Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1983/12/08CITY COUNCIL 14EETIIIG CITY 01 MOUNUS VILW December 12, 1983 7:30 P.m. 11 G E N D. A 1, Call to Order 2. Roll Call - Doty, Lilike , Hankner, Blanchard, McCarty 3, Approval of Minutes: November 14, 1983 (Regular Meeting) November 29, 1983 (Regular Meeting) (Received copies of above minutes in 12/5/83 packet.) 4, Public Hearings 7:40 P.oi. Rezoning of Property Located at 5084 Long Lake Road from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 Single and Two Family Residential ce 1.a0 P 01 Rep ealingoChapters n40 a2 Adoption and 43and Adopting a New Chapter 40 Entitled, "Zoning Code" ( 5, Residents Request and Comments from the Floor ------------------ ---------------- CITIZENS BULORNAMEEANDIIADDRESSEFORvTHEV14INUTES ------------------------------------------------- 6. Approval of Consent Agenda ITEM A. Approve Resolution No. 1691for2394 Authorizing isissuance of an Occupancy ITEIi B. Approve Resolution No. 1685 for the Reapportionment of Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, programmet ofnSignedond Addition, Conditioned Upon Receip Agreement from the Property Owner Accepting the Reapportionment ITEM C. Set Bid Opening Date for Wednesday, December 21, 1983, at 10:30 a.m. for the Purchase of One 1984 Tractor with Attachments -continued- AGENDA December 12, 1963 Page Two 6. Approval of Consent Agenda (cont,) ITEM D. Set Public Hearing for Rezoning of Property Located al. !i461i Ad,ims Street from R-1 Single family Residential to R-2 Single and Two Fanil,y Residential for December 27, 1963 at 7:40 p.m. ITEi4 E. Licenses for Approval ITEM F. Approve Resolution tlo. 1690 Approving Just and Correct Claims Against City Funds 7. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance NO. 350 Amending Chapter 46 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Entitled, "Wetland Zoning Ordinance" 3. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 352 Amending the Municipal Code of Mounds View by Repealing Chapter 40 Entitled, "Zoning", and Chapter 43 Entitled, "Mobile Homes", and Adopting a New Chapter 40 Entitled, "Zoning" 9. Consideration of Staff Memorandum and Correspondence from North Suburban Cable Communications Commission 10. Consideration of Application from Richard and Marlene Povlitzki for Transfer of Anchor Inn Liquor License 11. Consideration of Staff Memorandum and Resolution No. 1692 Requesting 25 Percent of the Total Annual Allocation for the Municipal State Aid Streets Fund for Maintenance Purposes 12. Report of Director of Public Works/Community Development 13. Report of Attorney 14. Report of Councilmembers - Doty, Linke, Hankner, Blanchard, McCarty 15. Report of Administrator 16. Adjournment b CMENU TO: Clerk-AdminisLrator and City Council FROM: Engineering/Pianuing 'ruclwician DATE: December 8, 1983 SUBJECT: JOANN CIIAIKA RKLONTNG PUBLIC HEARING Attached please find the following information regarding the proposed rezoning of 5084 Long Lake Road: 1. Staff Report 2. original Building Permit 3, Planning Commission Resolution (Minutes of the December 7, 1983 Planning Commission meeting were not available at the time this packet was distributed.) You should have in your possession copies of the letter sent to you by Ms. Chaika in addition to the memo from myself dated November 3, 1983 and the memo from Administrator Pauley dated November 8, 1983. Both of these memos should state staff's position regarding this rezoning request. ' One item which must be strongly emphasized and noted is a comment Ms. Chaika made at the November 16, 1983 Planning Commission workshop meeting. She stated that she had spoken to the V.A. loan inspector and he is agreeing that the inclusion of a kitchen will not be a requirement for approval of the loan. In other words, the V.A. will approve the loan without a second kitchen being added. This is a reverse of the loan inspector's previous decision that no loan will be issued if a kitchen is not constructed. With this in mind, Ms. Chaika should not be "out" any funds for construction which has already taken place should a rezoning to R-2 not be approved. It was Ms. Chaika's concern that, since construction has already started on a portion of her home, she would not be able to pay for this construction without the loan if the loan was conditioned on a rezoning. This is now not the case. According to her state- ment at the Planning Commission meeting she will still receive the loan minus the kitchen if that is what is required by the City. Iler intent from the onset was to offset and help pay for the construction loan by renting out her upstairs as a separate unit. Without a rezoning she would not be able to do this. Without a rezoning other members of her household would have to share common kitchen facilities. `• ,Should you have any questions regarding this item, please contact b:e. CJK/bc STAFF REPORT ,�^ � C►ty �' Mounds V�� PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP REVIEW DATE: Novi-mber 16, P H:1 AGENDA ITEM NO: 3 I CASE NO: 1-1q-131 [[[�/ APPLICANT: JoAnn Chaika PROPOSED REQUEST: Applicant roquost.s to remodel existing single family home t.n ,idd a kitchen to the upper story for purposes of renting to one ol:her person. An additional kitchen facility constitutes another living unit/tamily thereby the request for R-2 (2 family) zoning. LOCATION OF RFOOFST: 084 Long fake Road SITE SIZE: 15,84O square feel. (approximately) 0 LOT DEPTH AND WIDTH: 120 foot by 132 feet (approximately) EXISTING ZONING: R-1, Single Family OP4 CONTIGUOUS LAND USE: North, east, south and west all R-1, Single Family W CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN: Yes. Two family dwellings are considered low density residential M ZONING CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Yes. R-2 zoning is considered low density residential STAFF RAPORT PAGE TWO OP Two CASE: 1,14-113 PLANNING CONS INNItATIONS 1. Scr attached 1 tlor from tho 11,plir;,nY to members of tho City Council rletaiIinrl the silit mt. ion. 2. Section 40.0 2, Snbd. 13(411 states I: lie riufinitioil of "family" as one (1) or more persons each relaters to the other by blood, marriage or adoption or a group of not more khan four (4) persons not all so related, together with their domestic servants or graLuitous guesl.s, maintaining a common household and using common cookiligand kitchen faciliLir.s. The applicant I requesting a separate conking and kiilchen facility, therefore, this would constitute another [amity unit in the building, thus, requiring a zoning of R-2. 3. Section 40.U2, Subd. B(38) staLes that a dweLling unit is a residential accommodation includin c2_ ompinte kitchen facilities, lermanent' ice, which are arranged, designed, used or tnntenced for use exclusively as living quarters for one family and not more than an aggregate of two (2) ronmers or borders. Each residential accoimnndation with complete, permanently installed kitchen facilities constitutes a dwelling unit. The applicant is adding, by definition, a second dwelling unit to the home. ' 4. Section 40.10, Subd. CM allows the hoarding or renting of roums Lu not. uun a Lhan „liv ( I ) l.vrson. The applicant could rent part of her home to one parson with no zoning change if a kitchen facility were not installed. If a kitchen facility is installed, this is adding another dwelling unit and an R-2 zoning would be required. 5. The property meets frontage and square footage requirements for an R-2 dwelling. 6. The proposed use does conforms to the City Comprehenisve Plan which denotes the area as being low density residential. V II <w.•r Ir7f, ;9 •Nj1 n cl 1 ' Aw I �.� • ... ,.n.. .u..I M,Y•Sr' irt,l .. r;.:. ...�l. l.,r.�._9. �,�1.1y..'.__.�J-Ju, ... .. .,--r..._•-. •11 � i.. ���L, •� ^ �.J 1 IMI ..e x b• W...y 1 \ rI i' 1 wt�w .n Y+a rrua rol ii I I \ i I vvrwnlY YM.M1 ! I•: d, ''ter I ��7�. J I II I 'f�wnam: �-*�. "F..�-'�•, .Jv'.� un.i_..Y'.y.,d �39.. �::. ?I... � , �d �'.'�n.o.,�.-7 j�,.'L�.. f �a` J �� � �-r�•'1 `T-. \M.i1� b=nv.��c_ Y-Vt.'Lj Y¢a=yeaay.mWnt .wll ,w � •M � fi si �• _�A_I I \•.� - xl• Ywixlw \ SITE of PRop05ED REZONsNcn 'REQUE.E;T ApPLIGAW-r �OA�Q C.t{AIICA LOG A" ioN `jp$G` LON(q LAKE KOAD rY� 011li(�5 3 1 r,fmil ISO. 017Y OF MOUNDS VIEW _A_L-)I �, BUILDING Af-PUC AI I N ),� / - � L (. /\ � F numhPrfd eCeCHT: r/I• i� �.�L�U(Ipfj� \hlFirlP n �w�•.rr.n•,.rr •+�eveZ�ll. s' �.:.3L7Jw'fC: d:G.�..L•"C'��-CtIi�QPf� • M1 r, 3 •Pfn RN DHH.ee mn .Do.U+ I,U+IP ••D+t Q lap n 5 Class of work: ❑NEW LVADDITION DALTERATION RREPAIn ❑MOVE :IIEMOVE a 6 OeeDlbe work: ; Y 1 i - n, it 'l.il(l\: DY / h�;:,i7•('t/:+., In ,f. •;r':.�I. , •.. :+. �) ,�+, _ 1 , w�'I t.__ I ri n( ri • F,:�.�1__+� d .I _.-.__•t. :r.;•,/ � Ch•nge of uee [IBM —�--1 `� nn rhengeRlulttB � ec" rllii•:• ' / ( li�iul,N ,P .!.IJ -t:•7LT,J{� _•r�ryTl)I^ _—_— „ 7 VilustlanIIIwail.S Ir em Dtt:,duvy •' J I �/• �: (i( Canl GInuP Umuon 5.1N el Biat Nn nI Mi. NOTICE ;TKNR so FI Snnn Ou Law �THE PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUE TION AUTHORI2CO IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 120 DAYS. OR F•r+ us ZnnN L°•t F,H SDHnLNH Reouuea ❑vH ❑Na IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED •I FOR A PERIOD OF 120 DAYS AT ANY TIMF AFTER WORK IS —'-- —' Nn �•I UFISTREET PARKING SPACES COMMENCED. D.m.ae U,R+ Cn""d I uI•rovene I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 1 HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS nPPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND COR nECT. ut' W um Lot ,e ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND OIIDINANL ES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH wNEi1gR SPEC If IED Hrt•. HEREIN On NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PE RANT DOES NOT Pn L.uCeC COVE V LATE R EL _ SP•ea16+: o+nvaB I Rrnu,nd Ren,vetl Nm R..•,,,..A PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAID CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF C ZOlI I1eG-- � HEALTH OCPT Lri..rW10I tOnrL•ItP, P, •uruPalD •f Nl FIRE DEPT SOIL REPORT OTHER ISDIC-10 I:i^. ;::_C•1'•O.nl•N•nPIP���SPECIAL CONDITIONS TO APPLICANT PLEAT. ee CLIMPORTANT SEPERATE PERMITS REQUIRED PLUMBING q...uc.uaHEATING, VENTILATING�eT�u-,7o-13I OR AIR CONDITIONING M I YT(�-• ELECTRICAL N BLACKTOPPING CONTRACTORS LICENSE yes no err SEWER II rr WATERO— PERMIT FEE S p THIS IS AN APPLICATION ONLY PLAN CHECK FEE _ p e" L THE PERMIT 47ILI, BE ISSUED AFTER _ SURCHARGE �- - s.DM.cllnncE —_ RL•'VIEWAL OF THE APPLICATION. TOTALFEE i� • ii�o•$�' l'l 3o `� Long Lake Road Irondale Road Bona Road Edgewood rrive 0 2.0 0 0 < 0 ni ma o 1X 11 (o U) -i-K- 0 �3 Fin - • 1V n�`� Ol - T I L. ►�W 3n N - - 0 O 'WN !� . ft i. y N M..Ir min .\..l �.�.. .... .... .. ....J 31 � ,ram..-.. ot,r�o r---- , r IF.p v (t (•�( 4'• IF U /I N �I _, -.r--r yI ,, W WHf tI..I.N •.�. .IDo i%+►"(11 91RONDALE �P J71 SIN Iry N N N NullfCfvl ytv Li vm O O - (•3 W 77. �—_�-m IT,N� I"1 I I• N ttJ fil s _IL11E; .a'4,&.eu7 .—_._. ItTris — ---. z 0 r1 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RI;SOLII'I'ION NO. 99-83 (:1'I'Y OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RECOMMENDATION TO 'fill, CITY COIINCTI. REGARDING PLANNING CASE 144-8 WHEREAS, JoAnn Chaika, owner of property located at 5084 Long Lake Road, has submitted an application to rezone this property from R-1, Sing Le Family Residential to R-2, Single and Two Family Residential; and WHEREAS, the rezoning is necessary due to the applicant's desire to construct a second kitchen fa(- in her existing single. family home which constitutes, by definition, another dwelling unit, thus requiring an R-2 zoning; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has received and reviewed the staff planning report and other relev,int material regarding this application; and WHEREAS, the entire area surrounding this property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential; and WHEREAS, a rezoning of this parcelof land to R-2 would be ^n=idarpd snot zoning which, according to the publication �." V,,, �imnar entitled, "Local and Regional Planning in Mi,000asO, .., Isberg, is defined as the rezoning of a single parcel of land or a relatively small area for higher intensity use than .Land surrounding the particular parcel of land; and WHFRFAS, the City has consistantly denied any rezonings which constitute spot zoning; and WHEREAS, a rezoning of this property from R-1 to R-2 would set a precedent whereby other property presently zoned R-1, Single Family may request rezoning to R-2, which may seriously weaken the integrity of the R-1 zoning; NOW, THEREFORE:, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the request to rezone the property at 5084 Long Lake Road from the L exising R-1, Single Family zone to R-2, Single. and Two Family �,./ Residential zone be denied; RRSOLUTION NO. 99-83 PAGE TWO BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of its minutes. .1"I'Rti'f (SEAL) Adopted this 7th day of December, 1983. chairman Director or Public Works/ Community Development j 7:50P.vh 14EMO TO: Clerk-Achn.in.istrator and City Council FROM: Engineering/Planning Technician DATE: December 8, 1983 SUBJECT: ZONING CODE PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE 2ND READING Attached please find two pages for insertion into your Code books which reflect a revision to the R-3 and I3-3 sections of the Code. A new item (1) under Subdivision B in both sections was added to allow lower zoning uses (R-1/R-2 and B-1/B-2) within R-3 and B-3 zones, respectively. This sentence was emitted in previous copies of the Code and at the December 7, 1983 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended these sentences be included for your adoption. If you have any questions on these revisions or any other Zoning Code related item, please contact me and I will by happy to discuss it with you. PJK/bc 4n.12 rc-3, MXDIlIM DENSITY RRSIOENTrA1. DISTRTCT. Solid. A hu11n:__. I'hc purpose OF the It••i, I•h>diunl Density Itesidon- i.ial Ilislr N is to prnvido lnr nuvlinm doll"it:y hnesing in multiple lamily O ruct"rum ranging up In and including six (6) units and dirouLly MOM, complumentary uses. Suhd. R The following are permitted uses in an R-3 District.: (I) All pimmirlod uses allnwod in an It-2 Di:tri_t, (2) Multiple family dwelling structures containing six (6) or less dwelling units. (3) Rnarding house:; a; dofined in Section 40.02, Wild, Il (tl) and (4) and IimiLod to not more than eight; (B) persons. (=Il Boarding (house) home - fnsl;or children: Restricted to children nut. of their own homes, ages sixtunn 116) V"ars or Illl+h`r, or ill Ow oan'! of Illelll :ll 1.4tardal'lon ago rwonLy-nne (21) or umlor, are cared for Lwenf.y-four (24) hours a day for a period of thirty (30) days. The number to be caked for in one (1) toster child boarding �. (hoeno) iumuo shall notoxceed five (5), including the tnet•.r tnmlIYlr own children. 0 (5) Day care huulu: Restricted Lo a family dwelling in which faster care, supervision and training Fro - children of school or pro -school age out of their own home in provided during part of a day (loss than - 52A - (20) Tnsnran ve sale:. (21) Liquor, off -sale. (? ) Lock smi16. (21) Moat nark.pr hnC not inr.Lud:ng processing for n locker Plant. (24) Medical and dental officas and clinics. f1�)-Pairt-and-xa}}paper-sa}ea: (25) Plumbing, television, radio, electrical sales and such repair as are necessary use to the retail establish- mcnts permitted within this district. (2b) Public otitlty collection offices. (27) Rea! estate sales. (28) Shoe Repair. Subd. C Tile following are, perwILLed accessory uses fit a IS 2 Distri.ot: (1) All permitted accessory uses as allowed in a ii-i District. Suhd. D The following aro rnaditionaI n::es In a 8-2 DIsU'ict: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures ::el: forth In and rcl;ala[cd by Section 40.25 of this Code.) (l) Covernmunril ;and public Utility buildings and struc- turus necessary for tha health, safety and general. welfare of the romnnnity provided tilat: a. Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is maintained and required setbacks and side yard requirements are met. b. 8qulpment is completely enclosed in a permanent structure with na outside storage. c. Adequate screening from neighboring uses and land- scaping is provided in accordance. with Section 40.04, Solid. it of this Code. d. The provisions of Section 40.25, Solid. A(5) of this Code are considered and satisfactorily met. (2) Commercial planned unit development as required by Section 40.24 of this Code. (3) Solar energy and wind Kene ra [or s wind unerator structures f40.04 40.111 8-3, IIItTIIWAY 811SINUS DISTRICT and solar and ;tubd. A Purpnso. 'I'lo• luu';I•,•:,• It Ih1• I:-S, Ilif!hway Pur•ino::a I,i:IPrl IS I.'I 1)r.IVid" I ,r .11111 limil III, - SUM. It The following arc pernlittud use•:: in a 1'.-1 District.: (l) All pl+rmiCtrrl uses as al- lnwr_d in a--k-2 Limited Business — -- ----�—!_ District. -. (2) AmusumcnL cooLurs. (3) Auto eccr.^SM-y sl•nrns. (4) ('onnnercial r-ucreational uses. (5) Grocer : L)rt.'S' ,u x:rmarkutn. (6) Motels, nlntnr hotels and hotels provided that: I:he lot aria I:ontains nol: less than five Emdred (500) square fr1•t d 1,11 +unn 1 r1•1. unit. (7) Motor- w•hicle and recreation r!rluipnlent" sales and yarayos tccossory thereto. (it) I)rivalo club, or lodges serving fond and beverages with use being restricted to members and their guests. Afdvquatf� dining room, kitchen and bar space must be provided according to standards imposed upon similar unresLricl.ed cusLomer operations. The serving of alcoholic beverages to mmnber.s and their guests shall be allowed, provided that such service is in compliant with appticable f:ederat, state, and municipal regula- t.inns. olfires of such use shall he limited I-o no mot than twenty (20) percent of the gross floor area of the huiIII iny. (9) Rental stores. ( 0) n�staurailLs, afes, tca ..,.., •.c, sale liquor. (11) RI s, carpPt, tile,-eainl: and wal.lpape.r sales. (12) 'Taxi terminals, stands and offices. subd. c The following are permitted accessory uses in a B-3 District: (1) All permitted accessory uses as allowed in a B-2 Limited Business District. E Subd. D The following are conditional uses in a I3-3 District: (R(!quiruS a conditional use, permit based upon procedures set forth in and roqulnted by Section 40.25 of this Code.) 11) Drive-in .Ind convenience. Lood establishment provided that: a. 'rho architoctural appearance and funct"ionaL plan of the building and site, shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impair- ment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. — 13 i CONSENT AGENDA December 12, 1983 The Consent Agenda is a technique designid 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. Adopt Resolution No. 1691 - Authorizing Issuance of an Occupancy Permit for 2394 Highway 10 ITEM B. Adopt Resolution No. 1685 - For the Reapportionment of Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Programmed Land, Second Addition, Conditioned Upon Receipt of Signed Agreement from the Property Owner Accepting the Reapportionment ITEM C. Set Bid Opening Date for Wednesday, December 21, 1983, at 10:30 a.m. for the Purchase of One 1984 Tractor with Attachments ITEM D. Set Public Hearing for Rezoning of Property Located at 5468 Adams Street from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 Single and Two Family Residential for December 27, 1983 at 7:40 p.m. ITEM E. Licenses for Approval Amusement Devices - Expire December 31, 1984 Fritz Vending Brooks & Tom Thumb N 543) - Renewal Hanson Distributing (7-11) - Renewal Mermaid Cocktail Lounge Renewal Bally's Aladdin's Castle - Renewal Auto Sales - Expire December 31, 1984 Mid American Auto - Renewal Bowling Alley - Expire December 31, 1984 Mermaid Cocktail Lounge - Renewal Gasoline Stations - Expire December 31, 1984 Mounds View Food Shop - Renewal Long Lake 66 Service - Renewal Mounds View K Service (Kunz Oil) - Renewal Highway 10 K (Kdnz Oil) - Renewal Brooks Superette - Renewal Clark Oil & Refining - Renewal -continued- AGENDA December 12, 1983 Page Two ITEM E. Licenses for Approval (cont.) Malt Liqyour/Off Sale - Expire December 31, 1984 Droo.ks Superette - Renewal Country Club Market - Renewal 1-11 Store - Renewal Tom Thumb d543 - Renewal Fedors Market - Renewal Tom Thumb 0110 - Renewal Malt Liquor/On Sale . Expire December 31, 1984 Bel -Rae Ballroom - Renewal Masonry - Expire June 30, 1984 Demarre Masonry - New ITEM F Adopt Resolution No. 1690 - Approving Just and Correct Claims Against City Funds 00 RESOLUTTON NO. 169.1 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR 2394 HIGHWAY 10 WHEREAS, the Developers (Scott Builders, Inc.) have completed the Mr. Donut building and site at 2394 Highway 10; and WHEREAS, temporary occupancy was granted by the City on October 10, 1.983 contingent upon approval by Rico Creak Watershed District; and WHEREAS, final review and approval by Rice Creek Water- shed District may not be given for another 30 to 60 days; and WHEREAS, the Developers need to secure and finalize loan commitments for the building on or before December 15, 1983; and �^ WHEREAS, the Developers are under the commitment of Devulopment Agreement No. 83-58 for completion and approvals (i.e., Rice Creek Watershed District); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council. of the City of Mounds View hereby authorize the issuance of an occupancy permit for 2394 Highway 10, withholding release of the development agreement and security unitl Rice Creek Water- shed District approval is given. Adopted this 12th day of December, 1983. ATTEST: (SEAL) 0 Mayor Clerk -Administrator RESOLUTION N 1685 -^. EYTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROUNDS VIEW HELD ON Inge in: Auditor's No. 1005 Notion by: WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution of the City Council of Mounds View, adopted , the Special Assessments for the Construction of Auditor's Ns. J were levied against the attached list of described properties, said list made a part herein: And WHEREAS, The above mentioned properties have been conveyed or replatted and are described according to the attached list, and said list made a part herein: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of Mounds View, that the assessments for Auditor's No. lnnF against the heretofore mentioned properties be correctly certified to the Auditor of Ramsey County for further collection in the amount stated on the attached list, said list made a part herein. Seconded by COUNTY OF RAMSEY CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW Ayes I, the undersigned being the duly qualified City Clerk of said City DO HEREBY CERTIFY That I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of Minutes of a meeting of the City Council of sadd City held on 19 at p.m. with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete transcript therefrom insofar as the same relates to the changing of the assessments for Auditor's No. 1005 because of the conveyance of/or replatting of certain properties. 19 (SEAL) WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of Clerk, City of Mounds View RusoluLiun Number: 1685 Uate: Division Nw:bcr: 58302 i Name of Assessment: Sanitary Sewer and Plater Improvement 1969-4 Auditor's Number: 1005 Data Processing Number: 85 Original Assessment (A) Parcel 59-59500-020-03 Swr. PLq. 284.92 $ 3,538.70 Programmed Land 1sL Addition SLr. I•T(I. 284.92 1,384.72 1411 2, Iiluck 3 Arca Carew Properties, Inc. Swr. Serv. 295.21 'Pol:al Swr. Imp. $ 5,218.63 '1'0'1'AL UIUWNAL ASSESSMENT $ 5,218.63 Apportionment (1) Parcel 59-59510-010-01 Area 97,422 $ 2,4U6.57 Prugr.mm:ed Laud 2nd AddiLiun Swr. Surv. Nouc Lot 1, Block 1 Carew Properties, Inc. Total Imp. $ 2,406.57 (2) Parcel 59-59510-020-01 Area 1U1,886 $ 2,516.85 Programmed Lind 2nd Addition Swr. Sorv. 295.21 Lot 2, Block 1 Carew Properties, Inc. Total Swr. Imp. $ 2,812.06 TOTAL AnnOnTICNEM ASME'SSMVMT < 5,218.63 0 RESOLUTION # 1685 �. EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE. CITY OF POUNDS VIEW HELD ON Change in: Auditor's No. 1408 Motion by: WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution of the City Council of Mounds View, adopted , the Special Assessments for the Construction of Auditor's No. 14V6 , were levied against the attached list of described properties, said list made a part herein: And WHEREAS, The above mentioned properties have been conveyed or replatted and are described according to the attached list, and said list made a part herein: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of mounds View, that the assessments for Auditor's No. 1408 against the heretofore mentioned properties be correctly certified to the Auditor of Ramsey County for further collection in the amount stated on the attached list, said list made a part herein. Seconded by Ayes COUNTY OF RAMSEY CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW I, the undersigned being the duly qualified City Clerk of said City DO HEREBY CERTIFY That I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of Minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City held on 19 at M. with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete transcript therefrom insofar as the same relates -to the changing of the assessments for Auditor's No. 1408 because of the conveyance of/or replatting of certain properties. 19 (SEAL) WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of Clerk, City of mounds View lann,lul I,vl Ikllnbl'I I Ir,e11 ll.11nl Olvll,luo Humburl 58302 - I1, Illlr „1 A111111911Ih'nll I )II 1'1'I'I IIIIprIIVI mIPnI I971•1, 1111,111'.1 ''I 11,Iollo•I I HIM U.IIJ I.1 ,p ,-,'-111'I 111111Iboll 'GI III I,1IILII A.I:a•YIIoww I'll I II' "I 'rl-',n',nu-n,'u•n I 1IU , I 1 I, ,41•I,'I,' i 2,998.711 Il"I, ,11o1m'd 1•nP1 I',I llililll lull i;IIII. :;wt, :7h1,92 1,984.47 lul. 21 muck J ;ilr, l'nWll. ,'.I14,'1 5,U85.82 1;,11'nW 11101)ul'Ll.gll, 1w Total IInP, $ 10,069.07 n'17,1, nul' IIUII. A:.I Lr•cV11.R'I' $ 10,069.07 AllulLio'l L 111 1'.111 1,1',I-I")1,I1)-010-01 Al'va')7,oM! $ 4,921.77 11In,lromid Lull .-u,l AddllInn ----- LuL I, Uluck 1 Carves Proput'Llao, Inc, Total Imp, $ 4,921.7.1 (2) I'arcul Ci'1-5')SIU-a211-01 Arvn 101,HUG $ 5!147.30 Prograllunud Laud :nd Addlllall WL !, Mock I Cnrllw Propart1Un, IIIC. 7 Total Imp. $ 5,147.30 'JYYu.L MTONTIONl�1 A°I 5...." 10,00.07 J 690 17 413 17416 35,794.40 18238 18249 40,273.96 112596 12674 32o740.47 all. 1-v:871vo11 01:11. 1.11C. J:jj.. Vj(!Vj inw: "rcl AT:,:-;;T: CHECK 17413 17414 17415 17416 ADDTTTONAL DIRECT EXPENDITURES AMOUNT CLAIPWNT PURPOSE $ 2,160.00 Systems Research Associates RCCM-Prof. Services 30,190.55 First State Bank of N. B. Payroll 2,943.85 Group Health Plan, Inc. Insurance 500.00 U. S. Postmaster 'Postage $35,794.40 rCiTY OF M:Utn, vir6 A C O l N t P A Y i 6 L E Cti'EK* A M 0 Ln T CL iAli: 1:'-1:-6.1 FaG 1• 6 - r 1 300.95 CITY OF FPIJL*Y CELLELI!EI; i1kE: AGCYS • 26,717.56 FIRST STATE E4AK CF SAL-SIES, S GLLAF AF.c-S�LWES,IEPt,PA+T TPE �f At•C-CYEfTlPE, REELLAR 2928E,86 STATE TREAS - F E c p FFNSICNS Q 2,154.30 STATE TPEASUPE6 FENSIin: 750.J0 LEANN LInUER FkOGFah INSIFLLTG�5 8L.30 FIDELITY ANO GLARA M CFOLF INSLRANCE • 113.33 LMCI1 hrALTH FFOT FLAN GFCLF M LRANCE. 7.80 PENNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE G60UF INSIRANEE 59000,00 KLP.HAIU CEFOSITS—CE% ESCP'k 160.00 UNIVERSITY OF hINNESOTA CCNFERENCES _ E99.00 SYSTEMS RC SEARCH ASSOC CIf:ER FFCFESSIONAL SERYoj 'i 8.99 CITY OF POUNDS VIEM P1SC OFFICE SLPFLIES 409273.96 NECESSARY EXFE1,O11LRES SINCE L=ST COUNCIL hEET1NG_ _.j.___- �I I CITY OF MCU!0. VICh A C C C T a A Y 4 2 L E L=1C 1L•1: Ee P9. 2 CH' CK° A M 0 U t• T C L A I N A N I F L F F C S C ��• I012596 __ 012597 012:98 0 12 599 012E00 012 to 012602 012EO3 012E04 012605 012 EO6 _ 012E07 012E08 _-012E09 012E10 C12E11 012E12 012613 01ZEi4 012E15 012E16 012E17 012ELe 41530.J0 CARL F AhOERSEN + ASSOC 19498.6C CAPITAL cLECTRCNICS 39E•.25 CC�'PUIE.x CENTFAL 440.9C CONTFACT CLEANING 20.25 CYS hENS hcAF 391.15 OATA OCCUHENTS 1,208.43 04TA OFESATICNlif INC. 5C.09 FIRST STATE SANK CF 18.50 FOUR PY FOUR 128.09 GOPHER ELECTRIC 67.50 GREAT SKATE. 8EE.57 PAWKINS LhcMICAL lK 112.50 J C ALIC SLPPLY 71.51 HARRY FE1NERT 29598.75 JOHN C JCh..NSCN 110.85 LCNG LAKE 66 11.50 METRE FCNE CCMM 3136E.00 METRO WASTE COhTRCL CG+F 33.y0 HIOLANU Fr000CTh 57.38 MIGWEST ASFHALT CCFF 172.80 M,PLS STAR + TRIBUNE 52.00 MINN FIRE INC 841.90 N W BELL TELEPHONE GO ECUIFhEhT RFP., ELM + GROUNQS RISC CFFICE SLFFLTES SLFPl1ES, ELOCS+6=1405 00-JANITCF SERVICc 01FCRRS + CLCTF.[hG FFINTIhG CCNT. SVCS., KEY PUNCH LTFEF FFCFESSIO M SERV SLFFLIES, VEHICLE SLPPLIES, ELOCS+GFNOS PFOGRAP IhST�LGIOFS SLFPLIES,CPERFTINL' SLFPLIES, LTILITIES ANC-SLFFLIES, VEHICLEJt _ AhC-SLFFLIES, EGUIPNENT SIATICNE6I CIHEF FRCFESS10AL SERV ANO-ACMIN. CHARGES FAVAELE MCTOR FUELS + LLOFICANIS %IIIIII• C.PhtNICATICNE-TELEPHCNE E F L N C _LPI'Lle:,ll^.rtA(IN6 I•.,I� �., r(.PAIFS, STFEE% A[VERTISDEM SLPPLIES,CPERATINC CCMHLhICATIONE-IcLEFhCNE CITY OF MCUNUS VIER A C C C U N T S P A Y 4 F. L E CATS 1i-1: E: PA.. 4 • CHFCKw A M O U h T C L A I M 4 N T F U F F C '. 0 12 C19 1L7.cI GCNALC FAULEY GCNFCFENC(S ANC -MILEAGE. 01?620 259.ti0 PPECISION CUS SY51 INC SLFFLIES,(FiRATING 012E21 13h.56 ;AMSEY CCUNII IFt.ASL'RLT: fefAIFS, lTIL11Ii : , ' O1Z622 75.25 ROAD RUNNEF FARCLI SER G(NT. SVU'S., CELIVEkY :` 012623 120.00 PAMELA S ROSE SALARIES,TEPF+PART TIME 1;• 012624 7.19 ^CSF.CALE CHEI'FLLCT SIFFLIES, VEHICLE �., C 012625 47.U5 5 + T OFFICE FFODUCTS. HISC CfFI(E SIPFlIES 012626 65.84 F+PY SAAAICN CCNfEFENCCS Ii 012627 c 2�.73 c SNYJrPS CFLG S1C=.E_ SLFPLIESICFE6411" --- %` 012E28 24.00 ST MARIE SHEET METAL INC SLFPLIES, ELOGS+GFN@S 012629 214.50 ST PALL CISPATCy ACVERTISEMEt.TS '' 012630 116.60 ST PALL RENT ALL FENTAL, EGUIFPENI _. ____- J G12631 I30.00 1 + S TROPHIES SLFPLIES,CFERATING - u 012632 477.U0 TErGAS INVENiCFY Ile i OiZG33 48.50 H R TOLL CCHFANY SUFFL]ES,CFEFAT]NG -. Awn. cL ccl (cc. Fr.+t TPMFN-T "} 012E34 118.00 TOOL WAkEHCUSE INC SLPPLIES, ECUIPMENT "' 012E35 69.44 UNITOG RENTALS SYSTEM GNIFCnMS CLCTI+1nG 'r 012636 303.25 VAN PAPER COMPANY SLPFLIES,CFERATINC �. ANC-SUFFLIES, HLOGS#GRNCS 012637 E2.06 VENSURG TII'E CC bLFPL1ES, ECJ!FNE4T " • 1� T+ C12E38 66.110 HALTERS DISPOSAL SERVICE EFFUSE C(LLECIICN ........ — . �a 012639 3,454.41 CITY OF WHITE EEAR LAKE SALAFIES, 4EGLLAk f+>� I; ANC-SALAFI:'.•fL?F,PAR1 IIlE_____,a, ,p AND -PENSION' r I; �+ ANO-WCRKEh. iri:i ,4TICN '�' - :� ,i F r • 'IF ITY CF ICUNI-j VIEM ACC C u a i F C Y! t L E [lTL' 1..-;r•; Fc. i Cni:CY,u A M 0 U i, T C L � i 11 4 !, 1 F U ; F C I� 012E40 12.20 KILCCX FAFIR CCMPAhY FJyi.0 SLFFLIE% 012E41 140.00 NOOOCRAF7ER SIGNS F. 71!LF FACFESIONAL SEFY [�) r 'L C12642 22.50 THOMAS C .'UCE.^ C1hEk FRCFLSSIONAL SEFY •;i { tii { 012643 31.15 SiSA'. i FGU', CIFEF FRCFLSSICN•:. SI'iV i 012E44 182.50 Ckc hob'. G1hcF fRCFF.fSICI,., I, YY, Y L 012E45 10.15 PAUL JChh',(h, CIFFF F+CF:SS)LF,i ': oV J;i } 012646 80.00 JANES NCALLISTER CIHEF FCCFE .1, Cr.i V �+ ���i.. - 012E47 122.50 LYNNE MITCFELL-BECKER CIhEF FFCFESSi:.' V +'. 012648 22.50 LISA N 6IE HCPLIN CIHL4 F.;CFISSV 012E49 1LE. U CANA PCMEFLEAU FFCGRAf ID:I i:li Ilt.. 012E50 495.38 SEARS, RCEEUCK + CO ECUIFNENI 112651 1E1.07 ROBINSON COACH INC SLFPL ICE CF;r,,:II 012L52 14.21 OURKFA•;IS MISC CFFI(E S..FFLI: S �. 012653 28,00 SERCC LAEGFATORILS SLFPLIESrCPER41IN6 _•_�) 012E54 19052.00 DAWSON CCNSTRUCTI0 REPAIRS, L11LI7;iF oil G12655 it973.76 IKGA CThF.F FFCFLSS.i,1•AL SLFY. 1!� Oi2E56 187.50 KEN LELM C1HEF FRCFE`_ 10N L :I:RV__ ::._• � 012657 3.50 EONA YOUNG F E F L N C 012658 288.GO CATERI14G KITCHEN GFANTS t SUSICI; 012659 5.CO MARY ktlkuw F E F L N C ". 012E60 5.00 JUNE SORGE F E F C N C 612Eb1 5.80 ENMA CSSLh'SKIE R E F L N 012662 1.3.t9 PIPS PG-FFTSON F E F L h •;� 4 012663 35.'b CON STREICI•EP, GUNS INC SLFPL:ES„r:ntFl! : �3� 1 012664 19.00 NFS THORSON F E F L N C .;— CFLCK+ ANCur T C L-i KAe I 012665 3,325.00 COF:PCaATE FIEK HAhALEri' ,) 012E66 11.57 PEAR AL IC SEAVICE tCLIf t' 012667 71.00 FUQBl OEhltl 012668 104,46 HV JOhNS1OR CULVrAI CO ;Y :y 012E69 30.00 RLSSELL K[IFEF 012E70 35.00 C14NE b F I � E N t` 012EII 30.00 LOUISE NE;[AHL C12E72 750.00 xctl 012E73 4C.00 OUANE I'ERHARK 012E74 43,94 UNITEC ELFFLI COr4 1. .�� 79 329740.47 CHECKS %BITTEN TOTAL OF 91 CHECKS TOTAL 73t014.45 1� Y� C1HE� FnC`i_:.:lt;l. SEAV •; rEfA1�St t F;,, [I,C-SLFFLI :., .f, iIILS �FFLACE REPAIFS, LIILIII:'; REFLKZS i •' LEFGEIIS- cl:l:f - (';AGE hFfLACE .is SLFPLItS REFUACS --_ _��:•�� __ � ELFFLIEE, M, - :T �" - 0 ORDINANCE. NO. 150 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 48 OF TDE MUUNUS ViRW MUNICIPAI, CODE ENTITLED, "WETLAND ZONING ORDTNANCK" The City Council of the. City of Mounds View does hereby ordain: SECTION I. The wetland zoning district map as established in 48.15, Subdivision I of the Municipal Code, is hereby amended by removing Wetiand I.U. No. 1-22 from the wetlnnd zoning district map. SECTION 11. 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 29th day of November, 1983. Read and passed by the Council of the City of Mounds View this day of November, 1983. ATTEST: Mayor (SEAT.) Clcr: Adnini::trntor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ty Attorney I ORDINANCE NO. 352 Ti CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY f ` STATE' OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE' AMENDING TltE NIIN11'II'AL CODE OF MOUNDS VIE4I BY REPEALING CHAPTER 40 ENTITLED, ZONING" AND CHAPTER 43 ENTITLED, "MOBILE IIOMES" AND ADOPTING A NLW CHAPTER 40 ENTITLED, "ZONING" The Council of. I:he CiLy of Mounds Viaw dnes hereby ordain: SECTION I. Chapter 40 entitled, "'Zoning" is hereby repealed. SECTION II. Chapter 43 entitled, "Mobile Homes" is hereby repoaIed. SECTION III. The new Chapter 40, entitled, "Zoning", a copy of which is attached, is hereby adopted. SECTION 1V. This ordinance shall Lake effect thirLy days after the dal:e of its publication. Read by the Council of the City of Mounds View the 29th day of November, 1983. Read and passed by the, Council of the City of. Mounds View on this day of , 1983. ATTEST: (SEAL) Clerk-Admi n is tra for —� APPROVED AS To FORM: City Atrnrney--- a MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council ' ( FROM: Clerk -Administrator DATE: December 8, 1983 V SUBJECT: 1983-84 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE NORTH SUBURBAN CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMTSSION At the Agenda Session on December 5, 1983 you received copies of correspondence from Roger Franke, Cable Administrator for the North Suburban Cable Communications Commission, outlining the Commission's response to our concerns that the contributions made by the City of Mounds View to the Commission will be reimbursed through franchise fees or other means. Mr. Franke's letter outlines several clauses in the franchise which provide guarantees by which Group W accepts responsibility for costs incurred by the municipalities for the oversight of the franchise. Also included with this letter is a copy of a communi- cation between the North Suburban Cable Communications Commission and Group W requesting reimbursement of 1983 contributions made by six of the ten member municipalities pursuant to provisions of the franchise agreement. staff feels that after reviewing this information and discussing the matter with our Cable Commission representative, Jerry Skelly, the Attorney for the Cable Commission, and Mr. Franke that the City can be assured that our interests will be and are being protected by the Cable Commission and that appro- priate guarantees are provided to protect us from loses. It should also bu poinLed out that should we not contri.buLe to the operations of the Cable Commission per our agreement with them we will no longer be a voting member of the Commission and become subject to administering the Mounds View portion of the Cable TV Franchise on our own. As you are aware, at the present time, the Cable Commission anti Group W have ontered into some very signi- ficant discussions regarding the provisions of the franchise and the construction of the system. It is the opinion of this staff member that Mounds View is ill prepared to enforce the provisions of the franchise against a major national corporation having unlimited resources and our interests are better protected by maintaining alliance with the nine other municipalities belonging to the Conunissiou where numbers can be to our benefit. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council authorize payment of the 1983 and 1984 contributions to the North Suburban Cable Communications Commission per the attached Resolution No..1678. DFP/pf Attachment RESOLUTION NO. 1678 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW , COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE' OP MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE NORTU SUBURBAN CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WHEREAS, the North Suburban Cable Com unicaLions Commission, which the City of Mounds View is a member of, represents the ten northern Ramsey County communities in the administration of a cable T.V. franchise with Group W Cable; and WHEREAS, the NorLh Suburban Cable Communications Commission has requested a contribution for the fourth quarter of 1983 in the amount of $2,587.50 and a 1984 contribution in the amount of $10,350.00 as an advance on the franchise fees to be paid to the City of Mounds View by Group W Cable; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of L•he City of Mounds View to insure the continued operation of the North Suburban Cable Communi- cations Commission to oversee the construction of the cable T.V. system and operation of local access programming. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by L•ho City Council of the City of Mounds View that the payment of a fourth quarter 1983 contribution in the amount of $2,587.50 to the North Suburban Cable Communications Commission is authorized for immediate payment, with said monies coming from the 1983 Contingency account. BE I1' FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Mounds View's 1984 Budget is amended to include a revenue line item for cable T.V. franchising fees in the amount of $10,350.00 and an expenditure line item under the Advisory Commissions account in a similar amount,and that a contribution in the amount of $10,350.00 for calendar year 1984 is authorized to be made to the North Suburban Cable Communica- L•ions Commission between January 1 and January 15, 1984,to be paid from the aforementioned line item in the Advisory Commission account of the General Fund. ATTEST: (SEAL) Adopted this 12th day of December, 1983. Mayor Clerk -Administrator —� :)MT: -�ITINCT :MAN 10VOTON !;I I.a:; I, , wi ul :.11 . 1"VI i I ZA i !a'Jj'o!; , i:; hu tl:;v 1.11i I'i' ]w hi I lit, ' ipi': !.:v -'i III i'lwr I 1 (.1-11 :t-. ','It ilavtt it d 10 :;1-11 ; jj'j!; 1::::tA Il,.11 t i I 41; (a l"rh wuninj am! ISUMQU. ion an GO MOIL Wr j!; rygirf. but ,I,,I,tr :d a al.i.1 ivaL ion. MIN CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW APPLICATION 1.011 011-SALE 111TOY.ICAT11;G Ll1 luk I.R.HiSE c This fm•nl was prepared by the hlinnesola Bureau of Criminal Ap- prehension, Department of Public Safety, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, 1916, SocLlun 340.13, for purpn;os of background in- vcsligaliun. It does noL supersede any laws, rules or regula- tions of the Division of Hquor Control regarding the issuance of liquor licenses. Failure to provide iufm7nation requested may result in donial of the application. trade name llccusing perlad ---. 1. Type of Application: Now IJ Renewal Lt name o app scant date if appliFddo qy- phunu, Uii%incss LJ Transfer Phone, home c �I ) >tonie��ress -I y slate 4 J�, . 3G atd-e of birth place 'of LlTrrh /t 11 11 5, — Lccj Y- IUi�itl.,L-LLL-0 /ILIA address of business location 3 �,, p{- uroplN77: n 1AWO. 'r4, L'. 36, rr.c''� tv L, lrryal dr.,r.ripLioncFLi.l"/// of 5•lpJ, I/`/ -fS.cBJe'c7 1 G' neon) or — _ ---------- -......... 7. Sunday liquor sales: yes-s�- no Seating capacity:_ eo ©. List owners of building or promise to be licensed: ;I�' 1!1e 16✓11Ilk I 10. List all partners, officers or directors, if corporation: name address date of birth 11. If this is a transfer application give; nano:, address, of persons, parUlrship or corporation holding license for the past year. 12. Who owns the tavern fixtures? " t,, 1et�. f11u��.� ab'�- r;a� 13. What vending or mechanical amusement device company has or will have machines on the licensed premise? 14. Are you a Minnesota resident? Yes F1 No from to If not, where resident: _ dates of residency 15. Have you ever been convicted of violating Federal, State or Local liquor laws and/or regulations? Yes 0 No if yes explain fully on separate sheet of paper. 16. Applicant, and his associates in this application, will strictly comply with all the Laws of the State of Minnesota governing the taxation and the sale of intox- icating liquor; rules and regulations promulgated by the Liquor Control Commis- sioner; and all ordinances of the municipality; and I hereby certify that 1 have read the foregoing questions and that the answers to said questions are true of my own knowledge. 1 further understand that an investigation fee not to exceed $500.00 shall be charged an applicant by the city or county if the investigation is conducted within the state, or the cost not to exceed $10,000.00 if the inves- tigation is required outside the state. fV ez. Signature of pp t tt Subscribed and swor-nn to before me this a —day of _�c _19 d', 'dJll :l 4 notary pu tc 14y commis Sion, oxpires 1' A TO: Clerk -Administrator Pauley 1: Pill ice Chief OA E: Oecamher 7, 1983 RE: I. IQIIOR I AW V IOI AT 101i'� AT I'OVI. 1171.1' S iitl lil Our rnrords indicated that Richard Povlitzki possesed an inlgxicati,ui liquor license, from Motor °..t, llu-gugh Iloceuiher 19tt7. Iluriuq Lhal. time Richard Povlitzki was not charged Icy Mounds Vier police eiith any violations of the liquor laws statues. According to Our rneoran, Our ,nlice nevarl.menl. did not receiv(! any reports of alleged violations of liquor laws during the time Richard povlitzki possessed the above license. i', MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development DATE: December 7, 1.983 SUBJECT: REQUEST TO USE 25 PERCENT OF THE 1984 M.S.A. FUNDS FOR MAINTENANCE PURPOSES Attached is Resolution No. 1692 which formally requests from the Minnesota Department of 'Transportation utilization of up to 25 percent of the 1984 annual allocation for Municipal State Aid streets to be used for maintenance purposes. The Municipal State Aid manual, Section 5-892.505, provides for municipalities to make this request for increase in maintenance monies if they agree to submit at the end of the year a detailed annual maintenance expenditure report. This report consists of docu- menting that the monies allocated for maintenance were in fact used on the M.S.A. street system. This can be simply accomplished by allocating the routine maintenance costs such as street lights, street sweeping and snow plowing on a per mile or per square yard basis to the M.S.A. accounts. Using the numbers estimated in the 1984 budget, the proration for the M.S.N. sections of our roads in the City would amount to $12,378.81. This in excess of the �. approximately $10,000.00 received in 1983 and doesn't allow for such things as the repair and seal coat work that would be done in 1984 plus the cleaning and maintaining of storm sewer systems suiving the M.S.A. road sections. This request will require the City monitor an account,on a more specific basis, the costs that it actual incurs in maintaining those sections of the M.S.A. street system within the community. This can be readily done within the Finance and Accounting Department with assistance of the Public Works Department indicating which items from which accounts are spent or utilized on the M.S.A. street system. It is estimated that in 1984, the allocation to the City of Mounds View will be approximately $160,000.00. Twenty-five percent of this amount is $40,000.00. After deduction of $12,400.00 for routine maintenance items, this would leave a balance of approx- imately $27,600.00 for use in storm sewer cleaning and street repair and overlay work. The $27,600.00 would allow resurfacing in excess of 1,200 lineal feet of street that is 44 feet wide. This would go a long ways towards meeting our repair needs within the M.S.A. street system. As seen by the numbers contained in Resolution No. 1692, over 60 percent of the M.S.A. streets in Mounds View have bean paved to what would be considered full width and over 80 percent were built prior to 1967. These two factors indicate that the very significant Mayor and City Council ` December 7, 1983 Page Two proportion of the system has functioned well for over 16 years. Out with the Design life of most pavements ranging between 15 and 20 years, the time to begin implementing a major maintenance program is at hand. Also aLLachud is a copy of the annual certification of mileagu form which will be submitted to the Department of Transportation by December 15, 1983. Please note that there has been no change in the mileage classifications si.ncu 1.982. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 1692 and authorize staff to forward said resolution along with the annual certification of mileage to the Minnesota Department of Transportation. JCJ/bc Attachments RESOLUTION NO. 1692 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSIiY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION REQUESTING 25 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL ANNUAL ALLOCATION FOR THE MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREETS FUND FOR MAINTENANCE PURPOSES WIII:REAS, the CiLy or Mounds View has 7.06 miles of certified municipal state aid streets; and WHEREAS, 6.81 miles nr 96 percent are improved; and WHEREAS, 4.47 miles or 63.3 percent have paved width of at least 44 feet; and WHEREAS, 5.76 miles or 81.6 percent were built in 1967 or before; and WHEREAS, routine maintenance for the M.S.A. streets in question for 1984 is anticipated to exceed $12,000.00, and WHEREAS, the M.S.A. street system is beginning to show signs of structural distress requiring major maintenance; NOW, THEREFORR, BE IT RRSOLVEn by the. City COUnCil of the City of Mounds View that the City of Mounds View request allocation of up Lo 25 Percent of it0 1984 Mu!:_ripal Rhahp Aid Streets funds for major maintenance purusant to State Aid Manual 5-892.505; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Mounds View agrees to file a detailed annual maintenance expenditure report at the end of each year; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds View directs that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Commissioner of Transportation. ATTEST: (SEAL) Adopted this 12th day of December, 1982. iqa—yo-i ----------------- L'lork-Administral:ir- ... " t"' . C'. I ANNUAL CERTIFICATION OF MILEAGE 1. trunk Highways 2. County State Aid Highways 3. Co. Municipal State -Aid Streets 4, Municipal State -Aid Streets 5. County Roads 6. Other Local Roads and Streets 7. Total Improved Mileage i;lunici! gage Revinons bunny Mumcipge as of Dec. 19-a-z Curent Year (4 or -1 as of Dec. 1 a / eb A ,� I II III IV c.iS '.8l 7.06 S. ZS w L .39 25.3 Previous= 147841 V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII 1.62 s zo 6.8Z 7.1 7.M 0•ZS 6.9r 7.06 i 39 Z539 Adjustment= I+ or -) u MAXIMUM STATE -AID MILEAGE COMPUTATIONS B. Trunk Highways (Line 1, Column XI). 9. County State -Aid Highways (Line 2, Column XI). 10. County Municipal State -Aid Streets (Line 3, Column XI). 11. Total Deductions (Total of Lines 8, 9 and 10 above). 12. Basic Mileage For Computation (Line 7, Column XI, Minus Line 11). 13. Percentage Limitation, 14. MAXIMUM MILES ALLOWED FOR M.S.A.S. DESIGNATIONS 15. Total Municipal State -Aid Street Designations (Column XII - Line 3 Plus Line 4) 16. Total Miles of T.H. Turnhacks Included In Line 15 17. Municipal State -Aid Street Mileage tier/Under Maximum Allowed. Current = 4y S 7.10 0.66 12.3 3*7. 4S 0.43 I hereby certify that the total Improved Street Mileage in the Municipality IN6 uf.&Y)7d5 b12w-as of December 31, 19.65- is-�_&¢ Miles. Signed._ L>tri. _ Title AP. &A Iprs oisr 9 REVISIONS DU G CURRENT YEAR Jan. l(To Dec. 31,19 s3 C . MUNICIPALITY h .:� Z O, j N CITY O1' MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL December 11, 1983 6:30 p.m. Clerk -Administrator's Performance Review 7:00 p.m. AGENDA SESSION 1. Cable TV Update - Mr. Jerry Skelly and Mr. Roger Franke. 2. Consideration of staff memorandum regarding ground reservoir inspection report. 3. Consideration of staff memorandum regarding meeting with Mr. Elmer Morris, Mn/DOT District 9 State Aid Engineer. 9. Consideration of staff memorandum regarding Miller Industrial Park. 5. Consideration of staff memorandum regarding purchase with Revenue Sharing monies of asphalt heater and oil sprayer. 6. Consideration of staff memorandum regarding status report on Public Works projects. 7 Consideration fromaff memrandum rearing CoditionalMary Anderson ConstructionnUse Company. 8. Consideration of `tiff memorandum regarding Budget amendments. 9. Consideration of staff memorandum regarding 1984 salary adjustments. t' :� MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development DATE: December 14, 1983 SUBJECT: GROUND RESERVOIR INSPECTION REPORT Attached is a copy of a letter dated December 12, 1983 from T.K.D.A. summarizing their findings on the condition of the ground reservoir. As can be seen, the only remedial repair work that is recommended is that done to the exterior of the building which would be accomplished when warm weather returns. The flashing repair and roof expansion joint repair is anticipated could be completed by City personnel. The brick work repair should be contracted to a masonry contractor. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the preparation of the necessary specifications and bid documents by T.K.D.A. Per our current contract with T.K.D.A., a price will be submitted for the construction phase of the improvement. Hopefully staff can obtain the dollar amount from T.K.D.A. prior to the Council meeting on December 19th. JCJ/bc Attachment ("KDA ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS December 12, 1983 Mr. John C. Johnson, P.E. Director Public Works/Community Development City of Mounds View 2410 Highway 10 Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 Re: Mounds View Reservoir Inspection Commission No. 8052-011 Dear Mr. Johnson: TOLTZ,XING DUVALL,ANDEOSON AND ASSOCIATES. mconPORATED 28A AMEDICAN NATIONAL DANK BUILDING SAINI PAUL. MINNE501 A 15101 512,32 44DO This is to confirm our conversation after we jointly inspected the Mounds View Water Reservoir on December 9, 1983. Based on our visual inspection of the reservoir, it is our opinion that the reservoir is in very good structural condition, suitable for immediate continued use for water storage. The minor spalling on the interior does not in our opinion, affect the structural integrity of reservoir. We would recommend that the reservoir be disenfected and re -filled immediately to prevent thermal shock in the event the outside temperature drops. Barring any unforeseen events, we would recommend that the reservoir be drained and re -inspected in approximately five (5) years. During our inspection we noticed the following remedial repairs which are required on the reservoir exterior: 1. Brickwork. Missing bricks should be replaced this spring and entire - sorr ace be repointed with weather -resistant mortar within the next few years. 2. Flashing. Clean and re -caulk joint between flashing and concrete roof slab. 3. Roof Expansion Joints. As soon as weather permits, roof slab expansion joints should be thoroughly cleaned out and resealed with two part polysulfide sealant. If you have any questions on our investigation, please feel free to contact our office. Very truly yours, TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED een G�i J. Be ty, P.E. OJB/ll Minn. Reg. No. 6593 cc: Mr. Pat Lehman MEMO TO: Mayor, and CiLy Council FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development DATE: December 15, 1983 SUBJECT: MEETING WITH EIMER MORRIS, h1N/DOT DISTRICT 9 SPATE AID ENGINEER On December .19, 1983, Mr. Elmer Morris from the Minnesota Department of Transportation, District 9 State Aid Office, will be present to discuss with the Council its options for utilizing M.S.A. funds for projects within the City of Mounds View. To date, Mr. Morris and 1 have not been able to arrange a meeting. liopefully, we will try to schedule one to go over details prior to the Monday night Council meeting. In any case, the items the Council should be prepared to discuss are as follows: 1. Results of variance and screening committee requests for the current resurfacing program. 2. The appropriate streets and improvements necessary on the M.S.A. system in the City of Mounds View. 3. What are the most important priorities for implementa- tion under the M.S.A. program. 9. Impact of changes in M.S.A. money allocation formulas on the City of Mounds View. Councilmembers should bring the various memos that have been distributed concerning the M.S.A. issues from mid -August through November. JCJ/bc MEMO TO: Mayor. and City Council FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development DATE: December 15, 1983 SUBJECT: MILLER INDUSTRIAL PARK FINAL PLAT In August of 1983 a time extension was granted for the Miller Industrial Final Plat submittal to January 4th. As a result of Council action on December 12, 1983, the wetland boundaries were reestablished by ordinance revision. In order to proceed with the completion of review and approval of the final plat, the following items will have to be completed: 1. Review and approval of the alteration permit as necessary for items listed below. 2. Preparation of the detailed drainage plan for the four lots in the final plat. 3. Preparation of detailed improvement plans and specifications for the sanitary sewer, watermains and street grades and improvements. 4. Revise final plat drawing submitted 10/14/82 to show only one lot or parcel of record for the area to be included in the second phase of development. It would appear to staff that these items cannot be submitted, reviewed and resolved by staff and City Council prior to the January 4th deadline. The applicant has been contacted and informed that a request in writing for a time extension should be submitted. Staff will forward to the City Council the request upon its receipt. JCJ/bc cc: Mr. John Miller Mr. Jim Miller Note: Attached is a letter dated 12/15/83 from Mr. John Miller regarding the above. it�*N December 15, 1983 Mayor and City Council City of Kuada View 2401 Highway 0 10 St. Paul, MN 55112 Re: Submission of Final Plat Dear Mayor and Council: Because of the proposed deadline of January 4, 1984, it is now apparent that there is not sufficient time to accomplish the necessary work that needs to be done on the final plat. It is therefore necessary that I make a request for an extension to April 9, 1984 for sub- mission of the final plat. JWM/slj Very truly yours, James W. Miller rid MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development DATE: December 15, 1983 SUBJECT: PURCHASE WITH REVENUE SHARING MONIES OF ASPHALT HEATER AND OIL SPRAYER In a memo to the Council in early November, staff recommended that a more detailed evaluation of equipment for use by City personnel for street repair work be completed before a final recommendation to the City Council be made. Staff proceeded with arranging for some on -site demonstrations of some asphalt heating and recycling equipment. The demonstrations were scheduled but had to be cancelled because of the unusual amount d 1 in our winter season. As a result, of snow we receive ear y staff has been unable to complete the detailed review as recommended in early November. It was further brought to the attention of staff that if the equipment that is to be purchased cannot be delivered by December 31, 1983, then it will not qualify for consideration under 19B3 budget items. It is staff's opinion that a review of the equipment in a more detailed fashion .is very desirable prior to making a recommenda- tion on purchase of such equipment. Since this cannot be practically completed in 1983, staff would reco;ru��en,.,� that the..�� Council given consideration to reappropriating the expenditure of monies for the piece of equipment in 1984. The decision to reappropriate would be made upon conclusion of a detailed staff review of the equipment available and a decision by the Council whether, in fact, such equipment should be utilized or could be utilized effectively for City street maintenance purposes. JCJ/bc MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development DATE•.: December 15, 1983 SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS Mr. Pauley and myself have met and discussed the status of the various projects listed below. The following is a brief summary of those projects and what their status will be as of the end of December, 1983, and the period covered by the contract with myself: 1. General Fund Items - This section of the contract is on target and shall have sufficient hours to cover the work through the end of 1983. 2. Sewer and Water Fund Items - These projects should have enough hours left in 1983 to cover the work necessary. 3. Developer Reviews - At the end of June it was estimated that another 70 hours would be sufficient to cover review of developer applications. As of the end of November, all 70 hours had been utilized but did not cover the hours necessary to complete the reviews of the Burger King application. r F 4. M.S.A. Resurfacing, Planning and Coordivatior, �- the end of November, there was a balance of 24' hours available in the proposed 1983 resurfacing program. These hours will not be utilized in full depending upon the outcome of the meeting on December 19th with Elmer Morris and the direction the Council wishes to give staff at that time. 5. Street Maintenance Plan - The 1983 Scal Coat Repair Project has been completed and the Comprehensive Street Maintenance Plan will be completed by the end of 1983 with the report being delivered to the City Council for review and consideration early in 1984. 6. Water Department Special Projects - Repair work on Well No. 6, the Systems Needs Study, Treatment Plant Nos. 2 and 3 modifcations, atomerator No. 1 repair and miscellaneous water break repair has been completed. The Tower No. 2 inspection and ground reservoir inspection will be completed by the end of the year. Pilot plant studies for Well No. 3 and the electrical control study work underway will not be completed until 1984. Mayor and City Council Page 2 December 15, 1983 Evaluation of the 1983 meter service program and recommendation for a 1983 meter service program will not be completed in 1983. 7. Storm Water Management Program - The St. Stephen drainage project has been completed. The storm water management plan as of the end of October had a balance of 110 hours. It is clear that the wrap up of this project when the items above are considered will not be completed by the end of December 1983. .It is staff's recommendation that the balance of the hours be authorized for expenditure in early 1984. It is the intent of staff that the results of the storm water management plan be presented to the City Council at their first agenda meeting in February of 1984. It should be pointed out that none of the above items at this time require approval of additional manhours over that covered in the amendment in July of 1983. The above items will require an extension to the final date of the contract into 1984. Staff has also discussed the need to provide for a transition mechanism so that time necessary to brief, acquaint, and bring up to speed Ah the new full time Director of Public Works will be covered under a contractural document. It is staff's recommendation that the existing contract be extended into 1984 at the current per hour rate, with a maximum number of hours to be utilized in the various areas deemed appropriate by thtt City Council. JCJ/bc 11 MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council FROM: Engineering/Planning Technician �IV DATE: December 15, 1983 cJh� SUBJECT: MARV ANDERSON MODEL HOME CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Attached please find a letter from Mr. Fred Haas of Mary Anderson Construction Company requesting a transfer of the conditional use permit which he now has for a model home at 7501 Silver Lake Road to a home being constructed at 2750 Hodges Lane. What is required in this case is not a transfer of the conditional use permit from one home to another but a rescinding of the conditional use permit at one location and the issuing of a new conditional use permit for another location. Staff brought this item to the Planning Commission's attention at their December 7, 1983 regular meeting and the Commissioners had no problem with the use of the home at 2750 Hodges Lane as a model. There is adequate on -street parking available and due to the fact that there are no other homes on the block, on -street parking should not be a problem. Mr. Haas notes in his letter that if traffic does become a problem, off-street parking will be provided. Please advise staff on how the Council wants this handled: 1) Should staff draft a resolution either rescinding the conditional use permit for 7501 Silver Lake Road and approving a new conditional use permit for 2750 Hodges Lane or denying the request? 2) Should another $50.00 conditional use permit fee be collected or have the funds deposited for the previous conditional use permit be applied to the present request? (In the future, the home at 2750 Hodges Lane may sell and another new model may be requested. These requests could possibly extend for some time.) 3) Should the request go through full Planning Commission application, review and recommendations? The earliest this item could be recommended for approval by the Planning Commission would be February 1, 1983. If you have any questions, please contact me. FJK/bc Attachment r"*�N 1 Mary nderson BE TIER 110MES IOA SI„ 111 IIVVIO %IA11Vkl 1A\M AS'IN CONVII(A IF) If COY VANY 11 Vh%IAMM"MIIOIAEb:O Mr. Steven A. Rose Building & Zoning Official City of Moundsview 2401 Highway N10 Moundsview, Minnesota 55112 Dear Mr. Rose: TnLEPNONE 61114681 ,�innn�rrrrt, O QG �� December 1, 1983 The model home at 7501 Silver Lake Road has been sold. We wish to transfer our conditional use permit for a model home to the new home which we have under construction at 2750 Hodges Lane. At this time, we feel that on street parking will not be a problem. If in the future there is a traffic problem, we will provide off-street parking. This is not a busy street. Any additional fees which maybe necessary, please advise. FH/lw Sincerely, MAhN� ANTO SON CONSTRUCTION CO. Frederic Haas Vice President Land Development 1�& I f, h TO: Mayor & Council FROD1: finance Dirac tor. -`treasurer 01•ager DATE: December 15, 1983 RE: BUDGET TRANSFERS Recently authorizations were given to the Chief of Police and the Clerk -Administrator for expenditures which were not included in their respective 1983 budgets. It was my understanding that your author- izations specified that these items be charged to their 1983 budgets. Charging those items to the 1983 budget may cause a conflict with the generally accepted accounting principles which the State of Minnesota has mandated municipalities follow. Those principles specify that in order for an expenditure to be considered an expense of the current accounting period (in this case 1983) goods or services purchased must either be received or provided prior to the end of the account- ing period (December 31, 1983). The date that the goods and services are ordered is not a criteria in determining whether the expenditure is an expense of the current accounting period. Nor is the date that they are paid for. The problem is that the Clerk -Administrator's drapes, the Police Chief's blinds, Police Department uniform patches, police badget, and Police Department office redecorating will either not be received or the work will not be completed prior to December 31, 1983. Thus, those expenditures can not be considered expenses of 1983. Instead they would be considered 1984 expenses. Since these items were not included in the 1984 budget the Clerk -Administrator and the Chief of Police do not want them charged to that budget. A solution to this problem would be to ammend the 1983 budget downward and to ammend the 1984 budget upward for those items by resolution. These items are: Police Department - venetian blinds $ 350.00 - uniform patches 460.00 - badges 135.00 - investigator's office 600.00 Total $1,545.00 Administration - draperies $ 350.00 RECOMMENDATION: Council instruct staff to prepare a resolution ammending the 1983 & 1984 budgets for these items for consideration at the next Council meeting. DB/ds Date Approved 12/12/83 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW IbIISEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting November 14, 1983 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Hwy, 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The Mounds View City Council was called to order by 1. Call to Order Mayor McCarty at 7:30 PM on November 14, 1983. MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilmemhers Blanchard, Doty, 2. Roll Call Linke, Hankner and Mayor McCarty. ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Meyers, Clerk/Admini- strator Pauley and Public Works/Community Development Director Johnson. Motion/Second: Doty/Linke to approve the October 24, 3, Approval of minutes as corrected. Minutes: October 24, 19 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Don !lodges, 5086 Eastwood Road, asked why the roads 4. Residents were not graveled and resurfaced do,..m Long take Road, Requests and and particularly on the street in front of his home. Comments from He pointed out that if the cracks are not filled the Floor before winter, it will cost a lot more to repair the roads in the spring. He also pointed out that the cracks could be patched. Director Johnson explained that the City had taken the available funds and seal coated as far as the money allowed, and that the areas that weren't covered this year will hopefully be covered next year. He added that they could patch this year, but do not have the necessary equipment. He explained that the money was budgeted in the revenue sharing account for 1983 but he has been having trouble getting bids on the equipment. Clerk/Administrator Pauley stated he could place the item on the agenda for the next agenda session. Mayor McCarty asked that Items C and E be removed 5. Approval of discussion. Consent Agenda Councilmember Doty asked that Items I and L be removed for discussion. Mounds View City Council November 14, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Two. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Motion/Second: McCarty/Linke to approve the consent , agenda, minus Items C, G, I and L, and waive the reading of the resolutions. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Mayor McCarty pointed out that on Item C, the fees are proposed to be taken out of the contingency fund, and he reviewed the assessment to the City, with the assessed share of the cost being due in the fall, but the City would not know what the franchise fee return would be until spring, and the fees may not be suffi- cient to cover the cost in the spring, 'lotion/Second: McCarty/Blanchard to table Resolution until such time as Staff may rework it to account for the franchise fee being payable in the spring. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Mayor McCarty questioned Item L, reviewing the request for a wetland alteration permit, whether the City was telling Mr. Morgan to restore the area, as specified in the proposed resolution, and then having Staff work with him to follow the guidelines of the ordinance, and then allow him to go back and do the same thing later within the confinds of the ordinance. Director Johnson explained that Mr. Morgan will clean up what has been started, but he is not being directed to return it to its original condition. Motion/Second: McCarty/Blanchard to approve Resolution N.I3$�horizing interim wetland alteration permit for Roger Morgan at 7395 Knollwood Drive, and waive the reading of the resolution. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Councilmember Doty asked for a clarification of Item I. Motion/Second: Doty/Hankner to approve Item I of tic consent agenda, for the final payment to Allied Blacktop Company in the amount of M ,031.06, with the final acceptance date set as October 14, 1983. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Councilmember Doty questioned Check No. 012411, in the amount of $1,696.00 to Bolger Publications for the Charter Commission. Clerk/Administrator Pauley that the • explained pay- ment is actually for the City Newsletter and that the incorrect reference had been listed on the print-out. Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting November 14, 1983 Page Three ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Motion/Second: Doty/Linke to approve Item L of the consent agenda, Resolution No. 1681, approving just and correct claims against the City funds, and correcting Check No. 012411 to read for the City Newsletter, and waive the reading of the resolution. 5 ayes ' 0 nays Motion Carried Motion/Second: Linke/Blanchard to approve Reso- 6. Approval of Iution o[ 7780, commending the Irondale Knights Rslt. No. 1680 girls soccer team as State girls soccer champions. Commending the Irondale Knigh 5 ayes 0 nays Girls Soccer Team as State Girls Soccer Champions Motion Carried Mayor McCarty read Resolution No. 1680, and presented it to Coach Anderson. Motion/Second: Doty/Blanchard to appoint to the 7. Consideration positiTion ot Police Chief, Timothy Ramacher, who is of Police Chief an investigator for the City Police Department in Candidates Mounds View. Certified by th Civil Service Councilmember Blanchard - aye Commission Councilmember Doty - aye Councilmember Linke - aye Councilmember Hankner - aye Mayor McCarty - aye Motion Carried Discussion occurred before the vote was taken; with Councilmember Hankner reading a prepared statement, saying that she would like to state that prior to certification of the candicates to the Council, the only screening procedure was a 20 minute interview of each applicant. Because of the very limited screening process, only two members of the Council 1•equested further interviews, tests and psychological ...iluations for the purpose of selecting from among the three final candidates. Neither the Council nor the Commission as a group set any criteria for selection, and the Councilmembers have been left with setting their own individual criteria. She stated that in her opinion, none of the three candidates fully meets her criteria, and therefore, it is very difficult for her to vote for any candidate, but in considering Attorney Meyer's opinion regarding Chapter 419, she has no choice but to vote for a candidate, against her better judgement. She added that during the past week, a number of residents had spoken with her of their concerns about the process November 111, 1983 Mounds View City Council Page Pour. Regular. Meeting ------------------------------------------ - or lack thereof, and have expressed a desire to pursue legal action,epocess��usednshouldshe lbelmoreat in open the future the zed. She added that although she and fully analyzed. has reservations in voting in favor aintedr a achief. date, shq will support the newly fP Motion/Second: Linke/11ankner to amend the previous mot on an set guidelines for the appointment of the Police Chief and havela pr bat alhl)nbo9inn mciof 1'L months, Frith reviews I Ulu Loarth, sevcnCli, aucl tw�lth nl'th I) tIIC c un a li, ut goals and policies ;eL ec�dalcsessio�n `onucil, to be determined at the next agenda i,oveanber - 5 ayes 0 nays Councilmember Linke suggested fourinclpolicies that be eels be ome typeuofdcriteriaafor the police there and stted he policeChiefl10tods base his accomplishments on. iewed Chapter 419.05, which concerns Mayor McCarty rev the duties of the Civil Service Commission. les of the ivil Attorney Meyers stated that the rurobationaryCperiod, Service Commission provide for a plie and read applicable sections of the code. theCivil that the Council may, with the approval p, added Service Commission, reject an appU�Ll c the Council should be amaknd ingaevaluationsndidateiduring the probationary period not meeting with approval, they can certify it to the int Civil Service Commission. Mayor McCarty stated he agreed to a P°revioushmotion, Councilmember Linke s concept of the p with that thels and Civil Servicesshould be Commission,ics he could th0 set, in not Council cooperation vote for a list of goals and policies that the Council had not seen. Councilmember Blanchard stated she agreed, to a point, with Councilmember Linke's motion, but that specific guidelines should not be set out in a motion m. this time, as the Council needs time to review them. favor of Councilmember liankoliciesstated includedasasnthey need to having goals and p ro riate at this time, prior set forth what the Council expects of the new Police Chief, andit ould be app to taking position, so t e new Chief would know what is expected of him. Motion Carried • Mounds View City Council November 14, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Five ------------------------------------------------------------------------- look" John Blackstone, 8333 Knollwood Drive stated he was not speaking for or against any candidate but rather against the process, and that to an uninformed observer, the selection process that has been used appears to be political, biased and discriminatory, and that he feels it slluwed unqualified candidates and eliminated qualified candidates. He requested that the Council defer making an appoint- ment and that the Civil Service Commission review the rules and guidelines and have the entire process reopened. He added that if the Council does not defer, there is a group of Mounds View citizens who have con- sulted an attorney and are ready to take legal action. Upon questioning, Mr. Blackstone identified the group 1ti Citizens for a Fair Selection Process for a Police ..,,.ef of Mounds View. Mayor McCarty replied that the process has taken the direction, as set forth by State law, and the Council was advised by him at the very beginning to convey their thoughts and ideas to the Civil Service Commission, for their use in the selection process. Dick Paradise, 5091 Eastwood Road, identified him- self as Lhe chainnan of the Civil Service Commission, and stated they conducted many open meetings in the Council chambers and spent many months in the selection process. Ile added it was a tough job, and the meetings they held were open to the public and they would have accepted their input at any time. He stated he did not feel it was very kind to have a statement such as Mr. Blackstone's made at this time. Ile stated he had only received one phone call from a citizen during the whole selection process, and lie and the other Civil Service Commission members were available for anyone to address. Howard Nisson, 5150 Irondale Road, stated he had followed the selection process and he is very happy with the selection of Timothy Ramacher, and he stated r \.- (`t ..: 1 r„{ Cc ni .s had e the lie snit tuc ��.�.. Service rn_ s or. .d made best choice possible. Don !lodges stated that during his past service to the City, he had observed the beginning of the Police Civil Service Commission, and he feels the City's Police DeparLment is one of the best in the State. Ile added he felt the Civil Service Commission had done a very good job, and he also reminded people that the past Police Chief had come to the City as a machinist, and what a good job he had done as a Police Chief. Councilmember Doty sLated he had voted in favor of the motion, as Mr. Ramacher had lived in the area most of his life and he has served commendably for Mounds View City Council November 14, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Six ------------------------------------------------------------------------- the City as a member of the Police Department, and his testing proved him to be a highly recommended individual, capable of being trained in areas that the council feels he might need more training in. Mayor McCarty pointed out that from the very beginning, the process, as set forth by State law, was followed, and that opportunity was provided for public input, as well as that of elected officials, and that he is concerned with a negative response that does not con- sider the positive side. lie stated he believes in the democratic process, where everyone has their day in court, and that he feels the City has a very good new Chief of Police. He added the Council will be getting together with the Civil Service Commission and make it work well for the City. Councilmember Linke called for the vote on the main motion, of appointing the Police Chief. Motion/Second: Linke/Hankner to call for the vote, and have a rollcall vote, 5 ayes 0 nays Clerk/Administrator Pauley reviewed the suggested advertisement for the position of Director of Public Works/Community Development. Motion/Second: Blanchard/Linke to authorize Staff to advertise the position of Director of Public Works/Community Development. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion/Second: Linke/Hankner to have the first reading of No. 350, amending Chapter 48 of the Municipal Code of Mounds View, entitled "Wetland Zoning Ordinance", and waive the reading Mayor McCarty expressed concern with protecting the integrity of the ordinance, as in the case of other type 2 wetlands in the City, lie stated that on October 23, Staff requested Barr., Braun and the Ramsey County Soil and V :r Conservation Motion Carried ConsideratLun of Staff Memo Regarding ;Ad- vertSILng for the Director of Public Works Community Development Pst Motion Carried 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 350, Amending Chapter 48 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Entitled, "Wet- land Zoning Ordinance" to Mounds View City Council November 14, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Seven ------------------------------------------------------------------------- �., Distrlcr (RCS&WO) Lo adIh'ess Spec llicnlly LIie staLc- went that 1-22 does not fully function as a wetland, and that while the City has received responses from them, none of them directly prove that 1-22 is not a wetland. He reviewed the Barr [engineering letter of November 7, 1983, the tcrminolol;y used in the response lm Braun linglneerin),,, and the fact that RCS&wCD states that the area does exhibit approximately 1.1 acres of type 2 wetland habitat. Ile stated he does not feel the City has sufficient proof to show that 1-22 is not a wetland. COnneilmember Linke reviewed statemenLs made in Lhe Braun report, that to be considered a wetland would be stretching the point. Councilmember Doty stated there is no statement from the experts, stating that it is no longer a wetland, and they must determine what type of wetland it is, not its function. Councilmember Hankner stated that in the ordinance, it refers to a functioning wetland and protection of that functioning wetland and the value of the wetland, and they must decide if it is best to protect that wetland or if a proposed development would provide a better quality of life for wildlife habitat. She pointed out that the Miller proposal calls for the creation of another wetland, and they must discuss the value and function of the wetland. Mayor McCarty pointed out the intent of the ordinance is to protect the wetland, and they still do not have proof from the consultanrs that this is not a wetland. Councilmember Blanchard questioned if the new boundries are set whether it would reduce the size to a point where it would no longer be effected, or below the criteria for being on the wetlands map. Director Johnson replied that if it is left on the map, the boundries would be adjusted according to expert opinion, but that the size would remain the same, the area would just be redeliniated. Mayor McCarty stated he was concerned that anyone who owns a type 2 wetland could come in, based on action the Council might take on this item, so they must be careful in setting a precedent. Ile added they need proof positive whether or not 1-22 is a wetland. Attorney Meyers advised Chat whatever criteria is used in this case mus¢ be used in future cases, and the question seems to be the word "functioning", and the liberal versus strict interpretation. Ile advised the Council they must require definite evidence if a wet- land is no longer a wetland. Mounds View City Council November 14, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Eight --------------------------------------------------------------------- Motion/Second: McCarty/Doty to amend the previous ' motion to table Ordinance No. 350 for an indefinite period of time, and give the developer time to bring in the necessary documentation that this is not a wetland. 3 ayes 2 nays Motion Carried Councilmembers Linke and Ilankner voted against the motion. Councilmember Hankner reminded the Council they are under a time restriction on this development. John Miller also reminded the Council of the time line, and he reviewed Chapter 48.01, Sub. 3 A, re- garding the criteria of a functioning wetland. itayor McCarty replied that the experts have not said it is not a functioning wetland. Mr. Miller stated he would contact his consultant. Jim Miller stated that under the same section, 48.01, Sub. 3 A, it states the City is to adopt a map designating the existing functional wetlands that are to be protected. He pointed out it does not mention anything about the type of wetland, and he read from the letter of November 2 from RCS&WCD, which clearly states there is little, if any, functioning wetland. He also pointed out the ordinance asks a question of value, referring to those that are to be protected. Mr. Miller pointed out the October 31 letter from Braun Engineering states very clearly that the area does not function as a typical wetland, and does not perform the functions of a wetland. Councilmember Hankner questioned how far the protection of a wetland goes, and pointed out there is so much garbage on the land in question, that it could not possibly function as a wetland. Jim Miller also referred to the Barr letter, stating that 1-22 does not function as a wetland. He added that in their proposal for the entire parcel of land, they have two complete wetlands identified on the property, with one wetland alteration permit applied for. He stated they would like to replace the 1-22 designated area and establish an area on the eastern portion of the property as a functioning wetland habitat of a larger size, with all wetland functions, and that the new wetland would be functioning on a 460 acre upland drainage area. He added they are .,ling to provide some type of vehicle to provide .i wetland area, and they have been advised by Staff of the steps needed to be taken. Councilmember Linke suggested that instead of tabling the ordinance, have 'he first 'ing, in frder to keep Mounds View City Council November 14, 1983 Itegular Meeting Page Nine ------------------------------------------------------------------------- the process going, and then require the proof needed before the second reading. Couneilmember Doty replied they would be moving on an ordinance change, and then pusuibly changing their minds later, which could result in legal reprocussions. Councilmember Linke pointed out the Council. has done that several times in the past on other ordinances. Councilmember Blanchard stated she had voted in favor of tabling action but reminded the Council they are set to time limits. rival vote on main motion as amended: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion/Second: McCarty/Uoty to table this action, 10 to coiiidilc with Item 9 on the agenda. 2 ayes 3 nays Councilmembers Linke, Blanchard and Hankner voted against the motion. Tnt,n Millar aakpd Hint- H.he Council please move on this item. Councilmember Hankner stated it was clear in her mind what boundaries should be set, and she did not feel action should be delayed. Mayor McCarty stated he felt the two ordinances go hand in hand. Councilmember Linke pointed ouc the Council had originally requested that the two area, 1-22 and 1-23 be treated separately, and stated he concurs with the Braun delineation. Councilmember Doty stated there is nothing stating specifically where the boundries should be, just where they could be. Director Johnson reviewed a map of the proposed changes. }le stated that it would supercede any i previous documents in accuracy. �- ...inci.lmemher Doty stated that Barr Engineering gave the City a map of the wetland boundries that differs somewhat from the Braun report, and the Council Motion Carried 1st Reading of Ord. No. 351 Amending Chapter 98 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Entitled "Wetland Zoning ordinance" Motion Failed Mounds View City Council November 14, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Ten ------------------------------------------------------------------------- could come to some type of compromise and not take the most liberal position. Councilmember Hankner questioned what criteria could be used to determine where the boundries are. Councilmember Doty replied they could take half the difference. Mayor McCarty stated the ordinance does not contemplate readjusting the boundries without certain proof, and the stated the Council should require it. Councilmember Linke stated that in 1-23, Braun has come back with delineations, stating there was an error in the original map. Ile pointed out that the City hired Braun, so they should go with their recommendation. Councilmember Hankner reminded the Council that a few months ago, when they were trying to determine boundries, they decided they needed a firm other than the developers firm, so they paid $5,000 for the Braun report, and they now have information from three reports, and questioned why the Council cannot determine where the boundries are. Mayor McCarty replied that the Council's action on hiring a consultant was well thought out, and the money came from the SW fund, which is paid by developers, but that the consultants have not provided the City with the information needed. Councilmember Linke pointed out that on 1-23, the Council asked them to redelineate, according to the information they gathered in their work. He added that it is time the City accepts their redelineation, as the old one has been proven wrong three times by three different engineering firms. Councilmember Hankner stated she felt the Braun report was the most accurate, with the most facts and information, Councilmember Blanchard stated she agreed, and that the City had paid for the Braun report and they should accept it. Councilmember Doty stated they should take the different recommendations and then compromise, and suggested Mr. Miller draw the lines. Mr. Miller replied chat he did not consider himself qualified. Neil Loeding stated the Council has three different �.„. expert opinions, and there is latitude. He warned the Council they might well be advised to take a more conservative interpretation, in the best interest of the City, or they would be turning the ordinance Mounds View City Council November 14, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Eleven =------------------------------------------------------------------------ into a scrap of paper, and cutting it to shreds. lie added it has been suggested whether the Council consider if the development is in the best interest of the City, and asked what evidence there is that this would be in the best interest of the City. He added that he does not feel that what has been pro - nosed is'in the best interest of the ordinance. Ile ...led it should remain the way it is until the ordinance is changed. He stated that at one time it was possible for naive Council members to take the position that development was in the best interest of the City, but that only fools on the Council could automatically assume every development was in the best interest of the City. He added they should learn more about what a developer is proposing before pulling a stamp of approval on wholesale gutting out of the ordinance. Councilmember Hankner replied the Council cannot take the opinion of naive residents who portray themselves as experts. She stated she has spoken to all who are involved in the reports, and the most tangible evidence is what is presented in the Braun report, and that while it might be a bit more liberal than the others, it would not compromise the ordinance. Mayor McCarty stated he would not allow emotions to get carried away and would use his gavel as necessary. Councilmember Blanchard expressed her displeasure at the character assasination from the audience. Jim Miller pointed out the Barr Engineering wetland alteration permit application clearly stated in a detailed manner what the developer plans to do, and most of the people involved understand the development they are attempting to set forth. He added that the Planning Commission and City Council had asked that a conceptual development plan on Phase II of the rest of the property be provided, which has been extensively detailed for them. Mr. Miller stated that as far as the difference in where the experts draw the lines, Barr Engineering is in concurraace with the Braun report, and the Barr identification of the wetlands was part of the development proposal, and the Braun report was totally committed to identifying the wetland boundries. Mr. Miller stated that there are a number of places where the ordinance is open minded enough to set the 1�criteria with the wording "as determined by the City Council", and the ordinance gives the Council the credit they are due in understanding the concepts that are put in front of them. Mounds View City Council November 14, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Twelve ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Councilmember Linke stated that several times during., ' the prereeding discussion, the development has been brought up, and pointed out that the ordinance does not contemplate a development, but rather contemplates an .amendment of the wetlands zoning ordinance and map which has been shown in error. Ile added that the City 'hired a consultant to give site specific buuudaries, and that because of that inlurmation, the ordinance was brought forth. He added he would prefer to have the report of the eigineer hired by the City used, and hu does noL want to make iL a practice of contradictinq cngincers. Mayor McCarty stated he is concerned with the preser- vation of the integrity of the ordinance, and that for 1-22, they asked for specific statements from the consultant, which they did not receive. Ile added that 1-22 and 1-23 go hand in hand. Councilmember Doty stated that if a motion is made this evening, there is a possibility the ordinance would fail tonight also. John Miller stated again that he would like to get on with the process. 111 Attorney Meyers advised that the first reading of ordinance should have a 4/5 vote. John Miller replied that that was a procedural question, and he felt a majority was required for the firs: reading. Motion/Second: Linke/Hankner to have -he first rea ing o Ordinance No. 351, amending Chapter 48 of the Mcunds View Municipal Code entitled "Wetland Zoning Ordinance", anu waive the reading of the ordinance, Councilmember Linke pointed out that all the motion was doing is accepting the delineation of Wetlands 1-23, the delineation as given by the engineer the City hired to determine it. Councilmember Doty stated the engineer came up with the most liberal delineation, and there is some question in taking the most liberal position on the boundaries, and they could come up with some th type of compromise. Councilmember Hankner suggested looking at the Braun Mounds View City Council November 14, 1983 I+nyular Meeting Page Thirteen •---------------------------------------------------------------------- report as being the most accurate, with the most /1 evidence supporting it. Mayor McCarty stated Lhc City is asking for proof, which the letter from Braun did not provide, and the Council must protect the integrity of the ordinance and should take the time to get the proof. John Miller ruminded the Council he has already spent four and a half years to get to this point. lie pointed out that Barr has accepted the Braun report, with Braun making the in-depth study. Ile stated they were told to find out exactly where the wetlands are, and that is what they did, and reminded the Council that he would like to get on with the process, and he feels very up in the air as to where he is at. He added the City lids more than enough documentation to back up the change in the boundaries. He also stated that he has spent a great deal of time and money in trying to develop his property, while paying taxes on it, and stated he feels the City owes him some consideration in proceeding with the development of his property. He stated he can do nothing with the property at this rate and pointed out the City was regulating his property without compensation. Mayor McCarty replied he is well aware tl:eiu were lengthy periods of time in which Mr. Miller did not come before the City, as well as the two year moritorium. lie added the City has legally been regulating the property, according to State law. Motion/Second: Linke/Blanchard to call for the gues ion on the previous motion. 5 ayes 0 nays Final Vote on Main Motion: 4 ayes 1 nay Councilmember Doty voted against the motion. Councilmember Doty explained he voted against the motion to have the first reading of Ordinance No. 351 because with all the expert data, there is no reason to take the most liberal boundary delineation, even though it was from the consultant the City hired. Mayor McCarty stated the second reading of Ordinance No. 351 is scheduled for November 28, and he would Motion Carried Motion Carried Mounds View City Council November 14, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Fourteen ------------------------------------------------------------------------- like to once again look at the proof offered by the consultants, that the I)oundarios should be changed on the basis that certain areas were not wetlands. Ile stated the developer and the consultants should come forward and meet with the Council, and show that the area that has been subtracted is not wetlands; and provide proof, along with 1-22. Councilmember Linke asked what extent of proof would be required. Mayor McCarty replied it would be discussed with the developer and consultants. Director Johnson stated that since the second reading is schedule for November 28, they could, in the interim, schedule a meeting with Braun, Barr and RCS&WCD. .Jim Miller stated that the evidence has been given all the experts already for exactly what the urdinance asks. Councilmember Hankner stated that in looking at all the information received, the wetlands map is based on the RCS&WCD survey, and it has been pointed out over and over that it is very general in nature, and if site specifications are required, they must be obtained from specialists. She replied that the Braun report is simply taking site specific information and applying it to the property. .Jnhn Miller reminded the Council that thav mnst rnn- sider that when the City made the wetland map, it was done by biology students, not professionals, and a professional engineering firm is redefining it now. He stated the City should go back to Braun and ask for substantiation, which would be the proper procedure. Mayor McCarty stated they are just asking for proof. Clerk/Administrator Pauley stated that authorization would be required if any additional money is expended in asking for clarification or proof from Braun. Mayor McCarty replied that he is not willing to invest any more of the City's money, from the S14M fund, and that it is the developers responsibility. Councilmember Linke stated he was against spending any further funds as the engineering report has come back with the delineation of 1-23, which is exactly what the City asked for. Councilmember Hankner stated she was against spending any further money as she does not feel the City or anyone else needs to incur the expense, as they already have enough information from the experts. • Mounds View City Council November 14, 1983 4egular Meeting Page Fifteen ------------------------------------------------------------------------- It was agreed that the item would be placed on the agenda for the November 21 agenda session, for discussion, and that Staff should contact- the consultant to find out any additional fees, and that Mr. Miller should advise if he would like a representative from Barr present. Park Director Anderson presented the Council with 11. Consideration a memo concerning the bids received for the 1984 of Staff Memo City Newsletter, and reviewed them. lie explained Regarding 1984 that the low proposal was submitted by Mounds View City Newsletter Printing, 2282 County Road 1, but that it is a Bid Proposals very small operation and the owner does not feel should could come up with the required 5'% bid bond, as they do not have that type of capital. He explained that the City has worked with them before, and they do an excellent quality of work, and suggested that they be awarded the January/February newsletter, and if it works out well, they then be awarded the entire year, but that Sexton, which was the second low bid, be kept as a back-up in case Mounds View Printing does not work out. Mayor McCarty stated he was concerned about keeping the bid bond of Sexton. Attorney Meyers explained that once the contract is awarded, the City must release Sexton's bond. Motion/Second: McCarty/Blanchard to direct Staff to negate with Mounds View Printing, to print the January/February City Newsletter as per the bid specs, .and to retain the hid bond of Sexton until a formal contract is generated, and waive the requirement for a bid bond from Mounds View Printing. .) ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Park Director Anderson informed the Council that this was the third year in a row the price has decreased for the printing of the City Newsletter. Clerk/Administrator Pauley added that it was due to the increased quality of readiness the City Staff has the material in, as it is photo ready. Director Johnson reviewed the memo of November 14 12. Report of from Building Inspector Rose, regarding the request Director of of Norb Yenish for a grading permit. Public Works/ Community Dvlp, Mayor McCarty stated he was concerned with granting a partial permit rather than the complete permits. Director Johnson explained that the building permit would approve the grading. Clerk/Administrator Pauley stated that to address the concerns, it Mounds View City Council November 14, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Sixteen -------------------------------------------------- would be appropriate for Staff Lo issue a grading, permit only, with the appropriate escrow, with no other permits being granted until application for a full permit was received. Ile added they could put the requirement in that the final permit must be applied fur wiLhin a certain amount of time or the City could qo in and seed and return Lilo property fo its natural state. The Council agreed that Staff could issue the grading permit and require the appropriate fees. Director Johnson stated he would be attending a water resources seminary on November 17 and 18. He reported he will be giving the Council a complete update on all projects underway, at the next agenda session. Attorney Meyers had no report. 13. Report of Attorney Councilmember Blanchard had no report. 14. Reports of Councilmem -- Councilmember Doty reported he would be attending the Personnel Pension Labor Relations committee meeting on November 17. rtcd the Festivities Councii[7ieuwci a,iunc ..epo�...... Commission has voted to have the parade on the Saturday before the Festival in the Park, and tie it in with the various tournaments being held. Councilmember Linke reported the Ramsey County League meeting will be held November 16, at Robert Lee's, and the December meeting will be a banquet on December 14 at the Maplewood Holiday Inn. Councilmember Hankner had no report. Mayor McCarty reviewed the schedule of meetings for the Anoka County Airport issue, and updated the Council on what occurred at the meeting that was held at Westwood Jr. High. He explained he had made several requests for information to the Met Council, and had received a letter from their Counsel, refusing to answer the questions as the City is in litigation with them. i Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported he had re- 15. Report of ceived a phone call from the Staff representative Administrator of the Governor's select committee on the MWCC, ' he has been asked to test' before them on Mounds View City Council November 14, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Seventeen ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday evening, November 16. Clerk/Administrator Pauley advised the Council he will be presenting them with proposals for draperies for his office at the next agenda session. Motion/Second: Linke/Doty to adjourn the meeting at 16. Adjournment: Lb��- 5 ayes 0 nays ;lotion Carried Respectfully submitte , s C y I DATE APPROVED: 12/12/83 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting November 29, 1983 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Mounds View City Council was called to order by 1. Call to Order Mayor McCarty at 7:34 PM on November 28, 1983. MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilmembers Blanchard, Doty, 2. Roll Call Linke, Hankner and Mayor McCarty. ALSO PRESENT: 'it' Attorney Meyers, Clerk/ A mini3 stiator Pauley and Public Works/Community Development Director Johnson. Ed Latendre and Jim Quick of the Mounds View Jaycee's 3. Residents presented a special award to the Council, the Presi- Requests and dential Award of Honor, explaining it was the highest Comments from honor that could be given in the Chapter. They also the Floor presented a Sound Citizen Award and a Guest Speaker Award, both in honor of Officer Dave Brick. Clerk/Administrator Pauley explained the minutes of 4. Approval of the November 14, 1983 meeting would be presented to Consent Agenda the Council at the next agenda session. Motion/Second: Linke/Blanchard to approve the consent agenda as presented, and waive the reading of the resolutions. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried John Miller presented the Council with a letter 5. 1st Reading of from himself, dated November 29, 1983. Ordinance No. 350 Amending Motion/Second: Blanchard/Linke to have the first Chapter 48 of rea ng o rdinance No. 350, amending Chapter 48 the Mounds View of the Mounds View Municipal Code entitled "Wet- Municipal Code land Zoning Ordinance", and waive the reading of Entitled "Wet - the ordinance, and include the Staff's synopsis land Zoning of the consultants reports, dated November 23, 1983, Ordinance" and the letter from Mr. Miller dated November 29, 1983, as part of the minutes, Councilmember Blanchard - aye Councilmember Doty - aye Councilmember Linke - aye Councilmember llankner - aye Mayor McCarty - aye Motion Carried November 29, 1983 Mounds View City Council Page Two Regular Meeting ------- -------- ------------------------------- Considerable discussion tool: place before the vote was called for on the previous motion. Councilmember Linke stated he was in agreement with the supporting data outlined in the memo from Director Johnson, dated November 23. Councilmember Doty stated that in the supporting docu- mentation for eliminating 1-22 as a wetland, lie did not feel it gave adequate reason for eliminating it. He pointed it out it deals with a culvert that does not work, and was put. in 50 years ago rand he culvert has no bearing on the wetland n its present lie added it compares this wetland with other non- specific wetlands, not the same size, and he did not feel the terms were specific enough, nor the documen- tation sufficient to say the wetland does not function specifically as a wetland. Mayor McCarty stated it was his understanding from the discussion at the November 14 meeting and the last agenda session that the Council was to receive specific data, preferrably a comparative analysis to support the generalizations the City has received so far. He added he was also looking for something from the developer that would provide comparative data, with specifics, and requested Mr. Miller outline Phase II. • Miller replied tL a,. Phaa:e Ti iF; conceptual in „ XWLure, and has nothing to do with Phase I. Mayor McCarty replied he must have a comparative analysis. Councilmember Hankner stated the Council has that comparative analysis from the three reports that have been received. She reminded the Council that they paid $5,000 for an engi.neer's report, and he has provided site specific information to the City, as requested. She reviewed excerpts from the Braun Report, from their letter of October 31, concerning 1-22 not functioning as a wetland. She also pointed cut that the culvert has been the cause of 1-22 being in the condition it is in. Councilmember Hankner stated she felt the Council has the information they have requested, and it is very specific and adequate enough to redelineate the lines for 1-23 and eliminate what has been classified as 1-22. Mounds View City Council November 29, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Three -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Councilmember Linke referred to excerpts from the October 31 letter from Braun Engineering, stating that they have enough supporting data to state that in looking at Chapter 49, it's intent is to protect the existing functional wetland, and there Is enough data to say that it does not function as it wetland. ' Mayor McCarty stated he is looking for data that will say the wetland does not function to a degree. Councilmember Linke pointed out it is the City's own engineer that has supported the data, and he has stated it is not a functioning wetland. Mayor McCarty reviewed the criteria listed in the Braun letter of October 31, and stated it could fit every type 2 wetland in the City, and that he was concerned with setting a standard. Jim Miller read from portions of the Braun letter of October 31, concerning the size of a potential wetland, with larger than 9/10th of an acre being required, and with 1-22 being considerably less in size. He also read portions of the Barr letter of November 7. Invor McCarty stated he was still concerned with ,.....Iblishing criteria and statistics to take sound action on the motion, and that in lacking technical data, they must take the conservative approach. Councilmember Doty stated he would have to vote against the motion in order to preserve the ordinance. Councilmember Linke reviewed the criteria in Ordinance No. 318, and Chapter 48.01, sub 3, then reviewed the data received from the experts. Mayor McCarty stated he agrees that it does state that the area does not function as a typical wetland, but that anyone could make that statement, and they need a more complicated approach to the data. Councilmember Linke pointed out that it was the engineer the City hired that provided the information and data. Jim Senden stated the Council is trying to determine whether the area is a wetland, and the ordinance says it must be an existing, functional wetland, and reviewed the Braun letter of October 31. He pointed out that if it is a functioning wetland, it should be included on ~� the map, but if it is not, it should not be included on J the map. He stated that if the Council feels the ordinance is too weak, they should strengthen it, but that they could not deny the developer because they feel it would weaken the ordinance .n future developments. Mounds view City Council November 29, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Four ------------------------------------------------------------------: ------- Neil Loeding Slated Chit in reviewing the experts report;;, weasel. words ;ire easv to spot, and Chose words: are present in their reports. Mr. Senden stated that the science of defining a wetland is not as specific a science as mathematics, and the wdtlands are defined and labeled based upon the type of plants that appear. Ile stated that conditions change continually, and the boundries could change at any time, depending upon when the reading was taken, He stated the experts must take the data, analyze it and make the best decision they can. He pointed out the City is asking a consultant to do something that is not possible, as it is not that exact a science, Mr. Loeding questioned if the technical people could not state it is not a functioning wetland, how could the Council. Mr. Senden replied the Council's job is to act as responsible decision makers and weigh the evidence, and they cannot always make the case with 100 percent sureity, as there are gray areas. lie stated the Council is saying they are basing their decision on whether it would affect future decisions down the road, and if so, then they should change the ordinance. M •.ter McCarty crated he was concerned with setting precedence by Lice action that would be taken this evening. Attorney Meyers reviewed sections of the ordinance and reviewed excerpts from the letters received from the experts. He advised the Council that if Braun Engineering is determined to be contracting with the City of Mounds View, their report would be very persuasive and would be given weight by a judge. He pointed out a judge would be the one to make a decision in a court case, and he would review the documenta.Lion and call experts and make his decision based upon the information given him. He also pointed out that the question of precedence is ;tot relevent, Councilmember Doty stated he now feels he has enough data to realize this is not a functioning wetland, but he would still like a specific statement from Braun Engineering. Motion/Second: Linke/Blanchard to call for the question. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Mounds View City Council November 29, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Five -------------------------------------------------------------------------- r� Councilmember Blanchard stated she voted in favor of the main motion as she concurred with the technical data received from Braun. Councilmember Doty stated he voted in favor of the main motion as he concurs the wetland does not function but that he does not feel the data received is specific enough, and that a specific statement should be required of one or more of the engineers involved. Councilmember Linke, Councilmember Hankner and Mayor McCarty stated the reasons for their vote had been given by them earlier. Motion/Second: Linke/Hankner to have the second 6. 2nd Reading of rea in�lc g and —adoption of Ordinance No. 351, amending Ord. No. 351 Chapter 48 of the Mounds View Municipal Code entitled Amending Chapte "Wetland Zoning Ordinance", and waive the reading of 48 of the Mound the ordinance. View Municipal Code Entitled Councilmember Blanchard - aye "Wetland Zoning Councilmember Doty - nay Ordinance" Councilmember Linke - aye Councilmember Hankner - aye Mayor McCarty - aye Motion Carried Councilmember Linke explained the reason for his motion was that the ordinance takes the report of the engineer hired by the City, who has done site specific surveys of the property, and gives the delineation, and that he is very comfortable with the information given. Councilmember Doty stated that even though the ordinance uses the Braun delineation, he would prefer the Barr report, as he does not feel the Council needs to take the most liberal position in setting the boundaries. Motion/Second: Doty/Blanchard to have the first 7. 1st Reading of reading of Urdinance No. 352, amending the Municipal Ord. No. 352 Code of Mounds View by repealing Chapter 40 entitled Amending the "'Zoning" and Chapter 43 entitled "Mobile Homes" and Municipal Code adopting a new Chapter 40 entitled "Zoning", and of Mounds View waive the reading. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Attorney Meyers advised that he had discussed the matter with Staff, and that whenever there is a text change to an ordinance, since this will have impact on certain property, the City should have a public hearing, and that notice should be published to have a public hearing before the second reading. Mounds View City Council November 29, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Six ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ Motion/Second: Doty/llankner to Set a public hearing }or December 12 at 7:50 PM. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Motion/Second: McCarty/Blanchard Co authorize the 8. Consideration o purchase of three portable units •Ind accessories from Memo from Polic Capitol Electronics, not to exceed $2,565.00, with the Chief Regarding billing and delivery to be after January 1, 1984. Purchase of Mobile Radios 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Motion/Second: Doty/Bl.anchard to authorize the 9. Consideration o delivery the City Newsletter through the third Staff Memo Re - class carrier route pre-sort at an individual cost garding Review of 7.4C per delivery, to the routes as outlined of City News - in Park Director Anderson's memo of November 23. letter Delivery Procedure 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Director Johnson reviewed his memo to the Council 10. Report of c of November 29, regarding sidewalk snow removal, for of Pu' Works, ComWity There was discussion regarding the policy other Development Citys use of requiring the residents to clear their own sidewalks. Clerk/Administrator Pauley explained I «w._ _ , , e situation anua w1_uy t,.IIC CL Iy WUU1U UC C1C dlllllg the walks. Director Johnson reported that while they were slightly behind schedule, they would be starting to drain and inspect the ground resevoir this week. Attorney Meyers had no report, 11. Report of Attorney Councilmember Blanchard questioned if the Council 12. Reports of should give direction to the representative to Councilmembers Group W, before their next meeting. Clerk/Administrator Pauley updated the Council on the situation with Group W. The Council expressed concern with both the con- struction and the question of the payment, with getting the billing in the Fall and the money in the Spring, and directed Clerk/Administrator Pauley to get in touch with Jerry Skelly. Mounds View City Council November 29, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Seven -------------------------------------------••------------------------------ Councilmember Doty reported he will be on jury ti duty for the week. Councilmember Linke reported the Ramsey County League Christmas banquet would be held on December 14 at the Maplewood Holiday Inn, with reservation:; due in by December 12. Councilmember Ilankner reported she had spoken with Representative Voss regarding the outcome of the last airport hearing, and that once the Council has had an opportunity to discuss the matter, he would like to get together with them to discuss strategy. Mayor McCarty reviewed the status of the airport issue, and recommended the Council have a session with Attorney Meyers to go through the details. It was tentatively set for 6:30 PM on December 6, with a final decision on that date to be made at the next agenda session on December 5. Director Johnson reported a formal response is in the mail on the MSA hearing, and that he will be requesting a MnDOT representative to be present at the next agenda session to discuss the response with the Council. Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported that per the 13. Report of discussion at the last agenda session, Staff pre- Administrator pared and had signed by the property owners, a petition for the improvement of the Fairchild Avenue right-of-way, tie stated the feasibility report would be ready for the first agenda session in January. Motion/Second: Doty/Linke to adopt Resolution No. 1689 Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering Preparation of Feasibility Report. ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Clerk/Administrator Pauley asked authorization to retain Jill Stevens as a part-time clerk/typist in the Police Department while Linda Meyer is on maternity leave. Motion/Second: McCarty/Blanchard to authorize Staff to hire Jill Stevens at $4.99 per hour, for approximately 15 hours per week, as a temporary part-time typist in the Police Department. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Councilmember Doty reported he had received complaints regarding the quality of the snow plowing done recently. Clerk/Administrator Pauley admitted the quality was not as good as was usually experienced and explained the situation. Mounds View City Council November 29, 1938 Regular Meeting Page Eight -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Motion/Second: Doty/Hankner to adjourn the meeting 14. Adjournmel® at ' : 4 i 'M, 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried ly c, zc Dona d Pa 1 " Clerk/Administrator i 1 u