iti7.ancs..•a.•• S. �L/FJ"��G?4/�fc•Jf/.�GI-y 7 'p`L
.�,Lt.L.(�C/ �..Lf^7r '.c.Lp� .� /C�' .(�cs �,/.�/ -a .CCU-cC-v vC� �"�' � iCeC7144J,*J.�aOrl"✓
.c[i
•fNl � /''CULL .f!A(i'M � /—F'c' iCt'iLf../C.. .% ,CZ/-.7L.1c<�.. �i..l './�--G .rf%lL<�
./ vfL•Ld.Cr�y /u�V �� 'V /c.04 At
RESOLUTION NO. 1597
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION COMMENDING SHIRLEY BUNTROCK
FOR TWO YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE ON
THE MOUNDS VIEW FESTIVITIES COMMISSION
WHEREAS, Shirley Buntrock has resigned from her position
on the Mounds View Festivities Commission after two years of
service; and
WHEREAS, Shirley Buntrock has shown a sincere interest in
the welfare of the citizens of Mounds View during her tenure on
the Mounds View Festivities Commission;and
WHEREAS, Shirley Buntrock has won the respect and gratitude
of all those who have had the privilege of working with her on the
Festivities Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Mounds View, on behalf of the residents of the City
of Mounds View, expresses its heartfelt appreciation to Shirley
Buntrock for her dedicated and selfless work on the Mounds View
Festivities Commission.
Adopted this 23rd day of May, 1983.
ATTEST:
Mayor Duane McCarty
Councilmember Blanchard Councilmember Doty
Councilmember Hankner Councilmember Linke
(SEAL)
Clerk -Administrator Pauley
K 17
RESOLUTION NO. 1611
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MTNNIisOTn
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE. 127-83,
A MINOR SUBDIVISION REQUEST
WHEREAS, a minor subdivision was requested by Mr. Kenneth
Bourke in June of 1981, referred to as Planning Case 91-81; and
WHEREAS, this minor subdivision request was recommended
for approval by the Planning Commission on July 1, 1981, by the
adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 31-81; and
WHEREAS, the City Council subsequently approved the minor
subdivision request by passing Resolutin No. 1333 on July 27,
1981; and
WHEREAS, conditions of approval, as stated in Resolution
1 No. 1333 were that prior to the City Clerk approving and signing
the subdivision deed for recording, Mr. Bourke shall pay a
special assessment in the amount of $1,742.30 and also pay a park
fund dedication in the amount of $64.00 no later than 60 days
following Council approval of the subdivision; and
WHEREAS, these funds were not submitted within the 60 day
period, no formal request was made for an extension during the 60
day period, and the deeds were never recorded by the applicant;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1480 on
August 23, 1982 denying the request by Mr. Bourke for an exten-
sion to record the deeds; and
WHEREAS, since that time Mr. Bourke has resubmitted his
application (Planning Case 127-83) for the minor subdivision and
a recommendation of approval was given by the Planning Commission
by the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 77-83;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council approves the minor subdivision as requested in Planning
Case 127-83;
RESOLUTION NO. 1611
Page Two
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
requires payment of a special assessment in the amount of
$1,742.30 and payment of the park fund dedication in the amount
of $64.00 before the City Clerk approves and signs the
subdivision deed.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Adopted this 23rd day of May, 1983.
Mayor
Clerk -Administrator
U
A
U
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RE901,11 [ON NO. 77-83
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OI MINNP.SD'I'A
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING PLANNING CASE 127-83
WHEREAS, On July, I, 1981, the Mounds View Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No 31-81 recommending approval of
the minor subdivision request for Kenneth Bourke for property
located at 8249 Spring Lake Road; and
WHEREAS, one condition of the minor subdivision approval
was the payment of a special assessment; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Bourke was unable to pay the necessary
amount for this special assessment and subsequently subdivision
r. deeds were not recorded with the county in the required time; and
I
WHEREAS, an extension to the time limit to record the
deeds was denied by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, as a result the applicant is resubmitting an
identical request as was approved in 1981;
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has
reviewed this resubmittal of this minor subdivision request;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View
Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of
the minor subdivision request of Kenneth Bourke with a special
assessment of $1,742.30 and a park fund dedication of $64.00
being paid.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Adopted this 4th clay of May, 1983.
Chairperson
Director of Public Works/
Community Development
Mounds View Planning Corini . : i r;l May 4 1.98?
Regularhiccti.11l:___...._.... �0 p --h-1 -
3"', -y 1...� �- age Two
tj
available. i r 9 �'
F.,
Motion/Second: Andev:lon/Wdrren en
Idnjil ruallnl iull
N0, 7-5�3, TC'CUllllllellll llll; ;Ipprgval
ul. ;i Illlllnl' :;(lll(llvi-
Sion, rezoning, collditi(1ll:ll 11!;V pel9nil.
;Illd Ih'vok)[1ml'Ill.
Proposal and approving v;u i.anres
for 'folly Poppel.a;n•s.
5 ayes 0 nay;;
Motion Carr.
Technician I(:unpe.l, preaenlcd a rrvi.scd
silt plan, puillL'-
6. Norb Yenish,
ing out the chanl;c:; Lhe developce
had ul;ji - per Ole
2149 Progral:
Planning COIII10iSSi.0I18-re(luc41;L.
Ave. Dvlpmt
Mr. Bachman stated he had not had
an uppurt:uni.Ly to
Proposal, Mi
Subdivision.
review the suggested casoments and that he would
B-3 Highway
like to have the flexibility with
the 1.0' wi.th each
Business Dst
lot, as they :Ire developed.
Conceptual
There was diSCUMSioll nuunll; Lhe Conuni.s:;inners
conrcrn-
Approval,
Case 126-83
ing the easements and care ul: the
slcinuner.
Motion/Second: Quick/Andersuu I:o
1d0pL ResoluLion
no. 1-5', recommending approval of the development.
5 ayes 0 nays
Notion
It was noted that Mr. Bourke was not prosenr.
Technician Kampel reported the applicant's request Lake Road,l
is identical to the one reviewed by the Planning Minor Subdv.
Commission on July 1, 1981, and approved by both R-1 Single P
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: Porslund/Anderson to adopt Resolu-
tion No. 17- 3.
5 ayes 0 nays I•lotion Carri
Technician Kampel reviewed the :glplicant's request, 8. Leonard Babi
and presented the site plan. Ile noted that the City Lots 8-23, B
will be doing a :e-surfacing project on Rdgewood 3, Greenfiel,
Drive and stated they would like to he able to Plat 2, Majo:
coordinate. with the developer, so as to have the sewer Subdivision,
and water connections in before the street is l:esur.- Rezone f,
faced, 11-1 to R�,_
, .
Mr. Malmin stated he Iv;ls present Dvlp
rn represent rlr. R-1 SiApprov.
ngle
Babinski.. Ile rr.ported I.hcy h;lvc hired ;ill em;inonl i.nl; Family Rsdt,
firm, who feels their plan is good. Case 128-83
M.1 II.
cmtl
uI Mal
c co 1 fy . II it
i t II 1 4 mre h la Yhmine
II\ I Y. uuJ wbn 4¢In
I tJ L—J
114 I /�
I III •� j •`\ I Ilo' a me' ,.00 naa
• li i \
i'a �I • I �I � I. I. w 1
LOCATION OF PKOf n9 ,.M:.INQY� �UP�DIVI�I
I'
IF .
it
I
it I I u'
• 11 i �I � II i ��. li $'�
'4 •LM �I', � iil \�
II
•1 M 1wm! _.
111W4x Iv[.I" 1 aryy�R4M.I�Iwil
�•.[ �41 I I •I .•fll �,lll.il_.� i1..5
'JIV(Ia}I II.... _tl_�1.. o_ "9._
�Y�5
All BRIWO.
I
1
I
I
i
r
�� O1111f�5 m'
• '�i3 lei// ���1I
i
r
�� O1111f�5 m'
• '�i3 lei// ���1I
' f .5..
I.
V
Y
t i; I\I-
03/•0?
0,
050-09
ry,
•n.c•
W
15.,49
'r (: }•vey
m
030-/0
>�
?
Za
Z
0
l
140.41 n I 9.10
10A/
11
\\'\\ 0/0•/3
,
°
0to•Le
.J •�
"� .J�
08
J
A
Grbvelo_nd
P-ar
�I
tatY
fdiG
5
4
I
3.•
,
I
P26�2
I
N ii
��
VK I K.
MS
I
�
I
E S
1
, .
V:tan
o9 26oL
1
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
KURTH SURVEYING, INC.
4002 jwFIISON ST NE.
Col UMIIIA IIf 1W IIS VA71 18097G9
1 HCRKNY CLIITI/Y THAT THIS *UIIV[Y• PLAN. OR REPORT WAN PREPARED BY M[ OR UNDER MY DIRECT 5UI[IIVINION
AND THAT I AM A DULY R9G19T[N10 LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STAT[ OT MINNIAOTA
DATE; -
SCALE I" FF02
�(Y11 NESOTA REGISTRATION NO. 5332 O-IRON MONUMENT
LOT
14,
.r
0
I I pS l�l-LT
IJ �, " I 3L3
444 YI
-I rr d I I^ r fA
zJ L I
J
N12
1} 1 • 10S•-
a
PROPOSED LOT SPLIT
"A" The South 131.00 feet of the North 234.00 feet of the
West 105.00 feet of Lot 34, Auditors Subdivision No.
89, Ramsey County, 1•finnesota,
1Il" The South 131.00 feet of the North 234.00 feet of the
West 248.20 feet of Lot 34, Auditors Subdivision No.
89, Ramsey County, Ninnesuta,•except the West 105.00
feet thereof.
NOTE: 11"TTERS ARE FOR DESCRIPTIVE PURPOSES ONLY, NOT TO
BE IISEII IN TRANSFIiR OF TITLE.
CASE: 91-81
ITEM: Minor Subdivision (1 lot into 2)
APPLICANT: Kenneth A. Bourke
LOCATION: 8249 Spring Lake Road
Legal: Auditor's Subdivision No. 89
S 131 Ft of N 234 Ft of W
248.2 Ft of Lot 34
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Applicant requests to subdivide his corner lot measuring 131 X 248.2
into two lots, 131 X 105 and the interior lot measuring 131 X 143.2.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
Setbacks and Lot Requirements:
1) Both lots meet minimum area requirements.
2) Both lots meet minimum frontage requirements.
3) The existing house and driveway meet minimum setback requirements.
4) The existing garage does not meet the 30' setback requirement
alhtough this is not an issue with the subdivision request.
Building Orientation:
1) The existing home on the property faces Spring Lake Road, not
Ardan Avenue. Existing Code does not regulate or define front
of buildings.
Services:
1) Both water and sewer is available on both Ardan Avenue and Spring
Lake Road.
2) Special assessment is due in the amount of $1,742.30 because of
the City's past policy of assessing the short side of corner
lots.
3) Park fund dedication due in the amount of $64.00.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/81
Subdivision request meets minimum subdivision requirements with no
variances necessary. Special assessment and park fund dedication are
due as noted above. II
r
OPTIONS:
1. Approve subdivision with pecial assessment and park fund
dedication.
CASE 91-81
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 7/1/81
See attached copy of minutes and resolution.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL 7/22/81
Approve Resolution No. 1333.
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNINC COMMISSION •
RESOLUTION NO. 31.-81
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING PLANNING CASE 91-81
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the
application of Kenneth A. Bourke for approval of• a minor subdivision
of his property located at 8249 Spring Lake Road; and
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has received and
reviewed the report from city staff regarding the request and its
application to the Mounds View Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed lots meet minimum Zoning Code requirements;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends approval of the minor subdivision request of•
Kenneth A. Bourke with a special assessment• being levied on the new
lot and the park fund dedication fee being paid.
Adopted this lst day of July, 1981.
ATTEST:
ha rp son
(SEAL)
B ildinq and Zoning Ificial
RESOLUTION NO. 1333
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE 91-81,
A MINOR SUBDIVISION REQUEST
WHEREAS, a minor subdivision has Lean requested by Kenneth
E. Bourke, referred to as Planning Case 91.-81; and
WHEREAS, the minor subdivision request meets minimum code
requirements in frontage and area; and
WHEREAS, Kenneth E. Bourke has also agreed to pay a special
assessment in the amount of $1,742.30 and a park fund dedication of
$64.00 as required by City Code; and
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the
minor subdivision request• and recommended approval in Resolution No.
,? 31-B1;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that tine Mounds View City
Council hereby approves the minor subdivision as requested in Planning
Case 91-81;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council re-
quires payment of a special assessment• in the amount of $1,742.30 and
payment of the park fund dedication in the amount of $64.00 before
the City Clerk approves and signs the subdivision deed.
ATTEST:
Adopted this 27th day of July, 19B1.
Mayor
(SEAL)
it
Clerk -Administrator• /
RESOLUTION NO. !480
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION DENYING TIII', SUBDI.VI.SION FILING
REQUEST EXTENSION OF KENNETH BOURKE
PIIIEREAS, on July 27, 1981, the Mounds View City Council
passed Resolution No. 1333 approving the minor subdivision of• the
property at 8249 Spring Lake Road, owned by Kenneth Bourke; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 42 (Subdivision Regulations) of the Mounds
View Municipal Code requires the subdivider to record a deed with
the County within 60 days of Council approval of the subdivision;
and
WHEREAS, the subdivider has not submitted a deed nor
requested an extension during this 60 day period; and
WHEREAS, the subdivider is now requesting a six month exten-
sion from the present time in which to record the deed; and
WHEREAS, over a year has passed since the City Council
originally approved this subdivision; and
jmh
Vd WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that since a formal
request for an extension was not received within this 60 day period
and sufficient time has elapsed between this 60 day period and the
present, also without a formal request•, a re-exL mina Lion of the
subdivision is warranted;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council denies the request by Mr. Kenneth Bourke of 8249 Spring Lake
Road for a six month extension to record the subdivision deed with
the County for the above :::colic.^.cd prnhrvl•y;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED should Mr. Bourke once again desire to
subdivide his property, he wi.l.l. he required to submit the request to
the Mounds View Planning Commission for reviewal and pay the necessary
application fee.
Adopted this 23rd day of August•, 1982.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
•
RESOLUTION NO. 1610
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPOINTING SIGNATORES FOR POST BOARD
TRAINING REIMBURSEMENT MONIES
WHEREAS, beginning in 19B2 the State of Minnesota collected
a 10% surcharge on all moving traffic violations; and
WHEREAS, from this penalty assessment money the POST Board
has been appropriated $900,000 to be used as a reimbursement to
local units of government to offset the cost of providing continuing
education to peace officers; and
WHEREAS, the POST Board requires two signatores on applica-
tion forms submitted by local units of government to obtain such
money; and
WHEREAS, one of the signatores must be the Police Chief,
with the other being an officer designated by resolution of the
governing body.
i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mounds View that the Police Chief and Finance Director of
the City of Mounds View are designated the signatores for all
application forms required by the Minnesota POST Board to obtain
training reimbursement monies.
Adopted this 23rd day of May, 1983.
ATTEST:
Maunr
(SEAL)
Clerk -Administrator
TO: Mayor, City Council, and Clerk -Administrator
FROM: Acting Police Chief
DATE: May 19, 1983
RE: Training Reimbursement Money
I request that the City Council appoint a signatory as soon as possible
to expedite access to Police Officer Standards and Training (POST)
training funds. This fund will replace money budgeted for in Police
account 100-200-4363.
,�° AfIN'NF:tiOTA IIOAItp OF'
C" rjpo
��0� PF.ACF:OFFIS•GINUARUS AND'1'RAININC Pp
P�� ))) SIOUY S'1'IIEEr ISUrrt: 4951 '97,
Q� SI'. PAUL, MINNNSO'rA 551o1
cF
QUESTIONS/ANSWERS
INSTRUCTIONS RE: TRAINIING REIMBURSEMENT MONEY
On January 1, 1982, the State of Minnesota began collecting money from a
ten percent surcharge on all moving traffic offenses. From this penalty
assessment money, the POST Board has been appropriated 5900,000 to be
used as a reimbursement to local units of government to offset the cost
of providing continuing education to peace officers and constables.
This notification will address some of the frequently asked questions
about reimbursement and serves as an instruction sheet regarding making
application for the funds.
1. Q. When will POST distribute the official application forms?
A. By law, the POST Board may not distribute the application
fonns until July 1, 1983.
2. Q. Who is required to sign the application forms on behalf of
the local units of government?
A. Two people: (1) the chief law enforcement officer of the
agency; and
(2) an officer (other than chief law enforce-
ment officer) designated by resolution of
the governing body,
NOTE: To expedite matters so we can get the money back to
You as soon as possible after July 1, please ask your
governing body (council, commissioners, etc.,) to
designate a signatory now;
3. Q. When will the money be sent to us?
A. The POST hoard is required to give applicants 45 days to
return the application forms. However, as soon as all
applications are received at POST, they will be processed
and the money sent out. Please send your application to
us in a timely fashion so we don'
45 days from July 1, t have to wait the entire
-OVER-
4. Q. What must a law enforcement agency do to qualify for
reimbursement?
A. To qualify for reimbu ;anent, an agency head must affirm on
an official POST Board application that during fiscal year
1983 (July 1, 1982 - June 30, 1983):
(1) the department made 16 hours of POST -approved continuinj.
education available to each peace officer or constable
for whom reimbursement is requested.
(2) the deparboent has em 1p o/ed each of the above represented
officers for at least eight months of the fiscal year.
(3) the department promises to maintain all documents
supporting theaffirmation.
5. Q. May more than one agency receive reimbursement for the same
peace officer or constable?
A. No. If a licensee is employed by more than one agency, the
Executive Director will determine which agency will receive
the reimbursement monies.
6. Q. Will part-time peace officers or reserve peace officers qualify
for reimbursement funds?
A. No. Only licensed peace officers and constables are required
to acquire continuing education credits.
7. Q. Who actually gets the money?
A. The local units of government will receive the check and it
is to be used exclusively for reimbursement of the cost of
in-service training.
If you have any further questions about reimbursement, please contact
the Board's Continuing Education Unit at (612) 297-2356.
5/15/B3
r�
U
0
11
I
r i{I;;;hI,U'J'1011 !I0, 1598 4/,t
CITY N? h'OIINIfl VIPU
VOUNTY OF PARTY
:;TA'I'h: OF IAIIIIIHCr'I'A
AI'I ROVINII Jll, l' AND CHIN.1 1'
CI.ARX; ArAIN:;r CITY F71Ui:;
:Jllhailtd", Lhe Ci6y Crnrur.il of 1•i•uuds V(ner, perm t Lo
has foil aul.horil;! over Lbe 1'inanci:rl affairs
nl' Hie l:11.y :mdl
IYIINIi!•:A,:,
'fhv WI..
Colllioil ha:: rovitmed
Lhc r.Laimr, numbers:
18050 Llnoul;h
18062
in I.he amroml. nr ;.
39,563.24
18063 61urnq:h
18069
in LIm nnunml, d' ;r,
377.70
11286 I,hrou,;1,
11382
in I.hn ;w,,,n„!, ..I' ,r
108,708.67
I.hr,nry;h in Ihv ranoaul, d' ,
'I'l1'I'AI, AMOUNT OF C1,,1IM;! PRi.11-31'rNU $ 1485649.61
:fill] ha^ frnmd rmid t:Laims Lu bn. JIIA aa,l rnrrer:L;
(lis6 0l' any exception)
NOW T11FREF01IN, lie 11, resolved Lim Lhe City Council of Mounds View
harchy upproml I.he ol:Lac (hl lisLs of cl.ailm: dated by Lhe
vote ;ivc:; naycL
hSayor
Clurk-Admin strator
ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES
CHECK
AMOUNT
CLAIMANT
PURPOSE
18063
$ 20.00
ICMA
Dues
18064
40.00
Roger Koopmeiners
Meter
refund
18065
40.00
Walter 8unyea
Meter
refund
18066
40.00
Paul Schowalter
Meter
refund
18067
40.00
Bruce Severson
Meter
refund
18068
40.00
Joseph Volanka
Meter
refund
18069
157.70
City of Blaine
Books
& Periodicals
$377.70
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CHL (K* e N 0 O t. T
Ii�
nlao5o
3,,.. ,1
01.3051
799.53
018052
312.25
�d5
018353
40.u0
OL8054
5Lu0
�+L
018055
a.1.a0
018056
3G0
G18957
:.:1
3Flo
��' _
019U5B
la.o0
��'
N'
919059
3,141.25
�j
018060
29,469.90
018a61
2,928.45
018062
2,198.3E
13
391563.24
A C C C U N T S PA YA 8L E CATE Cl1-24-I- PAGE
C L I. , F: h I � U> F C I
OUNALO GFAGE2
TiAi6iAG
I,
fit.
T.=OS:, CURSE?I`:, lhr,
SUPPLIES,
JOLLY IYP'E FAVU?5
FESIIVJTIi: l(�'hI`'SI01•___�--_..
r
'�
L S POSTMASTER
PCSTACE
�n
,
•G
CITY Of hCUNCS VTEW
SLPPLIES,(F tail,
•-
L S PCM.ASTEf
FCSTAGE
QhA!1:hE;A SHAH
CEFOSITS- ELiLOIN'b USAGE
i
RANJIT UZ:AI
DEPOSITS- OLILDIN6 USAGE
0
STATE TREASUnER
SU@PLiE';, NOS
CROSS NUf.S(RIF5 IbG
SUPPLIES, OLI.S,16f.60S
L�
FIRST STATE SANK OF
SALARIES, FF;,,LAR
AAD-SALARIES,HI'FiFART TTRE
AND-CYERJIME, REGULAR
GROUP HEALTH PLAN INC
GROUP INSLRANCE
STATE TREAS - F E P A
PEhSICNS
NECESSARY EXFENOITURMS SINCE
LAST CAUNLIL 1E!:TING __-_
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW A C C O U N T S P A Y A B L E CATE -24-67 PAG. 2 AI•
CHECK` A M 0 U N T CLAIRANT
G11286
109.32
tF'JENAL :GNO 4 G`.VIL 1C
if?
011287
5u.N7
ASOi, :Alc F�L. , GT a GL;
){..
611288
21.75
O ; LN FkCOL',i5 i!,C
011289
1,5984u0
EOLGER PUCLICATIONi
.I�
011290
40.00
EPIGHTCN SANL�LASTING
P;
C11291
245.85
6P,IGHION 'dETfiIF:AFY hC;F
',
011292
212,33
CASE POWER f ECUIPMi_I41
�11293
5.00
CITIZENS LEAGUE
r;
C11294
14,782.70
COMPUTER CENTRAL INC
011295
54.18
COTTENS INC
011296
121.58
CATA OISFAICF INC
01i297
19929.40
DATA OFEFATIC!•S, INC.
011298
135.00
CAVES SFG&T SHOP
'� I1
011299
191.37
CAVIES WATER EOUIFMENI
Oli300
15.00
FOUR BY FOUR
i'
011301
57.31
GENERATOR SPECIALTY CO
1,-
011302
19CO4.60
GOPHER ATHLETIC SUFFLY
tl
r,
obi
D11303
26.22
W W GRAINGER INC
ti
011304
270.G8
HAMF.LE RECREATION CO INC
0113i5
4;.90
HEALY LABORATORIES
01 L<06
37,90
INSTY-PRINTS
011307
Z94..a
ICMA
.
011308
43.43
J C AUTO SUPPLY
...-'011309
159.70
HARRY MEINERT
SLPPLIC.;, UIILITI'S
i
SLFPLIES,'VEHICL:
i/I•
LIFP LIES, VEHICLE
PbINTING
i
FEPAI>S, ECUIPMENT
�I
i
CTHEF FRCFCSSIONAL 5LEV
SLPPLIES, ECUIP11i:NT
i
ECOKS 4 PIR10,ICALS
i
ECUIFFEP.T
SLPPLIES, VEHICLE
i
ANO-SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT
�I
CCNT- SVCS., DELIVERY
i
CCNT. SVCS., KEY PUNCH
i
SUPPLIES,CPERATING
SLFFLIES, UTILITILS
REPAIRS, VEHICLES
REPAIRS, VEHICLES
UNIFCkMS * CLCTHING
ANO-FESTIVITIES COMMISSION
SUPPLIES, ECUIPMENT
i
SL'PPLI[S,CFEFATING
OTHCk PKCFESSIONAL SGRY
SLPPLIES,CPERATING
�.
MLMOERSHIFS
SLPPLIES, VEHICLE
RISC OFFICE SLPPLIES
i
�i
CITY OF MCUND`, VIEW
A C C G U It T S P A Y A B L E GALE 05-24-83 PAGE 3
:+I
'•;I
;Nc (K"
t�
L11310
•`.
1i311
'�'
011312
,r
O11o13
011314
OIL.315
?*
011316
_
01130
rf
011318
A M 0 U N T C L A I h A N T
2,872.50 JOHN C JCht-,':0!,
If-_.
C11319
Oil320
O11 321
l
i3.
011322
011323
611324
_
0i1325..
tI
911326
j4l___
0113,27
`�'' 01132tl
67.',; JOHN C JC1iNSOPI
26@.'!: KELLY SERYICT:, Ir:C
524.1,9 LILLIE SLCLRi-': NLPS
37,47 LONG LAKE. 66
1,035.00 M A PRGPEPTY SERVICC INC
37.97 PELS VAN-O-LITE
39.29 PETRO TONE COMM
301404.27 METRO WASTE CONTROL COPM
1,250.30 MTOWEST UNCERGROUNO INSP
91894025 KEW MINAS FORD INC
19.54 MINNESOTA TORO INC
1,365.00_ MINNESCTA UG FUND
2,82E.39 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
56.94 MOUNDS VIES Cu.-, OFh, hC�
180.29 N N BELL TELEPHONE CO
29E82.23 CITY OF NEW FRIGHTCN
177.46 KEW_BRIGHTON HCWE
44.21 NEW BRIGhTON NUWE
011329 10.-,; NO LEXINGTCN LANUSCAFIIsG
P U f• F C S L
G)Hcn FRGfFSS10NAL SERV
ANO-A; MIN. Ch„RGt:, PAYABLE
ANG—C�NFI:FLI�LS
i ,
GINE� PRUFIESSIUNAL SERV__
SALAF.IES91EMP#PART TIME
i
LEGAL NOTICES
NLTOn FUELS t LU3F.1CAN.TS_....._
.....'9
CTHER PROFESSIONAL SERV
SLFPLIES, BLOCS4GRNOS
CCMMUNICAtIGNS-TcLEFHGNE____._____
R E F U N 0
ANO-MEIFO WAS IE.CONT COMM_.<__
�bI
6EPAlnS, LTILITIES
!n'
VEHICLES T
AND-SLPPLIES, EAUIPMENT
n�
SLPPLIES, EGUIPF:rl
UNEMFLOYME,NT COMP -_---..-.-----°'
OTHEF PROFESSIONAL SERV
I
rTSi, GFFICC SLPPLIES
AND-SLPFLI�._,C.PUI:TING
CCMMILkICA!ICNS-TELEPHONE
SALARIES, REGLLAR
B�
ANO-SLFPLIES,CPERATING
fl
SLPPLIE.,,CPE ATITIG
ANO-SLFFLILS BLOCS+GRNGS
ANC-SUFPIIcS, UTILITIES
ANO-r,SC OFFICE SUFPLIES.
SLFI'LIES,CPERATING
ANC-SuPPLIES, VkHICLE
ANO-SCFPLIES, UTILITIES
SLPPLICS,CPERATING
N�
CITY OF
MCU140S VI'.''4
= C L a !, 1 S P A Y A E L c
CAIE
CHI.CY+
A M 0 U N I
C l A I h A N T
P U: F L ;.
.
r01133.3
T
4..4
N' i ALL
RENTAL° tCUI�hENT
�•
011331
5,n8A'. t5
N, rl - N S7ATC_ PC.v:r iU
c.Lt(IrIGlIY
I^:
I
46C-NATU9tL GAS
•
I?
44U-JrREt- I LIGHTS
ANC-IfiAFFIC SIGNAL.: - ELECT
011332
31543.21
NCRTHCkN STAT:S PGhcF.
ELECTkICIIt
AND-NATUF.�L ;
311333
112.19
NOI.IHE?N STA1:S PON[F
ELECIkICIIY
011334
31.42
NOVACY-KOLAND EQUIP IIiC
SUPPLIES, c'.UIPMEI+T
•
r�
7;
OSS.i35
101.0]
FEPSI COLA BOTTLING CC
R E F U N D
°
01133b
11.17
4;1;'aSTY COUNTY 1REASUREk
MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES
011337
53.44
RLEOiS SALES + SERVICE
SUPPLIE59CPERATING
• .'
IIY
01133A
19.'41
SCAJ TVIii1C< PASCEL SE;
CCNT. SVCS.t DELIYErY
Ah
011339
60.cd
FAMELA S ROSE
SALARIESr1;HP+PARI TIME._
011340
518.20
S + T OFFICE PROOCCTS
ECUIPMENT
•
ANO-M1SC CFF.ICE SUPPLIES.
AND-SUPPLlES90PERATING
AND -RIMED SUPPLIES
•
x
T'I
011341
46.00
SAFE-T-FLARE OF MINN INC
CCNTRAGTUAL REPAIRS
011342
21.50
SHORTH ELLIOTT AND
GTHEn R:CEES I8`AL °"
Al
011343
84.54
SMITH LUMEER Cif
SLPPLlLS,(FikATINC
!•
}i
AND-SUFFLIES+ SLOGS+GRNCS
I
AND -SUPPLIES, STPLETS
•
011344
77703.3d
SPRING LK PAYK FIFE DEFT
CnANTS + t0SIUIC
i • .
L
11a45
7.70
c
-T PAUL BOCK+STATIONERY
c
SGPPLIE_+CPEWINe
011.346
96.00
TSU COMPUTER SERVICE
CTHCF PROFESSIONAL SERY
•
011347
532.60
TEXGAS
J0PLIESv VEHICLE
u
i'
r3
011348
9170
F R TOLL CCMFANY
SLPFLIESEGUIPME11T
ANC-SUPPLIESICPERATING
•
01134929E20.94
TRACY CIL CO INC
INVENTCRY
s
---r----------•-----------------------�
•
GjTY OF
MCUNOS VIEti
ACC 0 L h 1 5 P 1: Y A B L [
l ti-y !•,,, 5
o:
CHI GK
A M 0 U IT T
CLAIMANT
7 F r
•
011351
110.74
VENOURG TIbL Cr'
SLPPLIES, VCHICLE
14�„
011351
2,80
VIKING CH.L:8CLi1
SLFPLIE3, U-HICLE
�1
'
!
011352
2,49E.,9
CITY CF NIiIT: •:wx LAX
:AIAKTE49 KEGLLAR
r
ANO-PklisICNS
�i
ANO-F.I.C.A.
4 0-HCRKERS CCMFE.'I•;SATICN
�"��
011353
7i.0J
Suf-. ANCEFSi;N
FPCf•FirK INSTkLCTO=.S
I�;
011354
88.00
JI1 Y CiNF:!'
PFOGRAN INS7RLCTORS
•
011355
132.G0
VN EESEN
FROGRAM INSTRUCTORS
011356
140.84
li•N MCMILLTN
FNCGrtAh IASirUCTG S
"
011357
754.00
M V UMPIRES ASSOCIATIOP,
SLFPLIES,CPERATING
u,11378
260.00
PAULA 5HLPARU
FK6ktM lC\�IkUI. IU liS
j011359
89.31
FAERI TOLLEFSCN
-�LFPLIES,CF(W ING
'
011368
59.20
GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
kEPAI;s, ECUIPMENT
•
,_.011361
1,E24.96
SERCO LABORATORIES
FI;OSECUTING -ATTY SERVICE -
�L.
II
011362
80.GO
KEN LELM
FGCGF0 TNSTRUCTOPS
U11oW
17U•uV
PaIK4Lun CuKrUnNI 1uH
LCclrrcnr
11
..._010
64
15.00
AAU/USA JR OLYMPIC
`:UPPLIES,CPERATING
'Y
CILS65
33.32
NORCCSTCC INC
sUPNL1ES,CPERA7iNU
t]
011365
67.67
H V JOHNSTON CULVERT CC
SUPPLIES,CPERATING
Itl
011367
39.00
KAMPA 119E CO
REPA.IFS, EQUIPMENT
pL
h'
011368
7C.00
HARRIS HAREHOUSE
SUPFLIES,CPERATING
°.'
011369
71.00
PARK PRIN1ING
FRINTING
•
';
0113T0
2".;7
EN OFFICE/VOLUNTEEF; SEF.
CONFEPENCTS
011371
l L .d
RUSEMAkI! EANk:TCN
G E F u N O
a
"
011372
1:.00
MIKE HENNE
R I F L K C
,1
011373
ll.d
FAUL JOHNSCN
PFOGFtiM INSIr•;UCIUFS
�f
0
CITY OF MCUNOS VIEW A C C 0 u N 1 S P A Y A E L C CATE 0t,-C4.83 NAG:. E
I; CHECK' A M 0 U I T C L A I K A N I P U G F C S E
011374
1:.::
TCNY MA2CLEMY
011375
id...:'
CUGOY PAYI,,:
011376
1:..3
UAVIC F1'Ccc�'G
011377
:6u,40
JAN CLICK
�p
011378
3°. 0
CAVIO TERL0104
}
011379
7 i... C
FCGAL POWE S
ul
911380
4,085.53
ERYAN ROCK PROCUCTS INC
L.
u
jJ.
011381
89.50
A\OKA CO FARM SERVICE LF
It1
011382
1:.00
EP,IAN HILERANOS
�1
__---_
97
1089708.67
CHECKS WRITTEN
';I TOTAL OF 110 CHECKS TOTAL 142,271.91
h E F L I L
r E F U N J
1CSStR tWSIRLCTOFS _
rr06kAM INS1nLC10F5
G E F U N C
SUFPLIES�[PERATING
SLPPLIES, BLCCS+GFAOS
ANO-CTHER PACIFESSICNAL SEAV_' `
SLPPLIES, ECUIPMLr,T
R E F L N G�,`
��
a
' MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
( f
FROM: Clerk -Administrator, }i
DATE: May 19, 1983
SUBJECT: WATER TREATMENT PLANT NOS. 2 AND 3 MODIFICATIONS
Attached please find a letter from Mr. Patrick Lehman of TKDA
submitting a tabulation of the bids received by the City of
Mounds View for the construction of potassium permangate feed
equipment for Water Treatment Plant Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Lehman
recommends that the City accept the low bid of A & K Construction,
Incorporated, in the amount of $14,828.00. Funding for this
project would come from the Water Fund.
Staff would recommend acceptance of the low bid of A & K
Construction, Incorporated, in the amount of $14,828.00 to be
paid out of the Water Fund and to further authorize the Mayor
and Clerk -Administrator to enter into all contracts relating to
this work.
DFP/pf
Attachment
TOLTZ
r KDA AND
KING ASSOCIATES.
INCORPORATED
ANO ASSOCI. N DUVA. ANDERRSON
ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS 2500 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
SAINT PAUL. MINNESOTA 55101
612,292-4400
May 17, 1983
Mr. Don Pauley
Clerk Administrator
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, Minnesota 55112
RE: Tabulation of Bids
"Construction of Potassium Permangate Feed Equipment
for Water Treatment Plant Nos. 2 8 3"
TKDA Commission No. 7848-02
City Project No. 83-3
Dear Mr. Pauley:
Enclosed herewith is the Tabulation of Bids for the above referenced
project. The equipment listed by all bidders appears to meet the intent of
thR specifications. Therefore, TKDA recommends that the City accept the low
bid submitted by A&K Construction, Incorporated.
If there are any questions, please call either myself or Tom Kirk.
Sincerely yours,
TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON
AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
ye.
Patrick J. Lehman, P.E.
PJL/djb
Encl.
CC: City Council
J. Johnson, City Engineer
T. Kirk, TKDA
CID
j
C
W >
r N
QF
ti O =0
z Y�
o �0ti C
G Oi
b 0
LU
a
a
a
um
0
v
C
Q
L
u
a •w
z
n
w
N
N
W
V
w
Y
N w
cG 'C
ix Yrd
ro
o4 H
K
p n
a
0
°,"
° c
.w
v
0
U N
M
¢
(7
d Y
Iv
Iv
v
Iv a
0
x
ro
..i
o
P
u
H
eiJ
H
ab
a q
r
x
'y
W
u C
u
'A
a
a
el
rd
0
in
r
3
u
C
C
ued
O
C
b b
ID
E"
a
a
a
K
Q V a
N
¢U
v
v
v
a� �
�'
..
w
O
VI
k
0
Y
O
O
ro
u
O
1.
U
OG b
0
7
C 0
y
N
w
H
a
0w
yw
o
a
W¢
yu
A
y
z
a
Y •�
a
zz71
z
No
0
Ia
o�
N
a
a
d0
N
a
0
w
"
M
jQ N
N
0 A
4
N
a
°
A u
a
H
a
w
a0
9 Y
o
z
]
IL
U
H
U
0
u
(A
v
W
w0
v v o
Iv
o
w
z
k
OHH
r�u
W
3
a
a0•
u •4
.]
0
0
<a
Y
as
00o
a
w�
a
�;
z5
o ag
x
o
n
�0I
w
c
U00
y
U
L
b
�a
H
..
NUw
"LE
N
o
g
m
a
v
k
a
m
o"
a
W
N
4.
kw
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council
FROM: Engineering/Planning Tochnician
DATE: May 17, 1983
SUBJECT: MR. DONUT PROPOSAL
The Planning Commission at their May 18, 1983 special meeting
adopted Resolution No. 79-83 (attached) which once again recommends
to the City Council approval of the following for a Mr. Donut
establishment at ❑ighway 10 and County Road ❑-2:
1) A conditional use permit be granted for a convenience
food establishment in a B-3 zoning district.
2) Minor subdivision of one lot into two lots be granted.
The Planning Commission reviewed this development as if it were a
new proposal since the City Council had desired that the developer
once again go through the review process.
Attached please find Resolution No. 1608 which approves the condi-
tional use permit, minor subdivision and development agreement.
When this proposal was initially reviewed back in 1981, a public
hearing was held to receive input from the surrounding neighborhood.
Per 40.23, Subdivision A(10), the City Council shall have the option
to set and hold a public hearing if deemed necessary. The setting
and holding of a public hearing would delay the project at least two
weeks, time the developer has stated he did not have. A June 1st
construction start is required in order to meet deadlines established
by International Multifoods.
Staff has prepared the attached resolution for your review at this
upcoming meeting. The developer shall also provide a performance
bond. The amount of $23,750 is shown in the development agreement.
FJK/bc
Attachments
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 79-81
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR MR. DONUT FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, MINOR SUBDIVISION,
AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXECUTION
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 11-81 on April 1, 1981, recommending approval of a
conditional use permit, minor subdivision and development agreement
execution for a Mr. Donut establishment at Highway 10 and County
Road H-2; and
WHEREAS, on April 27, 1981, the Mounds View City Council
approved Development Agreement No. 81-41 which approved the conditional
use permit, the minor subdivision and the site plan; and
WHEREAS, the development agreement was never executed by the
developer; and
WHEREAS, Scott Builders, the developer, is resubmitting his
fees and application with revisions to the Planning Commission and
City Council for approval at this time; and
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed
this revised request from Scott Builders and provisions of the Mounds
View Municipal Code pertaining to conditional use permits, minor
subdivisions and development agreements;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the following:
1) A conditional use permit be granted to include a
provision whereby joint parking covenents be filed
and recorded at the Ramsey County Court House between
Brooks Superette and Mr. Donut.
2) Minor subdivision be granted to include the following
provisions:
a) Drainage easements to be recorded for the ponding
requirements of Chapter 49A.
b) Utility easement for Brooks Superette be granted
at the time they are located or relocated. T
Resolution No. 79-03
Page 2
3) Development Agreement be granted to include the following
provisions:
a) Exhibits
1) site plan
2) surveyors certificate
3) legal description
4) Chapter 49A security of $1,000.00
5) building plans and specifications
6) joint parking covenants
b) Exhibit 2A to require the following:
1) Payment of all City expenses be made within 30
days of receipt from the City by the developer.
2) Covenants of easement for drainage and access
will be filed at Ramsey County Court House between
Tracts A and B of the exhibited surveyors certifi-
cate.
3) Easements will be given for sewer and water
services for Tract B through Tract A after loca-
tion is found. Final location of sewer and water
service will not fall within five feet of the
foundation. If they are found to be closer they
are required to be relocated.
4) payment of ten percent cash for Tract A is
required for park fund dedication before approval
of final deed for filing.
5) Final excavation of storm drainage pond for Tract
A shall be minimally 7,500 cubic feet in size
before completion of building and parking area.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
directs staff to forward this recommendation to the City Council prior
to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this lath day of May, 19B3.
ATTEST:
Chairman
(SEAL)
D 're
ector of Public Works/
Community Development
RESOLUTION NO. 1608
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
N0. 83-58 WITR SCOTT BUILDERS, INC.
WHEREAS, the Developer, Scott Builders, Inc., has applied
for the development of a convenience food establishment at 2350
Highway 10; and
WHEREAS, approval of the convenience food establishment
request requires a conditional use permit, a minor subdivision and
a development agreement; and
WITEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed
the application and recommended approval at their May 18, 1983
meeting in Planning Commission Resolution No. 79-83; and
WHEREAS, Development Agreement No. 83-58 (attached) has
been drafted and is agreeable by both the applicant and the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Mounds View approves Development Agreement No. 83-58;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
approves the conditional use permit for a convenience food establish-
ment, the minor subdivision (as found in Exhibit 3 in Development
Agreement No. 83-58) and the site plan (as found in Exhibit 2 of
Development Agreement No. 83-58).
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Adopted this 23rd day of May, 1983.
Mayor
Clerk -Administrator
CITY Oh MOUNDS VTEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNE::OTA
MOUNDS VIEW DEVELOPMENT AGHP;hMIiNT N •
Scott Builders, inc. Mr. Donut
__
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this _— day of
19 , by and between the CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW,
County of Ramsey, State oC MilInCSeL'a, party orthe firstpart,
hereinafter called the "City",
and Scott Builders Inc 235 East Roselawn Suite 814 blaplewood, MN 55117
party of the second part, hereinafter called the "Developer",
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Developer, in consideration of minor
�( subdivision and conditional use Permit Ibr a cunvonic"c'�I'ood ostablishment
and the issuance of permits thereof, hereby agrees with the City to
perform all of the acts required herein and to conform to all of
the conditions set forth as follows:
1. Wherever the word "City" appears herein, it shall mean
and include the City of Mounds View and also said City's agents and
employees; and wherever the word "Developer" appears herein, it
shall mean the developer, and any of its agents and employees.
Wherever the words "development site" appear herein, it shall mean
the premises described in the following exhibits:
Exhibit 1 (legal description)
Exhibit 2 (site plan)
Exhibit 3 (survegors certificate )
Exhibit 4 (ordinance No. 49A Requirements and )
Security of $1,Oq for 7 gears
Exhibit 5 (Joint Parking Covenants
Rev. 4/13/81 Exhibit 6 (Building Plans and Specifications 1
the City in t•he processing, review :Ind evaluation of the proposed
development and in the inspection of ;ill work performed pursuant Is
to said contract. Such co:;L:; shall include but not be limited to
the administrative, legal, and engineering expenses incurred herein,
and such other expenses as authorized by said Chapter.
13. Developer agrees that the City can terminate development
of the development site or the construction of any building struc-
tures thereon if in the City Council's opinion the terms of this
Development• Contract have not• bcun conformed to by the developer
and the said Developer herein agrees to cease construction and
waives its right of recourse, claim, suit or action against the
City. In addition, in the event the Developer fails to conform to
the conditions of this Agreement, the City shall be entitled to
enforce it pursuant• to the terms of this contract and/or the provi-
sions of the Mounds View llome Rule Charter, Chapter 26 of the
Municipal Code, or applicable Minnesota Statutes. The Developer
herein agrees that in the event t•Im City is compelled to enforce
any of the provisions of this contract by court action and judgment
is rendered in favor of the City, that all costs, disbursements
and reasonable attorney's fees will be paid by said Developer, its
heirs, successors and assigns.
14. The Developer shall furnish to the City at the time of
the execution of this Contract a cash bond, a corporate surety bond,
an irrevocable letter of credit or any other negotiable instrument
approved by the City Attorney, which the Developer agrees to keep in
full force and effect during the term of the obligation created
herein in the amount of 23,750 (twenty three thousand seven hundred
and fifty) Dollars, wherein the
EXHIBIT 2A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 83-58
In addition to the foregoing conditions, Developer agrees to the
following:
1. Payment of all City expenses will be made within thirty
days of receipt from the City by the developer.
2. Covenant of easement for drainage and access will be
filed at Ramsey County Court House between Tract A and
Tract B of the exhibited Surveyors Certificate.
3. Easements will be given for sewer and water services
for Tract B through Tract A after location is found.
Final location of sewer and water service will not fall
within five feet of the foundation. If they are found
to be closer they are required to be relocated.
4. Payment of 10 percent cash for Tract A is required for
Park Fund Dedication before approval of final deed for
filing.
5. Final excavation of storm drainage pond for Tract A
shall be minimally 7,500 cubic feet in size before
completion of building.
FOR THE CITY:
Date:
FOR THE DEVELOPER:
Date:
e
MEMO T0: Mayor and City
FROM: Clerk-Administ
DATE: May 17, 1983
SUBJECT: PRO WOMEN'S IVRESTLING
Attached please find correspondence this office received from
Mr. John A. Cafarella proposing Pro Women's Wrestling matches
at the Bel -Rae Ballroom on June 29th and July 20th.
This memorandum is being written to obtain Council direction
regarding the requirements the City of Mounds View might wish to
take should you choose to authorize such matches. A review of
State statutes reveals that no State agency is responsible for
the licensing of this type of activity. Therefore, it would
appear that the City of Mounds View would need to take appropriate
measures to ensure that the interests of the City are being
protected.
With that in mind, this office indicated to Mr. Cafarella that
liability insurance would be required, as well as a signed release
from each participant releasing the City from any responsibility.
Other requirements the City might wish to consider, should you
wish to license this activity, could be similar to those required
for boxing, namely:
1. Two uniformed, sworn police officers, approved by the
Mounds View Police Chief, in attendance at each match,
with the officers being reimbursed by the promoter.
2. The promoter remitting $100.00 in advance to the City as
a license fee for each evening of wrestling matches.
3. All beer setups and other refreshments dispensed in paper
cups.
9. Premises closed by 12:00 Midnight.
Your direction in this matter will be greatly appreciated.
DFP/pf
Attachment
g
VERIFICATION SYSTEMS INC.
1603 Unlvemly Ave SI. Paul. MN 55104 16121 646 1205
May 12, 1983
Mr. Don Pauley
City of Moundsview
24o1 Nwy. to
Moundsview, MN 55112
Dear Don:
Thank you for the time you afforded me last week regarding
the proposed WWWA Pro Women's Wrestling matches at the Bel -Rae
Ballroom on June 29 and July 20.
I've attached a proposal outling our intentions.
If you have .any questions, please feel free to contact me at
(612) 646-7235. 1 appreciate your cooperation on this matter, Don.
Sincerely,
J
John A. Cafarella
JAC:kk
w
RL"-
CITY Of
MOUNDS V
REFERENCE AUDI TING
TO: Don Pauley
FROM: John Cafarella 11,
SUBJECT: Proposed Women's Pro Wrestling at Bel -Rae Ballroom
Proposed Facility: Bel -Rae Ballroom
Proposed Datrs: Wednesday, June 29, 1983 and Wednesday, July 20, 1983
8:00 p.m. - 11:30 p.m.
Approximate Number of spectators: 1,500
Security: Four Off Duty Policemen
WWWA Crowd Control Personnel
Paramedic Team will also be on hand during the course of the
events.
Detail of Proposed Events:
1. The events will include two separate well -rehearsed, four
match wrestling cards. One on June;19, 1983 and one on July
20, 1983• Each match would range in duration from 7 to 28
minutes and will be held in a regulation ring. There will be
2-fifteen minute intermissions during each event. The partici-
pants will be escorted to and from the ring area by security
personnel.
2. The WWWA will furnish proof of a $300,000 spectator lia-
bility insurance policy for the event night 2 weeks prior to
each event listing the City of Moundsview as an additional
insured. Also, the WWWA will furnish the city with a signed
release form from each participant releasing the city and
the Bel -Rae Ballroom from any liability, should they be in-
jured in any manner during the course of the event.
3, 101 Radio Personality, Chris Edmonds, will be the Master
of Ceremonies. The eventi .:ill be promoted via TV, radio,
and print in the Twin Cities Metro Area.
I wI
ADMINISTRATIVE
NEWSLETTER
May 23, 1983 City of Mounds View VOL. IV., NO. 9
LOCAL 49 LOCAL ISSUES NEGOTIATIONS
On Monday, May 9th, Shop Steward Wally Mortenson, Local 49 Business
Agent Tim Connors, City Labor Consultant Cy Smythe, and myself met
to discuss those issues proposed by Local No. 49 for inclusion in
the City's Local Addendum to the Master Contract. Although progress
was made in the discussions, no final conclusions were reached and
it was agreed that after additional information was provided by both
sides a second meeting would be scheduled to discuss the Local Issues.
OUTDOOR WARNING SYSTEM
As a result of the recent problems the City experienced with one of
our outdoor warning sirens, staff reviewed previous material developed
regarding the capabilities of our system. At the present time the City
of Mounds View has two sirens with a 110 db capability which cover
approximately 30% of the land area of the City of Mounds View. Due to
a•variety of factors, including wind directions, however, it is
J estimated that approximately 60% of the City's population actually
hears the monthly warning siren tests.
In 1977 the City of Mounds View took the position that it was
necessary to modify our siren coverage area in order to obtain a
greater coverage of the City's land area and population. At that
time it was proposed that a third siren be added at the City Hall
site which would cover better than 50% of the City's land area,with
-he existing two sirens being relocated to the extreme northwest and
outheast corners of the City to cover those areas not reached by the
iird siren.
aff has resurrected these plans to determine the coats for such
:k and entered into discussions with representatives of the Depart -
it of Emergency Services to determine if Federal funding is available.
have been advised that although Federal funds are available, the
iting lists are extremely long and it could take several years before
tiding would be available to the City of Mounds View for such work.
scussions with representatives of Federal Signal, a supplier of
`door warning sirens, reveals that a third siren could be purchased,
stalled, and the existing two sirens be relocated at a cost estimated
: to exceed $15,000. Staff will be investigating this matter further
th the possibility that Federal Revenue Sharing funding be used in
34 to modify our outdoor warning system.
r'
ADMINISTRATIVE NEWSLETTER
May 23, 1983
Page Two
LOOSE -ENDS BAR
officers Ramacher and Smith, and City Attorney Meyers, as well as
myself, have met with Mr. Jim Loosen and his bar manager to discuss
his operations at Loose -Ends bar, particularly as they relate to
his proposed outdoor volleyball court. An investigation of the
City's ordinances reveals that an outdoor volleyball court is not
specifically prohibited but that the consumption of alcoholic beverages
by participants in volleyball activities is. After these discussions
Mr. Loosen has proved to be most cooperative in establishing all
recommended rules and regulations necessary to ensure that his overall
operations are acceptable to the City of Mounds View, as well as the
residents in his area and that his volleyball activities will not
be disruptive or in violation of our liquor codes.
At the present time it has been agreed that the aforementioned staff
will again meet with Mr. Loosen in late June to review his activities,
particularly as they relate to the outdoor volleyball court and to
discuss any difficulties experienced and resolve those difficulties.
ENERGY CONSERVATION GRANT
As authorized by the City Council, staff submitted an application to
the Minnesota Department of Energy Planning and Development for an
Energy Conservation Grant in the amount of $100.00. The City recenflyl
received this funding from the State and staff is contacting all local
organizations to obtain their endorsement of the program in order that
all of the necessary publicity material might be prepared prior to the
July 1, 1983 deadline.
CALENDAR
May
23
7:30 p.m.
May
29
9:00 a.m.
May
26
Afternoon
May
27
All Day
May
30
All. Day
May
31
9:00 a.m.
June
1
3:00 p.m.
June
6
7:00 p.m.
June
7
9:00 a.m.
Council Meeting
Department Head Meeting I
Vacation 1
Vacation
Holiday - Memorial Day
Department Head Meeting
Ramsey Co. Civil Defense Dirf
Agenda Session
Department Head Meeting
r /
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA SESSION
June 6, 1983
7:00 p.m.
1. Discussion of Police Chief Selection Process with Civil
Service Commission Chairperson Dick Paradise.
2. Discussion of Sunday Liquor Sales Hours with Ed Donatelle.
3. Consideration of staff memorandum regarding 1984 Budget
Policy Considerations.
4. Consideration of staff memorandum regarding Staffing
Recommendations.
5. Consideration of staff memorandum regarding rescheduling of
Revenue Sharing Proposed Use Hearing.
6. Consideration of Appendix F., Minnesota State Building Code
(Fire Sprinkler Systems).
7. Consideration of staff memorandum regarding Open Burning
Permits.
8. Consideration of staff memorandum regarding Parvo Virus
Vaccination of Impounded Dogs.
9. Consideration of status report on MSA Resurfacing Program.
10. Update report on Special Public Works Projects:
a. Sanitary Sewer Monitoring Program
b. Street Maintenance Plan
c. Storm Sewer Maintenance Plan
d. Other Items
(Materials on the above item will be handed out Monday
night.)
11. Report on Erosion and Sediment Control and Detention Basin
System Institute at Madison, Wisconsin.
TO: Mayor 5 Council
NJFROM: Finance Director -Treasurer Urager
Clerk -Administrator Pauley 04 J
DATE: ,Tune 1, 1983
RE: 1984 BUDGET POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
To assist staff in preparing the first draft of the 1984 budget we
would appreciate Council's consideration and direction on several
policy issues. We would emphasize that whatever policy guidelines
are adopted for this first draft are subject to modification. Ames
later drafts and revenue estimates are developed initial 9
uidelmay need to be modified.
Energy costs are a major item in the City 's budget. To develop guide-
lines, staff talked with our suppliers and also obtained data from the
Minnesota Energy Agency. Our Commercial Account Representative at NSP
advised if he were budgeting for 1984 he would budget a 10% increase
in electricity rates and a 12% increase in natural gas rates. Data
from the Minnesota Energy Agency indicates that this is a reasonable
estimate and staff recommends using those figures in preparing the
1984 budget.
Present prices paid for motor fuels are: regular gasoline, $1.1225;
unleaded gasoline, $1.1525; and propane, $0.72. The Minnesota Energy
Agency projects these costs at the end of 1984 to be; regular gasoline,
$1.35; unleaded gasoline $1.40; and propane, $0.85. Staff recommends
these figures be used for budget purposes.
Deregulation of Bell Telephone has made estimation of future charges
difficult. Our Commercial Account Representative at N.W. Bell advises
that rates will be adjusted in 1984 and commercial customers will have
the option to purchase their existing phone systems. At the present
time the company can not give us any indication what costs might be.
Staff will monitor this situation and advise of any developments. For
purposes of the first draft of the budget staff recommends using present
rates increased by 10%.
Our auditors have recommended that the general fund's fund balance be
$562,000. As of 12-31-82 the actual balance was $391,767. This is
$170,233 short of the recommended amount. Staff concurs with the
auditors recommendations that the fund balance should be increased to
maintain financial strength and independence. Staff thus recommends
that $25,000 be budgeted for fund balance development.
A contingency is necessary for unforseen circumstances and emergencies.
Staff recommends that $25,000 be budgeted for contingencies. This
amount is approximately the same amount that has been budgeted in past
years.
June 1, 1983
Page 2
For the first draft of the 1984 budget staff recommends union wage /
rates be budgeted at 5% over present rates and non -union salaries
be budgeted at 72 over present salaries. Staff 's initial thoughts for
non -union salaries is that a certain percent be used for "across the
board" increases and the balance be put into a special account for
merit performance increases. This could he 42 - 32 or 5% - 2%. These
numbers would be subject to modification in later drafts of the budget
due to data from the Stanton Survey when received and/or other budget
balancing considerations.
Group Health insurance costs have increased an average of 18% over the
last three years. Staff recommends the City's contribution be increased
to $147.50 to maintain the present ratios of City contribution and
employee contribution to the total cost of approximately 78% - 22%.
Recommendation: For purposes of preparing the first draft of the 1984
budget Council adopts the following budget guidelines:
1. Electricity will be budgeted at 10% over present rates
2. Natural gas will be budgeted at 12% over present rates
3. Motor fuels will be budgeted at the following rates (per
gallon) :
a) regular gasoline: $1.35
b) unleaded gasoline: $1.40
c) propane: $0.85
4. Telephone service will be budgeted at 10% over present
rates.
5. $25,000 will be budgeted for fund balance development
in the general fund
G. A contingency of $25,000 will be budgeted in the general
fund
7. Union wages will be budgeted at 5% over present rates
8. Non -union salaries will be budgeted at 7% over present
salaries with a portion to be set aside for merit increases.
9. The City's contribution for employee health insurance be
budgeted at $147.50 per month
DB/ds
1, MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Clerk -Administrator
DATE: June 2, 1983
SUBJECT: 1984 STAFFING RECOMMENDATIONS
Attached please find staffing level proposals submitted by the
City's departments for Fiscal Year 1984. These proposals have
been reviewed by this office on a very cursory basis to determine
their adequacy as to information for further review and analysis
at the time first round departmental budget meetings occur. It
would be appreciated if you would review these proposals and
should you have any questions, please advise me so that they
may be included in our evaluation and discussions with the
Department Heads.
RECOMMENDATION: No action is recommended at this time, however,
specific c questions regarding the proposals should be referred to
staff for a response.
DFP/pf
Attachments
C
FUND GP/JP,--e"l DEPT /ia/i! i " r2� Form
A
STAFFING LEVEL
(No. Full Time Personnel or Manhours)
Position
Current
Dept.
Proposed
Team
Proposed
Council
Approved
//
Total
rev
Notes Use Request for Additional Personnel
Current and Dept. Proposed
Form (Al) to explain difference between
Administrators Use Only:
C', ---
hi
e.
FUND DEPI*, C
STAFFInG LEVEL.
(No. Full Time Personnel or Manhours)
Position
Current
Dept.
Proposed
Team
Proposed
Council
Approved
----Total _..---
� — -
--� ---
o�
•--
Notes Use Request for Additional Personnel Form (A1) to explain difference between
Current and Dept. Proposed
Administrators Use Only:
0. I DEPT. F; hat^ C-e-- I Form
STAFFING LEVEL
r^>,
Position)
( No. Full Time Personnel or Nanhours)
Current
Dept.
Proposed
Team
Proposed
Council
Approved
�i1�o�hL2 �trecTpV--Tyt00.5wre-
I
4ccouh+ctV-i " --- --
-�c.0 o wh+i K G-e.l- k
/�
--�
Total
Note: Use Request for Additional Personnel Form (Al) to explain difference between
Current and Dept. Proposed
Administrators Use Only:
FUND General DEPT.Form
-•___--•til:recl
'
STAFFING LEVEL A
(No. Full Time Personnel or Manhours)
Position Dept. Team Council
Current Proposed Proposed Approved
Foreman
Maintenance Person 0 — --
--------- 1/4
Totai I 1 I I
l-1/4
Note. Use Request for Additional Personnel Form (All to explain difference between Current and Dept. Proposed
Administrators Use Only:
M
LrmFUND GoneraI DEPTH sheets
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL
Position Title
Public Works Mai ntcn,incc
Number
Required
1/4
Salary
Cost
$5,600
Benefits
Cost
$850
Other
Costs
$200
List the duties to be Performed by new Position or increased hours of existing Position:
Equipment maintcnanr-c and operation, street repai.r storm sewer maintenance,
boulevard mowing.
_
—_—
Specify how this Position's duties are currently being Performed:
Street maintenance work is currently bein. Ile ormpqby employees not
nnnl arty nccinnnrl hn cfrnn Pc mhirh rncitl Fc in I-hncn arl-i viH nc taki nn
V
second seat to other work.
Justify the need for this position:
Due to the lack of an assi(pied individuals)
to strecL-s,
maintenance in
this area is a "catch as catch can" basis.
in order to
provide for proper
maintenance and reduce system deterioration_
an assigned
worker available
on a regular i:: necencary_
—
-basis --------------_-----
Administrators Use Only:
TOTAL
COST
$6,650
__—
FUND_r,,_r -- DEPT. Garage Form
STAFFING LEVEL
(No. Full Time Personnel or Manhaur:)
Position
Current
Dept.
Proposed
Team
Proposed
Council
Approved
Mechanic
1
1
Total�—
Note: Use Request for Additional Personnel Form (Al) to explain difference between
Current and Dept. Proposed
Administrators Use Only:
A,
z �O
FUND �fJ CJ DEPT. FormA
CTAFFihG LEVEI
Position
or Manhours)
PHsonnel
ed
Team
Proposed
Council
Approved
NGR C. iXc .
i
—
l
Total
Note: Use Request for Additional Personnel Form (Al) to explain difference between
Current and Dept. Proposed
Administrators Use Only:
i"
TO: Mayor, City Council, and Clerk -Administrator
FROM: Acting Chief, Timothy Smith
DATE: May 27, 1983
RE: Staffing Requests
With the Police Department being in a transition stage at the present
time, I feel that it may be somewhat presumptuous on my part to make
a staffing analysis. I will, nevertheless, offer the following opinions
and requests.
The Police Department, at present, is too fragmented in reporting
responsibilities. Each Department has been reporting directly to the
Chief. I propose a more streamlined approach through establishing
within the ranks a new designation of lieutenant. I also suggest that
in the future, April of 1985 when Duane Hagen retires, that the position
of patrol sergeant be abolished and that slot be replaced with another
corporal rating. The corporals would then be responsible for reporting
to the lieutenant and the lieutenant to the Chief. Investigation and
juvenile divisions also report directly to the Chief, but would instead
be reporting to the lieutenant.
I would recommend that due to increasing residential and business
devplopments in the City, another patrol officer be hired. We have not
increased our force since 2-1-77.
I anticipate no increase in hours for the Community Service Officer position.
The present employee is very satisfied with a 20-hour per week assignment
and that allotment of hours is proving to be equitable for the City.
I would suggest that the position be reinstated as of 3-1-84 due to spring
thaws and dogs running at large.
FUND
6EPT.A A,�; 4Y a,'o Farm
A
STAFFING LEVEL
Position
(Ho. Fu I I Time Personnel or Manhours)
Current
Dept.
Proposed
Team
Proposed
Council
Approved
Total
'Y
;l.
/ ;L
Note: Use Request for Additional Personnel Form (Al) to explain difference between
Current and Dept. Proposed
Administrators Use Only:
LFoDEPT,
rmFUNDt4atcr _ operations A
STAFFING LEVEL
Position
No. Full Time Personnel or Manhours)
Current
Dent.
Proposed
Team
Proposed
Council
Approved
Pull —Time Maintenance Persons
2
2-1/4
Part —Time Meter Maintenance (66 hours)
(if 1/4 person not approved, 2 part—
timers totalling 132 days: will. be
needed.)
Total
3
3-1/4
Note: Use Request for Additional Personnel Form (A1) to explain difference between
Current and Dept. Proposed
Administrators Use Only:__
Form
fUiD_d� tr_r ---- DEPT. Opera tions Al
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL
Position Title
Public Works Maintenance
Number
Required
1;4
Salary
Cost
$5,600
Benefits
Cost
$050
Other
Costs
$200
List the duties to be Performed by new Position or increased hours of existing Position:
lidrant flushing, meter cleaning and repair, water main repair, treatment
plant maintenance and repair.
Specify how this Positions duties are currently being Performed:
Duties r.esenity hoing performed by seasonal employees at a cost- of $4,500,
%r lich results in a lack of follow-throwih of: established programs clue to
�::luctuation of work .Loads and other seasonal ind unL cdiclable factors.
Justify the need for this position:
The department needs additional trained_ personnel available on a regular
basis thus avoiding the annual expenditure of time and money for training
seasonal help and the cost of unemployment compensation for laid -off
seasonal workers ($260 i,n 19021 $850 for fi_r.st 4 months of 1.983.
Administrators Use Only: ]TOTAL $61G50
COST
FUND S W tr DEPT. Ad w+: h l STrA�: 0 Form
A
STAFFING LEVEL
Position
(No. Full Time Personnel or Manhours)
Current
Dept.
Proposed
Team
Proposed
Council
Approved
LL4; Tt�cou��ih Uerk
ya
}
Total
�/
01
Note: Use Request for Additional Personnel Form (Al) to explain difference between i
Current and Dept. Proposed
Administrators Use Only:
FUND Sewer 730 Form
DEPT, L) � �j I_L. j L,
STAFFING LEVEL
(No. Full Time Personnel or Manhours)
Position
Current
Dept.
Proposed
Team
Proposed
Council
Approved
Full -Time Maintenance Pcrsons
2
2-1/4
(If 1/4_-)erson not approved, 2 part-
timers totalling ).32 days will he
------ ----
Total
2
2-1/4
Note: Use Request for Additional Personnel Form (Al) to explain difference between
Current and Dept. Proposed
Administrators Use only:
7M
FUND Sewcr
REQUEST FOR ADDi
DEPT. operation, Form
Al
Position
Title
Number
Required
Salary
Cost
Benefits
Cost
Other
Costs
_Public Works
Maintenance
1/4
$5,G00
$ 5p 0
$ 200
List the duties to be Performed by new Position or increased hours
Sewer (santiary and storm) cleaning equipment o eration
road repairs and assist other departments_as needed.
of existing
and maintenance
Position:
Specify how this Positions duties are currently being Performed: Duties presently
being performed by
Of establi
Justify the need for this Position: the deL'--tment needs additional trained
_personnel avlilableon a reeular basis thus
avoiding the annual expenditures of time and money for traininn seasonal
help and the cost of unemiolo:mit com ensatioh for laid -off seasonal
workers ($260 in 7.9f71_$fl; for first 4 moral:hn of 1901). -
I Administrators Use Only: FT
'.l ,L50
Farm
FUND 100 DEPT, 360 Al
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL
Number
Salary
Benefits
Other
Position Title
Required
Cost
Cost
Costs
Park Maintenance Leadman
1/2
$II,II11.11ll
2,123.80
$ 211•l'
List the duties to be Performed by new Position or increased hours of existing Positions
1• Supervision of eight -man summer CETA
crew. 2• 'Turf establishment and
general grounds maintenance functions. 3.
Turf fertilization, aeration,
weed spraying and field top -dressing. 4.
Assist the 2 s'k maintenance lnhorc
with general park dirties such as winter flooding, summer mowing, building
repair, and general park construction. S.
Experience with underground irriga.
tion systems.
Ninny of the outlined.
Specify how this Position's duties are currently
being Performed: duties are currently.
not bein accomplished. we presently do
not have any turf maintenance proyrs!
- - 1 b we "rP cnnnrvisinv a
summer CETA program with part-time
V.
reeu ar asis.
_., ,,- m„mi PffPrtive. Finally.
maintenance employees wmcn Pas 1 iLKHH LU Mill-•1-11- ------
the park maintenance crew is )resent lY very dependent upon the other crews tg
perform the routine duties as required.
with the completion of Phase I development at
Justify the need for this Position: Silver View Park, we have increased our cur-
rent park system maintenance demand by approximately 1/3. We are currently
not performing an acceptable standard for park maintenance and are working
under a "management by crisis" situation. Our existing personnel have had
limited training or specific background in park maintenance' consequently,
responsibility has been placed upon the current public works foreman who is
now sharing his responsibilites and time between supervision and general
labor.-----
—__^—
Administrators :Use Only:
TOTAL Cl3 COST 553.R0
�'
FUND 100 DEPr, 360 Form
STAFFING LEVEL
(No. Full Time Personnel or Manhours)
Position
Current
Dept.
Proposed
Team
Proposed
Council
Approved
Public Works Maintenance Man
Chris Weston
1
1
Public Work Maintenance Men
1
1
Larry Decheine
New Position (see attached
0
4
justification)
Total
Note: Use Request for Additional Personnel Form (Al) to explain difference between
Current and Dept. Proposed
Administrators Use Only.'
Form DEPT. 350 I
FUND 100 A
STAFFING LEVEL
�. (No. Full Time Personnel or Nanhours)
Position
Current
Dept.
Proposed
Team
Proposed
Council
Approved
Parks, Recreation and Forestry
Director
1
1
Program Supervisor
1
1
Department secretary
1
1
Total
3
3
Notes Use Request for Additional Personnel Form (Al) to explain difference between
Current and Dept. Proposed
Administrators Use Only:
TO: Mayor & Council
ROM: Finance Director -Treasurer Brager
ATE: June 2, 1983
RE: REVENUE SHARING PROPOSED USE IIEAIIINO
When the Proposed Use (tearing was set for 7:40 p.m. June 13, 1983,
staff had not yet received notification from the Office of Revenue
Sharing of our estimated allocation for 1984. Normally notification
is received during the latter half of May so I felt reasonably certain
we would receive the estimated allocation in time to publish the hear-
ing notice. The notification was not received in time to meet public
notice requirements. Therefore I request the hearing be rescheduled
for 7:40 p.m. June 27, 1983.
DB/ds
NE140 TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council
FROM: Building Inspector
DATE: June 2, 1983
SUBJECT: APPENDIX E OF THE MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE
Staff has reviewed proposed Appendix E with respect to your comments
and suggestions given at the May 16th Agenda Session. The review
included discussions with the City Attorney, Fire Chief, City of
Blaine and City of Spring Lake Park. Conclusion of the review brings
the recommendation that Appendix E be adopted as is. This recommen-
dation is given based on the following items:
1) Appendix E itself does not allow changes. This does not
mean the City could not adopt something different but that
we would have to adopt our own specific ordinance.
2) Appendix E as it was written considered sizes, types, and
occupant loads of various occupancy groups based on the
need for fire fighting assistance that would provide benefit
to fire departments.
3) The cities of Blaine and Sprinq Lake Park are also giving
consideration to Appendix E..
4) Fire department recommends adoption as is.
Therefore, I would recommend adoption of Appendix E as written.
Should you have any questions or need additional information, please
let me know.
SAR/bc
Attachment
MR
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Counc'-1
\ FROM: Clerk-Administrato4
DATE: May 24, 1983
SUBJECT: OPEN BURNING PERMITS
On April 11, 1983 this office received a letter from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency indicating that Agency rules regulating
open burning allowed local governmental units to issue open burning
permits under their rules. After receiving this correspondence I
contacted Fire Chief• Fagerstrom regarding the advisability of
the issuance of open burning permits by the City and/or Fire Depart-
ment and an indication as to the willingness of the Department to
undertake the issuance of these permits.
Attached is Fire Chief Fagerstrom's response indicating a desire
to issue such burning permits, requesting the City to adopt an
amendment to our Fire Code adopting the Pollution Control Agency's
rules,and adopt a resolution designating the Chief of the Spring
Lake Park Fire Department as the individual authorized to issue
such permits. Attached for your consideration is a resolution and
ordinance which would need to be adopted in order for us to obtain
Pollution Control Agency approval.
DFP/pf
Attachments
of vor
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
2401 IIIOIIWAY 10
MOUNDS VIEW, MINN. 55112
]0.U3055
April 1.2, ] 983
Mr, Ron Fagerstrom
Fire Chief
1810 Highway 10
Minneapolis, MN 55432
Dear Ron:
Attached please find a copy of a letter received by this office
from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regarding their
regulations governing the permitting of open burning.
As you can see from this correspondence, the issuance of open
burning permits for the City of Mounds View would have to be
with the co -approval of the Fire Department and the City, with
one of the two agencies issuing the permits. As I do not feel
that the City of Mounds View is in the position to determine
whether or not the issuance of an open burning permit is appro-
priate, such a permitting process would appear to be an activity
under the jurisdiction of your Department. It would be appreciated
if you would advise me of the desires of your Department with
respect to the issuance of open burning permits. If your Depart-
ment is willing to undertake this activity, I would appreciate
a letter from you advising Inc of that fact and indicating the
individual that will be responsible for such activity within
your Department as it relates to the City of Mounds View.
Should you have any questions or require any additional informa-
tion on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
CITY Ar- M ONDS VIEW
' V `
Donal F. P uley /
Clark-Admi i.st•rator
1, DFP/pf•
Enclosure
Minnesota Pollution Control
To Whom It May Concern:
Agency��r
Numerous inquiries regarding the delegation of authority to issue
open burning permits have been received by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency. This letter is intended to provide
information concerning delegation of that: authority.
Open burning in the State of Minnesota is regulated under the
provisions of Minn. Rule APC 8 "Open Burning". In accordance
with section (f)(3) of the rule, a person or persons designated
by a county board of commissioners, or either a fire chief or P.
person designated by a township or city, may accept, applications
and issue open burning permits upon authorization by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
In order to receive this authorization, the governmental unit
must submit a written request to the Director, Division of Air
Quality, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, requesting the
authorization. As part of the formal request, a copy of the
meeting minutes indicating the motion passed to designate a
person (name and position) to be approved by the Director and a
copy of an ordinance adopting Minn. Rule APC 8 by the
governmental unit are also requested. In situations where the
governmental unit contracts for fire protection, a requirement of
the authorization will be that co —approval be received from the
fire authority prior to issuing any burning permit.
Governmental units desiring authorizaton to accept applications
and issue open burning permits or further information, are
requested to contact Mr. Raymond Bissonnette of the Division of
Air Quality in writing or call (612) 296-7300.
Sin/ent
I /
Petern, Supervisor
Enforit
Regulpliance Section
Division of Air Quality
PJG:jfd
1lhene
1935 West Counly Head G2, Hus evdle. Minnesota Ii51 13 2185
Hagional 0111ces • Dululhrorain"rd Detroll Lakes Matstudl norhr. sler
IIill ftl Oplml till ldy I.11110grl
r
HEADQUARTERS
1810 Highway 10
Spring Lake Park, Minnesota 55432
n:
�, u0tIN1VG YGPN � /
May 9, 1983
City of Mounds View
Attn: Donald F. Pauley
2401 highway 10
St, Paul, Minnesota 55112
RE: Open Burning
Dear Don:
I believe we should take advantage of the WCA's willingness to delegatb
to the municipality the issuing of burning permits. To achieve this, the
ordinance adopting the Fire Code would have to be amended as follows:
Add a new paragraph: Section 63_08� Para rah 1)(d) 4.
Open Burning_Restricted Minnesota Air Pollution Control Agency
Rule Number 8 is hereby adopted in full and by reference and
shall be in full force and effect in this city.
I am enclosing a copy of Rule Number 8 and the WCA's letter. The
authorized person should be "the Chief of the Spring Lake Park Fire Dept.,
Inc. or his designee" since I am not always available. In fact, it's quite
possible that both the Fire flarshal and I would be gone and the issuing of
the permit would fall to the District Chief.
After the Council has adopted this amendment, you can forward all the
required date to me, and we will type a letter of concurrence and mail
it off to the NPCA.
Best regards.
Yours very truly,
Ron Fager4 rom
Chief of Department
Rr/js
Enc.
Ala N011.11111Y CrNlanl. Ri lr..v
CHAPTER EIGHT: APC 8
APC 8 Open Burning
(a) Definitions
As used in this regulation the following wards shall have the meanings
defined herein.
(1) "Approved waste burner" means an incinerator or other burner
constructed of fire resistant material having a capocity of not less Ilion
three bushels, a cover which is closed when In use, and maximum openings
in the top or sides no greater than one inch in diameter.
(2) "Building material" means lumber, wood shakes and other wood
products but shall not include consposile shingles, tar paper, insulation, wall
board, wiring or other similar sni •e producing materials.
(3) "Diseased shade tree" means any tree infected by Dutch elm
disease or oat wilt disease or any tree constituting a hazard to a disease
control program established by the Department of Agriculture pursuant to
Minn. Stat, q 18.023.
(4) "Disposal facility" means a facility or site permitted by the Minne-
aola Pollution Control Agency for the intermediato or final disposal of solid
waste.
(5) "Garbage" means discarded material resulting from the handling,
processing, storage, preparation, serving and consumption of food.
(6) "Metropolitan Area" means the area included within the counties
of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington.
(7) "Open Burning" mcam the burning of any matter whereby the
resultant combustion products are emitted directly to the atmosphere with.
out passing through an adequate slack, duct, or chimney.
(8) "Refuse collection service" means a public or private operation
engaged in solid waste collection and transportation.
(9) "Rubbish" means nonpulrescible solid waste, such as paper, card-
board, yard clippings and other natural matter not including garbage.
(10) "Welland" means natural marsh where water stands near, at or
above the soil surface during a significant portion of most years.
(b) Open Burning Restrictions
No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit open burning.
(c) Exemptions
(1) In unincorporated areas where no refuse collection service is uvail•
able, the open burning of rubbish originating from single residential
premises may be conducted in approved waste burners.
(2) In any city where no refuse collection service is available, the
ecal unit of government may appply to the Director for permission In
allow the open burning of nib sh originating front single residential
premise% in approved waste bunters.
(3) Refuse collection service shall he deemed available as delineated
in the County Solid Waste Management Plan, as adopted by the county
and approved by the Agency.
(d) Prohibition of Salvage Operations by Open Burning
(1) No person shall conduct, cause or permit salvage operations by
open burning.
(2) No person shall possess, transport or rocess motor vehicles or
scrap metals which have been reduced y open turning or incineration in
I24" .... A
Ain I'DI.I.1110.4 Cl1Al'aOL a11.1+ Art: A
n device or equipment which has not received an Operaling Permit from
this Agency.
(c) Open Burning by Permit
Open burning may be conducted if an open burning Permit is obtained
purwant to this icgulution and to open burning is cutiducted in accordance
with the requirements of this regulation and the conditions of the permit.
(f) Permit Applications
(1) Application. Application for open burning permits may be made
in cases where fires are proposed to be set for the following purposes:
(aa) Bona fide instructioa and Irainiog of fire fighting personnel
and for the testing of fire extinguishing equipment.
(bb) Gliminatioa of fire or health hazards which cannot be abated
by any other practicable means.
(cc) Activities in accordance with accepted forest or game manage.
meat.
(dd) Ground thawing for utility repair and construction.
(cc) The disposal of trees, brush, grass and other vegetative matter
in the development of land and right-of-way maintenance.
(fO The disposal of diseased shade trees.
(gg) The disposal of trees and brush in areas outside the Metro-
politan Area.
(Ida) Activities in accordance with accepted agricultural practices.
(ii) The disposal of building material generated by construction.
6j) The disposal of building material generated by the demolition
Of non•cominercial or nun-inslitulional structures.
(2) Restrictions. A burning permit shall Sc issued on a prescribed
form to the aPplicant if the burning is for one of the purposes set forlh
in subsection (n(I) and the applicant agrees that all horning shall be con.
ducled under the following circumstances:
(so) The prevailing wind at the time of the burning shall be away
from nearby residences.
(bb) The burning shall be conducted as far away as practical from
any highway or public road and controlled so that a traffic hazard is not
created.
(cc) The burning may not be conducted during the duration of an
air pollution alert, warning or emergency.
(dill The recipient of the permit or his authorized representative
shall be present for the duration of any fire authorized by the permit.
(cc) Prior notice shall be given to the local Department of Natural
Resources Forest Officer, local fire marshal, or local fire chief of the time
and location of any faro authorized by the permit.
(ff) Open burning for ground thawing shall be conducted in accor-
dance with the following additional restrictions:
(i) Fuels and starting materials shall be of a kind which do not
generate appreciable smoke.
(:i) Coke used fin 4ruund thawing within 506 feet of dweiiings or
occupied buildings shall contain loss than I % sulfur.
(iii) Auhiem air quality shndards for sulfur dioxide and carbon
monoxide shall not be exceeded at occupied residences other than those
located on the properly on which the burning is being conducted.
El
11
• �i
Ara IOLLI710.4 coBI'tll11, N11.l..� a,,e a
(iv) Propane gas thawing torches or other devices causing minimal
pollution shhail be used whco practicable.
(gg) Open burning of materials puntilnt to paragraph (f)(1)(ec), (9),
(gg), (hh), (ii), and (jj) shall be conducted in accordance with the following
additional restrictions;
(I) The location of the
an
occupied residence s
idence other than those located shall ted on the p opertyLon which00 feet ( the
burning is conducted.
(11) Oils, rubber and other similar smoke producing materials shall
not be burned or used as starting materials.
(111) The burning shall not be conducted within one mile of any
airport or landing strip, unless approved by the Director,
h) Open burning of be conducted under materials eo
controlled burning methods
so
shall
also onlyapproved by the
Director.
(ii) The burningis conducted under such other reasonable conditions
ns the permit issuing authority may impose.
(3) Permit Issuers. In addition to the Agency, the following persons
are authorized to accept applications and issue open burning permits:
(aa) A Department of Natural Resources forest officer for locations
within his jurisdiction.
(bb) A local Department of Natural Resources Fire Warden for loca-
tions within his jurisdiction.
(cc) Upon approval of the Agency, a local pollution control agency
for locations within its jurisdiction.
Will A person(s) designated by the county board of commissioners
and approved by the Director for locations within the county but outside
the corporate limits of cities within the county.
Uon the
, either a fire chief r a fiction
designated)by a townshlpporvcity for roal of elocati ns within the jurisdiction of said
governmental unit.
(If) A Regional Director of the Agency or an employee of the Agency
authorized by the Director, who may in their discretion refer the applicant
to a local permit issuing authority.
(4) Permit Denial. Any permit application submitted pursunnl to this
regulation shall be denied if:
(aa) A reasonable, practical ullcrnative method of disposal of the
material is available.
(bb) A nuisance condition would resull from llte burning.
'nlRevocation. itis ceso
ctetiuof the Drecor,a Delmnnem of Natural officer,
the local file marshal or fire chief, or the permit issuer, if:
found; (an) A rcasunabte practical method of disposal of the nialcriul is
ins; or (bb) A fire hazard exists or develops during the course of the horn.
(cc) Any of the conditions of the permit are violated.
(g) Liability. Exemption to conduct open burning or the granting of an
open burning permit tinder any provisions of this regulation does not excuse
I person from the consequences, damages or injuries which may result
therefrom.
(it) Cuniiicting Laws. Nothing in this regulation shall be construed to
MI
AIn 101.Ib I II Is 1.1IN IaUI. 1111.1. Arc a
allow open burning in those urcus in which open burning is prohibited by
other laws, regulations or ordinances.
(i) Recreational Fires, fires scl for recreational, ceremonial, fond prep -
cation, or social purposes are permitted provided only wood, coal, of char•
coal is burned.
Q) Diseased Shade Tree Open Burning Sites. open burning of discused
shade trees shall be permitted provided no reasonable alternate method of
disposal exists as determined by the Agency, a permit 6 obtained pursuant
to this regulation, and the open burning is conducted in accordance with
the requirements of this regulation and the conditions of the permiL
(I) Site Location. The sites shall be located in accordance with the
following conditions or as approved by the Director of Air Quality:
(aa) Not less than 1,000 feet from an occupied building.
(bb) Not less than 1,000 feet from a public roadway,
(cc) Not less than one mile from an airport or landing strip.
(dd) Not less than 300 feet from a stream.
(cc) Not within wetland.
(2) Site preparation. The site shall be prepared in accordance with the
following:
(aa) Access to the site shall be controlled by a gate which shall be
locked when an attendant is not on duty.
(bb) Approach roads to the disposal site and access roads on the site
shall be maintained so that they shall be passable at all specified times.
(cc) A permanent sign identifying the operation indicating the hours
and days the site is open for use, rates, the penalty for nonconforming
dumping and othv pertinent information shall be posted at the site entrance.
(dd) Surfaci water drainage shall be diverted around and away from
the operating area mud ash storage areas.
(3) Site Operation. The site shall be operated in accordance with the
following conditions:
(an) Only diseased shade trees and/or tree trimmings shall be disposed
of on the site.
(bb) Qualified personnel for general direction and operation of the
site shall be on duty at all times while the site is open for use and for the
dundiun of any fire on the site.
(cc) [turning shall he conducted only when weather conditions are
such that a nuisance, hcahh or safety hazard will not he created.
(dd) Prior notice shall be given to the local fire authority of the time
and dumtiun of each tire.
(cc) Adequnte Just control shall be provided on the site and on the
roads leading to the site.
(IQ Ash residue shall be collected on a pcfiudiu basis and duposcd of
in an Agencypermilted sanitary landfill.
(4) Site Terminalion. T11e site shall be terminated in accordance with
the following:
(na) All nsalerials extraneous to the site shall be removed and disposed
of in an appropriate manner.
(bb) The site shall be returned to a state equal to its surroundings.
(July 7, 1969; amended Jnae 6, 1970; amended September 14, 19711
amended March 12,1976; amended May 1319761
RESOLUTION NO. 1615
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO ACCEPT
APPLICATIONS AND ISSUE OPEN BURNING PERMITS
AND DESIGNATING AUTHORIZED INDIVIDUAL
WHEREAS, Section (f) (3) of the Minnesota Air Pollution
Control Agency Rule No. 8 provides that a City may accept applica-
tions and issue open burning permits upon authorization by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; and
WHEREAS, said rule further allows that the City may designate
a person or persons to be the authorized individual(s) to accept
such applications; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City of Mounds View and
the Spring Lake Park Fire Department, Inc., to be able to issue
open burning permits where appropriate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mounds View that the City formally requests authorization
to issue such open burning permits from the Director of the Division
of Air Quality, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City designates the Chief
of the Spring Lake Park Fire Department, Inc., or his designee as
the authorized individual(s) to accept such applications.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Adopted this 13th day of June, 1983.
Mayor - - —_---
Clerk-Administrator
ORDINANCE NO. 342
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 63.05 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF MOUNDS
VIEN ENTITLED, "FIRE CODE"
The Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ordain:
SECTION I. Municipal Code Chapter 63.05 - Precautions
Aqainst Fire - General is amended by adding
the following:
63.05, (d), (4) - Minnesota Air Pollution
Control Agency Rule No. 8 is hereby adopted
in full and by reference and shall be in full
force and effect in this City.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30)
days from and after the date of its publication.
Read by the Council of the City of Mounds View on the 7
day of , 1983.
Read and passed by the Council of the City of Mounds View
this day of , 1983.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Mayor
F-lerk-Administrator
s
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
i
FROM: Clerk -Administrator
DATE: June 1, 1983
SUBJECT: PARVO VIRUS VACCINATION OF IMPOUNDED DOGS
Attached please find a letter from Doctor Keith Hedges of the
Brighton Veterinary Hospital regarding the outbreak of Parvo
Virus in the Twin Cities and his recommendation that dogs
impounded at his hospital by the City of Mounds View which are
presently vaccinated against Distemper and Hepatitis also be
vaccinated against Parvo Virus at an additional cost to the
City of 50C per dog not claimed and to the owner $1.00 if
picked up from the control center.
RECOMMENDATION: Council authorize the Brighton Veterinary
Hospital to include in their vaccinations of impounded dogs
a vaccination against Parvo Virus disease.
DFP/pf
Attachment
OPPV, ..I\
r�.'"f� u
RIGHTON N R����V%,
"'
or
ETERI NARY
1131501
OSPITAL
I.W. roll I"luI -
'
City of kounrlcvl cv:
2401 N.. lligl:r:ay 10
hloundsvievr, hinneool.a 551.1.2
Dear Mr. I'aulcy:
2615 MISSISSIVVI ST.
V BRIGHTON, MN 55112
(612) 636-1063
Parvo Virus is a ncrr, highly cuntnp: rru:: r;i.: c;:cc in dogs rthirh
surfaced in Lho 'Plain Citie:; .:ur ro.—Jj,;._ Lr:l.:i thrc.: years ago.
Buying the int:orv,,l I:hr.rr. hnvc hecn tI)0ur:r1116: (If' carer v'ith
many ending in death.
9'he Animal. Con trnl frci li ty nt I.1w "ri rliton :' ; Lcri urlry I!oc i lr,l.
�I ha, had sevcr::a inrt:mcrs of dot';r; Lci-n1- brougl t in vith �ossibin
1 Parvo Virus. °.ny r�l?r, doveloping riirrrinn :in immodinlcly r,ut
u in our Isolation '":'rd, thereby rc •rr'n ti nr it from the other
dogs. III, to now, Iro have been vaccine ling the exporerl dogs
at our expense for Pnrvn Virus trhen curh nn i.nci.drncr, occurs.
Presently, all dogs are being vaccinated ngainrt Distemper
and IlepatitiU (at a coot of about ".F5 to the City or 1i5.00
if picked up by the oviner). Tt is only logical, since vie
are already vaccinating ag,,?:inst Distemper,. to extend thin to
include Parvo, Ivhich is ncLually a GreaLer threat.
It is my recommendation to institute this change at an
additional cost of ri.50 per dog not claimed and 11.00 to the
oviner if picked up from the Control. Center. Any deviations
from there prieeli !could ree:ult from minor fluctuations in
the cost of the vaccine.
Your immediate res"o"Ic :anulri l;c rinl:rl'olly apprrrioted.
Sincprely,
Keith I). lledgrr, I)Vi`
IOU: rJ11
cc: Mr. non llroger
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development
DATE: June 2, 1983
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON M.S.A. RESURFACING PROGRAM
The streets proposed to be resurfaced have received a detailed inspec-
tion including a coring and subgrade sampling, crack inventory, failed
pavement inventory and drainage survey. Summary of field investigations
is as follows:
1) Groveland Road
a) 4,385 lineal feet, 44 feet wide
b) traverse cracking every 15 to 25 feet
c) 350 feet by 22 feet will require removal and replacement
due to subgrade failure
d) 3 core samples taken
e) Pavement thickness is 1 to 2 inches with loamy sand to
sandy subgrade with one section having 6 inches of high
organic soils
2) Arden Avenue
a) 2,535 lineal feet, 44 feet wide
b) traverse cracking every 25 to 35 feet
c) 425 feet by 22 feet will require removal and replacement
due to subgrade failure
d) 4 core samples taken
e) Pavement thickness is 3/4 to 2 inches with loamy sand to
sandy subgrade with one section having up to 18 inches of
organic soils.
f) one block had 6 to 8 inches of glass 5 sub -base.
g) Ardan and Groveland intersection needs reconstruction.
3) Hillview
a) 5,155 lineal feet, 44 feet wide
b) traverse cracking every 30 to 40 feet
c) Greenwood intersection needs drainage/crown improvement
d) 4 core samples taken
e) Pavement thickness is 1� to 24 inches with sandy loam soils
4) Edgewood
a) 4,775 lineal feet, 44 feet wide
b) traverse cracking every 20 to 35 feet north of Highway 10,
40 to 50 feet north of Edgewood Community Center, 10 to 15
feet south of Edgewood Community Center
c) County Road tl needs reconstruction
e) 4 core samples taken
Mayor and City Coucil
Page 2
June 2, 1983
f) Pavement thickness is 1!; to 2 inches with loamy sand subgrade 16
with some organic soils. One core sample 250 feet south of
City Hall driveway had ' inch of seal coat sand,no detectable
bituminous paving.
Due to work load in Planning Department, progress on plan preparation
has been slow.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that additional technician time be
scheduled to complete plan preparation as soon as practical. !9ork
would be funded by M.S.A. program.
JCJ/bc
1
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
' FROM: Public Works/Community Development Director
DATE: June 2, 1983
SUBJECT: REPORT ON EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AND DETENTION
BASTN SYSTEMS TNSTTTUTE
The week of May 16 - 20, 1983 I attended a two part program at
Madison, Wisconsin. The first two days covered Erosion and
Sediment Control in Urban Areas. Attached is a copy of the
course schedule and topics. The various presenters commented
that the state of the art in erosion control is fairly limited
in urban areas due to enforcement or regulating problems.
Typically, enforcement is done through nuisance ordinance methods.
It was recommended that communities look at control by:
a) Limiting erosion "potential", i.e., limit time for
"bare" soil exposure during construction.
b) Limit the amount of soil that can leave site before
penalties are enforced.
c) Limit amount of soil that can be displaced by erosion.
Method a) is relatively easily regulated but methods b) and c)
are quite difficult.
Attached is a copy of Erosion Control Ordinance developed by
Madison, Wisconsin and a copy of guidelines issued to applicants
and/or staff.
The second part of the program concerned the design and use of
detention basin systems. Attached is a copy of course outline
and the section on"Philosophy for Detention Basins" which relates
the experiences in Atlanta, Georgia. The course focused on how
not to repeat problems encountered in Atlanta. At the conclusion
of the program I am even more convinced that the "existing"
Mounds View system can be made to function in an acceptable
fashion by utilizing as many of our natural or existing detention
areas, such as, streets, wetlands, parks, parking lots, roof tops,
and back yard depressions.
JCJ/pf
G'
j Erosion and Sediment Control in Urban Areas
May 16-17, 1983
i
I
Institute Scope
'Iln. nafulal list( 'rn,I WIM,I w1,1 ,I:, , I..d,
uullenu ul luus ul nl ratII%"m M.m •.
developnleol of !aod fol h, nr mq, .I"!'. ;15
rec n'aIIon , and be1IIIVS1 ma 6es:1.11 lu, n,•
Susceptible tonaIll e'sVisit u1,if" Ir.
I:ngku'vis have an uppanunny. x nb IL" n
it.. Ill Ill alknuwledgv aolt I I w ac.n!.11,,! •d
mudrns n nnlnlcliun pu„.•dm,•s .0 �� I
puubo L, In uvlw r Ihr rNrl rvn r •..:I :.. . .
w.• uaw espenrncu.
Strom n'alcr rwrollll,nlsp1n15 en,:L,I .. ;;.
Into IakeS, sltanmS and Wort < ss It, I, :I,; v
cloud the water. coveldw oalal,d
:IM for fish andrudure fit- ;..�.. !
SNlage capaclly of fhv irldv ul twi.-I 1..
Bleat extent. deleutiuu
stvales. and nalwal Iealmrn>snis.r.
wobllds call Trap and lelam rrodo,i
panicles. Nnli,nndamcrl n u:a•I Ili,•
1no61rm nl cunil m Las inliwvn•d ns. �:m
, �n1111111111111V bs ddapl llvp•�!�Ihnit toll:
rngunn•Iln!11nlv11a In lednn•,uni nl..:,:
>1,d eu ninn.
'I bn c Antic will pon'nle you toll lLr :.,mr
am!, fb:rl of r•Ilmiun and Ill,. ba:•ir c, a:,, pp
kn psrpauug of ulryp.11:ny tin rl„•a•m
n whin unlinenrr fis v nu 1, nnuur rlq, a
l hrul. Yoo will be ll,r I'tt .ou l�, Span
public ncceplana'amltorni,n, II
IryisLtaunadopted Ilgooes••anrng:n.rl.
enyineering Technician, drr, d, qn•I , a
ennnnrlur. you will henelil by ottrin!:'nl Ih:.
uul' Landing Iwo(L. luslilut,
Schedule.
Sll.udav, Slav I it
8.011 f{rryi\uan.m
N:211 ICrb,n:n
8'.:II ti::ill l,r.i::u lLr.lr.
IU�uO Break
III:311 I:0111itIfng SrdiIll •ol 01].11: 11 1n
I'odeem (i.n
12:00 Lunch
I:1111 Canuullfn!I l aosilm udlb
14.gelnliml
I tilt, III !.,I, It1•„ar.:,,
2:311 Ill eak
2.-1*5 ('ultlrullin!! hmiuu W ill,
s1110I1q, �
r It.
!.::, I;I.
4:3II rWpnnu
5:110 Snrfal l inure Cash liar
I Ill"day, May 17
11:III I:alleclhgl SI•Iliuu•nl With
DO I•Iti bII, 116,11.111 Sul,
It„b•, H, -ram, blyll"Cr
11.nIs, I eatiltAamnahW.Inc.
;Cain, •.),.,, tt""olisin
Ul Inl ISu•ak
10,]u I union f unnnl I.v!Jislation
li.. I,.uda f.•lumnw
albn•'••:
�4adrnnl. lVnnmem
12:011 Lunch
1:1111 Implenuvlaliin of Local
(lydinann,s
Rishrrt Innot, S1,
51.11f Euq me,.,
Mrl Is -ill C'1,mny VI lit of Planning
IV,wdo r 1. III!nuis
2:011 Ihvak
2::Id dn(hdfwulre blr Nm
IIeerinpmetil\ awl 11,61(ing Slles
i'n:, rpall 7wl l ngn,rrr
Lugu:rrnnq Pv nunl
I sisal Adjonnnovnt
Copy ?ailed
Alternate N1 FX>y • II
V iI to ,llJcrmen
City of Madison, Wisconsin
Presented ?bv •1, 1982
A SECOND SUBSTITUTE ORDINANCE
repealing Sec. 23,45 entitled "Prevention
of Parking Lot and Construction Site
Erosion: Prohibition of Vehicular Debris on
Public Plays" and creating Chapter 37
entitled "Erosion and Stormwater Runoff
Control" of the Madison General Ordinances.
Drafted by: James M. Voss
Assistant City Attorney
Date: October 6, 1982
Fiscal Note: See Report of City
Comptroller to the Commission
on Environment dated May 25,
1982.
SPONSOR(S): Common Council (Request of
Commission on the Environment)
%adison En¢. Cc
Develon. Assist
Rules Susp. Tabled.
Public Hrg.
513yor Approved
Date
•i9
Published
SECONTI SUBSTITUTE ORDINANCE NO,JL5-LLq
FILE NO.
700.82
The Common Council of the City of Madison do ordain as follows:
1. Section 23.45 entitled "Prevention of Parking Lot and Construction
Site Erosion: Prohibition of Vehicular Debris on Public Ways" of the
Madison General Ordinances is hereby repealed.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Section 23.45 currently reads as follows:
"23.45 PREVENTION OF PARKING LOT AND CONSMOC"iION SITE ERnclny;
PROHIBITION OF VEHICULAR DEBRIS ON PUBLIC WAYS.
(1) Declaration of Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to
prevent unsate conditions on City streets and to safeguard
against air pollution and increased sedimentation and pollution
of our lakes and streams.
(2) No person, firm or corporation operating an improved or
unimproved parking lot or engaging in activity at a
construction site, or operation area in conjunction with the
construction activity shall allow erosion to adjacent land,
o public streets or co
�_j.:_. a .•�,+ter or the trarlein.0 or dropping
u�u. •
of dirt or other material by vehicles from the lot or site on
to any public street or allow either condition to remain. All
persons, firms or corporations engaged in construction,
operation, or maintenance activity in connection with an
offending lot or site shall be held responsible for any
violations of this ordinance by himself, his agents, employees,
subcontractors or haulers of materials or supplies.
-7-
(3) PenalL . Any person, firm or corporation which shall
violate any of the provisions nf this ordinance shall upon
conviction thereof be subject to a forfeiture of not less
than twenty-five dollars (325) nor more than two hundred
dollars ($200) and each day said violation continues to
exist shall be considered a separate violation."
2. Chapter 37 entitled "Erosion rnd Stormwater Runoff Control" of the
Madison General Ordinances is created to read as follows:
"37.01 TITLE.
'Phis ordinance shall be known, cited and referred to as the Erosion
and Stormwater Runoff Control Ordinance.
37.02 FINDING AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSE.
Tne City tins that urpanizing land uses have accelerated the
process of soil erosion, runoff and sediment deposition in the
waters of the City of ht3dison. Therefore, it is declared to be the
purpose of this ordinance to control and prevent soil erosion and
minimize stormwater runoff increases and thereby to preserve the
natural resources, control floods and prevent impairment of dams
and reservoirs, protect the quality of public waters, protect
wildlife, protect the tax base, and protect and promote the health,
safety and general welfare of the people of the City of Madison.
37.03 GENERAL PROVISIONS.
1 r. ica i ity. This ordinance applies to the use of lands
within the incorporated boundaries of the City, and the use
of lands subject to extraterritorial review as provided by
Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 236.10.
(2) Severability of Ordinance Provisions. If any section,
provision or portion of t us or inance is adjudged
unconstitutional or invalid by a court, the remainder of
this ordinance shall not be affected thereby.
(3) Performance Time Reouirement. All action required in this
ordinances all a coriau to as soon as possible as
IiPtarm;..d hA.—t., '.,a AuthoritytWu.,1eat.,I.." ,.
37.04 DEFINITIONS.
or t e purpose of this ordinance certain words used herein are
defined as follows:
Administrative Authority means the governmental employee
destgnate y t e ommonouncil to administer this ordinance, and
includes any other governmental employees who are supervised by the
said administrator, for the implementation and enforcement of this
ordinance.
Agricultural land Uses means alterations or disturbances of the
land usea for t e production of food and fiber.
C
Cease and Desist Order is a means of giving notice to the
permittFe or violator nr.[ the Ad iinistrativo Authority believes
that the pernittee or violator has violated nne or more provisions
of this ordinance. \otice is given by posting upon the lands where
the disturbing activity occurs one or more copies of a poster so
stating the violation and by mailing a copy of this poster by
certified rail to the permittee or violator at the address sha..n on
the permit or to the violator at any address of record.
Checklist Plan is an erosion control plan available from the
Administrative iwthority, which is designed to control soil erosion
and sedimentation resulting from land disturbing activities on one
acre or less.
Citv means the City of Midison Cannon Council.
Co rol Plan (Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Runoff
Control Plan) is a plan approved by the Administrative Authority,
of methods for controlling soil erosion, surface water nmofE and
sediment deposition caused by or resulting from land disturbing
activities.
Detention Storage is the temporary detaining or storage of
stormaater :n reservoirs, under predetermined and controlled
conditions, witli the rate of discharge therefrom regulated by
installed devices.
Erosion (Soil Erosion) is the detachment and movement of soil
or rock Fragments by water, wind, ice, or gravity.
Existing Grade means the vertical location of the existing
C
grouna surface prior to excavation or filling.
Grading is altering the elevation of the land surface by
stripping, excavating, filling, stockpiling of soil materials or
any combination thereof and shall include the land from which the
material was taken or upon which it was placed.
land -Disturbing Activities or Uses are any land changes which
ray result in soil erosion, sedimentation and/or the increase in
runoff, including but not limited to tilling, removal of ground
cover, grading, excavating, and filling of land, except that the
term shall not include such minor land -disturbing activities as
home gardens and repair and maintenance of private roads.
Additionally, this term does not include agricultural land uses and
wildlife plantings.
Land Treatment Measures are structural or vegetative
practices, or combinations of both, used to control erosion and
sediment production, including areas to be protected by fencing.
Peak Flaw is the maximum rate of flow of water at a given
point in a channel, watercourse, or conduit resulting from a
predetermined storm or flood.
Public Lands means all government owned lands which are
subject to regulation by the City; including, but not limited to:
(a) all lands owned or controlled by the City;
(b) all lands which are owned by another unit of government.
Runoff is the portion of rainfall, melted snow or irrigation
water Sac flows across the grand surface.
Sediment is solid material, both mineral and organic, that is
'
in suspension, is being transported, or has been moved from its
site of origin by air, water, gravity, or ice, and has come to rest
on the earth's surface at a different site.
37.05
Sedimentation is the transportation and deposition of sediment.
Sou Loss is soil moved from a given site because of
land-dis� turoing activities or by the forces of erosion and
redeposited at another site on land or in a body of water,
Stor^cater Runoff is the water derived frcm rains falling
within a tri utary drainage basin, flowing over the surface of the
ground or collected in channels, wratercourses or conduits,
Structural Measures are works of improvement for land
stab itatioI' n t�ve�t erosion, sediment or runoff.
Ten Year Storms are those rainstorms of varying durations and
intensities that ave a ten percent (10%) chance to occur each year.
Ten Year Storm Runoffs are the stormwater runoffs from the ten
year storms.
LRN1J-UIb1UKB ING ACTIVITIES SUOJECr TO ERGSiO`, SEDIMENT, %SITE
DhTEYrIUN A,YD R11,,'OFf: CUYIRUL.
Lij General Reeuiremeac. Any owner, occupant or user who
undertakes, commences or performs land -disturbing activities;
or who permits another person to do the some, en land subject
to this section, shall be subject to this ordinance.
(2) Land -Disturbing Activities Subiect to Erosion and Sediment
�6LV uiw vu PuuiiL. lanes ane on ail private lands
s all a subject to this ordinance, if:
(a) An area of 4,000 square feet or greater will be disturbed
resulting in the loss or removal of protective ground cover
or vegetation, or,
(b) Excavation, fill, or any combination thereof, will exceed
400 cubic yards, or,
(c) Any public (federal, state or local) street, road or
highway is to be constructed, enlarged, relocated or
substantially reconstructed, or,
(d) Any use by a unit of government or by public or private
utilities in which underground pipe or facilities will be
laid, repaired, replaced or enlarged for a distance of over
300 feet.
(e) Any subdivision of land as defined by Sec. 16.23 of the
Madison General Ordinances entitled "Land Subdivision
Regulations" which requires plat approval or any certified
survey.
(3) Land-Disturbin Activities Subiect to Cnsite Detention and
uno t Control. Activities on pu lie Lands ana on all private
ands snal a subject to this ordinance, if: .
(a) The activity will be a residential development having a
gross aggregate area of five acres or more, or,
(b) The activity will be a residential development on less than
five acres and more than three acres, having fifty percent
(50:) or more of the area as impervious surfaces.
(c) The activity will be a development, other than residential,
having a gross aggregate area of three acres or more, or,
(d) In the opinion of the Administrative Authority the runoff
from the activity will exceed the safe capacity of the
existing drainage facilities and/or receiving water body;
or cause undue channel erosion; or increase water pollution
by scour and transport of particles; or endanger the
downstream property,
� •5-
(4) Compliance with this Suction. The owner, occupant or user,
snap oe :n compliance witn this section if the procedure of
Sec. 37.03 of this ordinance is followed.
37.06 ERCS� ION a,\�D SEJM7ATI01' fA\IROL REMIATEM) FC2 LVI)S MT
(S1iic:;nlSr. :.;cl.l 'h irlTSri;RUi�•.�li:.
ANY owner,occ*;,ant or user wno re its erosion, sediment deposits,
tracking or dropping of dirt na aiiiacent lard, public streets or
bodies of :water from land not otherwise subject to this ordinance
shall be dee-ed in violation of this ordinance and subject to the
penalties provided in Sec. 37.10.
37.07 SVNDA.RLDS ANI CRITERIA.
1 Stancara for Erosion and Sedim•:nt Control for Land -Disturbing
ACti9lties. plans will not oe ap,rovea nor permits issueu
unless erosion and sedimentation leaving the site during and
after the land disturbance will not exceed that which would
have been eroded if the land had been left in its undisturbed
state and/or are•controll•.d in accordance with established
prcccc::res, including, but not limited to, Minimi:ire Erosion
in Urbani-ing Areas or other technical guidelines as developed
y tn,2 Unie County Soil and Pater Conservation District in
cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service.
(2) Standards for Onsite Detention and Runoff Control for
nd-Disturoing Activities. Activities suolect to onsite
decenczon ano runt[ control regulation under this ordinance
shall comply with the following standards:
(a) The peak runoff rate after the proposed activities should
not be greater than the peak rate which would have resulted
from the same ten (10) year storm event occurring over the
site with the land in its natural undeveloped state.
(b) Where on -site detention is used for runoff control, the
detention facilities shall safely contain and/or safely
pass the runoff of a 100 year storm of any duration.
(3) Standard for Tracking. For plan approval and issuance of a
permit there must a adequate provisions to prevent the
tracking or dropping of dirt or other materials from the site
onto any public or private street.
(4) Design Criteria, EnF•ineering Standards and General PrinCi DlCs.
Tlie applicant for a permit may employ structural or
nonstructural measures necessary to achieve all applicable
standards set out in this ordinance. However, these measures
will be evaluated to determine that they follow currently
accepted design criteria and engineering standards.
The following general principles shall be used when
eval:_-ting control plans and granting permits under this
ordinance:
(a) The smallest area of land shall be exposed for the shortest
period at any given time during development.
(b) The rough grading of the lot shall include backfilling the
basement and all excess earth shall be hauled off the lot.
6
C(e) Aeccmnodntion of the increased runoff caused by chin..^,ed
soil and surface conditions during, and after develoc,tent.
(d) Permanent, final plant covering, or structures shall be
installed prior to final acceptance.
(e) The plan of development shall relate to the topography and
soils of the sit: so that the iowest potential for erosion
is created.
(f) Natural plant covering shall be retained and protected and
shall be deemed a doninatin.q factor in developing the site
and temporary vegetation, mulching or other cover shall be
used to protect the area exposed during the land -disturbing
activity.
37.08 APPLICATION ,W) ISSUANCE OF PERMITS.
M_17rmic Reoutre ; Procedure ano Fee.
a Unless specifically excluded by this ordinance, no otmer,
occupant or user may undertake an activity subiect to this
ordinance without receiving a permit. Each owner, occupant
or user desiring to undertake a regulated activity subject
to this ordinance shall submit an application for a permit
together with the appropriate fee. The permit fee schedule
is $1.00/1,000 S.F. of gross lot area to be developed.
(b) Exceptions to this requirement are as follays:
1. The owner and occupant of public lands are exempt from
payment of any permit fee;
2. The City may enter into an agreement with public or
private utilities and governmental agencies to waive the
need for a permit for each individual activity, if they
will agree to follow this ordinance.
(2) Control Plan Required.
a) Unless speMically exempted by this ordinance every
applicant for a permit shall submit a plan to control
erosion, sedimentation and runoff which would result from
the
proposed activity.
(b) Penit applicants are exempted from the requirement of the
submission of a control plan if:
The proposed activity is on one acre or less of land,
and the permit applicant agrees to install all the
control devices and to implement all the control
techniques which are set out in the Checklist Plan
supplied. The Checklist Plan shall a oee� meu to
adequately meet all a— pp— l ie standards in Sec. 31.07
and the permit shall be issued.
(3) Contents of the Control Plan. The control plan required by Sec
3 .08 shall contain such information needed to determine
soil erosion, sedimentation and runoff control:
(a) A map of the site location showing the location of the
predominant soil tyT.es.
(b) A topographic map of the site location, including the
C contiguous properties, existing drainage patterns and
watercourses affected by the proposed development of the
site and the existing vegetative cover.
7-
(c) A plan of the site showing:
I. Name, address and telephone number of the occupant and
party responsible for maintaining erosion control.
2. Limits of natural floodplain(s), based on a 100-year
flood, if any.
3. A timing schedule indicating the anticipated starting
and caopletion dates of the development sequence.
•4. Proposed topography of the site location with a maximum
Of two -foot contour intervals showing:
a. Location of activity, disturbance of protective
cover, any additional structure on the site, areas
to be seeded or mulched, areas to be vegetatively
stabilized and areas to be left undisturbed.
b. Elevations, dimensions, location of all activities
including where topsoil will be stockpiled.
c. The finished grade, stated in feet horizontal to
feet vertical, of cut and fill slopes.
d. Kindy of utilities and areas of installation,
including special erosion control practices for
utility installation.
e. Paved and covered areas in square feet or to scale
on a plan map.
f. Makeup of surface soil (upper six inches) on areas
not covered by buildings, structures, or pavement.
g. Kind of cover on areas not covered by buildings,
structures, or pavement.
S. Plans and hydraulic computations for all structural or
nonstructural measures or other protective devices to be
constructed in connection with the proposed work showing:
a. Estimated rate of discharge in cubic feet per second
at all structural or nonstructural measures and, at
the point of discharge from the site location based
upon ten (10) year frequency storm event.
b. The storm event frequency discharge rate in cubic
feet per second upon which the design of plans for
the site location is based.
c. Provisions to carry runoff to the nearest adequate
outlet.
d. Design computations and applicable assumptions for
all structural measures for erosion and sediment
Pollution control and water management. Volume and
velocity of flow must be given for all surface water
conveyance measures and pipe outfalls.
e. Provisions for perpetual maintenance of control
facilities including easements.
f. Seeding mixtures and rates, lime and fertilizer
application rates, and kind and quantity of mulching
for both temporary and permanent vegetative control
measures.
(d) Methods to prevent tracking of soil off the site of the
% `, activity.
-8-
(d) Revicw of Anplication. The Administrative Authority shall 1�
review all permit applications accompanied by the control plan,
if required, and the appropriate fee, and shall determine if
measures are adequate to meet all the applicable standards as
set out in Sec. 37.07 of this ordinance. This determination
shall be done within ten (10) work days from the receipt. The
applicant will be informed in writing whether the control plan
is approved, disapproved, modified or if additional information
is required. Failure to render a written decision within ten
(10) work days shall be deemed to mean approval of the plan, as
submitted, and the applicant may proceed as if a permit has
been issued.
In the event that the plan is disapproved, the applicant
may resubmit a new control plan or may appeal the
Administrative Authority's decision as provided in Sec. 37.11
of this ordinance. No additional permit fee is required.
(5) Permit; Cones, All permits under this ordinance shall be
ssu ies suolect to the following conditions and requirements.
(a) All land disturbances, will be done pursuant to the
approved control plan.
(b) The permittee gives two (2) working days notice in advance
of the start of any activity.
(c) The permittee shall file a notice within ten (10) days
after completion of land disturbing activities.
(d) Approval in writing must be obtained prior to any
modifications to the approved control plan.
(e) The permittee shall be responsible for maintaining all
Proposed to be public roads, road right-of-ways, streets,
runoff and drainage facilities and drainageways as
specified in the approved plan until they are accepted and
become the responsibility of the City.
(f) The permittee shall be responsible at permittee's expense
for repairing any damage to all adjoining surfaces and
drainageways caused by runoff and/or sedimentation
resulting from permittee's activities.
(g) The permittee shall provide and install at permittee's
expense all drainage, runoff control and erosion control
improvements as required by this ordinance and the approved
control plan and shall provide perpetual maintenance on all
these private control facilities.
(h) No portion of the land which is disturbed will he allot:,ed
to remain uncovered for greater than two (2) weeks after
notice is given that the activity is completed.
(i) The permittee agrees to permit the Administrative Authority
to enter onto the land regulated under this ordinance for
the purpose of inspecting for compliance with the approved
control plan and permit;
(j) The permittee authorizes the Administrative Authority to
perform any work or operations necessary to bring the
condition of the lands into conformity with the approved
control plan and further consents to the City collecting
the total of the costs and expenses of such work and
operating is a special charge against the property for
current services rendered as provided by law.
2
•9-
(6) Permit Duration. Permits issued under this ordinance shall be
valid for a period of six (6) months Ercm the date of
issuance. The Administrative Authority is authorized to extend
the expiration date of the permit. The Administrative
Authority is authorized to modify the plans to prevent any
increase in sedimentation, erosion or runoff resulting from any
extension.
37.09 AMINISTRATION.
1) L4Re2ation of Administrative Authority.
a The Assistant Director for Development Assistance shall, in
consultation with the City Engineer, administer, approve
plans and enforce the provisions of this ordinance on
private lands within the City of Madison.
(b) The City Engineer shall administer, approve plans and
enforce the provisions of this ordinance on public lands
and upon request shall review and approve erosion and
runoff control plans for private property in the City of
Madison. `
(c) The City Engineer shall administer, approve plans and
enforce the provisions.of this ordinance on lands being
subdivided by plat or certified survey within the
extraterritorial limits for plat review in accordance with
Wisconsin Statutes 236.10, for Erosion and Runoff Control
including both public lands and private lands.
(2) Administrative Duties. The administration and enforcement of this
` - ordinance, s a inc ude the following duties:
(a) Keep an accurate record of all plan data received, plans
approved, permits issued, inspections made and other
official actions.
(b) Review all plans and permit applications received when
accompanied with the necessary information and the
appropriate fee and issue the permits.
(c) Investigate all complaints made to the application of this
ordinance.
(d) Revoke any permit granted under this ordinance if the
holder of the permit has misrepresented any material fact
in the permit application or plan; or has failed to comply
with the plan as originally approved or as modified in
writing; or has violated any of the other conditions of the
permit as issued to the applicant.
(3) Insncction Authority. The Administrative Authority is
authorized -to -enter any public or private lands affected
by this ordinance to inspect the land prior to permit issuance
for the purpose of determining whether to approve the plan and
after permit issuance to determine compliance with this
ordinance. If permission cannot be received from the owner,
occupant or user, entry shall be according to Secs. 66.122 and
66.123, Wis. Stats.
.10-
' lV
(4) Enforcement Authority. The Administrative Authority is
aut or�a co post a cease and desist order upon land which has
had a permit revoked or to post a cease and desist order upon
land which is currently undergoing any activity in violation of
this ordinance. A copy of each cease and desist order will be
sent to the City Attorney for the City of Madison.
These orders shall specify that the activity must be ceased
or hreught into compliance with the ordinance within seven (7)
days. Any revocation, or cease and desist order shall remain
in effect unless retracted by the Administrative Authority,
Board of Public Works, or by a court of general jurisdiction;
or until the activity is brought into compliance with the
ordinance.
37.10 VIOLATIONS.
1 Penalties. Any person, firm, company or corporation, either
owner or occupant
of the premises, who fails to comply with any
of the provisions
of this ordinance, shall he subject to a
forfeiture of not less than $20 nor more than $200 and costs of
prosecution for each violation. Fich day that a violation
exists or continues shall constitute a separate offense.
(2) Fnforcement b In' unction. Cempliance with the provisions of
t fs orainance may also oe enforced by injurctional order at
the suit of the City of Wison.
(3) Performance of 1Vork by the Administrative Authorit .
a is ere tt is toua tat any of the provisions o this
ordinance are not being observed on particular lands, the
Administrative Authority is hereby authorized to require
the owner, occupant or user to perform the work or land
treatment measures within ten (10) working days and to
order that if the owner, occupant or user fails to perform,
the Administrative Authority may go on the land, and bring
the condition of said lands into conformity with the
requirements of this ordinance, and recover the costs and
expenses thereof from the owner. In the event that the
owner fails to pay the amount due, it shall be collected as
a special charge for current services rendered upon the
property as provided by law.
37.11 APPEALS.
Ti--Authority. The Board of Public Works shall:
a ear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is
error in any order, regirement, decision or determination
made by the Adminstrative Authority in administering this
ordinance.
(b) Authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variances from
the terms of this ordinance as will not be contrary to the
public interest, where owing to special conditions a
literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance
will result in unnecessary hardship, so that the spirit of
this ordinance shall be observed, public safety and welfare
secured, and substantial justice done.
4
if
-11-
(2) Procedure. The rules, procedures, duties and powers of the
oar o Public Works shall apply to appeals under this
ordinance.
(3) Who 5tX A oea1. Appeals may be taken by any person, firm or
corpora uon aggrieved or by any officer, department, board or
conmission of the City of Madison affected by the order,
requirement, decision or determination made by the
Administrative Authority. For the purpose of this ordinance,
'aggrieved person' shall include applicants and property owners
who own land which is subject to the ordinance."
EDITOR'S NOM Second Substitute Ordinance Alternate Al repealing Section
23.45 and creating Chapter 37 of the Madison General Ordinances is one of
three alternates. Only one of the three alternates should be adopted and
the other two should be rejected.
N
GUIDELINES FOR
EROSION AND STORMWATER RUNOFF CONTROL
CHAPTER 37 OF THE MADISON GENERAL ORDINANCE
�1
Prepared by the Department of Planning and Development and the
Division :-,gineering of the City of Madison
The purpose of the "Erosion and Stormwnter Runoff Control" ordinance
is to control and prevent soil erosion and minimize stormwater runoff
increases to preserve the natural resources, control floods, protect
the quality of public waters, protect wildlife and protect and promote
the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the City of
Madison. Your cooperation in the implementation of this new ordinance
is appreciated.
I. ACTIVITIES SUBJECT TO CONTROL PLAN SUBMITTAL
Any owner, occupant or user who undertakes, commences or performs
land disturbing activities, unless specifically exempted by Section 37.04
of the ordinance, shall submit the appropriate control plan according to
the following schedule.
CONTROL PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
A• CHECKLIST AGREEMENT FOR:
1) All land -disturbing activities with an area greater than 4,000
square feet and/or a volume greater than 400 cubic yards up to
one acre.
B. EROSION AND SEDI?ENT CONTROL PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR:
C.
1) All developments, residential or other, over one acre and under
three acres in gross aggregate area.
2) Residential development of three acres or more and under five
acres in gross aggregate area with less than 50% of the area
as impervious surfaces.
3) Any subdivision of land as defined by Ordinance 16.23
SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR:
1) Residential development of five acres or more gross aggregate
area.
2) Residential development of three acres or more gross aggregate
area and more than 50% of the area as impervious surfaces.
3) Da':eiap,icnt, other than restdenciai, having a gross aggregate
area of three acres or more.
4) Any subdivision of land as defined by Ordinance 16.23
5) Any activity the Administrative Authority feels would exceed
the safe capacity of the existing drainage facilities.
V
II. CONTROL PLAN REVIEW AND STANDARDS
A. CHECKLIST AGREc IENT
1) The Checklist Agreement is defined and included as part
of the City of Madison Land Disturbing Activity Permit
Application.
2) The Checklist Agreement shall be reviewed by the
Administrative Authority according to the standards of
Section 37.08(2)(b) of the Ordinance.
B. EROSION AND SEDTNENT CONTROL PLAN
1) The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be reviewed
by the Administrative Authority according to the standards
of Section 37.07(1) of the Ordinance and the established
procedures listed in these guidelines.
2) The
standards for erosion and sediment control shall be
as
a)
follows:
Erosion and sedimentation leaving the site during
'and after the land disturbance shall not exceed '
that which would have been eroded if the land
had been left in its undisturbed state.
b)
Controlled in accordance with established procedures,
including, but not limited to, Minimizing Erosion
in Urbanizing_ Areas or other technical guidelines
as developed by the Dane County Soil and Water
Conservation District in cooperation with the
United State Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service.
3) The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall contain
the information detailed in Section 37.08 (3) of the
Ordinance and listed on page 4 of these guidelines. -
11
-2-
C) ON -SITE DETENTION AND RUNOFF CONTROL PLAN
1) The On -Site Detention and Runoff Control Plan shall be reviewed
by the administrative authority according to Section 37.07(2)
of the Ordinance and the established procedures listed in these
guidelines.
2) The standards for on -site detention and runoff control shall be
as follows:
a) Post -development peak runoff rate shall not exceed pre -
development peak runoff rate for the same ten (10) year
storm event of any duration.
b) On -site detention shall safely contain or pass the runoff
one -hundred (100) year storm of any duration.
3) Acceptable ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES for calculating peak runoff
rates and requireddetention SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:
a) Technical Release No. 55 Urban Storm Hydrology For Sma11
Watersheds by U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service (including
Appendix F).
b) Guide For Use Of TR.55 by SCS. September 1981
c) Urban Stormwater Management Special Report No. 49 by
American Public Works Association.
d) Other up-to-date technical procedures approved by the
City Engineer
4) Recommended CALCULATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
a) . Pre -development Runoff Curve Number of CN = 70 will be the
base CN number for undeveloped land in Madison unless
soil types or existing condition, excluding vegetative
cover, warrant another CN number.
b) Peak Discharges
1) Worksheet TR Notice 55A September 1981 for Chapter 4
of TR-55 is the worksheet best suited for development
of 5 acres or more when less than 60% of the hydraulic
drainage length is modified and/or less than 60%
imperious surface area is proposed.
2) Worksheet TR Notice 55 A September 1981 for Graphical
Time Of Concentration (Tc) is best suited for developments
listed above which exceed either of the 60% conditions.
3) Procedures presented in Chapter 9 of Urban Ltormwater
Management APWA Special Report No. 49 are well suited
to developments less than 5 acres
5) Required DETENTION vOLUMES AND DETENTION ROUTING CALCULATIONS
a) Worksheet TR-55 Stormwater Storage Computation should be
used, whenever applicable, with methods of Chapter 7
TR-55 to determine storage volumes required for 10 year
storms.
b) Other methods, as those presented in TR-55 or in APWA Special
Report No. 49 and found acceptable by the City Engineer may
be used.
c) The outflow control structure must provide emergency spillway
to safely contain or convey storm flows of a 100 year storm.
6) Sample of recommended calculation worksheets are available from City
Engineering Division upon request.
.3-
III.
CONTROL
PLAN CONTENTS
Control plans shall contain such information needed to determine
soil
erosion, sedimentation and runoff control. The
required information
is detailed
in Section 37.08(3) of the Ordinance and
summarized
as
follows:
EROSION -SEDIMENT
DETENTION -RUNOFF
CONTROL PLAN
CONTROL PLAN
A.
PRE-DEVELOR!ENT PAP
1.
Site Map
❑
❑
2.
Predominate Soil Types
❑ .
❑
3.
Topographic Map with a Maximum of Two-
❑
❑
Foot Contour Intervals
4.
Existing Vegetative Cover
❑
❑
5.
Existing Drainage Patterns
❑
❑
6.
Flood Plain Limits, if any
❑
❑
B.
POST
-DEVELOPMENT PAP
1.
Proposed Topography with a Maximum of
❑
❑
Two -Foot Contour Intervals and Proposed
Finished Grade
2.
Location of Land Disturbing Activities,
❑
❑
including Topsoil Stockpiles
3.
Proposed Utilities
❑
❑
4.
liethods to prevent tracking
❑
❑
5.
Paved and Covered Areas
❑
❑
6.
Proposed Soil Surface and Plantings
❑
❑
7.
Proposed Schedule (Phasing) of Development
❑
❑
8.
Seeding Mixtures, Rates and schedules
❑
❑
9.
Construction details of Control Facilities
❑
❑
10.
Maintenance Provisions for Control Facilities
❑
❑
C.
ADDITIONAL PLAN DATA
1.
Hydraulic Calculations and. Detail of All
Structural Measures.
a. Estimated Discharge Each Structure
❑
b. Estimated Discharge from Site
❑
c. Flow Information for All Surface and
Pipe outfalls
1) Volume
❑
2) Velocity
❑
2.
Storm Event Frequency
❑
3.
Provisions to Carry Runoff to Adequate
❑
Downstream System.
Charles R. Dinauer Arnold E. Milkej
Director of Planning and Development City Engineer
-4-
CDETENTION BASIN SYSTEMS
University of Wisconsin - Extension
The Wisconsin Center
Wednesday, May 18, 1983
Registration
Philosophy of Detention Basins
Inflow Hydrographs - SCS
Stage -Storage Curves
Stage -Outflow Curves
Routing Calculations
Thursdav, Mav 19, 1983
Parking Lot Design
Inflow Hydrographs (other methods)
Outlet Structure Hydraulics
Hydro -Brakes
Friday, May 20, 1983
Outlet Structure Hydraulics
Designing on a Watershed Basis
3-1
CHAPTER 3
A PHILOSOPHY FOR DETENTION BASINS
A recent article by Debo and Ruby entitled "Detention Basins - An Urban
Experience" in the January, 1982, issue of Public Works magazine detailed the
problems of detention basins as they have evolved in the Atlanta, Georgia area.
The Atlanta experience is not unlike the experiences of other cities around
the United States. However, rather than allowing these experiences to sour us
on detention basins, let us instead use these recent unhappy experiences to
serve as the basis of a philosophy for detention basins which will ensure that
they will look and function as they were meant to.
We will do this by first reviewing the Debo and Ruby article and then use
it to develop the several parts of a philosophy for detention basins. Their
article discussed six areas of concern:
1. maintenance problems
2. health and safety problems
3. flood control effectiveness
4. esthetics and cost
5. perceptions of nearby residents
6. perceptions of county engineers
Maintenance responsibility of detention basins, which are scattered through-
out the greater Atlanta area, was originally assigned to the adjacent land
owners but recently local jurisdictions have been accepting the responsibility
for maintenance. Several maintenance problems which have arisen are listed below.
1. Many detention basins have been located in remote areas of developments
where access for maintenance is difficult.
�%W'
3-2
/'�'1+i
2. On -site basins have been encouraged which has resulted in large
numbers of small facilities scattered over developments.
3. Detention basins are often designed with steep banks where vegetation
is difficult to establish and maintain.
4. Often outlet structures are very small to limit runoff, but they are
also prone to clogging which results in stagnant pools of water re-
maining for long periods of time.
5. Detention basins become the depository for sediment and urban Litter.
6. Weed control is a major problem, especially in facilities which do
not drain dry after each storm event.
7. Fences and landscaping used to keep children out of the detention
area are often damaged and/or destroyed.
These maintenance problems are the cause of several related health and `
safety problems. �ijs►'
1. Improperly designed and maintained basins, coupled with the clayey
soils of the Atlanta area, results in detained water not percolating
into the ground and pools of water remaining for long periods of time.
2. The stagnant pools and moist ground become ideal places for mosquito
breeding and attract rodents and other posts.
3. Safety becomes a problem, especially in residential areas where the
basins are not visible from homes because of their remote locations.
4. Detention basins are not good places for neighborhood children to play,..
because of their tendency to collect sediment and litter.
5. During storm events, the velocity of water leaving a basin can be
hazardous.
,M
3-3
6. The usual means to protect local residents is to install a fence
around the facility. These fences are often unsightly and prone
to vandalism and many times are as much of a hazard to local children
as the detention basin.
7. Safety is a problem where the banks are steep and the temporary pond
is designed to detain water to great depths.
The flood control effectiveness of detention basins is questionable. The
effects of detention may be identifiable only immediately downstream of a basin.
In some cases the effect is increased flooding from the more frequent storms.
1. The result in many cases is to change the runoff pattern from several
separate pathways of runoff as sheet flow and small channels to one
distinct pathway. While the peak runoff from the watershed may not
have increased, it may now be concentrated in only one channel, a
i
channel which heretofore was carrying a much lesser rate of flow.
2. By installing several detention basins in a single watershed, the
timing of flood discharges will be changed. This change in timing can
result in combining flows downstream from different subwatersheds that
bypassed each other under uncontrolled or natural conditions. The com-
bined flow can create higher peak flows downstream than would have
occurred without the basins.
3. Many of the detention basins installed in the Atlanta area are no
larger than small swimming pools because small on -site basins have
been encouraged. Their effectiveness on downstream flooding is questionable.
4. Because detention basins concentrate runoff into a single flow path and
the runoff downstream extends over a longer period of time, two major
;' erosion problems result. The increased flow in a single channel causes
3-4
i�
the channel to enlarge unless devices are used to protect the channel.
The prolonged duration of flow saturates the banks to a greater extent
and leads to increased streambank erosion.
5. Many facilities that are designed to control only a single storm
event (10- or 100-year) do "Little or nothing to control more frequent
storm events. Many citizens in the Atlanta area are complaining about the
increased frequency of small flood events which the detention basins are
not controlling.
6. Detention facilities are required regardless of what drainage facilities
are located downstream. Thus, there are some detention basins that drain
directly to large lakes with no flooding problems, major rivers where
the amounts of water discharging from the development site is insignificant,
and large undeveloped farm land areas with no apparent flooding problems.
The esthetics and costs of detention basins can be a cause for major concern
to both the developers and their clients, whether they are leasing commerical
space or buying homes.
Detention facilities can take on a park -like appearance and enhance the
esthetic appearance of an area.
2. The more usual case is that these facilities are unsightly and detract
from the general appearance of an area because the facilities are
poorly designed and maintained.
3. The construction cost of on -site detention basins is often relatively
inexpensive.
4. The real cost is in the land which must be used for the facility and t
�o
thus Left undeveloped. In residential areas several building sites 0'rQ fo�
may have to be used, while commercial developments often lose" large �4�
areas of very expensive land.
3-5
5. Costs should be compared to the flood control benefits received
and the extent of flooding problems downstream.
6. Other costs which should also be considered include loss of government
revenues by leaving areas undeveloped, maintenance expenses, and
associated development and construction costs.
A survey of residents in the Atlanta area living adjacent to or downstream
of fifteen small detention basins was made to document some of their perceptions
related to these facilities.
1. Almost half did not know that a detention basin existed in the
immediate area where they lived.
2. Twenty-eight percent indicated that no water accumulated in the
detention area after hard rains.
3. Only 12 percent of the respondents that •lived downstream from detention
i
' basins indicated that the facility had decreased their drainage problems.
4. Five percent felt that the basins had aggrevated local drainage and
flood problems.
5. Most respondents felt the basins were having no effect on drainage and
flooding problems.
:� 6. The problems mentioned most frequently were poor appearance of the
detention basin, silt and trash accumulation, concern for children's
safety, mosquitos, rats, snakes, and foul odors.
7. Seventy percent did not know who was responsible for maintenance, the
rest thought the city or county was responsible. This is somewhat
surprising since most of the basins studied are located on private property
where the responsibility has been given by the counties to adjacent
(/� , property owners.
3-6
Seven county engineers in the Atlanta area were interviewed to determine
their opinions concerning the use of detention basins. Their answers make
interesting reading.
1. All the engineers noted that satisfying the ordinance requirements
is the only reason that most detention facilities are installed,
2. Few, if any, basins are installed to decrease downstream flooding but
instead are "designed" so that downstream flooding will not be increased.
3. All agreed that detention basins should not be required for all develop-
ments. Instead, studies should be conducted and basins required only
where they can be shown to have beneficial effects.
4. They cited maintenance as the most significant_ problem associated with
detention basins. They felt the county should maintain them in resi-
dential areas but the owners should be responsible for commercial property.
5. The most frequent complaints are related•to maintenance, appearance, /
- J
siltations and improper or inadequate facility design.
6. The primary impact of the basins is that while the volume of runoff is
not decreased, the rate of runoff is decreased. However, the engineers
acknowledged that the basins are not functioning as intended to
adequately control downstream flooding.
7. Only in the case of very large developments (20 acres or more) did they
feel the basins had a major positive flood control effect,
This is rather a long litany of problems for anyone considering the use of
detention basins. However, as stated before, rather than allowing the experiences
to sour us on detention basins, let us instead use these negative impacts to serve
as the basis of a philosophy for detention basins which will ensure that they will
look and function as they were meant to. The philosophy encompasses the following
main points.
3-1
1, There are several methods to offset the increased volume and rate of
stormwater runoff caused by development in urbanizing areas, One
method is to temporarily detain the runoff in a detention basin.
If this method is selected, then the facility should be designed,
constructed and maintained so that it not only serves its intended
functions but remains an attractive addition to the local setting
throughout its useful life.
1. Responsibility for basin maintenance must be fixed and adequate resources
(personnel, money, machines) committed to maintenance, If this commit-
ment of responsibility and resources is not made, then the detention
basins should not be constructed. Maintenance responsibility for
basins located in and near residential areas should be given to the
local governmental subdivision: county, city or special district.
1
_i• Basins located in commercial and industrial areas should be maintained
by the owners unless the basin serves several properties. In this case
maintenance responsibility should again be given to the local governmental
body. The only instances in which responsibility should rest with a
private party in residential areas are those involving large homeowners
associations and large apartment complexes where these groups are well
organized, well run, and well financed.
3. If a detention basin looks like a detention basin, it is not the correct
solution for that location. The multiple purpose use of detention �.
basins is a must. The use of land solely for the conveyance or storage
of runoff is to be avoided. Detention basins can take on several forms:
rooftops, parking lots, underground tanks, parks, playgrounds, golf
` courses, athletic fields, ponds, lakes and others. People Should- use
3-g
them re ularly and avoid them,only when they are temporarily storing,
water. People tend to take better care of something they feel they
belong to or believe is theirs.
4. Detention basins should be planned on both a watershed and individual
development basis. Cooperation between local governmental entities
should be encouraged when panning on a watershed basis. The effects
of basin location and size on the timing of peak flows should be
thoroughly documented. These basins should be part of a master drainage
plan for the watershed. These master drainage plans should, in turn,
be integrated with other area and community master plans such as land
use, transportation, recreation and education, with each master plan
having equal status.
5. These master drainage plans would include channels, both natural and
manmade, to convey flows from the 100-year runoff event both to and
away from the detention basins in a watershed.
6. Engineering designs which improve on the effectiveness of the natural
topography and channel system should be encouraged, rather than those
designs which rearrange or obliterate these natural features.
7. Good design and construction will prevent or reduce many maintenance
problems. The sides and bottom of a detention basin should be so con-
structed that it will drain completely after a storm and will be compatible
with the other uses of the basin. The principal outlet structure(s)
should control all recurrence interval events up to and including the
100-year event, must be compatible in design and function with the other
uses of the basin, and should include both trash racks and energy dissi-
pators. Emergency spillways should convey flows from greater than the
3-9
r% 100-year event. These could include earth or concrete channels
and overtopping of the berm or roadway itself.
8. The safety aspects of the detention basin should not be neglected.
There should not be any fences. Side slopes should be mild enough
so that mechanical riding mowing equipment can negotiate them and people
can walk up them during runoff periods. Trash racks and guard rails
should keep people away from the outlet structures. Good design and
maintenance should eliminate or reduce the problems of mosquitos, rodents
and snakes.
9. There should be an equitable sharing of the costs of detention facilities.
Since runoff is generated from every site in a watershed, all owners
should share in the cost of facilities. Equity could include a cost or
a credit depending on how much additional runoff is generated and how
1 much runoff is detained or retained on -site.
10. For maintenance purposes, easements or ownership of the detention basin
p �gaCar•r Y)
site and access roads, if any, ate nec6ssary. Ramps for truck access to
the bottom of the basins are needed as well as suitably sized concrete
pads for a solid footing during maintenance and sediment removal
activities.
r•.
f �
w—i�
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
9 F'�^1 % Regular Meeting
� � May 23, 1983
K s G 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 7:30 PM on May 23, 1983.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilmembers Linke, Hankner, 2. Roll Call
Blanchard, Doty and Mayor McCarty.
ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Meyers, Clerk/
A mina— iNEEr Pauley and Public Works/Community
Development Director Johnson.
Motion/Second: Doty/Blanchard to approve the May 9, 3. Approval of
3I9$ minutes as corrected. Minutes:
May 9, 1983
5 ayes 0 nays
Motion Carrie
Councilmember Hankner updated the Council on recent
action on the airport legislation, by both the
House and the Senate.
Patrick Lehman of TKDA reviewed the bids received 4. Consideration
by the City for the construction of potassium of Report fro•
permangate feed equipment for water treatment TKDA, Inc.
plants No. 2 and 3. He reported the project has Regarding Bid:
a July 15 completion date, which he felt confident for Water Trm
the low bidder could meet. He also reviewed the Plant Mod.
necessity for the work.
Motion/Second: Doty/Hankner to approve the re -
a i nation of Wells 2 and 3, awarding the bid
to A & K Construction, Inc. in the amount not to
exceed $14,828, to be paid out of the water fund,
and authorize the Mayor and Clerk/Administrator
to enter into a contract.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carrie.
Mayor McCarty closed the regular meeting and opened 5. Poppelaars
the first public hearing at 7:42 PM. Conditional
Use Permit an.
Director Johnson briefly reviewed the proposed Rezoning -
development. Public Hearin;
1
Mounds View City Council !! 1 .1 ^yi'1 ?d May 23, 1983
Regular Meeting d MM ' i "` "' ` _ Page Two
-------------------------b1-i-=r'�-i�--� i -- - --------
Councilmember Blanchard reported the Planning Commi-
ssion would like to see the two parcels made into
one.
Mr. Poppelaars stated that if the Council approved
the joining of the two parcels, his attorney would
handle the details.
Mayor McCarty closed the public hearing and reopened
the regular meeting at 7:45 PM.
Motion/Second: Linke/Blanchard to approve the first
rea ing o Ordinance No. 341.
5 ayes 0 nays
Motion/Second: Linke/Blanchard to adopt Resolution
oF_. Imo, —
5 ayes 0 nays
Motion/Second: McCarty/Doty to approve the Consent
Agen a, minus Item E.
5 ayes 0 nays
Mayor McCarty asked that Resolution No. 159' be
read, accepting the resignation of Shirley Buntrock
from the Mounds View Festivities Commission and
commending her for two years of dedicated service
on the commission.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley read Resolution No. 1597.
Motion/Second: Doty/Hankner to approve Resolution
No-f5r177—
5 ayes 0 nays
Mayor McCarty closed the regular meeting and opened
the second public hearing at 7:50 PM. He explained
the process of a public hearing, and stated that
since there were so many citizens who would like
to speak, that while each would be given their turn,
he asked that they not repeat each others comments
but rather state if they agreed with what had already
been said, and had any additional comments to add.
Colleen Olson, 7641 Edgewood Drive, presented the
Council with a petition against the proposed
development, signed by all those who would be
adversely affected. She read a prepared statement
to the Council, stating she was against the
proposed development and would like the area left
residential.
Motion Carried
Motion Carried
6. Approval of
Consent Agenda
Motion Ce—Yd
Motion Carried
7. Leonard Babins
Major Subdivi-
sion Prel. Pla
and Rezoning -
Public Hearing
ViewMounds
CityCouncil`r^ �� y�1 A;��''`a7f �May 23 1983
Regular
---------
------- `"tI Page Three
- --- --------------
Bruce Markwardt, 7635 Edgewood Drive, stated he
agreed with Ms. Olson, and that he had lived there
4k years and wanted to see the area remain residential.
Dave Bjur, 7639 Edgewood Drive, stated he was not
concerned about the additional children because he
is anti -children but right now the neighborhood has
15 children in 11 homes and he felt the proposed
development could add approximately 50 more children.
Dave Olson, 7641 Edgewood Drive, stated he was concerned
about the traffic problem, as one child had already
been run over by a car, as well as there is a problem
with the cars traveling too fast.
Mike Anderson, 7628 Greenfield Avenue, stated he lives
next to the lot for the proposed development and he
would like to see a single family home built there.
Robert Winne, 7656 Greenfield Avenue, stated he is
against the proposal because of the traffic and
parking problems already experienced.
Wes Johnson, 7630 Greenfield Avenue, presented the
Council with pictures of the parking on the street
in the neighborhood and explained some of the problems
they have been having. He stated he is concerned
with more apartment buildings going in, as they will
be creating an island for the 11 residential homes,
and they will be cut off from the rest of the resi-
dential area in the City.
Cheryl Johnson, 7630 Greenfield Avenue, stated there
is a serious traffic problem during the winter already,
with so much parking on the street that the plows have
trouble getting through. She added that there is a
problem also with children from the existing rental
property coming into all their yards to play.
Helen Gould, 7643 Edgcwood, stated slip. had reviewed
a copy of minutes from 1976, when a public hearing was
held on the rezoning of the property, and that since
then, four single family homes have been built and
have all sold. She stated she would like to see the
area remain residential.
Bob O'Neil, 7644 Greenfield, stated he agreed with
comments made already and that he wished to see it
remain single family,
Dave Williams, 7625 Edgewood, stated he agreed with the
comments made so far, and asked the Council to consider,
if they decide to pass the proposal, to come out and
�- appraise the homes in the area, as a single family area,
and then come again and appraise them with the apartments,
and see if the developer is willing to pay the difference
to the property owners.
■.!
Mounds View City Council May 23, 1983
----------
Regular Meeting JA11"ROVED Page Pour
----------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Olson stated she had reviewed Planning Commission
minutes and did not find any comments or acknowledge-
ments that this would be going next to a single family
home, and asked why the residents were never notified
when the item was before the Planning Commission.
Mayor McCarty replied that the law requires the City
Council to conduct public hearings, and that in the
past they have always tried to notify the effected
property owners at the Planning Commission level, and
they will try to insure it happens from now on.
Planning Commissioner Josey Warren stated that many
members of the Planning Commission felt it should
happen, but that notices haven't been sent out since
she became a member. She explained for those present
the procedure the Planning Commission follows in
reviewing proposed developments.
Mayor McCarty advised anyone interested to come in
and read the Housing Plan portion of the Comprehensive
Plan.
It was questioned if transitional zoning had been con-
sidered, with Ms. Olson, Ms. Gould and Mr. Johnson
speaking against it, stating they want the area to
remain single family.
Mr. Markwardt stated he was concerned with the proposed
apartments, that since he has seen many vacancy signs
in Mounds View, and if these were not fully occupied,
he could envision them becoming run-down.
Ms. Warren stated the Planning Commission was very
concerned with the parking situation, in reviewing the
proposed development, and felt there should be some
resolution to the problem, which is City wide, but they
felt it would have to be handled at the Council level.
Mayor McCarty asked that the Planning Commission check
into it first.
Ms. Olson stated they would be dealing with transient
people, who often do not have pride in their residence
or neighborhood.
Mr. Johnson stated that he is also a landlord, and that
while he personally keeps his rental property acceptable,
he does not take care of it with the same pride and
effort he does to his own home, as it is rental property,
and he is into it for the financial gain.
Mr. Olson stated he was concerned with the parking situ- I
ation from the Bel Rae Ballroom, as there is already a
problem for blocks around when they have an event going
on,
rn
OD
Mounds View Cit Council ^"� ;; , LL• ��ay May 23 1983
Regular Meetingy $4 9 90 JE Page Five
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Meyers advised that if the Council has been
fully informed of the development, it would be per-
mitted to now have the developer give his side of
the proposal.
Larry Malmin and Richard Van Sickle, of Van Sickle,
Allan, reviewed the proposed development, showing the
blueprint of the project.
Mayor McCarty asked if any study had been done on the
potential impact of value for the existing home owners,
and asked if the developer would be willing to indem-
nify the City against lawsuits from home owners.
Mr. Malmin stated he was not certain if any study had
been done, and that while he could not speak for the
developer, he did not feel he would be willing to
indemnify the City against lawsuits.
Mr. O'Neil stated that he had noticed at the four plex
across the street that the people park on the street,
rather than in the parking lot, which creates a
problem. It was also noted that these renters have
as many possessions as home owners, such as boats
and trailers and campers and so forth, which they
must find some place to park, as well as a place for
their cars. It was also noted that their garages are
often used totally for storage, rather than the parking
of vehicles.
Ms. Warren stated the Planning Commission takes into
consideration the amount of green space available
for snow storage.
Mr. Johnson stated he was concerned with traffic and
the inpact of the vehicles to be parked. He stated
he did not feel the minimum requirements were
sufficient.
Ms. Olson stated she did not feel the 8 trees shown
on the blueprint were sufficient for buffering the
residential area. Mr. Van Sickle stated he believed
the developer would be willing to put more trees in
if it was felt they were needed.
The resident who has the wood pile on the developers
land stated lie would be willing to move the pile
upon request.
Ernie Gustafson, owner of the property in question,
stated that in dealing with the developer, they
had discussed how to screen the residents, and had
proposed a 6' redwood fence, as well as other options.
Mounds View City Council p 0Iln'i 4� y 3, 1983
Regular Meeting t I:y;;.�O: -� Page Six
,� � � May 2
-------------------------is"..---.-. '-------�--- -----
Mr. Gustufson informed the residents he has been
paying taxes on the properly for over 40 years,
and they have been increasing $5,000 to $6,000 each
year, and it is to the point where he cannot afford
to keep up with the taxes. He stated he felt the
residents property was devalued already when they
purchased it, with the apartment buildings already
present. He added that the proposed development
will be pleasing in appearance.
Mr. Gustufson SLaLed Lhis was the fifth time he has
come before the City to try and develop the property,
but had been turned down each time because of the
residents complaints. Ile presented examples of how
the residents in the area have been using his property,
and asked for the right to use his own property.
Mayor McCarty asked if the property was R-1 when Mr.
Gustufson purchased it. Mr. Gustufson replied he
purchased it 40 years ago, and it was just one solid
piece of ground at that time, and that he put in his
own road. He added he did not ask to have the
property zoned to R-1, and that the Council did that
of their own authority, and that while he did not
protest it at that time, there was no objective to
it then.
Mr. Gustufson stated he had recently been discussing
the sale of the property to a residential developer,
but after viewing the type of home the developer
built, felt the four plexes would be of a much higher
quality.
Several of the residents replied to Mr. Gustufson,
stating they would prefer to see him sell to the
residential developer, as the opportunity was there.
They also expressed concern with pride in ownership.
James Carter, 7660 Greenfield, stated he has had a
problem with garbage in the neighborhood and people
litering, as well as problems with no privacy, and
the apartment residents and children coming into
his back yard, which is fenced. He stated he is
opposed to the development as there are enough
transient people already that they have to deal
with. He also stated there is a parking problem.
Mayor McCarty closed the public hearing and reopened
the regular meeting at 9:08 PM.
Attorney Meyers advised that the Council can consi-
der the items that have been brought up, and that
if additional parking problems would be created,
they could be taken into consideration, as well
as the reliance of the people based on the current
Mounds View City Council May 23, 1983
Regular MeetingS 10. Page Seven
ikl.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
zoning, for any increase in traffic that would occur
over and above the permitted use. He stated there
is evidence of an adverse effect on single family
dwellings, and they should take into consideration
the nature of the neighborhood now and the existing
use of the abutting property, and they can take
into consideration the transient nature of renters, but not
race, color, creed or economic status. He advised
that if the proposal and rezoning is granted, they
could put into the development agreement that the
parking lots be kept clear in the winter, and back
it up by a bond, which would be carried down to any
future owners. He added that the screening with
trees could be coverbd for a reasonable time for
replacement. He also advised the courts are not
concerned with the profit a developer might make.
Attorney Meyers also advised that the Comp Plan
designation should be used as a guide only, and
that whatever the correct zoning is would control
the use, and that to adopt the proposal would re-
quire a 4/5 vote.
Councilmember Blanchard asked if there was any
room for compromise between the developer and
residents, and suggested tabling action if there
is a possibility of compromise.
Mayor McCarty stated that in reference to the
Comp Plan, it is not to be viewed as a hard and
fact outline of the community, but that they
are dealing with guidelines. He stated that
there seem to be some continuing problems with
parking, snow plowing and garbage and so forth,
which can be dealt with. However, there is
a problem with the compatibility with the
surrounding neighborhood. He stated he felt it
is nA nl inning to do transitinnal v.nning, and
go... , - ...._..o
that they could maintain the neighborhood as
R-1, for some distance, and then allow the
higher zoning toward the Bel Rae Ballroom.
Attorney Meyers advised the item could be tabled,
but there would be a logistics problem, as everyone
involved would have to be notified again for further
discussion and action.
Motion/Second: to
McCarty/Linke to deny the plat as
presented, th the reasons for denial based upon
the existing zoning, Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 40 of
the Municipal Code, and further, to table the
Babinski proposal and rerefer it to the Planning
Commission for further disposition, taking into
consideration transitional zoning.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carrie(
Mounds View City -Council- Q", k ��' T �`•r yc� May 9 3
Regular Meeting �: " M 23 1 8
t
' � � ' p u Page Eight
---------------- -------��--i�--------- -- `--------g---------
Councilmember Linke stated he felt Pour-plexes
against R-1 would not be desirable and that he would
like to see transitional zoning. Ile also asked that is
a tot lot be considered for the development.
Councilmember Blanchard stated she felt the proposal
is high density but there is room for compromise,
and she hopes something can come out of it.
Councilmembers Hankner and Doty stated they both
agreed with Councilmembers Linke and Blanchard.
Mayor McCarty stated this is a very close neighborhood
and it may be to their advantage to appoint two or
three people to act as spokesmen for the group in
further meetings with the City.
Councilmember Hankner left the meeting at 9:27 PM.
Mayor McCarty closed the regular meeting and opened 8. Norb Yenish,
the third public hearing at 9:45 PM, Motel Dvlpt.,
Major Sub.
There were no residents present concerned with the Preliminary
proposed development. Plat - Public
Mayor McCarty closed the public hearing and reopened Hearing
�
the regular meeting at 9:45 PM.
Motion/Second: Linke/Blanchard to approve Resolution
fd67TUFF, —approving the preliminary plat for Programmed
Land, Inc.
4 ayes D nays Motion Carried
Mayor McCarty closed the regular meeting and opened 9. Hanson/Dalberg
the fourth public hearing at 9:46 PM. Rezoning -
Clerk/Administrator Pauley explained the Counc}1 Public Hearing
had had the first reading of Ordinance No. 339 at
the May 9 meeting.
Mr. Dalberg stated he is requesting that the north lot be rezoned to
be R-3, and the south lot be rezoned to R-2.
Director Johnson explained that on May 18, the
Planning Commission met and discussed the proposal
in detail, and forwarded on Resolution 78-83, and
that they will take formal action at their first
meeting of June, on June 1.
There was discussion on what the Council was to
consider tonight and what the Planning Commission
will be discussing and what their intent is.
TDMounds View City Council U�..�+ l u May 23, 1983
Regular Meeting Page Nine
------------••-------------------------------------------------------
Clerk/Administrator Pauley explained that hearing
notices had been sent out, informing people that it
was for rezoning from R-1 to R-2 and/or R-3.
Mark Baxter stated he was the neighbor living next
door to Mr. Hanson and asked for the status of the
development.
Mr. Dalberg stated that the direction from the Planning
Commission was that they would approve R-3 on the north
lot, and R-2 on the south lot, and take official action
on June 1.
Mayor McCarty reviewed the action taken to date for
Mr. Baxter.
Mayor McCarty closed the public hearing and reopened
the regular meeting at 10:05 PM.
Motion/Second: McCarty/Blanchard to approve Ordinance
5_77TT, amending the legal description to refer only
to the south lot, rezoning it from R-1 to R-2, and
adding a Section II for the north lot to rezone it from
R-1 to R-3.
Councilmember Linke - aye
Councilmember Blanchard - aye
Councilmember Doty - aye
Mayor McCarty - aye
Motion/Second: McCarty/Blanchard that the City Council
approve Resolution No. 1613, approving the subdivision
for Case 123-83, creating 3 lots, with 100' frontage
on the south lot, 130' frontage on the north lot, on
Silver Lake Road, with the lot fronting Groveland
Road remaining at 83'frontage, with the depth of the
lots fronting Silver Lake Road to be 201.6' and
the lot fronting Groveland Road to be 216.6'.
4 ayes 0 nays
Director Johnson stated Mr. Dalberg must come back
with the site plan, and have the development agree-
ment executed.
There were no residents requests or comments from
the floor,
Director Johnson reviewed the history of the
proposed development, and stated it was his
understand the Council may choose to have a
public hearing for a conditional use permit.
Motion Carrie(
Motion Carriec.
10, Residents Re-
quests and
Comments from
the Floor
11. Consideration
of Planning
Comm, Recommen
dation and
Rslt. No. 1608
for Mr. Donut
Mounds View City Council N
May 23, 1983Regular Meeting-_t- - - Page Ten
----------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Meyers advised that Director Johnson was
correct in his understanding. There was discussion
among the Council if anyone would be left out by
not holding a public hearing.
Motion/Second: Linke/Doty to approve Resolution
No.
4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
The Council directed Clerk/Administrator Paulcy 12. Consideration
and Staff to draw up a resolution regulating of Staff Memo
the activity, for consideration at the next Regarding Pro
agenda session, including having two uniformed Women's Wrestl
police officers present, the promotor remit
$100 in advance as a license for each evening,
all beer setups and other refreshments dispensed
in paper cups, and the premises to be closed by
12:00 Midnight.
Director Johnson asked approval to hire a part- 13. Report of
time public works person. Director of
Public Works/
Motion/Second: McCarty/Doty to approve the Community -alp
Firing o Brian Peterson for the Department of r
Public Works, for 100 days, at $5.00 per hour,
to be paid from the sewer department.
4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Director Johnson advised that the building at
7900 Edgewood Drive appears to be abandoned,
and that in checking, they have found it un-
secured and have issued the required legal
notices, and asked for Council authorization
to proceed at the end of 10 days to secure
the vacant building.
Attorney Meyers reviewed the laws concerning
unsecured buildings.
Motion/Second: Linke/Blanchard to authorize
to to secure the building at 7900 Edgewood
Drive, pursuant to the provisions under
Minnesota Statute 463.251, wherein the building
is vacant and unoccupied and is deemed hazardous
due to the fact that the building is open to
trespassers and has not been secured, and the
building could be made secure, and that any
costs incurred should be assessed to the
property, 4
4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
' Mounds View City Council r" J 73
Regular Meeting------------- N-/'---Tp-r
---------------
Director Johnson stated he would be reporting on the
status of the storm water management plan and his
seminar in Madison at the June 6 agenda session.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley stated that Mr. Donut
needs the City seal on two legal documents for the
splitting of their two lots.
Mr. Welch explained they had a minor subdivision
Brooks, which was approved by both the Planning
Commission and City Council, and the subdivision
has been done but it was not recorded at the County
offices.
Attorney Meyers advised Mr. Welch to come in for a
closer review of the documents.
May 23, 1983
PageEleven
-
Attorney Meyers reported that it appears the Legis- 14. Report of
lature has tightened up the DWI laws, and reviewed Attorney
the changes made.
Councilmember Linke reported he had attended the 15. Reports of
Ramsey County League meeting last Wednesday and Councilmember:
gave the highlights of the presentation on
volunteerism. He also reported the watershed
issue was discussed, and the League is asking
the Rice Creek Watershed District to attend the
August meeting, to discuss the item.
Councilmember Linke reported he had attended
the May 18 Planning Commission meeting and
discussed the traffic signal at Pleasant View
and Highway 10, and that the residents present
were opposed, so he has notified both Spring
Lake Park and the State that the meeting was
held and there was opposition.
Councilmember Linke reported he is now working
out of his home, until his new employer locates
an office for him, so will be reachable during
the day at his home phone number.
Councilmember Blanchard reported she had attended
the May 18 Planning Commission meeting and that
most of what was discussed there has already been
brought up this evening.
Councilmember Blanchard presented a check to Mayor
McCarty as a donation from the family of Melvin
Sinderson, in his memory. Mayor McCarty thanked
Councilmember Blanchard and her family.
Councilmember Doty had no report.
Mounds View City Council v fl '.7%,b7l r',� k8i" May 23, 1983
Regular Meeting ' f' ' '" �" Page Twelve
------------------------ U--- - €_��t_��_��.5-' :- - ----------------
Mayor McCarty reported he had attended a meeting at
the Edgewood Community Center regarding enrichment
class offerings. tie reported the congregate dining
program is having a problem in transporting senior
citizens to and from its meals and asked Staff to
check into the transportation problem and see if
the City could help in some way.
Mayor McCarty reported the City had received a
certificate last week from the Jaycees, stating
their appreciation for the City letting them
hold their haunted house at City Hall. He
explained the funds are used to help retarded
citizens. Mayor McCarty read the award.
I
Clerk/Administrator Pauley asked if any Council- 16. Report of
members planned on attending the AMM annual dinner Clerk/Admini-
on May 26. Mayor McCarty replied that he planned strator
on attending.
Motion/Second: Doty/Linke to adjourn the meeting
at PM.
4 ayes 0 nays
17. Adjournment
Respectfully submitted,
Donald F. Pauley
Clerk/Administrator
Motion Cayfd
t1