HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1985/05/06CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CCPY COUNCIL
AGENDA_SJ:SSION
May �S� 1985
7:00 a.m.
1. Consideration of Request from Residents of Silver. Lake
Road/County Road H-2 Area for Reconsideration of
Approval of Minor Subdivision for Mary Anderson.
Construction
2. Discussion with Civil Service Commission
3. Discussion of K-Gas Proposal to Remodel Station on Hwy.
10
4. Presentation of 1984 Audit Report
5. Review of Municipal Code Chapter 32 Entitled, "Planning
Commission"
6. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Herbst and
Sons Demolition Company
Property Involved: 2299 County Road H
Development Review (Addition)
B-3, Highway Business District
7. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Proposed
ordinance Revision for Chapter 52.03 "Intoxicating
Beverages"
8. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Proposed
Noise Standard Amendments
9. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Billing
Statement from Al Perez dba Northern Sound
10. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Grant
Merritt Billing for Legal Services
11. Review of Municipal Code Chapters 62, 63, 93, 70, 71, 75
and 76
ff
rding
12• fors
Walkway oBetween n of aQuincy nStreet and randum aErickson rStreetlight
Road
13. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Petition for
Discussion of Utility Extension on Proposed Knollwood
Drive
AGENDA SESSION
MAY 7, 1985
PAGE TWO
14. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Hiring Full
Time Temporary Employee
15. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Cross of
Glory Lutheran Church
Property Involved: 5474 Adams Street
Development Review (Addition)
Conditional Use Permit
R-1, Single Family Residential District
Case 169-85
16. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Street Signs
i
i
yr
s
r r II r, r � � �+•. n `fin ar
�' � I 4 r•n•C I '� � I
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
April 22, 1985
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 Linke at 7:35 PM on April 22, 1985.
2. Pledge of
The Pledge of Allegiance was said. Allegiance
MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilmembers Quick, Blanchard, 3. Roll Call
flaa e, Han ner andMayorLinke.
ALSO
auEeyNand PubllctWorkstorney /CommunityCDevelopmentstra-
Director Thatcher.
Motion/Second: Hankner/Haake to approve the April 4. Approval of
Minutes:
m nutes as presented. April 8, 1985
5'ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Mayor Linke and the Council presented Famela Rose, the
recording secretary, with a plant and thanked her for
her years of service to the Council.
Jack Lasota, 5467 Quincy Street, asked the status of 5
the request made by his neighbor for a rear yard light
on the walkway behind their homes. He added that he
personally would like to see it centered between the
four lots in question.
Director Thatcher replied that no
decision has
snbeenight and
made yet, and that he had gone to
the areafound it to be very dark in the middle of the walkway.
He added it will be on the Council's May 6 agenda for
discussion.
Mayor Linke closed the Hregular
rsmeeC ntinstructopened the
public hearing e
at
7:40 PM.
Director Thatcher explained what the developer is
project.
requesting and gave a brief background of the pro
Residents Re-
quests and
Comments from
the Floor
6, Public Hearing:
M. H. Anderson
for Conditional
Use Permit
9
Mounds View City Counci ;��,ME) �' �" 1�a:^,0 A April 22, 1985
Regular Meeting Page Two
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There were no questions or comments from those present,
so Mayor Links closed the public hearing and reopened
the regular meeting at 7:44 PM.
Councilmember Hankner asked that Items A, B, C, D and 7. Approval of
E be removed for discussion, as the Council had not Consent Agenda
had an opportunity to go over them yet.
Motion/Second: Blanchard/Quick to approve Items F and
G o t-� he consent agenda, and waive the reading of the
resolutions.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Director Thatcher explained the request from the
Mermaid Supper Club for a kitchen and storage addition.
He stated the Planning Commission has reviewed it and
recommends approval. He also noted there will still
be ample parking spaces.
Councilmember Hankner questioned why the request was
reviewed informally by the Planning Commission at an
agenda session, and stated she was concerned with
having documentation from the Planning Commission.
Director Thatcher explained the Planning Commission^�
had reviewed the request informally and they did not
wish Staff to prepare a formal report, due to the
smallness of the project.
Councilmember Haake stated that from her experience on
the Planning Commission, it is basically a courtesy
to have them review something like this, as no variance
is needed.
Mayor Linke questioned if Council approval was even
necessary in a case like this. Clerk/Administrator Pauley
recommended the Council set parameters.
Attorney Meyers clarified it has been the policy to have
commercial developments reviewed by the Council, even
though no variance is required.
Motion/Second: Haake/Hankner to approve the kitchen and
storage addition to the Mermaid Supper Club, contingent
upon approval from the Rice Creek Wntershed District.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Mayor Linke closed the regular meeting and opened the 6B. Public Herb:
second public hearing at 7:55 PM. Ordinance 2
! April 22, 1985
Mounds View City Council ° Page
Three
Regular Meeting --- ----------------
---------------------------------------------------
Director Thtacher reivewed proposed Ordinance No.
municipal code.
388, amending Chapter 48 of the
There were no questions or comments from those present,
hearing and reopened
so Mayor Linke closed the public
7:56 PM.
the regular meeting at
Director Thatcher reviewed the proposed parking lot 7.
He explained
Consent Agenda
(Cont.)
plan for the Pinewood School parking lot.
Commission had been concerned with saving the
the Planning
and explained the costs associated with the project.
trees,
Councilmember Hankner again asked for complete information
before having the Council
from the Planning Commission,
take action.
the plans for
Motion/Second:
Schoolcparkingelotoaspprove
presented.
Motion Carried
5 ayes 0 nays
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reviewed the history of
proposed Resolution No. 1881.
Motion/Second: Hankner/Blanchard to approve Resolution
fund
o authorizing the reduction of the water
and capital improvements,
reserve for future maintenance
and waive the reading.
Motion Carried
5 ayes 0 nays
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reviewed the history of
proposed Resolution No. 1882.
Motion/Second: Blanchard/Quick to approve Resolution
earnings of the water
No. esigciatino retained
water and sewer main
and sewer funds as reserves .for
breaks, and waive the reading.
motion Carried
5 ayes 0 nays
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reviewed the history of
proposed Resolution No. 1883.
Motion/Second: Haake/Hankner to approve Resolution No.
the sewer fund
TW�esignating ri-tained earnings of
and capital improve-
as a reserve for future maintenance
waive the reading.
ment projects, and
Motion Cavried
5 ryes 0 nays
Mounds View City Council R r `.. h , , � �� April 22, 1985
Regular Meeting � r , i.?':` q , t . - Page Four
------------------------j �13_
Haake/Hankner to approve the con- 8. Approval
ditio�use permit for M. H. Anderson for flood M. H. And
plain excavation, a flood plain use permit and a Conditions se
minor subdivision, contingent upon approval from Permit
the Rice Creek Watershed District.
5 ayes 0 nays
Motion Carried
Motion/Second: Quick/Blanchard to have the first 9.
1st Reading of
reading of Ordinance No. 388, an ordinance amending
Ordinance No.
Chapter 48 of the Mounds View Municipal Code
388
entitled "Wetland Zoning Ordinance" and waive the
reading,
5 ayes 0 nays
Motion Carried
Councilmember Quick explained his reason for the
motion is the original designation of the area is
in error.
Motion/Second: Hankner/Quick to have the second 10.
2nd Reading and
reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 385, an
Adoption of
ordinance amending the Municipal Code of Mounds
Ordinance No.
View by amending Chapter 70 entitled "Municipal Water
385
System" and waive the reading.
Councilmember Quick - aye
Councilmember Blanchard - aye
Councilmember Haake - aye
Councilmember Hankner - aye
Mayor Linke - aye
Motion. Carried
Dick Kraft, of Kunz Oil Company, explained the 11. Kunz Oil
Planning Commission had approved their latest Development
plan, and they have made the landscaping changes Review
requested by the Planning Commission, and have done
everything else they were asked to. He explained
they would be removing the existing building and
replace it with a modern facility. They will also
be reducing their hours, from being open 24 hours
a day, to being open from 6 AM to 10 PM.
Attorney Meyers reminded the Council they presently
have a case before the court involving the City of
Mounds View and Greg Johnson, and the issue of the
Comp Plan will be resolved by the trial court. He
explained the City has argued the property abutts
a busy highway and the property should ultimately
be developed medium density residential. He
added that inconsistency has been found to be
an adequate reason for denial.
Councilmember Hankner stated they had earlier
Mounds View City Council ' April 22, 1985
Regular Meeting Page Five
---------------------------------------------------------------------
decided it was time to review this area and had
discussed hiring an independent planning consultant and
she would like to see the Planning Commission use
a different planner, to get a new perspective of
the issue.
The Council discussed tabling the item until they
have had further opportunity to review it. Mayor
Links asked if a three week delay, to the next
agenda session, would hurt the developer. Mr.
Kraft replied it would push construction back
even later, and he has spent over $10,000 already
on the site plans, and has met with the Planning
Commission four times and revised the plans each
time based on direction from the Planning Commission.
Attorney Meyers pointed out the problem is the area
is inconsistent with the Comp Plan, and if they
deny this request, he feels it would end up in
litigation, yet if they approve it, they will hear
about it in court on the Johnson case.
Councilmember Hankner stated she did not feel the
City should tell a business what their hours of
operation can be, as she didn't believe the City
had done it before with any other business, and
she recommended discussing the whole development
further.
Motion/Second: Hankner/Haake to table the Kunz
Oi Company evelopment reveiw and conditional
use permit until the next agenda session on May 6,
1985.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Director Thatcher reviewed the applicants request 12. Appeal of
to subdivide the R-2 prcperty, consisting of 16 Planning Comm.
dwelling units to R-1, with 14 single family dwell- Resolution
ing units, which has been denied by the Planning Regarding M. H.
Commission. Anderson
Fred Haas, of M. H. Anderson Construction, explained
that in 1981 they went before the Planning Commission
and City Council with a PUD, and they have not been
able to find buyers for the double homes in the past
two years, so would like to change and put in single
family homes. He stated the vehicle to be used
would be decreasing the density from 16 units down
to 14,
Arlan Grueling, representing M. H. Anderson Construc-
tion, explained he had been with the City of Bloomington
when M. H. Anderson had gone before them for similar
changes in their Bloomington project, and he explained
Mounds View city Council %@ %' 1:,t, i •-f � % y —,� + April 22, 1985
Regular Meeting 'v6' s� d G . ,� �...Li Page Six
---------------------------------------------------------------------
the rational used by the City of Bloomington in
granting the change and variance required for lot
sizes.
Mr. Haas presented sketches of the proposed lay-
out of the homes, as well as pictures of the homes
they built in Bloomington and the layout of the
Bloomington area. He explained that each lot
would have 50' of frontage at the building line.
He also added that the current residents of the
Mounds View development have expressed concern
in having double family homes built there, as they
feel it would detract from their homes. He also
stated the yy would be able to lower the cost of
each home by approximately $5,000 if granted the
smaller lot sizes.
Director Thatcher stated the developer has not
taken the density bonus on the lots in question.
Attorney Meyers reviewed the list of reasons for
granting variances and stated they could amend
the PUD.
Mr. Grueling explained that when Bloomington
approved the plan, they averaged all the lots
together, to come up with the sizes.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reviewed the options
available to the Council and stated that Staff
recommends they reject the appeal and send the
developer back to the Planning Commission to
amend the PUD.
Motion/Second: Blanchard/Quick to deny the
appeal or Resolution No. 129-85, regarding 14. H.
Anderson Construction.
5 ayes 0 nays ?lotion Carried
Councilmember Blanchard stated her reason for
the denial was the same as the Planning Commissions,
to uphold the zoning code.
The Council reviewed the requirements that
would have to be met by the developer, of 3 acres,
200' frontage and a ten percent density bonus.
Motion/Second: Quick/Haake to refer back to
the Planning Commission Case 165-85 for N. H.
Anderson Construction, with the recommendation
that they amend the PUD with the ten percent
density bonus, to be considered at the next
Planning Commission meeting.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Mounds View Citv Council April 22, 1985
Regular Meeting Page Seven
----------------------------------._--------- ----- ----------------
The Council stated that based on their calculations,
the developer could possibly get 12 if not 13 lots
with the density bonus.
Director Thatcher reviewed the Planning C,:rmissions 13
Resolution No. 128-85. Park Director Anderson
explained the project is planned for 1990.
Councilmember Hankner expressed concern about
approving the project now and locking a future
Council into it. She also recommended adding the
approval of the Ramsey County Highway Department
to the resolution.
Motion/Second: Haake/Blanchard to approve the pro-
posal torthe Ramsey County Park and Recreation
Department dated March 6, 1985 to construct a trail
along the south side of Rice Creek, with the addition
of #6, that it be contingent upon approval of the
Ramsey County Public Works Department.
5 ayes 0 nays
Ramsey County
Park and Rec
Departments
Request Regar
Rice Creek
Motion Carried
Director Thatcher reviewed the plans for the propos- 14. Consideration of
ed project. He explained a walkway is not planned Gale -Yost Addn.
at this time but could be added, and would cost the on Laport Drive
City approximately $1,500.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley stated the funds would
have to come from the contingency fund. He suggested
making an amendment to the proposed resolution and
having Staff report back on the source of the funds.
He pointed out also that there could likely be a
:egrest for a fence on both sides of the walkway,
and lighting, which would increase the cost.
Councilmember Hankner suggested that rather than
including it as part of the development now, it
might be better to wait until the budget process for
the next year.
Mayor Linke replied it would be more expensive to
come back later to do the work.
Motion/Second: Quick/Haake to approve the plans and
specifications for the Gale -Yost addition as presented,
with the addition of a paved walkway from the north end
of the cul-de-sac to Arden Avenue, and placement of a
light at the pole located half way between Arden and
Laport, dependent upon approval of the residents, and
direct Staff to schedule a bid opening date, identify
the source of funds and secure approvals from the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, '.Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission and the Minnesota Department of Health.
5 ayes 0 nays !lotion Carried
Mounds View City Council �:` f? � � � � April 22, 1985
Regular Meeting PP Page Eight
Director Thatcher reviewed the bids received, and 15. Considerate '
reported the low bidder is responsible. of Staff h
Reggarding MSA
Motion/Second: Hankner/Hawke to award the contract 1985 Street
to H & S Asphalt Company for the MSA project 1985, Project
in an amount not to exceed $362,232.00.
5 ayes 0 nays
Park Director Anderson reviewed the bids received
for Phase I of Greenfield Park and reported that
Midwest Asphalt Company is the low responsible
bidder. He explained their bid brings the project
to approximately $40,000 below the total projected
cost.
Motion/Second: P.aake/Blanchard to award the low
6i or wor on Greenfield Park, not to exceed
$123,500, to Midwest Asphalt Company for Phase I
development of Greenfield Park.
5 ayes 0 nays
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported the Civil
Service Commission has recommended three names to
the Council for their consideration in hiring two
police officers.
Mayor Unke stated he has a difficult time hiring
police officers witbout having any background
information about them, and the Police Civil Service
Comnission has decided they do not feel it is
necessary for the Council to have any information
on the candidates. He pointed out the Council has
much more information on hiring clerical. personnel
that it does on hiring a police officer.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley pointed out the urgency
in making a decision as quickly as possible as
Duane Hagen will be retiring the end of the month
and they would like his replacement to start on
May let, and the second to start shortly afterwards.
He added that the second officer has been authorized
and is budgeted for. He also pointed out the Police
Department would be severely understaffed without
these two new officers.
Motion Carried
16. Awarding of
Phase I Green-
field Park
Contract
Motion Carried
17. Hiring of ;
Additional,
Police Offic a
Mayor Linke stated he would vote on hiring two officers
only because of the shortage problems but in the future
he does not want to be put into the same situation of
having to hire someone without knowing anything about
them. He added he had sent a letter to the Civil Service
Commission asking them to explain the situation to the
Council, but he has not heard back from them.
Mounds View City Council, f t' April 22, 1985
Regular Meeting ` �� � U ��--------Page-Nine
-------------------------W-------------------------
Motion/Second: Linke/Blanchard to hire Robert
Re sow rgaret Wolverton, with Mr, Nelson to
start on or about May 1st and Ms. Wolverton to start
on or about May 3rd, with a probationary period of
one year, and the starting salary and benefits per
the local union agreement.
4 ayes 1 nay
Councilmember Hankner voted against the motion,
explaining that there is a certain responsibility by
the commission members to report their findings to
the Council, and the Council is ultimately responsible
to the citizens, and due to lack of information, she
was not able to vote in favor of the hirings.
Councilmember Quick expressed displeasure at the
time element involved and the urgency needed in
the hirings and stated he voted at this time only
because of the health, welfare and safety of the
community. He stated he also feels there is a
serious lack of information provided to the Council
by the Police Civil Service Commission.
Councilmember Blanchard recommended the Council and
Civil Service Commission get together at an agenda
session and go over the problems. Clerk/Administra-
tor Pauley stated he would make the arrangements.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reviewed the MAC's
response to comments on the scoping document. He
recommended they monitor the EIS process and wait
to see what MAC does.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reviewed his memo of
April 10, 1985 to the Council regarding the
Public Works/Park Maintenanco reorganization.
Motion/Second: Hankner/Haake to approve the
Pu�c orka%Park Maintenance reorganization as
per the April 10, 1985 memo.
5 ayes 0 nays
Director Thatcher had no report.
Motion Carried
18. Staff Memo
Regarding MAC
Response to
Comments on
Scoping Document
19. Staff Memo -
Regarding Public
Works/Parks
Maintenance
Reorganization
Motion Carried
20. Report of Public
Works/Community
Development
Director
Mounds View City Council �';, K �'{ rq"-i'.-y� April 22, 1985
Regular Meeting r:t� - Page Ten -----
Attorney Meyers reported he had received data from 21. Report of,
�
Mr, Perex relative to the noise control questions Attorney
at the airport. Mr. Perez will be commencing his
monitoring program soon.
Councilmember Quick had no report.
Councilmember Blanchard had no report.
Councilmember Haake had no report.
Councilmember Hankner had no report.
Mayor Linke reviewed meetings he had attended
recently. He also reported on the winners at the
Future Problem Solving Minnesota State Bowl,
which included many local students.
Motion/Second: Linke/Hanknerr to adopt Resolution
No. 5, congratulating the three local winning
teams and directing Staff to prepare the resolution
for signature.
5 ayes 0 nays
22. Reports of
Councilmembers
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported he had received 23
a call from the Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities and they have agreed in concept on
the position the City has taken regarding the Highway
10 Radiator Shop. Due to financial constraints,
the League of Cities will be filing an amecus brief.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported the State
legislature is considering legislation prohibiting
non-profit organizations from selling gambling
items in conjunction with liquor, and Attorney Meyers
is recormnending holding off on this until the
Legislature takes action.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reminded the Council of
the May 4 goal setting session, and the May 11
Clean -Up Day.
Notion/Second: Blanchard/Hankner to adjourn the 24
meetin— g at 10:25 PM.
5 ayes 0 nays
Respectfully submitted,
Donald F. Pauley
Clerk/Administrator
Motion Carried
Report of 0
Clerk/Admini-
strator
Adjournment
Motion Carried
0
��1��11•L I
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development
DATE: April 29, 1985
SUBJECT: M. H. ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION CO. - MINOR SUBDIVISION
Today, Mr. Varns and Mrs. Crosby met with Don Pauley and myself
to discuss the subject development. We explained that the
development, as proposed, meets all City Codes and that all the
proper procedures have been followed to date.
On April 22, 1985, the City Council conducted a public hearing tc
consider the request of the developer, M. H. Anderson
Construction Co., for a conditional use permit for flood plain
excavation, flood plain use permit and a minor subdivision. on
the same evening, the City Council had another hearing on
Ordinance No. 388 amending Chapter 48 of. the Mounds View
Municipal Code by redelineating a land boundary on the wetland
zoning district map for this minor subdivision. The City Council
had the first reading of the ordinance on April 22, 1985 and has
the second reading of the ordinance scheduled for May 13, 1985.
Mr. Varns and Mrs. Crosby were adamant that their land was going
r to be flooded because of this development. We explained that the
developer is planning to provide compensating storage for the
fill he is placing in the flood plain. In other words, he will
excavate the back yard and fill in the front yard. The
excavation in the back yard will be such that there will not be a
pond there when the excavation is complete. The back yard will
still slope away from the house to the back yard. They seem to
be worried that if a pond is installed in the back yard of the
minor subdivision, their land will eventually fall into the
pond. I wish to assure you that a pond is not proposed for the
back yard and one will not be installed. Therefore, I do not
understand the objection to this minor subdivision. We also
asked them to provide a letter stating their objections to the
subdivision.
Attached is a copy of a map indicating location of Mr. Varns' and
Mrs. Crobsy's residences. Mr. Varns' lives at 7350 Silver Lake
Road and Mrs. Crosby lives at 7344 Silver Lake Road.
They stated in our meeting that they will bring their neighbors
to the May 61 1985, Council Meeting.
SWT/bc
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council
FROM: Public Works/Community Development Director
DATE: April 4, 1985
SUBJECT: M. H. ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION MINOR SUBDIVISION
SPRING LAKE PARK KNOLLS, PLANNING CASE 166-85
Attached please find a ropy of Mounds View Planning Commission
Resolution No. 125-85 on the subject case, wetland map dated
3/5/85, flood plain map dated 3/5/85, letter from Minnesota Soil
and Water Conservation District dated 2/27/85, a letter from the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources dated 2/26/85 and a
revised drawing showing a drainage Swale on the west side of the
west lot.
The Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of this
minor subdivision. If the City Council decides to approve this
minor subdivision you will need to do the following:
1) Revise the Wetland Zoning District per the attached map and
issue a Conditional Use Permit for construction, excavation
and fill in a wetland buffer area.
2) Issue a Conditional Use Permit for excavation, fill and
construction of a single family house on each lot on a flood
plain zoning district.
3) Conduct a hearing per the attached notice for a Conditional
Use Permit per City Code Chapter 49A and conduct a hearing
for redelineating a wetland boundary.
The developer will compensate for the minor amount of fill to be
placed in the flood plain by creating a corresponding amount of
extra excavation in the back portion of the lot (the lot will still
drain to the north).
The Ramsey County Soil and Water Conservation District's letter
ddted [February 27, 1985 indicates that the lots are not in the
wetland.
SWT/bc
ORDINANCE NO. 388
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 48 OF THE MOUNDS
VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED, "WF,TLAND 'ZONING ORDINANCE"
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 1 of. the Municipal Code, is hereby
amended by recLiineating the wetland boundary for Wetland
I.D. No. 1-15 as per the attached exhibit.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days
after the date of its publication.
Read by the Council of the City of Mounds View on the
day of 1985. 1
Read and passed by the Council of the City of Mounds View
this day of 1985.
ATTEST:
Mayor
(SEAL)
Clerk -Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
11
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. -85
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
PLANNING CASE 166-85, M.H. ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION, MINOR SUB-
DIVISION, SPRING LAKE PARK KNOLLS, WEST ONE, -HALF OF LOTS 113
AND 114 (N.W. CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD H-2 AND SILVER LAKE ROAD)
WHEREAS, M.H. Anderson Construction has requested City
approval of a minor subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the subdivision is two lots into two lots; and
WHEREAS, part of the lots are in the wetland zone and
floodplain zone; and
WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Soil and Water Conservation
District has reviewed the site with Staff and has determined that
the proposed development will not encroach into the existing wet-
land; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has
reviewed the site and determined that no permit will be required
from the Mn DNR; and
WHEREAS, the developer will compensate for the minor
amount of fill to be placed in the floodplain by creating a
corresponding amount of extra excavation in the back portion of
the lots (the lots will still drain to the north), and
WHEREAS, M.H. Anderson has provided a site plan showing
proper setbacks, building elevations and other pertinent data;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View
Planning Commission recommends adjusting the wetland map per
Attachment No.l and issuing a wetland alteration permit for
filling and constructing a single family house on each lot in the
wetland buffer area;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends the issuance of a conditional use permit
for filling and constructing a single family house on each lot
in a floodplain zoning district;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends a fifteen foot wide alley and utility
easement on the west side of the west lot;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends approval of the minor subdivision subject
to Chapter 49A Requirements for said property.
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO, t4.
PAGE TWO OF TWO
RE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission directs Staff to forward this resolution to the City
Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this day of March, 1985.
ATTEST: ----- --
Chairman
(SEAL) -- -' '
D- irector— of Publ-ic-
Works/
Community Development
1
•»w
y
-.-__ d
'
31,a•-u
_
RON S 0 N -
---
-
+tT go
tribe
..
I I
w
Km
T
Y
---DRIVE
Z
1a� al wwf la.l
JE
W
0
12 li 10
0
K
�
BRONSON D RIVE3
-BROAD
k
10 fu O I Io
�� r
J O o
W f >}
W J J4i Y N SON
+ A .,i tl to r g'i C v
f �111
01
8 I
I
y o
o lot
t
ng L®ke I SPRING 4 LAKE
Id 1 tc 1 * 7416
I o �
y
I � � 1
O
O N I i
0 W
W _ C w
r
O o G p
1
,r l
ollwood f KNOLLWOOD - DRIVE
ive1 r
Itol 171
- :]' }r
•N�,
C /
ik
•1m.7 � � xC.l � � � Pam' •. � •
P �:tf 1 F;:;:;;:�`:%'<'i:ii;MK:i•ii :i:::•::.;'.•,.%>: . O O
'"- --• • 7YJ6
G R O E
i :• y. :..;. �:•.:i .: •:..•:::i"v'•i'.;;:i:i�%:iiii!:i:):•:'i:;i'::':
• , .;.. .. ii:•::::; is • • :.:.;
N
D107
Q
�^
1 ... 6
rer Lake _ •' 3tLYER—
ad
i'
RAMSLY SOIL ANL 0AI ER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Ioxr.unJ Cuwny WO bo Ab.9
Inft Ilw IL Smm Yuul Yo,'
Nu,dr,.cr,it Alninu.,A,l em7!
LlI...... J! I!, AP
MINNESOTA I :!�m
SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
Date: February 27, 1085
To: Steve Thatcher, EnrIneer
City of !sounds View
From: Tom Petersen, Conservation Snecinlist,�,
Subject: Wetland encroachment by pronosed Linda grant Addition
As Per our February 25 field trin, the nronosed Mary Anderson develonment
will not encroach into the existing wetland. The nronosed rear lot set back of 20
feet, as is depicted by the Plan, should adequately buffer any disturbance to the
wetland ecosystem. I would, however, recommend that future structures be designed
to address the projected 1 Percent storm reoccurrence flood level of 901 feet.
Common practice is that compenantnr.1 storage be Provided for net fill in the
flcodplain.
I would also recommend that the 0NR be contacted on the anrrgrent excavation
and filling in of the wetland's northwest corner by existinn residences. This action
if done without a permit is in Potential violation of Ch. 105.
cc. I1ary Anderson
STATE Of
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
1200 Warner Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55106
PHONE NO. 296-7523 F ill. NO
February 26, 1985
Mr. Steven Thatcher
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10 ;
Mounds View, Minnesota 55112
RE: LINDA GRANT ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT
Dear Mr. Thatcher:
I reviewed the above -referenced plat with Mr. Fred Haas on
February 26, 1985 and I also made a field inspection of the site
with Mr. Haas on September 17, 1984. Based upon my field inspec-
tion and the plat prepared by Hedlund Engineering, I would estimate
that the Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) of basin #62-170W is
approximately associated with the 898 contour. Since Mr. Haas
has stated that he would not be placing fill beyond the rear yard
20-foot setback line, he would clearly be above the OHW of the
wetland and no permit would be required from this Department.
The City's official flood plain maps indicate that a significant
portion of the lot is within the 100-year flood plain. Provided
that the developer satisfies the requirements of the City's flood
plain management contorls, we would have no concerns.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your
convenience.
Sincerely,
David P. leuthe, Area Hydrologist
Metro Region Division of Waters
DPL/ch
cc: Fred Haas
AN EQUAL OPPORIONIlY E:MPLOYTII
1
tiYw rvv �
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY CUU L
FROM: CLERK -ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: MAY 2, 1985
SUBJECT: MOUNDS VIEW K STATION
City Attorney Richard Meyers, Public Works/Community
Development Director Steve Thatcher and I recently met to
discuss the proposal by the Mounds View K Station on Highway
10 to remodel their facilities and the recommendation of the
City Planning Commission which included a recommendation to
revise the City's Comprehensive Plan. We are concerned that
any effort on the part of the City to piece -meal amend the
City's Comprehensive Plan to address a larger problem with
the Comprehensive Plan would simply jeopardize the
enforceability of the entire Comprehensive Plan. We feel
that it is necessary that the City undertake appropriate
evaluations of the Comprehensive Plan to determine whether
or not modifications of the Plan are appropriate and, if so,
to implement said modifications.
In order to provide the City with appropriate time to under-
take a study of the Comprehensive Plan and make any
necessary modifications, it will he necessary for the City
to implement some type of a moratorium on development in
those areas where conflict currently exists. Minnesota
statute 462.355 Subdivision 4, copy attached, provides that
a municipality may adopt ar. interim ordinance applicable to
all or part of its jurisdiction for the purpose of
protecting the planning process and health, safety and
welfare of its citizens by regulating, restricting or
prohibiting any use, development, or subdivision within the
jursidictior, or a portion thereof for a period not to exceed
one year from the effective date of an ordinance if the City
is conducting planning studies. Staff would recommend that
the Council adopt an interim ordinance prohibiting develop-
ment and subdivision of property fronting on Highway 10 in
planning districts 6 and 12, copy of map attached, for the
purpose of performing a study to re-evaluate the provisions
of the City's Comprehensive Plan regarding future
development of property fronting on Highway 10 in those
planning districts with the ordinance to expire 90 days
after its adoption.
Should the Council agree with this recommendation Staff
would be prepared to present an interim ordinance for its
first reading at the May 13, 1985 Council Meeting.
`/ DFP/mjs
Attachement:
IN
46aJ64 IIOLXISG, ALDLIEJOP4L\T, PUNNISG. ZONING gH
In any municipality in whkh the planning agency does not act as the bard of
adjustments and appeals, the board shall make no decision on an appeal or petition
until the planning agency, If lis" is one, or a repreventaint authorized by II hot bad
reasonable Opportunity, oat to exceed 60 days, to review and report to the board of
adjustment, and IPP"h upon the appeal or petition.
History: 196.1 r 670 a 4; 1967 c 498 s 1
462.255 PREPARATION, ADOPTION. AND AMENDMENT OF COHPRE,
HENSIVE MUNICIPAL PIAN.
Subdivision L Preparation sad resew. The planning agency shall prepare
the comprehensive municipal pion. In discharging this duty the planning agency
shall consult with and conrdimte the planning activities of other departments and
agencies of the munkipdity to insure conformity with and to assist in the develop.
ment of the comprehensive municipal plan. In its planning activities the planning
agency shall take due cognizance of the planning activities of adjacent units of
govm emem and Other aRxted public agencies. The planning agency shall periodi•
catty reviewthe plan end recommend amendments whenever necessary.
Subd. 2. Promotion far plan adoption and amendment. The planning agency
may, unless Otherwise presided by charter or ordinance consistent with the mmici•
pal charter, adopt and amend from time to time a comprehensive municipal plan as
its recommendation to the gns'ent Wt. The plan may' be prepared and adopted
in sections, each of shkb relates to a Ounjar subject of the plan or to a major
geographical section of the municipality. The goveming body may propose emend•
mems to the eantprchcavive municipal plan by resolution submitted to she punning
agency. Before adopting [be comprehensive municipal plan or any section or
amendment of the plan, the palming agency shall hold at least one public baring
thrown. A notice of the ulna, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published
once in the official nesspsper of the municipality at last ten days before the dry of
the hearing. The propaad plan, section of the plan, or amendment shall be
transmitted to the governing body prior to the publication of the notice of hearing.
Adoption and amendment of star comprehensive municipal plan or of any section
thereof shall be by resolution adopted by a majority of ail the members of The
Planning commission. A copy of the plan or of any sedan or amendment Ihermf
adopted by the planning spency shall be «tlified to the governing body of the
municipality.
Sued. 2. Adoptlm by portstag body. Unless otherwise provided by charter,
the goveming bed)' may by rndation of a majnmy of its members adopt and amend
the comprehensive plan Of Portion thereof sec recommended as the oifich! municipal
P:an upon such nolx AM boring as may be prescribed by Ordinance. Until so
adopted by the governing body, the plan skill constitute only de recommendation of
the planning agency.
Scbd. 4. Interim ariaure, If a municipality is conducting studies or hu
authorized a sudy 10 be c*md or has hrld or his scheduled a baring for the
P•irpose of considring adoption or amendment or a comprehensive plan or sera
controls as dented in union 461.252. subdivision 15. or if new territory for which
plms or controls hne rem been adopleJ is ancaed to a municipality, she goveming
body of the municipaliy my adopt in interim ordinance applicable to all or pre of
its jurisdiction for the purpose of protecting The planning proms and the health,
safely and welfare of its cilimss The interim ordinance may regulate, restrict or
prohibit any use. dotkpnwnl, or subdivision within the jurisdiction or a portion
shelter for a Period M to armed me year from the date it u effective• and may be
extended for such additional periods es the municipality me,' deem appropriate, not
exceeding a total additional period of IS months. No interim ordinance may bah,
W. HOUSING. REDEI'ELOP)IEVI, PIAMING, ZONING 4all
delay. or impede a subdivision which has ban given preliminary approval prior to
the effective date of the interim ordinance.
History; 1965 c 670 s 5; 1976 c 127 s 21, 1977 c 847 s 68; 1980 c 566 a 24;
1988 c216 an 1167
s62.556 PROCEDURE FOR PLAN EFFECTUATION; GENERALLY.
Subdivision I. Recommtndations for plan execution. Upon the recommends•
tion by the planning agency of the comprehensive municipal plan or sections thereo6
the planning agency shall study and propose to the Writing body reasonable and
practicable mans for putting the plan or section of the plan into effect. Subject to
the limitations of the following sections, such means include, but are not limited to.
toning regulations, regulations for the subdivision of land, in official map, a
program for coordination of the normal public improvements and services of the
municipality, urban renewal and a capital improvements program.
Subd. 2. Compliance with plan. After a compnbcnsive municipal plan or
section thereof has been recommended by the planning agency and a copy filed with
the goeming bad)', no publicly owned interest in rat property within the munici•
polity shall be acquired or disposed of, nor shill any capita improvemem be
authorized by the municipality or special diatries or agency thereof or any other
political wMirisinn M1aring jurisdiction within IM1e municipality until after the
punning agency has raiexed the proposed acquisition, disposal, or upilot improve•
teem end reported in writing to the goveming body or other special district or
yency• or political subdivision concerned, its findings as to mmpbance of the
proposed acquisition, dispoul or improvement with the eomprehmsive municipal
plan. Failure of the planning agency• to report on the Qropoul within 45 days after
such a reference, ter such other period as ma) h daignued by the goveming body
shall bt deemed to have selisfied the requirements of this subdivision. The
governing body may, by resolution adopted by Iwo•thids vote dispense with the
requirements of this subdivision when in its judgment it finds that the proposed
acquisition or disposal of rat property or Capital improvement has no relationship to
the comprehensive municipal plan.
History; 1965 c 670 s 6
462.357 PROCEDURE FOR PLAN EFFECTUATION; TONING.
Subdivision 1. Authority for zoning. For the purpose of promoting the public
halth. safety, morals and general welfs c, a municipality may by ordinance Iegulxte
the location, height, width, bulk, type of foondatirn, number of stories, site of
buildings and other stmcturm the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the site
of yards and other open spaces, the dent and distribution of populatiro, the taus
of buildings and structures far trade, industry, residence, meratim, public activities,
or other purposes, and the uses of Ind for trade. Industry, residence, rmrotion,
agriculture, forestry, soil conservation, water suPPly conurvation, consen atim of
shorelands, a defi.sed in Ixtion 103.485, Attas to direst sunlight for molar energy
systems as defined in section 1161.06, flood comml or otber purposes, and may
establish standards and procedures regulating such uses. No regulation may
prohibit earth sheltered construction as defined in section 1161.ok subdivision 1, or
manufactured homes built in conformance with sections 227.31 to 527.35 that
comply with all other zoning ordinances promulgated pursuant to this section. The
regulations may divide the municipality into districts or tons or suitable numbers,
shape and ilia. The regulations shall be unifann for each class or kind of buildings,
structures or land and for each class or kind of use throughout melt district, but she
regulation in one district may differ from thou in other districts. The ordinance
. � eula 11
q: i II IYnq . u
511-1 co The m/P A lu plwuy II.
.q Itl i'U Nli \ I ANv WI Iw ulwle ml
I I I \ be aeee We peau �I/ �•
mom"I. enl n napuvc 1 ,1
4
5 ji •.I wed wY II
^e)rl •1
'I ,I
Inl• III. R/III !
i IIeT I
f
nf
Jry �I12
.SLit.
. O
Y. W II O �µut W4
� �I � 1 1 ,. o-.•r ,\1
o "p
J I
�L•I• of I , 1n i.LL.� x( 4 I n
Ali
e.w+d oo.r :; e
11 _ .. it ..
10 II
� /i 1 .49(1114 � � •,�Ij a^Y�i .� � • I• ,.\ W xl rr��II1\
i ,i III! Lill,l.nt ,il ..IF 1` I: Ji ;I; it ,,1I
.11 emc^ao.
Planning Districts
fjk 1.71
m
IIIyluul try
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC
168
00MR& (,I,,
kri Im
32.01
CIIAPTEIt 32
THE. PLANNING CoMMISSInN
32.01 Establishment. A Planning and Zoning Commission
for Mounds View i� hereby rislablished.
32.02 composition.
Subdivision 1. Appointed Members, Terms of Office. The
Planning and Zoning Commissrnn shall consist of not less than
seven nor more than nine ;uumbers from the resident population of.
Mounds View, other than persons elected to a public body, to be
appointed by the Mayor with approval of the City Council from
applications submitted. The appointees shall have three-year
staggered terms; at. least two of these terms, but riot more than
three terms, shall expire each year on December 31. Appointments
t.n fill expired L'nrms are I.n be made each year at the organiza-
tional meeting of the city Council in January. The Mayor, with
approval of the City Council, shall appoint a Chairperson.
Subdivision 2. Designated Members. In addition to the
appointed membership, two non -voting members shall he designated
by the City Council, one member from the City administration and
one from the City Council, to serve as liaison to the Planning
and Zoning Commission. The Lei -in of the appointments shall
ordinarily be for one year, except that they will terminate with
the office from which the non -voting appointment is derived.
32.03 Qualification of Members. No person shall be
appointed with private or personal interest likely to conflict
with the general public interest. If any person appointed shall
find that his private or personal interests are involved in any
matter coming before the Commission, he shall disqualify himself
from taking part in action on the matter.; alternatively, he may
be disqualified by a two-thirds majority vote of the Commis-
sioners in attendance.
32.04 Agaointment, 19hen Effective. The appointees shall
be duly sworn and take office at the first regular meeting of the
commission in the month of January each year. Both original and
successive appointees shall hold their offices until their
successors are appointed and qualified.
32.05 Organization, Meetings.
Subdivision I. Regular Meeting. At the fir:lt regular
meeting in January, the Commission shall elect a vice-chairman
from among its appointed members for a term of one year. The
Commission may eroal.e and fill such other uff:ices frnm its
members as it may determine to transact, commission business
32.05
The Commission shall hold nt lu,Ist ono regular mooting each
month, on a day, and at d Lillie illlrl d llldco WI111:11 the Commission
shall fix by resolution, 0
Subdivision 2. Voting Privileges. Each of the appointed
members shall have equal voting privileges.
subdivision 3. Ouorum. A majority of the, appointed
voting Commission mcinh1!rs shill constil'utc .1 quorum.
Subdivision 4. Hy laws, Records. The Commission shall
adopt bylaws for its governance and for the transaction of its
business. The bylaws shall be reviewed on an annual basis at the
first regular meeting in I'chruary. A recording secro.tary, who
may be recommended by the Planning Commission for appointment,
shall keep a record of attendance at Commission meetings, a
record of resolutions, votes and abstentions on each question
requiring a vote. The record of the Commission shall be a public
record.
32.06 1;1enditures. The Commission may request from the
City Council tho employment nl' such staff, toclmicians, and
experts as may be deemed proper, and may request such other funds
as may be necessary and proper for the conduct of its affairs.
32.07 Reports. The City Council may request an annual
report from the Planning Commission of its work during the
precooding year.
32.08 Compensation. All members of this Commission shall
servo without compensation.
32,09 Vacancies.
subdivisioa 1. Removal from office. An appointed member
of. tt;e Commission may be r)movetl f"om office for just cause and
on written charges by at least four/fifths vote of the entire
City COUIICil, but such member shall be entitled to a public
nearing before such vote is taken. In addition, an appointed
member may be removed for non-attendance at Planning Commission
meetings as provided in the Bylaws adopted by the Planning
Commission. It shall be the duty of the Chairman of the
Commission to notify the City Council promptly of any vacancies
occurring in membership. The mayor, with approval of the City
Council, shall fill such vacancies, for the unexpired term of the
original appointment.
subdivision 2. Terminiation of L pointment. Any
Commission member desiring tc' terminate Ills/her appointment to
the Commission before the expiration of the term, shall give
written notification to the Planning Commission Chairman of
his/her intention.
•
0
32.10
32.10 Board of Adjustment and �U)cals. A Board of
Adjustments and Appeals, consl.L g oF. all appointed members of
the Planning and Zoning Commission, is herehy established. The
Board shall function under and bo governed by the provisions of
Chapter 4U.26 aP the Municipal Lode.
32,11 Pre�aralion of Col prohensive Plan. it shall be the
function and duty of. the Planning and Zoning Commission to
prepare and recommend a crnnprehansive plan and periodic update of
said plan for the physical developmentof the Municipality,
uLility services, parks, playgrounds and other similar develop-
ments, the use of property, the density of population, and other
matters relating to the physical development of the Munici-
IaliLy. Such plan may be prepared in suctions, each of wLich
shall relate to the Comprehensive Plan program.
32.12 Procedure for Adoption of Comprehensive Plan. The
Planning and Zoning Commission may, at any time:, recommend to the
City Council the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, or any
secl:ion of it, or any amendment, thereof.. The re::nmmc niation by
Lhc Planning and Zoning Cuuuniresion to the (:ily Council ::hall be
by a resolution Of the Commission, approved by the affirmative
voles of not less than the majority of its membership.
3'L.13 Adoption of the Comprehensive P1anby_Council.
Upon receiving a recommenddation from the Planning and 'toning
(� Commission for the establishment or amendment of a Comprehensive
Plan or section thereof, the Council shal, within a reasonable
time, hold a public hearing appears in the official newspaper at
least ten days prior to the hearing. After such hearing has been
held, the Council may adopt the Comprehensive Plan or amendment
or section thereof by a majority vote of its members.
32.14 Means of Executing Comprehensive Plan. Upon the
adoption of the Plan or any section thereof, it shall be the duty
of the Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend to the Council
reasonable and practicable means for putting into effect the
Comprehensive Plan or section thereof in order that the same will
serve as a pattern and guide for the orderly physical development
of the Municipality. Such means shall consist of a Zoning Plan,
the control of subdivision plats, a plan of future, sLreets
locations, etc.
32.15 Pr2Eosed Plats. Before any preliminary approval is
given to any proposed platting of property in the Municipality,
the preliminary plat shall he submitted to the Planning and
Zoning Commission for study and recommendation along with written
reports and recommendations on the plat: Lrom the Municipal Engi-
neer and Attorney. The recommendations on and approval of plats
by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be in accordance with
Chapter 42 of the Municipal Code.
32.16 "
32.16 Zoninc,_ Plan. Tho Commission upon its own motion
may, and upon instrucl.inn by Lho Council shill, prepare a revised
2nning plan for the Municipality. Beforo recommending such plan
to the. Council, the c'nmmisr;ioo shall. hold at lease. one public
h.!aring theronn ol`tur a publishod nntico of such hearing appears
in the legal newspaper at least ten days prior to the hearing.
The same procedure shall apply Car the preparation of an overall
street plan or acquisition of lands for other public purposes.
32.17 Procedure to Rezone Proper. sou Chapter 40.25 of
the Municipal Code for proci:dure.
32.18 Records or in Iteyuired by the Commission.
Upon the request of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
Clerk -Administrator or his designee shall furnish within a
reasonable time such records or information as may be required
for the work of the Commission.
32.19 Duties and Powers of the Plannin Commission. The
Commission shall be the City planning agency as authorized by the
Minnesota Statutes and the City Charter. It shall have the
duties and powers which are assigned to it by the Municipal Code.
1
11
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator 6 City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development
DATE: May 2, 1985
RE: HERBST AND SUNS DEMULCrION COMPANY
Herbst and Sons Demolition Company has applied to the City to
construct a warehouso addition to their existing building located
at 2299 County Road H.
Enclosed please find the following:
1. Staff report dated 4/17/85
2. Memo to Planning Commission from Director of Public
Works/Community Development dated 4/23/85
3. Copy of Pages 106 and 107 from Gunnar Insberg's book on
Land Use Planning. This is a definition of spot zoning.
Unfortunately, I do not have copies of the site plan to submit to
you at the present time. Herbst and Sons will provide additional
copies of the site plan on Monday night.
I will now present the background on this property and describe
the issues. The City's Land Use Comprehensive Plan indicates
that this property should be for Highway Commercial use. The
zoning on this property is B-3, Highway Business District. The
existing use is for sandblasting and warehouse storage space for
demolition equipment. The property, as far as I can tell, has
always been used for a warehouse. This is an Industrial zone
use. The warehouse use may have been permitted in a B-3 zone in
past zoning ordinances. The sandblasting operation is a more
recent use of the property. In any case, the present use is
non -conforming and Herbst and Sons may not, under the existing
zoning, build an addition to their warehouse building. The issue
then becomes, should the City deny the building addition because
the zoning is incorrect for the present use ever, if that building
has always been used as a warehouse? (A warehouse is a permitted
use only in the Inoustrial zone.)
The same problem exists on the lot directly east of Herbst's
property. Pettibone runs their warehousing operation out of this
adjacent property.
A second issue or question is that if the property is rezoned
from B-3 to I-1 is this spot zoning? The attachment entitled
"Gunnar Insberg Land Use Planning" defines spot zoning. The
Planning Commission and Staff's analysis is that if the two lots
are rezoned from B-3 to I-1 that this is probably not spot
zoning. The justification for rezoning this property to its
present use is that the use has always been I-1. In fact, there
are other single lots that are definitely a spot zone within the
City of Mounds View. An example is the K Gas Station at 2901
Highway 10. This single piece of property, as you know, has
May 2, 1985
Page 2
always been used as a service station and has always been zoned
B-3 which matches its present and past uses.
On the other hand, the City may determine that: an I1 zone is not
appropriate for the two parcels of land presently occupied by
Herbst and Sons and Pettibone. If this is your determination,
the City can deny the request for zoning changp and thereby deny
the addition to the huildi.ng. Thu Planning Commission and
Staff's review of the situation indicates that, the Herbst and
Pettibone property is well buffered by the wetland from the
Edyewood Community Center: which is zoned R-1. The property is
also well buffered from other uses by the property zoned B-3
between Herbst and Sons/Pettibone and Highway 10. Obviously, to
the south is Rice Creek and on the south side of Rice Creek is
the Towns Edge Mobile Home Court. The Mobile Home Court is
buffered adequately in my opinion by Rice Creek.
One other interesting twist about this development review is
that, to the best of my knowledge, the piece of property that
Herbst has his building on is also the same piece of property
that the Perkins is on. Therefore, in order to approve this
building addition, the developer must submit and receive approval
of a preliminary plat of a major subdivision. It's a major
subdivision because it is larger than two acres. Herbst and Sons
indicated to the Planning Commission that they would submit a
preliminary plat as soon as possible. They also said they would
have the preliminary plat to us before the hearing on the
preliminary plat if you decide to set up a hearing.
In summary, the Planning Commission does not see any problems
with rezoning the Herbst property and the Pettibone property,
changing the Comp Plan accordingly, and a major subdivision. The
Planning Commission said they would also give a variance from the
code provision that his existing building must be 20 feet from
the side yard property line. The justification for giving this
variance is that it is a preexisting condition. The City Code
saes that the Planning Commission grants variances and therefore
the variance does not have to be approved by the City Council.
Action Requested
At the May 1, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting, the Planning
Commission requested the City Council to schedule a hearing date
for the rezoning and major subdivision. If you decide to
schedule hearings, you should also schedule a hearing on the Comp
Plan revision for these two lots. The hearing notices could be
published on May 15, 1985 with the hearing held on May 27, 1985.
ST/ds
Attachments
STAFF
REPORT
r
vy, �i�y o� �ounds�Q�l
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP REVIEW DATE: 4/17/85
AGENDA ITEM NO: 4
9
b�
CASE NO: 168-85
APPLICANT: Herbst h Sons Demolition Co.
PROPOSED REQUEST: Appli,�.mt ruquasts development review
approval to construct a 4132U sq. tt. expansion for storage
of sand blasting equipment. Herbst and sons are also in the
demolition business.
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 2299 County Road II
SITE SIZE: 142,000 square feet - 3.27 acres
LOT DEPTH AND WIDTH: 401.471 x 355.571
EXISTING ZONING: 11-3, Highway Business District
CONTIGUOUS LAND USE: 11-3 to the north and east
R-1 to the west
CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLP.i1: Comp Plan
states Highway Commercial
ZONING CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Zoning Code
does not specifically address the existing building use in
WB-3 but rather in I-1 (sand blasting and demolition).
However, since the comprehensive zoning review of 1983/1984
w' did not recommend zoning changes for this property, I
assume that this existing building and proposed storage
p� expansion is a favorable use but the City should consider
changing the zoning to I-1.
a
Z
WA
PAGE TWO OF TWO
STAFF REPORT
CASE: 168-85
SETBACKS
Proposud structure and fencing (per Codu 40.04, Subd. P) meet minimum,
seLback requirements.
Does the planning Commission require additional screening of the
adjacent property zoned R-1 per City Code 40.07, Subd. D, Paragraph
M o.
ACCESS
Applicant uses two existing access points from County Road H.
DRAINAGE
The applirant has applied to Rice Creck watershed P
PARKING
City Code 40.07, Subd. D, Paragraph (B)J states requirements for
bituminous surface on driveways and parkingales (BCity spacesde 40- 07, Subd. (H), Paragraph 25 requires 39 parking spaces
1 space )
SUO sq. ft.
Applicant proposes 37 spaces on the crushed rock surface for
/ employees. Need parking spaces for handicapped per Minnesota
Building Code.
Note: 8-6-18 curbing will be required for the paved portion of the
access parking.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS
Exhibits: a) plans and specifications for building
b) Site Plan
c) Ordinance No. 49 drainage requirements (if necessary)
d) ordinance No. 49 necurity (if necessary)
Exhibit 2A conditions:
1. Paved packing area to use 8-6-18 curbing.
There may be a utility easement over the front yard which limits
parking.
2. Rezone property from U-3 to I-1.
w
III II-4-
I r TM � I '� I 1'1 '`J.t.', W IC'CI I. � il;f � i �•�I4u jL
C''.—t—�r— 1 I • •7.iS;� �.r • 1TeL:: ,—(•SVI ;;�!
b� L ''..i 't ui a rr ':.P ailtww'iu • r
'-f "'"., _ 't ✓.Y, '. Fyn
?!E��1 _ "'' "•_ 1, �» LII�.I. y'cYY:"„
DI6.tEf.'E :.: .,►�s. N, o
nT
LT+"e? ilit� "_
J I i I I I a "�• I '•rya •. __i � � _, a r: �.�:""'N�l. . � —
1-3
r ..'— til—.�.'•:"ifs .;FmL';1 'j }•,�,, ',-,'I I
f
t
C I T• Y•--- O F N E W B R I G M T O N •. a.,, \ C"" \
CITY OF ; !�
"Oft a"tat .o' lg,CD a"t MI DISTRICTS. • `L ■•! '
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA _ 1
i.1 T
Q.11.., I0I.1"eft. ZONING MAP
I
STREET By MOUNDS VIEW PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
q.?q•B4 3N
ADDRESS
UNIMPROVED ROAD D ae• ..
MEMO TO: Planning Commission _r
FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development
DATE: April 23, 1985
SUBJECT: HERBST & SONS DEMOLIT[ON COMPANY
As you may recall, at the last Planning Commission meeting we
directed Herbst & Sons to prepare possible zoning layouts for his
property.
Attached please find two schemes indicating potential lot splits
and zonings.
Mr. Jim Donicht, President of Balco Building Systems, Inc., will
be present at the May 1, 1985 Planning Commission meeting to
discuss these two schemes.
SWT/bc
r.
�II r L '••.
O,nis
0
lW .. 06 r V� '. .. �. i�lr.��" �y.li o tJr•il
40
_ , a • ': :, 3::c
{ o
' r: ...;;
It
mh
va
r
Ago60
+�; _Skip
it
Ila
:�" .'.1! • ; �, �'"� ( � ';• :,. . Sao • i"'' �'I' ',!�;
�y ` 1, �t ' j C '�. •�� `�, 1�i .. r �,•, ,' , ryl.
•7 i OG9T.ti.l.i.+•��.•' ,AgK.I,` �I 'I+ •� ••, .lA '�' .i.•::
j50OIlII+1 'I�I� _ ,+I,�, l.+ .'7/Or• ,, Wl
+ r7r.�.5•�_/ '_' ,.: �' UarlGyl'lln i hOI' V L It
r„• .. .::; c>LIsY1tJc, iy1.J6,6'''�ce �.+'.;' '.../•r 1
l 11 � ,, A L %/ :,..•
1, ° I �. i� ' "�i , li:• '� l yy^_:i1•ry: :'ar!. .'•�•
'1(r� �'a..' w r. : Ij � p 't • . r ; + nl' r l.l. MUD 't Ir A
rc
uo a
: 1:
"lp
1.76".
B"TA".
OF,))
%
01
.l
A
1%
fflmwf®
ISIII;II r
00,
00
St.
i
I.
between these devices, they have often been
confused by laymen and professionals alike. The
unfortunate result has been that the whole plan-
ning process has suffered; and in some cases, the
zoning process has broken down entirely. It
cannot be emphasized enough that it is very
important for a community to follow the correct
zoning procedures. Many communities in the past
have learned the hard way the results of not
following the correct procedures and have lost
important challenges in the courts to their zoning
decisions. With this in mind, the following is an
explanation of these various administrative devices.
Zoning Amendment (Rezoning)
The main purpose of the zoning amendment is
to allow the community to change the zoning
ordinance or map. There are two basic types of
amendments. One is a zoning map amendment or
a change in the geographical area of a zoning
district which is also popularly known as rezoning.
The other is a change in the zoning text, or changes
in what is permitted in a particular zoning district.
There are a number of reasons why a com-
munity may want to amend the zoning ordinance.
'f' nt and unanticipated
ordinance was developed and adopted. in most
planning programs, minor errors wi;l often be made
which are overlooked at the time of adopting the
comprehensive plan or zoning ordinance. To
correct these errors, the zoning amendment pro-
cedure would be applicable.
Finally, retonings (or changes in district lines)
are often desired and appropriate in "staged
growth" plans which make use of "holding zones."
For example, a typical holding zone in a staged
growth plan may be a rciatwely large area de-
signated for agriculture It is recognized that as
growth moves out into the rural areas that some of
these agricultural areas will be re -zoned for re-
sidential or commercial uses at such time that
utilities can be extended or services provided to
bring about orderly development. It should be
noted that the staged growth approach has not ye!
been tested in the courts in Minnesota although
this approach to planning has been upheld in the
highest court in New York State
Having discussed generally the rationale and
theory for zoning amendments, two problem areas
dealing with zoning amendments need to be
discussed at further length. One is spot zoning and
One is to reflect a sign' tea the other is down toning.
change in the community brought about through N�Kj-S. ot oning Spot zoning has been defined as
rapid changes in technology, or urban developm
or social behavior. In [oday's rapidly changing t e rezoning of a single parcel of land or a relative -
world, it is virtually impossible to predict future ly small area for higher intensity use than the iand
development beyond a 5.10-year period with any spot zoning t involves anparticularhe f l
individualparcel of land
degree of accuracy. For this reason, it is recog-
nized by most planning professionals that the singled out for special and privileged treatment
comprehensive plan should be updated at least primarily for the benefit of the landowner and not
every 3-5 years to reflect these changes. Since in accord with the comprehensive plan. For
zoning should be based on the comprehensive plan, example, the tezoning of a single parcel of land in
the ordinance should be amended when the cum- a re`identiai are area
comps b ecwial or insurtrial uses
prehensive plan is updated. whiland uses or in conformance with the compre-
b th courts to be
A second reason is to reflect changes in policy
by the community. This may come about in a
variety of different ways. For example, certain
planning policies and programs may not be bring-
ing about the desired goals which may necessitate a
change in development policies. Or development
in adjacent communities may affect the com-
munity in such a way as to require changes in
development policy, For example, a state or
county highway department may determine to
locate a major highway through or adjacent to a
community which obviously will have a substantial
effect on development,
A third reason is to correct mistakes which were
made at the time the comprehensive plan or zoning
hensive plan is usually held y e
illegal in that it amounts to spot zoning. In the
absence of a comprehensive plan, it is more dif-
ficult to determine whether a particular rezoning
amounts to spot zoning,
Spot zoning usually results when the local
officials are too liberal in the granting of requested
zoning amendments. There may be many reasons
why a property owner rhay want rezoning or a
zoning amendment, some of which are legitimate
but some of which are not in relation to the
community planning process. For example, a
property owner may want a rezoning to enhance
the opportunities of selling his land, or to gain a
competitive, locationd advantage with a business
106 -
enterprise, even though the proposed rezoning may
be incompatible with the surrounding homes due
to excessive noise, glare, and traffic.
Care should be used by the local officials in
issuing rezonings or zoning amendments. If too
many zoning amendments are authorized, it may
and often does destroy or seriously weaken the
planning process. It may also open the local
community to lawsuits from adjacent property
owners.
Dowry zoning. Local officials should also be
aware of some of the problems involved in down
zoning; that is, amending the zoning ordinance in
such a way as to change a zoning district from a
higher to a lower density or from a "higher" use
(in terms of land values) such as commercial
or industrial to a "lower" use such as residential.
It has been maintained by some individuals and
landowners that a community cannot down zone
since it will adversely affect property values. The
theory behind this argument is that somehow a
zoning ordinance vests absolute rights to a pro-
perty owner of some of his anticipated profits and
that down zoning amounts to inverse condemna-
tion.
It is clear that if all down zoning were held to be
illegal, it would substantially limit the local com-
munity's ability to plan and change the com-
prehensive plan and zoning ordinance. In a recent
law case in California (Eldridge vs, City of Palo
Alto) the court recently upheld the City of Palo
Alto in down zoning an area by creating an open -
spare district from a high -density residential
district. The city attorney argued successfully that
this did not amount to inverse condemnation and
cited the case of Morse vs. County of San Luis
Obispo where the court stated that ".. , owners
have no vested right in an existinf. zoning ordi-
nance. A purchaser merely acquires a right to
continue a use instituted before the enactment of a
more restricted zoning." It should be noted
that down zoning has not yet been tested in the
courts in Minnesota.
Zoning Variance
Perhaps the zoning device which is the least
understood and the most subject to abuse is the
zoning variance. The term "variance" has been
interpreted by many local officials, planning
professionals and even attorneys in its coloquial
sense - that is, as a variance from the zoning
ordinance that can be issued by the local com-
munity at will. It should be noted at the outset,
however, that a variance has a special legal meaning
and should only be issued under certain sped -at f
circumstances.
Basically, a zoning variance is a modification of
the terms of the zoning ordinance in order to
provide relief to a property owner in those cases
where the ordinance imposes undue hardship or
practical difficulties to the property owner in the
use of his land. The hardship must not have been
created by actions of the landowner. There are
two types of variances - the bulk or area rarlance
and the use rariance. The bulk or area variance
deals with modifications in area requirements such
as lot widths or depths or set -back requirements.
The use variance is an authorization of land use
in a district that differs from the land uses normal-
ly allowed in that district. It should be emphasized
that many planning professionals, including this
author, are opposed to use variances for a number
of reasons. For one, the issuance of a use variance
is likely to create a monopoly situation in a parti-
cular land use district. Second, if too many use
variances are issued by the elected officials, it will
seriously weaken the zoning and planning process.
Many planning professionals are recommending
that the use variance be prohibited and that the
zoning amendment or conditional use permit,-
' -used in place of the use variance. The Col.
Planning Act (M.S. 394.27, Subd. 7) specifica,.,
prohibits the issuance of use variances; and the
Municipal Planning Act only authorizes one
typr of use variance (temporary use of one family
dwelling as two family dwelling - M.S. 452357,
Subd. 7).
One of the problems which the courts have
wrestled with is the definition of "practical dif-
ficulties" and "undue hardship." The following
are the factors which one court used and which
other courts are likely to use in determining
whether a landowner has incurred undue hardship:
The parcel of land cannot yield a "reason.
able return" if used only for a purpose
allowed in the zoning district (for use
variances only). The courts have also held,
however, that proof that the owner could
realize a higher financial return for his Land
as a result of the variance is not sufficient
grounds for grantijtg a variance.
2. The plight of the owner of the land must
be due to unique circumstances. If<
hardship is common to several prope
the variance cannot be granted. The pro
remedy under such circumstances is a
zoning amendment.
107 -
MEMO TO: Mounds View City Coy
FROM: Bruce K. Anderson,
Parks, Recreation ar
DATE: April 23, 1985
RE: Ordinance Modification
Staff received a mumorandum from Jan quick, Chairperson of the
Mounds View Festivities Commission on March 14, 1985 requesting
that the Parks and Recreation Commission review the existing City
ordinance Chapter 52 entitled Parks, Playgrounds and Open Space
and Recreation Area Rules and Regulations. The specific request
from the Festivities Commission was to review sub -section 52.03
which dealt with intoxicating and non -intoxicating beverages.
The current City code 52.03 reaps as follows:
INTOXICATING AND NON -INTOXICATING BEVERAGES No intox-
icating beverages shall be consumed, displayed, or
possessed in any park, playground, open space or
recreation area in the City. In no event shall any
non -intoxicating liquors be sold or bartered in any
park, playground, open space or recreation area.
The ordinance was drafted by the Parks and Recreation Commission
three years ago and at that time, the Commission had recommended
originally that alcohol consumption be permitted at City Hall and
Silver View Park and other neighborhood parks on a permit basis.
The City Council overruled the Parks and Recreation Commission,
and the current ordinance was adopted as indicated. The Parks
and Recreation Commission reviewed Chapter 52 at their regularly
scheduled March 28 Commission Meeting and would recommend the
ordinance be drafted as follows:
INTOXICATING AND NON -INTOXICATING BEVERAGES No intox-
icating beverages except malt beverages containing in
excess of 3.2 percent of alcohol by weight shall be
consumed, displayed, or possessed in any park, play-
ground, open space or recreation area in the City. In
no event shall any non -intoxicating liquors be sold or
bartered in any park, playground, open space or recrea-
tion area, except by a valid permit issued by the
Mounds View City Council.
-2-
�'� The ordinance as approved by the Parks and Recreation
Commission would allow consumption of beer as defined
in the ordinance in any of the neighborhood parks or
City park system and without any permit required and a
permit would be required in the ordinance for sale of
alcoholic beverages in the parks.
Staff has no position on this issue and forwards it on to the
City Council for your review, as it was approved unanimously by
the Parks and Recreation Commission. Staff has reviewed this
issue with the City Attorney and Police Chief and they concur
with the ordinance modification as proposed. The ordinance in
its entirety would read as follows. Staff will be in attendance
at Monday evenings meeting to respond to any questions or con-
cerns you may have on this issue.
This ordinance would replace existing Chapter 52.03 and would
read as follows pending final wording changes that need to be
made to ensure compliance with existing code Language:
CHAPTER 52.03
52,03 NON -INTOXICATING BEVERAGES
INTOXICATING AND NON -INTOXICATING BEVERAGES No intox-
icating baverages except malt beverages containing in
excess of 3.2 percent of alcohol by weight shall be
consumed, displayed, or possessed in any park, play-
ground, open space• or recreation area in the City. In
no event shall any non -intoxicating liquors be sold or
bartered in any park, playground, open space or recrea-
tion area, except by a valid permit issued by the
Mounds View City Council.
Subdivision 1. Definitions. The following terms shall
have the meanings described herein:
(1) "Sale" means all means of furnishing and includes but
is not limited to the furnishing for money or other
consideration.
(2) "Beer" means any beverage which is produced wholly or
in part from the brewing of any grains or malt or
malt substitute and containing more than one-half of
one percent alcohol by volume and not more than 3.2
percent by weight.
-3-
(3) "organization" means any entity having religious,
veteran, charitable or business activities as its
principal purpose and which qualifies in all respects
for the issuance of a license to sell the type of
beer to be furnished at the activity or event for
which the permit is being sought.
Subdivision 2. Permit. Any organization desiring to sell
beer in a City Park must apply for a permit to do so.
Such application shall be made upon forms furnished by the
City Parks and Recreation Director for that purpose.
Subdivision 3. Application. The application shall con-
tain the following information together with any addition-
al information requested by the City:
(1) Full name and address of the organization.
(2) A brief statement of the organization's purposes and
activities.
(3) The length of time the organization has been in
existence.
(4) The number of active members.
(5) A brief description of the event or activity for
which the permit is being requested.
(6) The park proposed to be used for the activity includ-
ing any facilities in the park which will be used.
(7) The dates and times for which the permit is request-
ed.
(8) The anticipated number of participants.
(9) The person or persons from the organization who will
be in responsible charge of the event or activity and
of the sale of beer.
-4-
The application shall be made to the City Parks and Recre-
ation Director who may refer the application to such
departments as he deems advisable for review. The City
Parks and Recreation Director shall then make his recom-
mendation to the City Council which may grant or deny the
permit.
Subdivision 4 Permit Nee. The fee shall be 550.00 and
shall be paid in full at the time of application. The
permit fee may be waived by the City Council.
Subdivision 5 Bond. The Council may require, as a condi-
tion of issuance of the permit, an indemnity bond holding
the City harmless from liability of any kind or character
and reimbursing the City for any property damage or clean-
up costs. The Council may also require, in addition to or
in lieu of such bond, that the organization furnish proof
of insurance adequately covering all such actions, claims,
or costs, and may require that the City be made an addi-
tional io ured.
Subdivision 6 Conditions of Issuance. Organization per-
lq- mits may be issued only to organizations which qualify in
all respects with the following criteria:
(!) Is located in the City of Mounds View or directly
affiliated with the City through an athletic league.
(2) Has been in continuous existence [or a period of at
least one (1) year.
(3) Has at least 20 active members.
(4) Has established to the satisfaction of the City that
the proposed event or activity will be conducted and
will be controlled in such a way as not to constitute
a hazard to or a source of nuisance or annoyance to
other persons in the park or on adjacent property.
(5) Has designated persons in the organization respons-
ible charge who are free to convictions for offenses
relating to the fitness of such persons to perform
their duties.
-5-
(6) Has a currently valid license issued by the City
authorizing the sale of the type of beer to be sold
at the activity or event for which the permit is be-
ing sought.
Subdivision 7 Conditions of Permitted Activity. The fol-
lowing conditions apply to the activity:
(1) Sale or consumption of beer is allowed only in con-
nection with National or State holidays or during
civic celebrations so dusignated by the Council.
Sale and consumption is further limited to the dates
and times specified by the Council in the permit.
(2) The sale and consumption of beer is not allowed in
streets or parking areas adjacent to the park. The
Council may further limit the areas within the park
where beer may be sold or consumed.
(3) The sale of beer to and consumption of beer by indi-
viduals who are forbidden by any statute or chapter
of the municipal code from purchasing or consuming
- such beverage is not allowed under the permit. The
Council may further limit the sale or consumption to
be allowed under the permit.
(4) Alcoholic beverages other than the beer sold by the
organization holding the permit may not be consumed
in the park.
(5) The event or activity must be conducted and control-
led in such a manner so as not to constitute a hazard
to or a source of nuisance or annoyance to other
persons in the park or on adjacent property.
(6) All rubbish, trash and debris shall be removed fronm
the park and disposed of by the organization promptly
at the conclusion of the event or activity. The
organization shall be responsible for all clean-up
expenses.
(7) only non -glass containers will be permitted.
Subdivision 8 Cancellation of Permit. If, at any time
following the issuance of the permit, the City Parks and
Recreation Director or the Chief of Police conclude that
the sale of beer for which the permit was granted will
likely be detrimental to the public health, safety or wel-
fare, or will likely result in violation of statutes or
ordinances relating to sale of alcoholic beverages, or is
li kely not to be adequately controlled by the organiza-
tion, then either may recommend to the Council that the
permit be cancelled.
The Council shall consider the recommendation at its next
regularly scheduled Council meeting occurring at least
five days from the date of such recommendation. The
Council may cancel the permit, or allow it to continue in
effect or may modify such permit as it deems necessary.
If the event has already commenced, or if sufficient time
does not exist to bring the matter before the Council, the
City Parks and Recreation Director, upon the recommenda-
tion of the Chief of Police, may act to cancel the permit.
If the permit is cancelled, while the activity is in pro-
gress, the police department shall immediately notify the
person in charge of the sale of beer of such cancellation -
The organization shall immediately cease the sale of beer
and shall immediately remove all unsold beer from the
park. At the request of the police department the
organization will assist in the restoration of order in
the park and shall, if requested, cancel the event or
activity.
-7-
Subdivision 9 Consum lion and Possession After Cancel a-
tion. Any person lawfully purchasing beer from the organ-
ization prior to cancellation of the permit may lawfully
possess and consume such beer in the park for a period of
30 minutes following such cancellation. Thereafter, pos-
session or consumption of beer in the park is illegal.
The police department take reasonable steps to notify
those present in the park of such time limit but failure
to give such notice to a particular individual shall not
constitute a defense by such individual to any charge
arising out of such illegal possession or consumption.
Before any individual may he charged under this
subdivision, he shall be informed that
his
sopportunion or
to
consumption is illegal and be given
surrender the beer in his possession. No charge shall be
brought against such individual if he promptly and
voluntarily surrenders his beer at that time.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds1Viewl
Minnesota this day of �_�
985.
(SEAL) Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST:
Donald F. pauley, Clerk -Administrator
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
PARKS, RECREATION AND FORESTRY DEPARTMENT
2401
Mounds View, MN 55112
APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES PERMIT
DATE OF APPLICATION:
NAME OF ORGANIZATION:
PHONE NO.
PRESIDENT
'LIP
ADDRESS
PHONE NO.
SECRETARY
�—
ADDRESS Z
HOW LONG HAS YOUR ORGANIZATION BEEN EXISTENCE IN THE CITY OF
MOUNDS VIEW?
DATE OF EVENT
NAME OF PARK
HOURS
TO NUMBER EXPECTED
GIVE TYPE. OF EVENT AND STATE. IF FOR MEMBERS ONLY, MEMBERS AND
FAMILIES, GUESTS, ETC.
N'S CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS MUST
NOTE: A COPY OF THE ORGANIZATIO
ACCOMPANY THIS APPLICATION.
I UNDERSTAND THAT MISREPRESENTATION OR THE OMISSION OF FACTS WILL
BE CAUSE TO DENY THIS APPLICATION OR REVOKE THE. PERMIT.
SIGNED:
NAME AND TITLE
APPROVED
PARK & RECREATION DIRECTOR
�-,hti F
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY CUUNCI
FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRATU
DATE: APRIL 19, 1985
SUBJECT: PROPOSED NOISE. STANDARD AMENDMENTS
On April 3, 1985 Staff prepared the attached memorandum for
your consideration recentpresentationgarding tby Al Perezewhichlect includedea.
After the recent p
discussion of the proposed new amendments, I re-evaluated my
original memorandum to determine the validity of the
recommendation in view of Mr. Perez's comments.
During the April 16 meeting Mr. Perez, besides recommending
that we request a public hearing on the new standards,
listed three areas where the City Ihould becoctednceCned about
these new standards. On April
Kelso, who holds the position previously held by Mr.
re Pereng
at the Minnesota pollution Control Agency (MPCA), onse to
Mr. Perez's comments and requested his react ion/resp
Mr. Kelso'sthem. The three responseues to eachtareeashfollows: and
1. The old standards refer to
fact thatic's health,
they
were established to protect
safety, and welfare and the proposed new standards do
not.
According to Mr. Kelso, the proposed new standards do
not include this reference as it was felt to be
redundant in view of the fact Mthatrthe
erenabling
these
legislation establishing refers
tothe
as reasons for their existence and promulgation
of rules. Mr. Kelso did state, however back tht them
would more than likely put this language
view of comments they have received.
Z. The proposed new
forstandards
ionalhave
noise enforcementfor
and
theair
the Leq
the Ldn for planning. This would make
standardfwhent
if not impossible to enforce the Leq
the airport is allowed to be designed using an Ldn
standard.
Mr. Kelso pointed out, and I confirmed on page 3 of
documents included with the Notice of Intent, that
the Ldn in
standardstaTherintentdiseaddition
q
thutair would be
expected to comply with both standards. Also, there
is no rule regarding what standard must be used icted
L planning, just that their operations will be exp•
to comply with both standards.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 19, 1985
PAGE; TWO
Mr. Kelso indicated that Mr. Perez does have a point
in principle in that the double standard could make
enforcement difficult if a court is asked to rule on
which standard applies, however, he felt comfortable
that the Leq would prevail.
3. Should someone (receiver) build a home in the range
of a producer of noise and violation of state
standards, then the proposed new standards would make
the receiver the violator of the standards, not the
producer.
The proposed new standards provide that the party
causing the violation, whether it be the producer
or the receiver, is culpable. The existing rules
have been interpreted and enforced similarly,
however, do not clearly state that to be the case.
The proposed new rules would clearly state that as
being the fact. Mr. Kelso further stated that this
is an issue of contention and might be revised r/
pending the results of the public hearing they will
hold on the proposed new rules.
Essentially, it would appear that this is the chicken
versus the egg issue requiring Judgement on the part
of the enforcing agency, but would appear to be
reasonable. A good example in Mounds Viuw would be
County Road ,7. Should someone purchase property
fronting on County Road J, build a house, and then
complain about the noise, who should be held
responsible for the fact that they, and only they,
are having to put up with noise levols in excess
of State Standards?
Based on my re-evaluation of the proposed amendments to the
State's Noise Standards and the results of my conversation
with Mr. Kelso, I find that my initial recommendation of
April 3, 1985 is still valid.
DFP/mjs
Attachment:
91
MEMO 'l'O: MAYOR AND C1'1'Y COUNCll.
FROM: CLERK -ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: APRIL 3, 1985
SUli.lh.CT: MPCA pROPOSAL TO AMEND NOISH STANDARDS
Attached for your information are two packets of material
frnm the MPCA relating to their proposal to amend their
noise standards.
e of
Essentially, there are The ftwo lirs�moflthesetisatohchange the
interest to the City.
type of land uses included in each of the Noise Area
Classifications (NAC). The current classifications are as
follows.
NAC - 1 liousehold units, medical and other health
services, and religious activities.
NAC - 2 Railroad and bus terminals and commercial
centers.
NAC - 3 Manufacturing activities, agricultural
activities and mining activities.
NAC - 4 Undeveloped and unused land.
The new classifications are designed to consolidate the four
land uses one eliminating the classification for unused and
undeveloped land as there are no receivers to protect and
providing more detailed definitions. The new classifica-
tions are as follows.
NAC - 1 Residential, educational, medical, dedicated,
nature areas, non -transient horoviding night-time
using
churches, medical fa
p
care, and nature pcilitie
NAC - 2 Commercial, entertainment and recreational,
office buildings, retail stores, services,
transient lodging, medical facilities not
providing night-time care, parks, and athletic
fields.
NAC - 3 Industrial, manufactured, utilities, transporta-
tion, and agricultural.
AIAYOR ANI) CODNCII,
APRfL 3, 1985
PAGR 'rW0
The second changr_, and Probably the more important of the
two as it would relate to the city of Mounds View, is to
tiOn m the means by which noise is measured and a determina-
tion made as to whether or not a specific use is in
violation of State Noise Standards, The current Standards
and the proposed new Standards were explained to St b
Dave Kelso of the Minnesota Polwere Control to me
responsible for enforcement of y explanation of the thr. Noise Standards,y who is
L10 is that a noisecsource cannot exceed
which is describedasestablished by the State a cannodsexceed the decibel
out of an level
y hour, No more than one hour of
than six minutes
required and the MPCA assumes t of measurement is
maximum operations, hat monitoring is done during
considerin It can he assumed from this that,
g the current nperations at the Anoka County -
have a Airport, several nuisance -type noise incidents would
have to occur during a one hour period when noise is
measured in order for a determination to be made as to
whether or not a violation of the noise standards have
occurred,
The proposed new Standard would measure noise on what is
referred to as the L
Period and the amountq Noise is measured over a one hour
whether or of energy is averaged to determine
not a ✓iolation of the Standards has occurred,
give Mr, Kelso explained that such a measuring standard would
level gasacornpared)toto larger incidences at a hi her decibel
significantlythe L10 me
in ethod thus, one incident
of the State Standard could push the
average measurement over the one hour period over the
Standards. It would appear from this information that this
measurement State
me the measurement
would
be more useful for us in Mounds View duo_
extremely bus relatively infrequent incidences except during
y periods of airport operations,
The MPCA has also, agreed to measure noise for airports using
the Ldn measurement, however, this will not supercede the
Leq standard, 1'he I
twenty -Four hour per�odmand uusinnt measures noise over a
formula determines whether or not a complicated logarithmic
hour period exceeds State noise over the twent Standards, y-four
Due to the fact that this is an extremely complex and
complicated issue I would be more than happy to answer an
questions you might have, however, it would be m
recommendation that. the y
these ro proposed City not submit an y
the fact that itrnisdSCaff'snts oopini m Noisethat thandardstdue nto
standards would be beneficial to our cause, Proposed
DPP/mjs/Mncl:
STATE OF MINNESOTA
lam' POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
NOTICE OF INTENT
Proposed Amendments to Minn, Rules Parts
7010.0100 - 7010.0700 (Minn. Rules NPC 1 TTOADOPT
RU ES WITHOUT
TA
` and 2),,state Noise Standards PUBLIC HEARING
i
Notice is hereby given that the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (Agency) intends to adopt without a public hearing# in
accordance with the provisions of Minn. Stat. S14.22 - 14.28
7010-100
(Minn' PC1 and
amenents to
StateRules
NoiseParts
Standards. - 7010.0700
The proposed rule amendments are
tauthorized
he bruleMinn.
Stat.
ents
is enclosed.
ed.sub4 1free A ofCOPY
the rule amendments is available
is enclosed. One free copy Please contact the person whose name
on request from the Agency.
and address appears below.
The Agency has prepared a Statement of Need and
Reasonableness that describes the need for and reasonableness of
each provision of the proposed rule amendments and idefies the
data and information relied upon by the Agency to support
proposed amendments. Copies of the Statement of Need and
Reasonableness and of the proposed amendments are available and
may be obtained by contacting:
David Kelso
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1935 West County Road B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Telephone: (612) 296-7372
Interested persons have until 4:30 p.m. on April. 191 1985,
to submit comments on the proposed rule amendments. Cowment.
should be submitted to David Kelso at the address stated above.
The proposed rule amendments may be modified if the data and
views received by the Agency before the end of the comment
ipeid warrant nraosubztantialJchangetin thedthe proposedification does not result
amendments.
Upon adoption of the amendments by the Agency Board, the
rules as proposed, this notice,, the Statement of Need and
Reasonableness, all written comments received# and the final rule
amendments as adopted will be sent to the Attorney General for
review as to form and Personstwho wishincluding
to bethe
advised of the
substantial change.eneral,ih
submission of this opatheifinal amendmentseaseral to the AttornyGadopted,oshouldw a
to receive a copy
submit a written statement of such request to David Kelso at the
address previously stated.
-2-
You are hereby advised, pursuant to Minn. Stat. 514.115
1984), "Small business considerations in rulemaking,' that while
the rules as a whole may have an aimpactton small time business,do not the
amendments which are being p p
the impacts which the existing rules may have on small business.
Please be advised that Minn. Stat. ch. IDA requires each
lobbyist to register with the State Ethical Practices Board
A lobbyist
within five days after he or she commences lobbying.
is defined in Minn. Stat. S10A.01, subd. 11 (1984) as any
individual:
(a) Engaged for pay or other consideration, or authorizpends
another individual or association to spend money,
whomore than five hours in any month or more than $250, not
including his own travel expenses and membership dues, in any
year, for the purpose of attempting to influence legislative
or administrative
action
by officials;
or urging others to
communicate
%b) Who spends more than $250 not includinforlthes own
traveling
expenses and membership dues, in any yu
of
attempting to influence legislative or administrative action
by communicating or urging others to communicate with public
officials.
The statute contains certain exceptions. Questions should be
directed to the Ethical Practices Board, 41 State Office Building,
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, telephone (612) 296-5615.
THOMAS J. K ITOWSKI
Executive Director
Dated: March 15, 1985
L'
0
(0". Rules as Proposed (all new material)
7010.0010 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE.
For the purpose of chapter 7010, American National Standard
Institute, Acoustical Terminology, 51.1-1960 (R1976) and
Specification for Sound Level Meters, S1.4-1983 are incorporated
by reference. These publications are available from the
American National Standard Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York,
N.Y. 10018 and can be found at the offices of the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, 1935 West County Road B-2, Roseville,
Minnesota 55113 and the Government Documents Section, Room 409,
Wilson Library, University of Minnesota, 309 19th Avenue South,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454. These documents are not subject
to frequent change.
The Federal Highway Administration publication, Sound
Procedures for Measuring Highway Noise: Final Report,
FHWA-DP-45-IR (August 1981) is incorporated by reference. This
publication is available from the United States Department, of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1000 North Globe
Road, Arlington, Virginia 22201 and can be found at the offices
of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1935 West County Road
11-21 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 and the Government Documents
Section, Room 409, Wilson Library, University of Minnesota, 309
19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454. This document
is not subject to frequent change.
7010.0020 DEFINITIONS.
Subpart I. Application. The terms used in chapter 7010
1
have the meanings given them in this part.
Subp. 2. A -weighted. "A -weighted" means a specific
L
weighting of the sound pressure level for the purpose of
determining the human response to sound. The specific weighting
characteristics and tolerances are those given in American
National Standards Institute S1.4-1983, section 5.1.
Subp. 3. Daytime. "Daytime" means those hours from 7:00
a.m, to 10:00 p.m.
Subp. 4. dB(A). "dB(A)" means a unit of sound level
expressed in decibels (dB) and A -weighted.
Subp. 5. Decibel. "Decibel" has the meaning given it in
American National Standard Institute S1.1-1960 (R1976), section
2.3.
Subp. 6. Ldn' "Ldn" (day, night sound level) means the
equivalent A -weighted sound level during a 24-hour time period
with a ten decibel weighting applied to the equivalent sound
level during nighttime.
Subp. 7. Leq. "Leq" (equivalent sound level) means the
constant sound level that, in 60 consecutive minutes, would
convey the same sound energy as the actual time -varying
A -weighted sound level.
Subp. 8. Nighttime. "Nighttime" means those hours from
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Subp. 9..Person. "Person" has the meaning given it in
part 7000.0100, subpart 9.
Subp, 10. Sound pressure level. "Sound pressure level"
has the meaning given it in American National Standard Institute
y
s1.1-1960 (R1976), section 2.6.
I
7010.0030 NOISE CONTROL REQUIREMENT.
No person may violate or allow any act that results or will
result in violation of the standards established in part
7010.0040.
7010.0040 NOISE STANDARDS,
Subpart 1. Scope. Noise standards are expressed in terms
of sound pressure level and apply to sounds that have a duration
of at least 200 milliseconds. Noise standards in subpart 2
apply to all sources. For airports, the additional noise
standards in subpart 3 also apply.
Subp. 2. Noise standards.
Noise Area Nighttime
Classification Daytime 9
1 63 Leq 53 Leq
2 68 Leq 68 Leq
3 78 Leq 78 Leq
Subp. 3. Additional airport noise standards. An Ldn of
63, 68, and 78 for NAC 1,2,3, respectively, also applies to
airports.
7010.0050 NOISE AREA CLASSIFICATION.
subpart I. Applicability. The noise area classification
is based on the land use activity at the location of the
receiver and determines the noise standards applicable to that
land use activity unless an exception is applied under subpart 3.
Subp. 2. Noise area classifications. The noise area
cl
classifications and the activities included in each
classification are listed below;
Noise Area
Classification Land Use Activities
1 Residential, educational, medical,
and dedicated nature areas; includes
all types of nontransient housing,
schools, churches, medical
facilities providing nighttime care,
such as hospitals and nursing homes,
and nature preserves.
y Commercial, entertainment, and
recreational; includes office it,
buildings, retail stores and
services, transient lodging, medical
facilities not providing nighttime
care, parks, and athletic fields.
3 Industrial; includes manufacturing,
utilities, transportation, and
agriculture.
Subp. 3. Exceptions. The noise area classification for a
land use may be changed in the following ways if the applicable
conditions are met.
A. The daytime standards for noise area
classification 1 shall be applied to noise area classification 1
4
during the nighttime if the land use activity does not include
overnight lodging.
B. The standards for a building in a noise area
classification 2 shall be applied to a building in a noise area
classification 1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) the building is constructed in such a way
that the exterior to interior sound level attenuation is at
least 20 dB(A);
and
(2) the building has year-round climate control;
(3) the building has no areas or accommodations
contiguous to it that are intended for outdoor activities.
C. The standards for a building in a noise area
classification 3 shall be applied to a building in a noise area
classification 1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) the building is constructed in such a way
that the exterior to interior sound level attenuation is at
least 30 dB(A);
and
(2) the building has year-round climate control;
(3) the building has no areas or accommodations
contiguous to it that ere intended for outdoor activities.
D. The standards for a building in a noise area
classification 3 shall be applied to a building in a noise area
classification 2 if the following conditions are met:
(1) the building is constructed in such a way
that the exterior to interior sound level attenuation is at
least 20 dB(A);
and
(2) the building has year-round climate control;
(3) the building has no areas or accommodations
contiguous to it that are intended for outdoor activities.
7010,0060 MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY.
Subpart 1. Measurement location. Measurement of sound
must be made at or within the receiver's property line at the
point of human activity which is nearest to the noise source.
Subp. 2. Equipment specifications. All sound level
measuring devices must be certified to meet Type I, II, or S
specifications under American National Standard Institute
51.4•1983.
Subp. 3. Calibration. All sound level measuring devices
must, at a minimum, be recertified or cross-referenced according
to American National Standard Institute S1.4-1983 annually. The
equipment must be externally field calibrated before and after
monitoring using a calibration devire of known frequency a;id
sound pressure level.
Subp. 4. Measurement procedures. The following procedures
must be used to obtain representative sound level measurements:
A. Measurements must be made between three and five
feet off the ground or surface and away from neteral or manmade
structures which would diminish the sound level.
B. Measurements must be made using the A -weighting
and fast response characteristics of the sound measuring device
as specified in American National Standard Institute S1.4-1983.
A
C. Measurements must not be made in sustained winds
� greater than 12 miles per hour or in precipitation.
D. Measurements must be made using a windscreen.
Subp. 5. Methods for determination of hourly LeQ. For the
determination of an hourly LeQ, measurements must be made using
the measuring devices as required under subpart 2 and used
according to the manufacturer's recommendations. .
A, Hand held measuring devices must use the checkoff
method described in FHWA-DP-45-1R, section 3.6 (August 1981) for
determination of hourly LeQ•
B, Automated or integrating measuring devices may use
the checkoff method described in FHWA-DP-45-1R, section 3.6
(August 1981) or be operated in accordance with the
~ manufacturer's recommendations for determination of hourly Leq.
r
C. Methods equivalent to those described in subpart
5, items A and B may be used provided they are approved by the
director of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Stbp, 6. Calculation of Ldn. Ldn shall be calculated
using the following formula; L /10 L +10/10
Ldn = 10 log10 1/24 [(15 x 10 d ) + 9 x 10 n l
where
■ Ten times the 1og10 of the sverage Pnergy for the
Ld
hours from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
L ■ Ten times the 10910 of the average energy for the
n
hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Subp. 7, Data documentation. A summary sheet for all
sound level measurements shall be completed and signed by the
7
person making the measurements. At a minimum, the summary sheet
shall include:
A. date;
B. time;
C. location;
D. noise source;
E. wind speed and direction;
F. temperature;
G. humidity;
H. make and model of measuring equipment;
I. field calibration results;
J, monitored levels; and
K. site sketch indicating noise source, measurement
location, directions, distances, and obstructions. .,
7010.0070 SOUND ATTENUATION MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY.
Subpart I. Purpose. Sound level measurements made for
assessing sound attenuation as specified in part 7010.0050,
subpart 3, item B, C, or D, shall be made according to the
requirements of this part.
Subp. 2. Equipment. The equipment shall meet the
requirements specified in part 7010.0060, subpart 2.
Subp. 3. calibration. The equipment must meet the
calibration requirements specified in hart 7010.0060, subpart 3.
Subp. 4. Measurement procedure. The measurement procedure
described in FHWA-DP-45-1R, section B must be used for
determination of the sound attenuation.
Subp. 5. Equivalent methods. Methods equivalent to those
n
described in subpart 4 may be used provided they are approved by
the director of the Minnesota pollution Control Agency,
REPEALER. Minnesota Rules, parts 7010.0100, 7010.0200,
7010.0300, 7010.0400, 7010.0500, 701-0.0600, and 7010.0700 are
repealed.
I
E
n
STATE OF MINNESOTA
POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
i..
Proposed Amendments to Minn. Rules Parts ,.
7010.0100 - 7010.0700 (Minn. Rules NPC 1 STATEMENT OF NEED
and 2), State Noise Standards AND REASONABLENESS
I. INTRODUCTION
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Agency) was
authorized and directed by the 1971 Minnesota Legislature
to adopt rules establishing standards describing the maximum
levels of sound pressure which may occur in the outdoor
atmosphere. As a result, in 1974 the Agency adopted State Noise
Standards, Minn. Rules NPC 1 and 2. The State Noise Standards
set forth the limiting levels of sound in the outdoor atmosphere
which are consistent with speech, sleep, annoyance and hearing
conservation requirements for people (receivers) depending upon
the activities on the land where the sound levels are received.
These rules have been recodified by the Revisor of Statutes as
Minn. Rules Parts 7010.0100 through 7010.0700.
As the result of an extensive rule review process, which
is described below, the Agency is proposing amendments to Minn.
Rules Parts 7010.0100 through 7010.0700. ...The-PKQ9QBOd.
amendments, If Adopted, will.change, the ngige,.pt�ndards
statistically, based standazd..(using the dePcriDtn,Xa..1+10-APd.-We
* A(? @n&E9y..0A&ed• standard,,. I using the deaariptor.Legl. +
v.additiOW..aa:Additional. noise descriptor (Ldn)' ie:.proposad. o-bs
appl#ed,]GO,,p. ➢gXts, The Agency also proposes to simplify the
Noise Area Classification system set forth in the existing rules.
-2-
The Agency is also proposing to add requirements to the rules
concerning instrumentation and monitoring.
The Agency began the process of reviewing the existing noise
rules in 1979. The Agency published in the State Register on
November 26, 1979, a Notice of Intent to Solicit Outside Opinion
(4 S.R. 871) in which the Agency stated its intent to review
Minn. Rules NPC 1 and 2 and invited interested persons to submit
information on the subject. The notice was mailed to
approximately five hundred persons whose names were maintained on
a mailing list by the Agency. This list includes governmental
officials, industry representatives, citizens and organizations
which have expressed an interest in the noise rules. A public
information meeting concerning the rule review was held at the
Agency offices on December 5, 1979.
On June 24, 1980, the Agency staff developed a tentative
schedule for the review of the rules. Due to staff limitations,
it became apparent that consultant assistance would be necessary
in order to meet the time .lines presented in that schedule. the
Agency Board consequently authorized the staff to negotiate and
contract for the necessary consultant assistance.
A Noise Committee consisting of four Agency Board members was
formed on March 30, 1982, for the purpose of facilitating the
participation of a broad range of interested persons in the rule
review process. In addition, the Committee took part in
r,
-3-
overseeing the activities of the consultant who was retained by
action of the Agency Board on April 27, 1982. The consultant
retained by the Agency was Brian Lowey and Associates.
The Noise Committee first met on April 12, 1982, and
continued to meet periodically until July 23, 1984. During that
time, fifteen meetings, open to the public, were held. These
meetings were attended by representatives of governement,
industry, private concerns, and the general public. Throughout
the process, Committee members and interested persons were
encouraged to present and discuss concerns and criticisms of the
existing rules and to suggest changes to those rules. A draft of
rule amendments was developed which appeared to be generally
agreed upon by the Committee members and persons who had attended
the Committee meetings.
On March 26, 1984, the Agency published in the State Register
an additional Notice of Intent to Solicit Outside Opinion
concerning the rules. The reason for the notice was related
to the fact that there had been a long span of time between the
original Notice of Intent to Solicit Outside Opinion and the
development of the draft rule amendments. The notice provided an
additional opportunity to submit comments on the existing rules.
The Notice was mailed to approximately eighty people currently on
the noise mailing list. No additional comments ware received.
On September 24, 1984, the draft rule amendments were brought
-4-
before the Agency's Rules Committee at a meeting open to the
public. Thereafter, a few minor changes were made in the draft
rules by the Agency staff. The final draft of the rules was
reviewed and approved by the Rules Committee on February 25, 1985.
II. STATEMENT OF AGENCY'S STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The Agency statutory authority to adopt and amend rules
relating to noise pollution is set forth in Minn. Stat. §116.07,
subd. 4 (1984), which provides in relevant part:
Pursuant and subject to the provisions of chapter 14,
and the provisions hereof, the pollution control agency
may adopt, amend and .rescind rules andstandards
thaving
the force of law relating to any purpose
provisions of Laws 1971, chapter 7271 for the
prevention, abatement, or control of noise pollution.
on
Any such rule or standard may be of general app
licati
throughout the state, or may be limited as to times,
places, circumstances or conditions in order to make due
allowances for variations therein. Without limitation,
rules or standards may relate to sources or emissions of
noise or noise pollution, to the quality or composition
of noises in the natural environment, or to any other
matter relevant to the prevention, abatement, or control
of noise pollution.
The Agency's directive to establish standards relating to
maximum levels of sound pressure in the outdoor atmosphere is set
forth in Minn. Stat. §116.07, subd. 2 (1984), which provides in
relevant part:
The pollution control agency shall also adopt standards
describing the maximum levels of noise in terms of sound
pressure level which may occur in the outdoor
atmosphere, record gnizing that due to variable factors no
are
asPofttheastate.soSuchpstandardssshalligiveedue all
-5-
consideration to such factors as the intensity of
noises, the types of noises, the frequency with which
noises recur, the time period for which noises continue,
the times of day during which noises occur, and such
other factors as could affect the extent to which
noises may be injurious to human health or welfare,
animal or plant life, or property, or could interfere
unreasonably with the enjoyment of life or property. In
adopting standards, the pollution control agency shall
give due recognition to the fact that the quantity or
characteristics of noise or the duration of its presence
in the outdoroor atmosphere, which may cause noise
pollution in one area of the state, may cause less or not
cause any noise pollution in another area of the state,
and it shall take into consideration in this connection
such factors, including others which it may deem proper,
as existing physical conditions, zoning classifications,
topography, meteorological conditions and the fact that
a standard which may be proper in an essentially
residential area of the state, may not be proper as to a
highly developed industrial area of the state. Such
noise standards shall be premised upon scientific
knowledge as well as effects based on technically
substantiated criteria and commonly accepted practices.
No local governing unit shall set standards describing
the maximum levels of sound pressure which are more
stringent than those set by the pollution control
agency.
Under these statutes the Acency has the statutory authority to
amend its noise rules.
III. STATEMENT OF NEED
The need to adopt the proposed amendments to hinn. Rules
Parts 7010.0100 through 7010.0700 arises primarily from the
advances in noise pollution technology and research which have
occurred since the time of the adoption of the existing rules in
1974. These advances have provided new and different approaches
for describing and assessing noise. Specifically, new
-6-
methodologies for describing noise have replaced older, outdated rl
methodologies, and advances in instrument technology have made
noise assessment more practicable and reliable. It is desirable
to update the rules to incorporate the improvements which have
been made in noise description and in noise instrument
technology.
The Agency's review of the noise rules also led it to
conclude that there is a need to revise the Noise Area
Classifications established in the existing rules. Experience
since 1974 in administering the existing rules has shown that the
existing classification system contains some ninety land use
activities which makes the application cumbersome because the user
may classify a particular land use in more than one Noise Area
Classification. In addition, many of the existing land uses are
ambiguous and not well defined, which has made interpretation of
the rule difficult in certain cases. There is, therefore, a need
to amend the list of Noise Area Classifications so that the rule
will be less susceptible to conflicting interpretations.
The Agency's review of the noise rules also led it to
conclude that there was a need to add another descriptor (Ldn)
for airports. Airport operators have commented that the noise
descriptors in the existing rules (L10 and L50) are not
appropriate for measuring airport noise. While the proposed
change from the existing descriptor to an energy based standard
(Ley) will address some of the airport operators' concerns, they
continue to contend that the Ldn standard is a more fair standard
-7-
to apply to airport noise.• -Airport .Poise is A. rgf}gctiph,pf..
airport. -operations which is .,technically difficult. to deggrik with
an hourly descriptor @uch as the L10, L50 and_4egc.; Airport.
operations change from one.hour to the next making the Ldn.(a
twenty-four hour descriptor) more representative.<agd UCeptable
for assessing.airport noise, Therefore, there is a need to add
this new additional standard applicable only to airports.
IV. STATEMENT OF REASONABLENESS
It is reasonable to update State Noise Standards to reflect
advances in noise pollution technology and research because the
legislation authorizing the original adoption of the standards
indicates the Minnesota Legislature's intention that the
standards reflect up-to-date scientific knowledge. The charge to
the Agency set forth in Minn. Stat. 5116.07, subd. 2 (1484)
requires that the standards be "premised upon scientific
knowledge as well as effects based on technically substantiated
criteria and commonly accepted practices." The express concern
with regard to scientific knowledge, which is continually
advancing and changing, suggests that the Legislature did not
intend the Agency to ignore these advances, but rather that the
standards would be periodically updated to take advantage of
improvements.
It is also reasonable to amend the rules to take care of
problems which have arisen over the years in the administration
-8-
of the exising rules. Thus it is reasonable to make improvements
in the Noise Area Classifications, add monitoring procedures, and
to add a standard that applies only to airports.
The following discussion addresses the specific provisions of
the proposed amendments.
Fart 7010.0010, Incorporation by Reference
This proposed rule incorporates the following three documents
by reference:
1. American National Standard Institute, Acoustical
Terminology, S1.1-1960 (R1976);
2. American National Standard Institute,
Specifications for Sound Level Meters, S1.4-1983; and
3. Sound Procedures for Measuring Highway Noise, Final
Report, FHWA-DP-45-1R (August, 1981).
The proposed rule also states where these documents are
available.
This proposed rule is required to be included in these rules
by Minn. Stat. 514.07, subd. 4 (1984), which sets forth specific
requirements in the event that an agency wishes to incorporate by
reference documents which are not listed in that statute. The
documents incorporated by this rule are referred to elsewhere in
the rules, in Part 7010.0060, relating to monitoring procedures.
Therefore it is reasonable to include in this rule those items
which are required by statute.
-9-
Part 70.10,0020, Definitions
This proposed rule sets forth nine definitions of words or
phrases used within the rules. "Daytime" and "nighttime" are
defined in the same manner as they are defined in the existing
rules and therefore no amendments other than renumbering are
proposed for these definitions. The other nine definitions are
discussed below.
"A -weighted" is defined as a specific weighting of the sound
pressure level for the purpose of determining the human response
to sound. It is reasonable to define this term because the term
applies to all sound level measurements in this rule and is used
to qualify the type of sound level measurement being made.
"dB(A)" is defined as a unit of sound level expressed in
decibels (dB) and A -weighted. This term is also defined in the
existing rules, and the proposed amended rule represents a
clarification, rather than a change to, in the existing rule. It
is reasonable to define this term i❑ order to clarify that all
sound level measurements are expressed in decibels and are
A -weighted. This definition qualifies the sound level
measurement.
"Decibel" is defined as having the meaning given it in
American National Standard Institute S.1-1960 (R1976), section
2.3. It is reasonable to define this term through incorporation
by reference because the incorporated document establishes a
4 definition of this basic term which is used and accepted
throughout the acoustical field.
-10-
"Ldn" is,de£ined as the day, night sound level haying..ths•
equivalenx A -weighted sound level during a twentyrfour, hour .time
period,with a tan decibel weighting applied to the equivalent
sound level during nighttime hours. It is reasonable to define
this term because it is used in establishing airport sound level
standards.
"yeq"o o{ Nuivalent sound level, is defined as the
constant sound level that in sixty consecutive minutes•wo hted
convey the same sound energy as the actual time -varying A-wei 9
sound level. It is reasonable to define this term because it is
used in establishing sound level standards for all sources.
"Person° is defined as having the meaning given it in Minn.
Rule Part 7000.0100, subp. 91 which is a definition found among
the Agency's Procedural Rules. "Person" is also defined in the
existing rules, and the existing definition is identical in
meaning, though slightly different in word order, to the
definition set forth in the Procedural Rules. It is reasonable
to define this term in the same manner as it is used in other
Agency rules in order to promote consistence among Agency rules.
"Sound pressure level" is defined as having the meaning giver.
it in American National Standard Institute S1.1-1960, section
2.6. It is reasonable to drfine this term tnrough incorporation
by reference because the incorporated document establishes a
definition of this basic term which is used and accepted
throughout the acoustical field. f
-11-
Part 7010.0030, Noise Control Requirement
This proposed rule states that no person may violate or allow
any act that results or will result in a violation of the
standards established in Part 7010,0040. The intent of this rule
is to establish who is violating the noise standards. In addition,
the rule clarifies that an act taken by a person (such as
allowing a specific pattern of development to occur) may also
result in a violation of the noise standards. Although this
language is new to the rule, the requirement to comply with the
noise standards established by the Agency is not. Minn. Stat.
S115.071, subd. 2 (1984), provides that violation of an Agency
standard is a misdemeanor. Subdivision 3 of that statute
provides that violation of Agency standards subjects the violator
to the payment of civil penalties in an amount up to $10,000 per
day. Subdivision 4 of the statute provides that violation of
Agency standards constitutes a public nuisance. Subdivision 1 of
the statute provides that Agency standards may be enforced by
criminal prosecution, action to recover civil penalties,
injunction, action to compel performance, or other appropriate
action. The proposed rule is therefore reasonable because it
does not create new requirements, but only clarifies existing
prohibitions under Agency statutes.
Part 7010.0040, Noise Standards
This proposed rule is divided into three subparts, which are
discussed below.
-12-
Subpart 1 provides that noise standards are expressed in
terms of sound pressure level and apply to sounds that have a
duration of at least 200 milliseconds. The rule also states that
noise standards in Subpart 2 apply to all sources and that for
airports, the additional noise standards in Subpart 3 also apply.
The purpose of applying the rule only to sounds having a duration
of at least 200 milliseconds is to ensure that the standards
apply only to what is considered non -impulsive noise. Although
there is no agreed -upon definition of impulsive noise in the
acoustical field, it is generally agreed that noise with a
duration of at least two hundred milliseconds is non -impulsive
noise. It is reasonable to apply these standards only to
non -impulsive noise because there is general agreement in the '
acoustical field that impulsive noise should be addressed
separately, from a standard -setting viewpoint, from non -impulsive
noise. The Agency does not intend to address impulsive noise in
this rule making proceeding.
Subpart 2 sets forth the noise standards. In order to
explain the proposed changes to the existing standards, is is
necessary to explain the nature of the existing rules. The
existing rules set forth limiting levels of sound depending upon
the activities on the land where the sound levels are received.
The land areas are classified according to their actual use, each
parcel of land being given a Noise Area Classification MC).
The NAC's take into account the amount of noise which is safe
for people to encounter in their daily lives. For example, a
-13-
person needs and desires a quieter outdoor environment surrounding
a residence than at a factory or a shopping center. Therefore
land uses which are more "sensitive" to noise are classified as
NAC-1 and have the most stringent noise standards applied to
them. NAC-1 land use activities include household units, medical
and other health services, and religious activities. NAC-2 land
use activities have less stringent standards and include railroad
and bus terminals and commercial centers. Even less stringent
standards apply to NAC-3 land activities. NAC-3 land uses include
manufacturing activities, agricultural activities, and mining
activities. The fourth type of land activity classification in
the existing rules, NAC-4, may receive unlimited noise and
includes undeveloped and unused land.
The existing rules set forth the limiting levels of sound for
land areas classified as NAC-1, NAC-2, and NAC-3 as follows:
Piz light
NAC L50 L10 Li0 L10
1 60 65 53 55
2 65 70 65 70
3 75 80 75 80
These standards incorporate the intensity (decibel level) and
duration of noise. The "L10" is defined in the existing rules as
"the sound level, expressed in dBA, which is exceeded ten percent
of a one hour survey." Thus a violation of an L10 standard of 65
-14-
dBA occurs when noise monitoring shows that the outdoor sound
level exceeded 65 dBA for over six minutes of a one -hour survey.
The "L50" standard is defined by the existing rules as "the sound
level, expressed in dBA, which is exceeded fifty percent of the
time for a one -hour survey." Thus a violation of an L50 standard
of 60 dBA occurs when noise monitoring shows that the outdoor
sound level exceeded 60 dBA for at least thirty minutes of a
one -hour survey. rules by
The Agency is proposing to amend the existing
eliminating the L10 and L50 descriptors, which are "statistical"
dhe LeQ descriptor. This decision
escriptors, and using instead t
was reached after significant debate and discussion among
interested parties who attended the Noise Committee meetings.
Statistical descriptors have their advantages and disadvantages
as a regulatory tool. While they are simple to measure, they
have technical and practical limitations on their iiee. Because
they focus only on the question of whether a certain sound level
was exceeded for a certain period of time (six minutes for the L10
and thirty minutes for the L50), statistical descriptors do not
give a complete picture of the intensity or loudness of sound
measured over the entire one -hour sample. For exampler peaks
statistical descriptors are not sensitive to noise energy p In
if those peaks do not last the appropriate amount of time.
addition, the statistical descriptors do not easily lend
themselves to predictive computer modeling, which is frequently
-15-
used to assess the future noise impacts of noise -generating
projects, such as modeling of airport noise.
,�,tig �e�a�uip��.e.�,,,@ogrLd level) deac�ip�or is th�a�taa�t
.,soured.-Lev*Lwthat-Ln-sixty...cnoaeCU".zJnutUjQ lid_po
same .anund.911g�4Y.8e_ t�.he.apkll9]...timezva=Yis9-s.ynightpa .n^„tea.
.level, It is based on noise energy and accounts for all noise
during the assessment period regardless of duration. _Thp-1eq UL.
-the ,capability -to assess -noise without the six and 30aninute...tima.
restraints.attached tQ_t11e,.L10 and..LSO. Through the development
of new, microprocessor controlled measuring devices, Leg can be
easily measured, and the contributions from different sources can
be added. It lends itself to calculation models, where the noise
level is generated by varying numbers of sources (e.g., passbys).
The Federal Highway Noise Prediction Model as well as a number of
other models use Leg as the primary descriptor. The fact that
Leg is in wide use in noise modeling efforts will be helpful to
the Agency in evaluating various project that muet be reviewed by
the Agency as to future compliance with noise standards. The Leg
is not without disadvantages, however. It does not give
information about the time history of noise, and specific sources
may produce noise which is annoying to the receiver without
exceeding the applicable Leg standard. This is also somewhat
true with the statistical Llo, L50 standard if the noise from a
source is sporadic. In addition, there are many community noise
programs which have adopted the Agency's existing standards by
reference and which have as a result developed monitoring
-16-
procedures based on tho 1.10 and 1,50 descriptors, The change to
the Leg descriptor will create thv need for some Adjustments to
these community noise programsl primarily in the form of new or
additional monitoring procedures, fl000vor, on balance, it is
reasonable for the Agency to make a change from the statistical
descriptor to the Leg In order to take advantage of the benefits
of the descriptor described above.
In addition to eliminating the L10 and L40 descriptor from the
noise standards, the Agency is proposing to change the numerical
values of the noise standards. The proposed new numbers Us
as follows)
,ag
... asii.4
1 63 Leg
53 Lag
7 68 Leg
68 Lag
3 78 Leg
78 Lag
In each case, the number is three d8A above the existing L50
standard , Hownver, this does
not reproaent a relaxation of the
existing standards, but rather
a numerical adjustment needed
bocause of the change to an Leg
descriptor, The level of
protection remains the same As
the existing ru13s. The
adjustment was arrived at by comparing measured noise using both
statistical and Leg descriptors, For most types of noise, if
one simultaneously assesses the
L10# L50, and Lego one will find
that the value obtained for the
Leg falls numerically between the
values obtained for the L10 and
the L50. In fact, when one
assesses additional data coupled with theoretical calculations,
-17-
the Leg is usually about two to three decibels more than the L5U
value. Primarily this is because the Leg takes into account all
the energy produced by a noise source whereas the L10 and L50
only take into account the noise with a duration of at least six
and thirty minutes, respectively. Therefore the move to the Leg
descriptor requires the three dBA upward adjustment from the
existing L50 in the standard in order to keep the noise standards
at the same level of protection as the existing standards.
Subpart 3 of the proposed rule adds an additional descriptor
for airports called an Ldn• ..Ldn .(day, night. eound.lavAILAGAB +
the equiva.lent,.►-weightgd,sostRd.l�vel..durinB_a�ir�ent��four hoac..
time:•period•.with •a'ten .decibel- weighting applied -to., -the,
,equtyslant.sound -level •during..nighttime. It is reasonable to
provide an additional descriptor for airport noise because of the
complexities associated %4ith airport noise. Airport noise is a
reflection of airport operations, which are diversified and
sporadic. For example, there is a significant amount of
noise -producing activity at the Minneapolis -St. Paul
international Airport during the daylight hours, but after 11
p.m. there are almost no take -offs or landings. Therefore, a
one -hour noise measurement taken between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. at a
location affected by airport noise will result in a much higher
Leg than a one -hour noise measurement taken between 11 p.m. and
midnight. Similarly, noise measurements taken during the same
-18-
hours
on different days may y produce radically different numbers
due to the day-to-day differences in the numbers of take -offs and
landings. Because of this, a one -hour descriptor does not
accurately describe the total or composite noise produced by
an
airport. This makes it difficult to assess airport noise and to
use predictive computer modeling using only an hourly Leq. The
airport operators have commented to the Agency that an Ldn
standard is a more useful descriptor of airport noise because it
takes into account both the noisy hours and the quiet hours. The
Agency agrees that an Ldn standard would be useful in assessing
airport noise and is amenable to adding such a descriptor to
airports, but aaly so.lpng, the hourly
applied -so that the Agency'can continue to•determina-whoth".
operatioua_at..busy.hours are -creating. noise levelB..WbiCh..ar,_
annoying gr .04M.W .to, People .af"acted by the .aircraft-nedea„
Therefore, the Agency's proposal to add an Ldn of 63, 68, and 78
decibels for NAC-1, NAC-2, and NAC-3, respectively, is
seasonable.
Part 7010.0050 Noise Area Classifications
The Agency is proposing to amend the existing rule
establishing Noise Area Classifications in order to simplify it.
The existing rule sets forth four NAC's and ninety land use
activities. When determining what numerical noise standard
applies to a given land area, it is necessary to categorize the
-19-
noise receiver into one of the land use activities. The Agency
has found that the large number of land activities listed in the
existing rule made it more difficult to determine how a given
land area should be classified and some land areas could be
categorized in more than one land use activity. As a result of
this difficulty, the Agency is proposing to amend the rule to
simplify the list of land uses in NAC-1, NAC-2, and NAC-3. The
Agency is also proposing to eliminate NAC-4, which applied to
land where no activities are taking place. That type of land
under the proposed rule ammendents will continue to be subject to
no noise standard, since there are no receivers to protect.
The proposed Part 7010.0050 is divided into three subparts.
Subpart 1 provides that the Noise Area Classification is based on
land use activity at the location of the receiver and determines
the noise standards applicable to that land use activity unless
an exception is applied under Subpart 3. This language
represents a statement of the manner in which the Agency has
always used Noise Area Classifications. The reference to the
"location of the receiver" is an important addition to the rule,
however. In the past, the rule has never stated whether the
noise standard applied at the property line of the land area or
at the location of the receiver. The Agency has interpreted the
existing rule so as to apply the standard at the location of the
receiver, and this approach is continued in the proposed new
-20-
rule. Because the purpose of setting noise standards is to
protect the people who receive the noise, it is reasonable to
apply the standard at that location.
Subpart 2 of the proposed rule sets forth the activities
included in each of the three Noise Area Classifications. ;N04114
Area classification 1 �nclgdes the following land use
activities: xesideptial, educational, - medical, dedicated nature,
areas,lnontransient housing,;-schooIs,'churches, medical
facilities providing nighttime care, and nature preserves.
Noise Area ClassificatioA 2) includes the following land use
activities: commercial, entertainment and recreationalr-offies
buildings,, rgtgil storfp,, 4erwices, transient• lodginge,madicaI
facilites not providing nighttime care, parks, and athletio
fields. Noise -Area Classification 3 includes the following land
act vities:,industrial ,,manufacturing, utilitie9,
use
transportatlgn, and agricultural. This represents a
simplification of the existing rule and not a change in the basic
thrust of the land activity categories listed in the existing
rule. it is reasonable to simplify the list of land use
activities because the Agency believes that this will resule in
fewer cases where a land use activity could arguably fall into
two different Noise Area Classifications.
Subpart 3 of the proposed rule, entitled "exceptions,"
provides that the Noise Area Classification for a land use may be
-21-
changed in certain cases if specified conditions are met. Four
exception provisions are included.
Subpart 3, Item A provides that daytime standards for Noise
Area Classification 1 shall be applied to Noise Area
Classification 1 during the night time if the land use activity
does not include overnight lodging. This proposed rule does not
represent any change from the existing rule. See Minn. Rule Part
7010.0700, Item B. Because the nighttime noise standard for
Noise Area Classification 1 is set to protect the ability of
people (receivers) to sleep during those hours, it is reasonable
to apply the less stringent daytime standards to nighttime hours
if there are no people sleeping in a given land area to be
protected.
Subpart 3, Ttem B provides that the standards for a building
in a Noise Area Classification 2 shall be applied to a building
in a Noise Area Classification 1 if the following conditions are
met:
1. The building is constructed in such a way that the
exterior to interior sodnd level attenuation is at least
20 dBA.
2. The building has year-round climate control.
3. The building has no areas or accommodations contiguous
to it that are intended for outdoor activities.
The rationale behind this rule relates to the fact that a
building with the right characteristics can protect people
against additional noise, and therefore a less stringent noise
standard can be applied to the area where that building is
located. The language of the proposed rule is the same language
that appears in the existing rules except for condition 1 above.
The rule calls for a twenty decibel attenuation factor, whereas
the existing rule requires a thirty decibel attenuation factor.
Exterior to interior sound level attenuation is a factor of
building construction. It depends upon such things as building
wall thickness, insulation, and the window configuration. Noise
standards apply to the outdoor atmosphere and take into account
the fact that a person indoors will receive less noise than a
person standing outdoors because of the fact that the building
will attenuate noise. However, exterior to interior noise
attenuation is not the most important factor of the three factors
listed above. The other two factors are more important in
making a building acceptable when located in an area having
higher levels of outdoor noise. Specifically, a residence with
thick, insulated walls will not protect a person from outdoor
noise on a hot summer day or night unless the person can close
the windows. Therefore the rule specifies that the building must
have year-ror.nd climate control (i.e., air-conditioning).
Similarly, people who live in the residence will not be protected
from that outdoor noise if the building has areas intended to be
used for outdoor recreation. Because the exterior to interior
attenuation is not the most important factor in protecting
people, it was recommended during the discussions of the Agency's
-23-
ram.,,
i Noise Committee that this 30 dBA noise attenuation factor be
reduced to 20 dBA. This reduction is reasonable because it will
reduce construction costs for a developer who wishes to take
advantage of this exception language by constructing an
appropriate building in an area whose current noise levels are
those of a Noise Area Classification 2 area.
Subpart 31 Item C provides that the standards for a building
in a Noise Area Classification 3 shall be applied to a building
in a Noise Area Classification 1 if the following conditions are
met:
1. The building is constructed in such a way that the
exterior to interior sound level attenuation is at least
30 dBA.
i 2. The building has year-round climate control.
3. The building has no areas or accommodations contiguous
to it that are intended for outdoor activities.
This exception is new; it does not appear in the existing rules.
The rationale for the rule is the same as that set forth under
the discussion in Item B: that a building with the proper
characteristics can be sufficiently protective so that higher
outdoor noise levels will be tolerable. It is reasonable to
allow more "noise sensitive" land uses in Noise Area
Classification Area 3 if the people in the buildings can close
the windows and if the building has no areas intended for outdoor
activities. It is also reasonable, however, to require the
building to have a higher, i.e., 30 dBA, exterior to interior
-2a-
noise attenuation factor to provide the extra protection needed
in a noisier outdoor environment.
subpart 31 Item D provides that the standards for a building
in a Noise Area Classification 3 shall be applied to a building
in a Noise Area Classification 2 if the following conditions are
met:
1. The building is constructed in such a way that the
exterior to interior sound level attenuation is at least
20 dBA.
2. The building has year-round climate control.
3. toeitbuilding
arehas
intendedareas
forroutdooraccommodations
contiguous
activities.
This exception is also new; it does not appear in the existing
rules. The rationale for the rule is the same as that set forth
under the discussion in Item B: that a building with the proper
characteristics can be sufficiently protective so that higher
outdoor noise levels will be tolerable. It is reasonable to
allow more 'noise sensitive" land uses in Noisa Area
Classification Area 3 if the people in the buildings can clove
the windows and if the building has no areas intended for outdoor
activitieb. It is also reasonable, however, to require the
building to have at least a 20 dBA exterior to interior noise
attenuation factor to provide the extra protection needed in a
noisier outdoor environment.
Part %010 0060, Measurement Methodolo
The existing rules contain minimal provisions in respect to
-25-
measurement procedures. Part 7010.0600 states that "(a)
measurement procedure approved by the Director shall be used" and
that "[a)ll measurements shall be made outdoors." The existing
rule contains some guidance as to where the measurement shall be
made. The Agency is proposing to adopt a measurement methodology
for the determination of compliance with the noise standards. It
is reasonable to include a detailed measurement methodolgy to
clarify procedures and provide a framework for sound level
measurements.
Subpart 1 provides that ,zeaurament-Of :A0Wd.®119fi:1AA W
within.:the..,reoeiver!a.property .line -at, the4zint.o5:.hu�i '
activity' vhiah,la.neafeat the. noiae•zourea. This language is
taken from the existing rule. It is reasonable to specify where
sound level measurements are to be taken so that the public
understands at what location on the property compliance will be
determined.
Subpart 2 provides that all sound level measuring devices
must be certified to meet Type I, II, or S specifications under
American National Standard Institute S1.4-1983. Because of the
availability of increasing varieties of sound measuring devices
it is necessary to provide acceptable specification standards for
these devices. The American National Standard Institute
S1.4-1983 establishes technical specifications for sound
measuring devices and therefore establishes a quality assurance
-26-
control on sound measuring devices. S1.4-1983 is accepted
throughout the acoustical field as the standard for specifying
noise instrumentation.
Subpart 3 provides that all sound level measuring devices
must, at a minimum, be recertified or cross-referenced according
to American National Standard Institute S1.4-1983 annually. The
rule also provides that the equipment must be externally field
calibrated before and after the monitoring event using a
calibration device of known frequency and sound pressure level.
It is reasonable to require certification and calibration of
instruments to assure that sound measuring devices continue to
meet original specifications and provide accurate and
representative measurements.
Subpart 4 sets forth measurement procedures that must be used
to obtain representative sound level measurements. This subpart
establishes reasonable criteria for the accurate measurement of
Found. Specifically, this subpart contains four items, which are
discussed below.
Subpart 4, item A requires that measurements be made between
three and five feet off the ground or surface and away from
natural or man-made structures which would diminish the sound
level. These specifications are needed in order to ensure that
the measurements are representative of the sound level being
measured. These specifications are reasonable in that they may
-27-
easily be complied with using measuring devices and visual
inspection of the measurement site.
subpart 4, item B requires that measurements must be made
using the A -weighting and fast response characteristics of the
sound measuring device as specified in the American National
Standard Institute S1.4-1983. The A -weighting more closely
resembles the human ears response to sound. Using these
characteristics to measure environmental noise has long been
established as an acceptable method in the acoustical field and
therefore it is reasonable to incorporate them into this rule.
Subpart 41 item c requires that measurements must not be made
in sustained winds greater than 12 miles per hour or in
precipitation. Microphones used on measuring devices will
measure the noise of the wind once the wind velocity reaches
about twelve miles per hour. Also, precipitation interferes with
electrical conditions of the measuring devices. Therefore these
requirements are needed to protect the accuracy of sound level
measurements. These requirements are reasonable because they can
easily be complied with using a wiiid velocity measuring device
and visuAl inspection of the measurement site.
Subpart 41 item D requires that measurements must be made
using a windscreen. A windscreen is primarily a protective
device; however, it does reduce effects on the microphone that
may result from low velocity winds (less than 12 miles per hour).
It is reasonable to require the use of a windscreen to protect
-0
the measurement devices from debris and to reduce inaccuracies in
the measurement due to low velocity winds.
Subpart 5 sets forth methods for deterimination of the hourly
Leq. All sound level measuring devices are capable of measuring
hourly Leq; however, some devices require manual calculations,
whereas other devices can make calculations automatically. For
both manual and automated measuring devices the basic
mathematical formula for the determination of the Leq is the
same, but the method of determining the Leq for an hour may
differ. Because of this, it is reasonable to provide methods for
determination of hourly Leq to assure that the measurement is a
reliable one. It
Subpart 5 includes items A through C, which are discussed
below.
Subpart 5, item A provides that hand held measuring devices
(manual devices) must use the check -of:: method described in
FHWB-DP-45-1R, Section 3.6. This methcd describes a
statistically based procedure where measurements are taken every
ten seconds until a statistical sample has been collected. Once
a statistical test is performed and specific criteria are met,
then the measurement is completed. This procedure is reasonable
because it provides for a statistically verified hourly Leq and
allows non -automated sound measuring devices to be used. In
addition, this method is currently used by the Agency, has been
c
-29-
in wide use and is generally accepted throughout the acoustical
field.
Subpart 5, item B provides that automated or integrating
measuring devices may use the check -off method described in
FHWA-DP-45-lR, Section 3.6 or be operated in accordance with the
manufacturer's recommendations for determination of an hourly
Leq. It is reasonable to allow the check -off method to be used
with automated measuring devices because those devices may be
operated on either a manual or automatic mode. When measuring
devices are used in the automatic mode (in this mode both data
and time are determined automatically) the measuring device is
independent; therefore, it is necessary and reasonable to follow
the manufacturer's recommendations.
Subpart 5, item C allows equivalent methods to be used but
provides that. the Agency Director must determine whether the
method is equivalent. It is necessary to allow the use of
additional monitoring methods to accommodate changes in sound
measuring devices. It is reasonable to have these additional
methods reviewed and approved by the Director to ensure that the
methods are equivalent to required methods and that they yield
representative data.
Subpart 6 provides for the calculation of Ldn. A formula is
provided in this subpart to clarify mathematical and time based
parameters necessary to calculate the Ldn. The Ldn formula set
-30-
forth in the rule is the formula which is commonly used and
accepted in the field of acoustics and
therefore
all soundlevelreasonable. Subpart 7 provides that a summary sheet
measurements shall be completed and signed by the person making
the measurements. The summary shall include as a minimum
the date, time, location, noise source, wind speed and direction,
temperature, humidity, specific instrumentation, calibration
results, noise levels, and a sketch of the monitoring site. It is
reasonable to require that a summary sheet be prepared so that
this information will be available for review to determine
the specific conditions under which the monitoring event
occurred. Because the person doing the measurement needs to be
aware of all of these items in order to ensure the making of an
accurate measurement, it is reasonable to require the person to
take an additional few minutes to record them in writing.
Fact 701U.uviu, =_ws-
This part contains five subparts. Subpart 1 provides that
tion
sound level measurements made for assessing
sounC/a��eDuaehallabe
specified in Part 7010.0150, subpart 3, item B,
made according to the requirements of this part. It is
reasonable to set forth a sound attenuation methodology
to
clarify which procedures are acceptable and will yield
representative data.
-31-
Subpart 2 provides that equipment must meet the requirements
specified in Part 7010.0060, supart 2. This is reasonable
because sound measuring devices are the same for measuring noise
or measuring attenuation, so the same equipment requirements
should be applied.
Subpart 3 provides that the equipment must meet the
calibration requirements specified in Part 7010.0060, subpart 3.
This is reasonable because sound measuring devices are calibrated
in the same manner whether the devices are used for measuring
noise levels or attenuation., so the same requirements should
apply.
Supart 4 provides that measurement procedures described in
FWHA-DP-46-1R, Section 8, must be used for determination of sound
attenuation. Accepted, standardized methodologies have been
established for measuring sound attenuation on acoustical
products and for acoustical rasearch. There are no accepted,
standardized procedures for measuring sound attenuation in the
specific applivation called for in this rule.. Because of this, it
is reasonable to require the use of the procedure described in
FHWA-DP-45-1R because this document provides reasonable
guidelines for the measurement of sound attenuation.
Subpart 5 provides that the Director shall approve the use of
any method other than those described in Subpart 4 if the
Director finds that the method results in reliable data. Because
-32-
of the lack of accepted, standardized procedures for measuring
sound attenuation in the specific application called for in this
rule, it is reasonable to allow other methods to be used if they
produce results which are as reliable as the methods specified
in the rule.
Repeal of Minn Rules Parts 7010.0100 - 7010.0700
The proposed amendments to the exising rules contain a
different format than the existing rules, and thus it was not
feasible to show the amendments to the rules by underlining new
language and striking out the language to be eliminated.
Therefore the new rules represent a rewrite of the existing '
rules. Under these circumstances it is necessary and reasonable
to repeal the rules which these new rules replace.
V. SMALL BUSINESS CONSIDERATIONS IN RULEMAHING
Minn. Stat. 514.115, subd. ? (1954) requires the Agency, when
proposing rules which may affect small businesses, to consider
the following methods for reducing the impact on small
businesses:
(a, the establishment of less stringent compliance or
reporting requirements for small businesses;
(b) the establishment of less stringent schedules or
deadlines for compliance or reporting requirements for
small businesses;
(c) the consolidation or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements for small businesses;
-33-
(d) the establishment of performance standards for small
businesses to replace design or operational standards
required in the rule; and
(e) the exemption of small businesses from any or all
requirements of the rule.
The proposed amendments may affect small businesses as
defined in Minn. Stat. 514.115. As a result, the Agency has
considered the above -listed methods for reducing the impact of
the rule on small businesses. Because there are no reporting
requirements in the rule, no accommodation for small business was
possible in that regard. The Noise Area Classification system
does take into account businesses as a whole by setting less
stringent standards for areas where the land activities are
commercial and industrial. However it is not possible to take
business size into account, Since the standards are set to be
protective of health and welfare. Therefore the Agency has
determined that no specific exemptions for small businesses can
be xadB.
VI. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the proposed amendment of the State
Noise Standards, by adopting Minn. Rules Parts 7010.0010 through
7010.0070 and by repealing Minn. Rules Parts 7010.0100 -
-34-
7010.0700, are both needed and reasonable.
Dated: February28, 1985
THOMAS J. KALITOWSKI
Executive Director
•
1
r'r'\ MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CLERK -ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: APRIL 23, 1985
SUBJECT: BILLING STATEMENT FROM AL PEREZ dba
NORTHERN SOUND
Attached please find a billing statement from Al Perez dba
Northern Sound in the amount of $7,963.43 for work performed
by his firm in providing a report to the City Council
pursuant to an agreement with Mr. Perez entered into by the
City of Mounds View in late September of 1984. Mr. Perez
acknowledges in his statement that the City's agreement with
him was for a cost not to exceed $7,000 and, therefore,
although his expenses were in the amount of $7,963.43 he
would be requesting payment in the amount of $7,O00 only.
Mr. Perez further indicates that Northern Sound will
initiate a noise monitoring program for the City by lending
equipment to the City for our staff to set up and operate to
monitor noise, reviewing the data developed by the City, and
reporting to the City on the information that data provides.
Staff would request Council direction on this item.
DPF/mjs
Attachment:
E
er
f \,���619Z01122��?
northern sound
St. Anthony National Bank Buildnly
Suite 201
2401 Lowry Ave. N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55418 ��'n T+Y• ��
612-788-9296 ' 'iV'
,luri1 1:1, 19::'5
rir. Uuanld I�. aulcy
CiLy AdmiuiArAor
Cii.y of Nouods View
2WI '1101w:ly "!0
flunnli:: yiow, ;I: -I ;'i113
Penr Don:
At; Akwil::.1)11 YONI '1'Ilily at llll• 111-1-1 ill';, 1„I lwwllC; III'! ,nlr I P0, cl,,ir„ es and
uapnurs for ill,! ruporl. "A Su:d. •;;y 1"r i'u! Omirol of .,cisr• frm:i Anoka
County Airport.":
I, Alloaso E. p!rc::
Colval II In;; I11).25 lu,nrs '.' ••: A')/no11r :; 4,770.00
'Iilrage 14.25
lixpeuse:: 4,797.45
2. Supportin;, Staff
filar}' Ceth (,arlsor. ;old
ricsrarcll
l:ri:ul IM10)'
S'j,5:1 hour.: :, :u/hwnr
-,
Amiitoring
5.511 hours , a -114/hour
220.00
6.40
Iti lea+;e
N. Ili lc:: _';;/::1i to
44.58
Exhensf•s
13,165.93
3. Clerical Staff 'lo Charge
Iord Processin
4. Iti};IS Original Pmuui deports
:;o i ,1arac
i 7 963.43
LE
Hr. Wmnld F. I'nulcy
April Ci, I'eS i
logo 2
Ilar.:msp of our uul-ln-eXCPOd COHLr'Irl, Lbn cil•r 01'11y n:;rr nr >7,1'1ptl.00.
I'lease orlke I.lur chock 1my:,ble 10 dorltwra
Furthermore, llnrl.hern Snund uill initialo the nouiLarint program for the
My, lend Um I:IIY m"nitul'iji rpiip,nvl In rini di IV prilrnn, revioa datn
abulillod by the I:iLY. and report. Ln Ibo 1:11.y (1n l.le: qur:nJ,)u raised lost
oighL (i.e., 1pgnliLy ul preparing Lbe AISLrr I'Inn n::in.; a descriptor other
ALhan LhE' SIaLc'::) ul. un rhargo Lu Ilu- Cily.
Sincerely,
ON
00
+1 MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRATU��(�`?
DATE: MAY 2, 1985
SUBJECT: GRANT MERRITT BILLING FOR SERVICES
As you may recall, in 1984 the City of Mounds View received
billings from Grant Merritt for legal services he provided
�k. rif. At the time the billing was received the City
Council rejected the payment of $4,295.07 as it was felt
those were not legitimate expenses for which the City should
be paying.
Attached is a copy of a letter received by this office from
Ms. Carol L. Erbst, Accounting Manager for Thompson and
Klaverkamp requesting settlement of the outstanding balance
by splitting it in half, with the City paying $2,141.53 by
June 30. Ms. Erbst advised me in a telephone conversation
that should the City not settle on this bill they would
refer it to some type of a consiliation board with the
Lawyers Association for resolution.
Your direction on this matter would be appreciated.
DFP/mjs
Attachment:
C
BRUCE I.TMOMPSON
BRUCE W. BLACK BURN
PAUL N.BLAYEAKAMP
GRANT J. MERRITT
RICMARD J. nCCNAN
ROGER A.JONNBON
DONALD P NORWICN
RICHARD MASSOPUST.JP.
JAMEB M. CNRISTCNSON
LAW OPEICES
THOMPSON & KLAVERKAMP
A PROICSSIONAL ,IBSOCIATION
4444 IDS CENTER
e0 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
Mr. Donald F. Pauley
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN. 55112
11 LEPNONE
I1121339-45<0
April 24, 1985
Re: Our file number 9396/1
•:�T I
PATRICX J. MCLAUOIILNI
MOWARD S.MYERS.III
LLOYD D."PPLE
ROGER ^.ZAHN
LAYERN A. PRITCHARD
RICNARD N. SOSnIN
MARY C. EENnUS
Dear Mr. Pauley,
As per our discussion today, our firm would be willing to reach
a settlement on the outstanding balance of $4,295.07 by splitting
the cost in half. Therefore,
we
eWill consider your account paid
in full if we receive $2, by
Regards,
Carol L. Erbst
Accounting Manager
cc: Grant Merritt
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council 1t
FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development
Public Works Foreman/Building Inspector
DATE: April 10, 1985
SUBJECT: CODE REVIEW - CHAPTER 62, 63 AND 93
The Building Inspector and I have carefully reviewed the subject
chapters. The chapters are as follows:
1. Chapter 62 - Electrical Code
2. Chapter 63 - Fire Code
3. Chapter 93 - Minimum Housing Standards for Dwellings
and Multiple Dwellings
The subject codes in their present form are adequate and do not
need altering or revising.
SWT/SAR:bc
�r
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development
10�N DATE: April 30, 1985
SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL CODE REVIEW - CHAPTERS 70, 71, 75 AND 76
The names Of the Chapters of the Municipal Code that I will
review in this memo are as follows:
1) Chapter 70, Municipal Water System
2) Chapter 71, Municipal Sanitary Sower System
3) Chapter 75, Gas Franchise
4) Chapter 76, Electric. Franchise
CHAPTER 75, GAS FRANCHISE
Chapter 75, Gas Franchise, grants Northern States Power Company
permission to conduct, operate, repair and maintain in the City a
system of mains, pipelines and other facilities for the manufac-
turing, distribution and sale of gas.
The City has granted this franchise to N.S.P. until May 1, 1998.
Therefore, we cannot change the franchise at the present time.
CHAPTER 76, ELECTRIC FRANCHISE
Chapter 76, Electric Franchise, grants to N.S.P. permission to
conduct, operate, repair and maintain in the City an electric
distribution system and transmission lines, including necessary
poles, pole lines, fixtures and appurtenances for the furnishing
of electric energy to the City and its inhabitants.
The City has granted this franchise to N.S.P. until May 1, 1998.
Therefore, we cannot change the franchise at the present time.
CHAPTER 70, MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEM
There are four changes in this code that I would like to make and
one change in the operating procedures of the Water Department
that I would like to make. I will discuss the rode changes
first, and they are as follows:
1) Chapter 70.02 (2)b speaks of the Water Availability Charge
(W.A.C.). At the present time, there is another charge
besides the W.A.C. This charge is a late hook up charge
of $100.00 for homes in existence at the time of the
watermain installation that did not hook up to tho water
system by a prescribed date. There are approximately 30
homes that have never hooked up to the City s water
system, and if they hook up to the water system now, they
must pay this late hook up charge. I recommend adding
Section 70.01 (2)c which says that buildings in existence
at the time of the watermain installation and that have
not hooked up to the water system must also pay a late
hook up charge of $100.00. The owners of these buildings
have been notified years ago that they must connect to the
Clerk -Administrator and City Council
Page Two of Four
water system by a spec if.ic date or pay the W0.00 late
charge when they hook up. Again, this only affects
approximately 30 homes that have never hooked up to the
water system.
for Repairs. At the present
2) Chapter 70.03, Liability airs to the
time, the property owner is re! for rep box
service line from his house to the
ertybowneir isdalso
which
is at tha .erry line. The property ,tea hnx (water
r•�r airs to the curb stop
responsible for rep
shut-off). The City is responsible for repairs to the
service Line from the water shut -Off to the water main.
coe
I understand that this is a receflstchang,wasesponsiin the bledEornd
that the property owner in the p
service line repairs from the house to the water main in
the street like a majority of the other cities.
Our existing policy causes the City of Mounds View a fair
e following
amount of trouble. The twaebresPrviceSlineyishleakingp
typical situation. If a the city and the
the water normally follows the water shut off to the
ground sc'owner. cannot determinerwholis�responsihth for
property
air the leak and bill
Cepairing the service line. In most instances, e
property owner wants the City to Sometimes the bills are
him if it is his reponsibility.
not paid fora long time. Every time the City has
in the past 1-1/2 years, the
repaired a service line
the responsibility of the
repairs should have been
property owner to repair.
I recommend changing the language in this section
water
to make
the property owner responsible for repairingng the
service line from the watermain to the building.
3) Chapter 70.17 (3). I recommend adding to the last
sentence, „_ 6s determined by the Municipality."
Emergency Regulations. I recommend adr.ing
q) Chapter 70.181 paragraph about the possibility of a
to water
S section abn. The paragraph could read as
water sprinkling be implemented by
follows: 'A water sprinkling ban may
Mayor. The lawn sprinkling ban
the Director of Public Works after he notifies the
Clerk -Administrator and May the months of May, June, July,
may be implemented for only procedure
August and September", This will formalize a
for reducing water demand.
Attached please find a memo from the Utility Accounting Clerk and
Development Director stating that we would
Public Works/Community repayments for water meters be
like to see the apartment owners p
Clerk-Administratnr. and City Council
Page Three of Four
I
turned into purchases of the water meters. The Utility Account-
ing Clerk, the Finance Director and I have discussed this issue
and we are all in agreement that we should send a letter to all
apartment owners notifying them that as of a certain date the
City will no longer he refunding the prepayments but will treat
the prepayment as a purchase of the water meter and the City will
no longer be collecting prepayments from new owners of apartment
buildings. This does not have to be a change in the Code. It is
a procedural change that we can implement on the staff level and
would like you to know about. This procedure is working very
,.ii F^r rha huildinos in business and industrial zones. This
procedural change will save the Utility Accounting Clerk adin'11-
stration time transfering prepayments from the old owner to the
new owner. As you may know, apartments can change owners
rapidly.
CHAPTER 71, MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWER
I recommend two changes to this section of the Code.
Section 71.07, Subd. 6, Measurement Tests. In this section of
the Code the words, "Minnesota Department of Health" should be
replaced with "Minnesota pollution Control Agency".
The next change that I recommend is in Section 71.10, Maintenance
of Sewer. At the present time, each property owner is respon-
sible for keeping the sewer line from his building to the sewer
main in the street clean. In addition, the property owner is
responsible for repairs to the service line from his building to
the property line. The City then is responsible for repairs to
the service line from the property line to the sewer main in the
street. I understand that this is a recent change in the Code
and that previously the property owners were responsible for
repairs to the service line from their building to the sewer main
in the street. The present wording of the Ordina,we has caused
the City the same type of problems that we discussed previously
under the Water Code.
I recommend changing this section of the Code to read that the
property owner is responsible for repairs to the service line
from his building to the sewer main.
There is one other issue I wish to discuss. The issue involves
the infrastructure of a mobile home court we have in Mounds
View. To begin with, let me provide some background.
As you know, the City is in the process of maintaining its infra-
structure (water, sewer, streets, storm sewer). As you may also
know, the infrastructure of a mobile home court is owned by the
owner of the mobile home court. This means that if a water main
breaks, water service line freezes, fire hydrant is not operable,
Clerk -Administrator and City Council
Page Four of Four
sewer main breaks, sewer main leaks, or streets need repair, the
owner of the mobile home court must pay for the repair. If the
owner of the mobile home court has a problem that needs to be
repaired, he can hire the City or hire a private contractor.
City staff suspects that these water and sewer systems are not
being properly maintained. Specifically, we suspect that a
mobile home court may provide more waste water to the sewer
than the rest of the City on a per capita basis. This hypothesis
comes from the Infiltration and Inflow Study conducted by the
City of Mounds View a few years ago. If the waste water flow
from a mobile home court is proven to be greater than the rest of
the City, the flow may be from infiltration and/or inflow.
Infiltration is extraneous water that enters the sanitary sewer
usually through leaking pipe joints or cracks in the sewer pipe.
Inflow is extraneous water that usually enters the sanitary sewer
through holes in manhole covers.
I have analyzed installing flow meters to measure the flow from
the mobile home courts. The problem with monitoring the flow is
that it is expensive because one must install two or three flow
meters for each mobile home court. In other words, the sanitary
sewer in the mobile home court discharges into the City system at
two or three points. My analysis says that the benefits the City
can derive by monitoring the flow does not justify the expend-
iture. However, the City may want to require the mobile home
courts to maintain their infrastructre (i.e., televise and repair
the private sanitary sewer lines, etc.)
The issue then becomes, should the City require mobile home court
owners to maintain their infrastructure according to City stan-
dard. After all, they are connected to the City's water system
and sewer system and utilize our water and sewer mains.
SWT/bc
(00�11 MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator Pauley
Mayor and City Council
FROM: Public Works Director Thatcher.
Utility Accounting Clerk Sandgren
DATE: April 30, 1985
RE: METER SALES FOR NUN -RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS
NAMELY APARTMENT OWNERS
Chapter 70, Municipal Water System, of the City Code provides for
the discontinuance of billing prepayments when a use
vacates the
premises. The existing prepayment is refunded to the previous
owner and the new owner is charged a cost equal to the cost of a
This
water meter with a remote reader. s amount is established y
is
resolution of the City Council. This a one time charge, a non
r residential properties.
refundable fee. This is working well EoChapter 70.02 of the p
ecifies
industrial water meters tshall ebeph
furnishedby thelowners rofasaidd
properties and shall be of a type approved by the Municipality"
their
In notifying
g themsthatethenvillagelwouldenotabearefundingnd ria user
notifying payment as a purchase of the
meter payments but would treat this pay longer the
water meter and not a deposit. The water meter is no long.
property of the City even though we have access to it.
At the present time we are still refunding prepayment to owners
of apartment buildings when the building is sold and collecting
prepaymentfromthe new
hownersave inateduthe ld 1prepayments ike to lfor
e
these prepayments
commercial and industrial users.
We would suggest sending letters to all apartment owners
lrno longer
nctifying them that as of a certain date the City as a
be refund-ing the prepayments but will treat that prepayment ebe
purchase of hewter mfrom the new owneter and the erso1ofdapartmeno nt
collecting prepayments
buildings. This amount should be. taken into consideration a a
later date in setting the sale prce of the apartment building.
If you have any questions concerning this please do not hesitate
to contact us.
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development/,., .�
DATE: April 23, 1985
SUBJECT: STREET LIGHT PETITION FOR WALKWAY BETWEEN QUINCY
STREET AND FAIRCHILD AVENUE
Attached please find the following:
1. My memo dated April 3, 1985
2. Street light petition received March 29, 1985
3. Location map
4. Resolution No. 946 (City street light installation
policy)
On April 8, 1985, the City Council discussed the street light
petition and directed staff to see if the property owners on
Erickson Road would be in favor of a street light at Erickson
Road and the walkway. Staff subsequently viewed the walkway day
and evening and noticed a street light at Erickson Road and the
walkway. Since there is a street light at Erickson Road and at
Quincy Street and the walkway is still dark in the center, and
the residents in the area have petitioned for a street light at
the walkway, it seems logical to direct staff to have N.S.P. to
install a light in the center of the walkway per the petition.
RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to have N.S.P. install a street
light in the center of the walkway per the petition.
SWT/bc
r
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development
DATE: April 3, 1985
SUBJECT: S'rREF.'r LIGHT PETITION
Attached please find the following:
Street light petition received March 29, 1985
2) Location map
3) Resolution No. 946 (which is the City's street light
installation policy).
The location map shows that the street light is proposed to be
placed on the walkway between Erickson Road and Quincy Street near
Pinewood School. The map also indicates the location of the
Please note that their is an existing
existing street lights.
e walkway between Erickson Road and
street light in the middle of th
Adams light at the intersection of
dams Street and an existing str
the walkway and Quincy Street.
The petitioners property is indicated by a small dot on each lot.
Accept, table or deny this petition for a street
Action ion9u�red:
light.
SWT/bc
Attachments
+ V
REGEIAD `V
cav OF
IViOUW�SVIEW"'
c'
5475 Quincy Street
hound.I„_., uu 55112
March 27, 1985
Mr, Steven Thatcher
City Hall
Mounds view, MN 55112
Dear Mr. Thatcher:
He request that a light be put on the post (on the easement)
between Quincy Street and Erickson Road.
C
Sincerely,
Ruth I C Ericson
r
"li^ `/,0
r
TIFF
''I 2� s
I Mom) IG4 10/4t
':GROBERG ST S
• p
OF
I
' r u e
16 s Feu m
.ao
• 9 /.
1 p, 4 S1L(
r M`
Tr
4
r A.
6 to
(✓ rr
r `
r (n `.
I
- n- 14
m 0 9 Q
1 ^ 40 1C.0 jib3
N w _ NIA
lb 5
I
I
� I I
NI1; UI
SZ q u�
Q -• I n nn..
26 - 4
" Y
to
w
7f S'F9u 547,5 ,•,� rRoio,<o
rr,l fiT
,- I Gnf
e? \ y
5466 s417 �
zz
e Farr.�c
I. -
_t,
_•L
zo OC. ►� e � a � � iE
Pr La
v
3^1\,^}` 7.•:_. `BELLE
10 • +r.�
r e
iM �l -i• mw L)I.m"-I I
.
'nFEµ •I'. Ri' i
� u
a 3
,0
ruwpu,n•r1uN uI'
u¢suLuru,ll Nu. IWO ANTI
In:„UI,II'I'IUN Nu. 1 P,4 1 ',
CI.1'Y UI'•Mu111111!; vll:W
COUNTY F UAMSEY
STATE UP NUL.A)'I'A
A �TRI:Ia'Id OIT IN51'ALLATIUN I'ULICV IICI'LACItIG
ItIi501.11'1'ION NU. 944
i
WIIIMEAS, each year Out C!ty L'uuln:iI receives several requests
IUI ilia IIIS Lalldtlull ill all'e,!tliglltn; .11",
the "InL of Ill,",'.1 ti lag nLlbutl l,NlGs IS a large badges
I Win; and
I
W111:11I.W; thv City tluuneil Jvsil,•n lu nid ullaw ,Ind enhance Lhe
saluty of its nelghburhuids through till' ptuvi"011 ut uLreetlights
while aL the uamo tima kacpiag Lha tax burdrn of optirlting Street-
lights at a minlaluln;
I '
NUN, 'I'llliltla'uln:, In: IT ItliSOl.vl:U by the Cuuncll of the City of
'
Mounds View that the LULIUwlllg policy shall 9uVerll the installation
of streetlights at it Illiuiulunl;
Now, TII1:1n:1'ultl:, III: ITUfxul.vl:h by It.,. Council of the City of
Muundn View LIuLL she Iulluwing pulley nji.11l guvurit the installation
of streetlights in residential areas:
Ill property owners datlir!eq iu:Ittlllatioll of ntroctlightc
,
nhall submit d petition requesting such with thu
the affected
signatures of at leJnC fifty percent of
the
property owners. All signatures of persons on
the location of
petition shall moan Lheir consent to
near their properly. The petition
the light, on or
shall include signatures of consent of the property
._
Owner directly atilected by Lhu final location unless
tl,e requested
it is ,laturmined by the City Council that
the health
streetlight is in the interest of preserving
and safety of residents of the area. A property owner
shall Ile dnlmlud to be afructeu if his/her property is
l•
within 200 luel in ally ntruct direction fruits the pro-
posed Streetlight location on either side of the $trout.
It property uwtar directly affected shall be one whose
,
property the light is on, abutts, or is directly
J 1jacunt. (Uppoblle Stile Ur tilrectl•
•.
(2) '1,110 prupuned location shall umct at least one of the
cul de
following criteria: Intersections, sharp curves,
)
save, dead un,lu, lung blocks, vmuldl!xed areas, or mad-
;
block pu,leslri.nl crunswdlks. n nLuwan(i of need for a
be
uimi Lar criteria may also qualify. The criteria must
related to a lwud ter public salety.
(1) All suaoLlighla shall be spaced at leabti400 f000 Apart
no case—sltsYl lights
, ,I
unlesu the above criteria apply. In
be closer than`50 fe6t)to one another.
.,o
(4) All new streetlight inSLallationa Shall be ►0o watt high
LreuSulu, _ud!ulu at a 0 fOut Inulult!uy huighl.
(5) 5treut11ghts shall be included ul all puille LnpMmuent
pruiuctS decurdinq to the abuva criteria.
16) oualifying ruquouts for stroutltghts may be scheduled
if the City Council
.l
for installation in a Sub sequasit yuar
detarminoe sufficient funds aru not available in the cur-
rent City budget.
Adopted the lath day of pebruary, 1900 (ltuuolution No. 1069)
and the l4th day of !:eptmnbar, 19N1 (Neuulullon No. 1154).
QA 13
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council
/'\
FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development�'
DATE: April 23, 1985
SUBJECT: PETITION FROM PROPERTY OWNERS INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING
THE EXTENSION OF KNULLWOOD DRIVE
Attached please find a copy of the subject petition received on
April 19, 1985 and a plat map of the area. The shaded lotyon the
-
plat map indicatetl.the property owned by the people who sigfiedcu
the petition. The petition was circulated by David Hoel. Mr.
Hoel is working with Don Gaetke to develop the property.
City Code Chapter 26.06 states that when any petition for the
making of any public improvements is presented to the Council.
The Council shall, by resolution, determined whether or not the
petition has been signed by the required percentage of owners of
property effected nearby, or as to the sufficency of said
petition. City Code Chapter 26.05 states that all local
improvements to be paid for by special assessment against
benefitted property can be instituted by a petition of at least
25 percent number of the benefitted property owners together with
a resolution adopted by the affirmed vote of the majority of all
of the Council.
The petition is signed by approximately 50 percent of the
- property owners. However, this petition is insufficient in that
the petitioners want to discuss the extension of Knollwood
Drive. A more sufficient petition would say "we, the undersigned
property owners, petition the City Council to construct utilities
(water, sewer, storm sewer, street, etc.") and assess the entire
cost against our property.
Since the petition is to discuss public improvements with the
City, there are several ways the City can respond. I will list
the possible responses as follows:
1. Explain to the property owners that the petition is
insufficient at provide them a sample petition for them to
sign that is sufficient.(•n•
2. Schedule and informational meeting with all the property
owners in the area and furnish a sample petition at that
meeting.
3. Tell the property owners that the petition is insufficient
and have them hold their own meetings.
Staff requests direction on this issue.
� 1_ SWT/bc
�..Ftt1•
I'E:TITION 1'111c PuuhlC IM ruuvl:ME:N I':,
NOVEIMIIrN 28, 14111
CI'ry OF WINDS VIEW
CI111111'Y OF IIAMSI:Y
sl'A'I'h. IIIMINNF.SOTA
'['u the Pity CnunriI d M.aeuhl Vira,
IYr, Ihr nudrl slyerd nWerl:. ..1 IIIII p.lrrul ..I 11, brurl Itl,o,l pl upvl Ly
dus.•riheJ bolew, hrro:by putiti., that said real property be improved
by Areut, curb and qutwr, storm s.•ww , strCct light1s3, Water and
nani[.uy nuwcr ])I,rsuant I.0 MeundA VicW Municipal Code, ('hapter 26.
W.•, Ilu undrlauplyd nwnw-c, olsu .I.pr.• IhaI should wu dorm It
inappropriate to procuud With the public Improvements
theit.y for
feasibility study nas been aLati.•J, !hatti•: ac•-
IunJA rtponJ,.11 un thr I.-onibilily Iudy�willyIII acnryuod by uA.
bescrtptiun ut property: GALE: AUDITION
L)'r 6, bl.WX I
tiignaturu of (Mill`!':
Rory Ijdli: /
TIn-le M. Gale
Ix:ecriplion ul props'ty: A00I'1'ON'S SllIIDIVI:7ION NO. 89
Suii.wcr 'ru, ROAD, TIIF SOIITII „
1/4 of Dl.ocx 67
tiign,lturu of Owner: ,
Uebra Yost ,
at1
It is understood by the above signed owners of 100 percent of the
benefitted property being petitioned for improvements that said
Improvements wLli be as de turmined by the City and that all coat of
the improvements will bu assessed by a special assessment to the at.ve
bonefitting property owner?.
roper
and to be
the ownuracu'c tho � property and naffected l bypmaking fmsigned by
of the improvement
petitioned tor.
l' 1
,tFc , 4lri'ry
.le Lhc wtuerai,pml pru,.erL, u'euars uro inCw•,out;a. iu �i::cu::�iu„
Lhe exCcuaioe of I.nOiiuoua dr. ouUL11 Lu,:arae di..iimiy iL.. 'ihi::
iluNruvemwiL UJUiU i1lciUdO IlLiil Lie::. '1,IULC lie�.l'UVUL,U., L:: W`e LO
ueVp,i•jr Our l,ra,,uvt'iuo.
Ifl.tli d l,1.,I : YI:LLfdUJo
a s
r
% ,?q,
n
o40 $;to9,1A Rd 78s s�s8 3
v
9 J�o� G tw��ke (f,...;,I
// �j 7y'L4
F. irr� Pee, O h (
a
'I)Xvr 4 1•10 e.I 273Y Nw 17A ST N.3, r3i/t i;% 3
(n r�n� •W Grq.
Q ' .
050-09
1:F/ 0. it
nLL , , I1Wi t M
Ooe-
03040 mob
It r yrr,• {/ Y N TADPJ
•
GAAODNER 2N
lot
I � 11 � � `• � n � �II l �I so.a
VO IJ381 1,00•. -. ..
I.L O Ip 4Z IIL,yI h 6
�''�i •J' _ `
= 9 ..Zen Ad
OL0 /l .. l
n TOM*
cv—
Ivl -� .• isf.1 v
h, I •M��Ot.,...,�=11. L.'. _.waJ.il .rpr• %al nv,;
I I. ,rr ... lio :ea .. 'jqL. N
nlr'�' ..,,F ft 4�n1a
I
31
30
E•ram
si
.I2 1 Ifkec ' at.a
ts
IIM � 7 1�la Ii.t l•t. h , IM V �
_ +•it_ritira-- O gy�p,
-.__ .i �'r�� of "- M►
aSO 14�
r f c r
_1190fJ _. t- _'• .o« I " IJo� , /o ur a .elr
dL
,14 • ,i,� a I ' �� 7
rR ... !SO
-
oyo •l .D�u
FAO I 1
,u
�!0 _ , :i� i(NLLLu•.rr F ;.;/ ,. •'.
I •A� �1Lr !//% it yr •r i , � �yi'i+ 1
P 2fin I ;'•L,,
17 / rS
ae r e/. 1p
' Li
1,• ,.., tlr 2e I 3�i��'y • 10 lie
e2
(♦O�lL— •�1j1 i7•• , ,
r
1�01 FROM: Director of Public Works/Community
DATE: April 26, 1985
SUBJECT: FULL-TIME TEMPORARY WORKER
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council
Drvelopment
41
1
The 1985 Water Department Budget includes the hiring of a full-
time temporary worker to grease, oil, sandblast or wire brush,
and paint hydrants in the eastern portion of. the City. A copy of
the hydrant servicing program map is included for your perusal.
This temporary position is budgeted in IONS ,indar lino TFnm
700-122-4123.
Staff analyzed and reviewed 25 applications for this position.
Staff interviewed 3 applicants from the original 25 applications
and now recommends hiring George A. Pajunen. His application for
employment, which was received by the City on April 1, 1985, is
attached for your review. George does not have experience using
sandblasting equipment or spray paint equipment. However, after
my discussions with him, staff believes that these skills can be
learned by him because of his mechanical apptitude.
RECOMMENDATION: I recommend hiring George A. Pajunen for the
full-time temporary worker position at $5.50 per hour. His main
job responsibility will be hydrant servicing. The duration of
this position will be for 66 days.
SWT/bc
Attachment
RETURN TO: DATE RECEIVED
'W�RONNELOFF ICE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW N��/85
HIGHWAY 10 APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT
MOUNDS VIEW, MN 55117
COMPLETE ALL SECTIONS FULLY. YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT A PERSONAL RESUME IN ADDITION TO THIS APPLICATION.
POSITION OR KIND OF WORK APPLYING FOR PERMANENT PART TIMI OATR AIL SLE
J1/1 h I a TEMPORARY SEASONAL =� �1 `� 5
HOME
ANY ►1
YES
CIRCLE HIGHEST
GRADE COMPLETED
ADDRESS
ORAOESCHOOL
1 S 7 E 6 6 7 8
21P CODE MOW
ffNUMBERANDSTATE
,'17<—A/_'7
HIGH SCHO L COLLEGE POSTGRADUATE
S 10 11 7 13 14 15 16 1 2 MA PHO
DATE OF GRADUATION I HAVE YOU PASSED THE
GED TEST? YES❑NOC:
TYPE SCHOOL
NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS OF SCHOOL
FROM
TO
MAJOR ANO1MIN0R
DEGREE
?'nLLEGE?
'ERSITY
6AryI
1
VVV L
.'EOEI
UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE/
UNIVERSITY
TECHNICAL
TECHNICAL
OTHER
LIST ANY CORRESPONDENCE COUAJES, SEMINARS, WORKSHOPS, TRAINING SESSIONS ETC. THAT MIGHT RELATE
TO THIP POSITION, ALSO LIST ANY LICENSES OR CERTIFICATES RELATING TO POSITION.
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
'VFLOYER'S NAME
TION
TH YOUR PRESENT
MAILING ADDRESS
FULL T�AE rDy REASON FOR LEAVING
PART TIME Uy
ZIP CODE
(COMPLETE OTHER SIDE)
ZIP
FROM
�� LAST tALARV
I ITOI. FULL TIMI
NT OATl1 /Z 2 PART TIME
�.i
NAME
LAET SALARY FULL TIME REASON FOR LEAVING
EM►LOYMENTDATEB PART TIME ❑
FROM TO
21P CODE I TELEPHONE NO.
IMM&U. bw".Yi".-
LAST SALARY FULL TIME REASON FOR LEAVING
EMPLOYMENT DATES PART TIME ❑
FROM TO
MAY Wf CONTACT YOUR PRESENT EMPLOYER YES NO
IF NO. PLEASE EXPLAIN
OTHER E /SKILLS
LIST ANY UNPAID WORK. VOLUNTEER EKPE RIENCE, OR MILITARY OU7V NOT MENTIONED ABOVE THAT MAY RELATE TO THE NAMEPOSITOF
FOR WHICH YOU ARE APPLYING- INDICATE TYPE OF ACTIVITY, YOUR DUTIES, DATES INVOLVED, HOURS PER WEEK, AND NAME —OF
TH
LIST
R
rERENCES
LIST THREE PERSONS WHO ARE NOT HELATED TO YOU AND WHO HAVE DEFINITE KNOWLEDGE Elp QUALIFICATIONS AND FITNESS
FOR T14EPOR POSITION YOL' AHE APPLYING. 00 NOT REPEAT NAMES OF SUPERVISORS AGGVE• DUBINESE CR
OCCUPATION
AD
FULL NAME DREGS INCLUDING CITY, STATE,' CODE
G
ALL A
SWERS TO TH". AEG
STATEMENTS CONTAINED NTHIS MAY
WITHOUT NOTICE OR BENEFIT&
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE,
FOR INTERVIEWER'S USE ONLY:
UE AND I AGREE AND UNDERSTAND THAT AN
Y FAL49
THI6 NPPLICATION OR TERMIN/i EION OF EMFLOYMENT
Z-/// / �:5
J
, I M nlr r lr /revel
wwew elll ra a1rY M
wow
.I.d read
� rw....rrwr
i
, I
/ 1
� I
/ � I
LL.dl
I
,
/ ? .
Nwnll
d:
S
6
I
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator & City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development
DATE: May 2, 1985
RE: CROSS OF GLORY LUTHERAN CHURCH
The Cross of Glory Lutheran Church is proposing to install a
sanctuary addition to the north side of their existing building
which is located at the rntersecticin of G,unty Road I and Adams
street. Enclosed please find the following information:
1. Staff report dated 4/17/85
2. Planning Commission Resolution #130-85
3. Drawing consisting of site plan, floor plan and
building elevations
The Planning Commission reviewed this development proposal at
their agenda session on April 17, 1985 and at their regular
meeting on May 1, 1985. At the May 1, 1985 meeting the Planning
Commission added to Resolution #130-85 the following
requirements:
1. On the bottom of the first page they required the
developer to provide a lighting schematic/diagram.
2. On the second page of Resolution#130-85 they required
the Church to fence/screen the garbage
The applicant stated that they will provide a lighting schematic/
diagram and fence/screen the garbage cans. The Planning
Commission recommends approval of this development.
Action Required
If the documents provided meet the City Council's approval the
City Council should schedule a Conditional Use Permit Public
Hearing. City Code Chapter 40,25 says that the public hearing
does not need to have a mailing to the property owners. However,
the City Council may decide to send a mailing to all the property
owners within 350 feet of the church property. The hearing
notice could be published May 15, 1985 with the hearing scheduled
for May 27, 1985.
ST/ds
Attachments
STAFF - � ►.
REPORT ..... IOq Ou
C�fy ��aundsVe�
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW DATE: 4/17/85 Regular Meeting
AGENDA ITEM NO: 5
CASE NO: 169-85
APPLICANT: Cross of Glory Lutheran Church
`W PROPOSF.n RE0_11F.ST: Annlir.ant reauests develooment review
approval to construct a 3,950 sq. ft. building addition.
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 5471 Adams Street
w(Adams Street and County Road I)
if
SITE SIZE: 70,350 square feet - 1.6 acres
LOT DEPTH AND WIDTH: 188.6 feet X 373 feet
^� EXISTING ZONING: R-1, Single Family Residential District
h�
CONTIGUOUS LAND USE: R-1 to the north and east
WR-2 to the south
L H-3 to the west
rm^oo -
V/
CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN: Request
conforms.
1
ZONING CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Zoning Conforms.
12
z
a
PAGE TWO OF -THREE
STAFF REPORT
CASE: 169-85
SETBACKS
aving and curbing all meet minimum
Proposed structures, fencing, p
setback requirements.
ACCESS
Applicant proposes two access points from Adams Street. These
satisfy City requirements.
DRAINAGE
�.. nice rrpek Watershed
The site does not need to be reviewer ..y The applicant,
District due to its small size (less than 2.5 acres).
with minor revisions, will satisfy the City's ordinance No. 49
requirements for drainage on the, site.
PARKING
City Code requires 43 spaces. Applicant proposes 53 regular spaces
and 2 handicapped spaces. The total 55 spaces are more than adequate
for the use being proposed.
Note: B-6-18 curbing will be required for the paved portion of the
<< access parking.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
City Code requires the City Council to conduct a public hearing.
LIGHTING (City Code 40.07, Subd. D, Paragraph (E)L).
5 1. Is lighting reflected away from adjoining property, abutting
residential uses and public right-of-way?
2. Is lighting incompliance with Section 40.04, Subd. I and Sectic^
� - 40.04, Subd. H.7
THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHALL CONSIDER CITY CODE 40.25,
.
SUED. A (5)
C,.
StaEf's opinion is that the
Are these conditions satisfied?
conditions are satisfied.
GARBAGE DISPOSAL
Garbage disposal will be handled by a dump
ster storage area.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS
1, Exhibits:
a) Plans and specifications for building
b) Site plan
c) Ordinance No. 49 drainage requirements
d) Urdinance No. 49 security
STAFF REPORT
CASE: 169-85
2. Exhibit 2A conditions:
PAGE THREE OF THREE
a) Paved parking area to use 8-6-18 curbing.
b) Move location of sign.
c) Install curb cuts for water spillway.
d) Secure approval from Ramsey County for corrugated metal
pipe in their right-of-way.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
If the lighting issue is resolved to the Planning Commission
approval, Staff recommends approval.
1 0 A l tiJ
®r
ILL I I � f, t.y 2 :-•i T;-S �_ F I ',1 {",�
I ; V • w l .,.� w�'i'` a "!T ! ] ' ••
,� U 44 �•, tI �I; Il;JJ1,i1,11
I� II - I r ;I• I: f '✓!�.•,' �IIj�' I•I,I•I�' a Tr
f .wu • • , .w I J , ',J•1
w .VIS :L1�1l,•li •�1=-il r�i4ilff _`rrt{- }.�i�. —_-
�' _,'•11 II •.jj{+�� �p Ii rT:N._TTT y,Y
i r�ll�l � I,, •^IV_'1:If�IN•: ILa �` � ,.:'.
� L_ � �� IIII { Ir1+1 I S s d. �. Lt•Y
z • :i:7 li,il lI:::SII IlliliV.F'IT �I� mni,1J L_—J
- ,i �.l.-� .y.I • .7:..f.,' i-F��]jI1 !jII'`i;'i'!I• ,;,_ 'p':� I .! FT � 6d1i8dE3,1.,
C • ,+'�1�—,+..., tT�li 7,wi'~I ;IL�i'1I.�1I1IFl!I.'�'''!1Fii Fi If'l�q : JJr
I
!� mi
I i •16:i 17 r a '
II a wi�t I 9,r I,T.Tr';:,;I r.::1ll:l:^ I7iI(�P1FFSt,F,FIFFFF ,.
I'w!•I f fit tll.i! JJ ti:.iJ i �I f I ��-�1.-j�� I �"
I (T"�'iI1i�Ld��I;I��lt l �IJJJ iLI�i�FISIF t'Siiiy
I `a�4II1I1.I 1rI-1 �lfl.i:S�ll1lT"i1 I� 3 I ` I I — rl1�imyy=l�lTFi�Iijl1I111111p r1dFLll !iIl
! _{i I1{1I!r1IlS�FffIflF���Ii_1i�i�Iyr�!' IITIrrlt^!•''••,
'•
L'J, • +,� � a • � � ".r
ITI Ir J IIlli! ;11 iir 77 11IT
�F'riJJ�Ir_+ ! .lI ;;`lli.li:11jllllill41�..=.•n �1�3ij,1i<�SF j •I� �
J i.flf to r c .I.! `�.=:i !. ;li " L•.5; �r F 7 . e r '!'V�FII.I I � !:1
} 33.11
r 11•I9 YI J /i11JI i'%IlilllF,F:r51!
tj '.yl ( '= E ' 1:u •`!,I!
�r I M �rs i
1 i li:r, . ti , • � r S f Iljt'1 i.
Wtl.LLi... .... .al.is r .:, .1, LL' I�. • s
Ihiiii.�.l F�t��-Lf 1Ii1, 7•,Ir'1 Iiq a :. I}_>ii�� .
., II r u1 �. I f 1� CIS: sl � � �'�sIr!: •i a:.:'r((. � u _
I,,,r_'{•T•;•1�,1�;1'II�!'•Il�ll:�:�17`t��ll� •fY _r. _ �
G
1' 71 H V J 7 N V l 9 N I . d S l L) A l 1 7
Ln
Y
1I
I L b
VMIA
b UG
I LM U
CUM
I.V/t-LLItI Y71 �.w 0
9 W
c
oW
Y V H ay
ytl ..
SMOISN31110 uW N
b' •
9
9'
A
BT
TZ
U
i
T
9 AS
A
A
9A
0010
LT A
b
b
b b
b
b.
T
Ad
I'u(1
W
'SPA '^O
v
z N
°S
z
A ^0
aid
11'un
!'
aed
NA'n0
v
z^
?n
z
A ^O
pd
t 'el3
1d
aid
spA'n
On
z N
Q-
A ^0
W
1 •un
)d'ull
W
,P.k'n
: N
o�
z
^
W
i�'Nl'sPA'^
'Id'SRl
W
a
z N
°�S
313VMO
313113
0]
313HOM00
3131171g0
313a7I100
EVIL _
=M
.bZ=M
Not
8'6
IZOT'll
997®
0•TT1(160.01
ET60'0
OB7D3
b'ZI
a
508010
n
bZ0®
s1
b'bL
n
L690'0
n
B
0'LI
6'Lt
6AS0'0
6SS0'0
ZT6i
.
OT
b t
Z
L T
-'-- 0
Om
Vil
I SKO'OS
B
•B
B
0'TT
L
9060,0
0 0
9m
151.
S ZT
FET
96LO'0
SRO-0DEW
0E9Y
5,01
PST
1 H90,09B
I LE9 '
8'£Z
bL
IZ40'0
iI
ZTb9
. 1-11
.B/£•L
b
1ed
11'Mi
d
W
'sPA'^0
v
^'
0�
z
A"
�I
'1�'SSn
d
J%
'sPA'^s
a
z^
°n'ld'ull
z
'PA'^7 'td'N1
W W
'sPA'^O
313a7N07
v
z umi
0n
=
'PA'^0 'ld'4t
W W
•ld'u1i 'SPA 'no
313a ND
v
z N
°a
:
'PA'^7
+Ad
ti'Nl
'td'43
W
'SPA ^7
v
z N
z
B
V
H
SNOIS1131�0
1
a O
313>f71D�
. _
„ =M
.BL=M
a
VA
w
4 �_
85 .0�
zj o
tu!orpue6eMeaT,olTOTT40biTsale1d'PISa2S za �1
' aseg ,o '1,�sd pfii, of luaoefpe uagM lwo( 81AZ1 � lAZ1 Q - � F Y m
LL
adals,aild lum(pe 01 m1q;u f NOIS30 (pat11 aq lew sw,o j)
ul a,e stuawamseaw adals gino IIY a w a
35YB Ol 1H37M OV 43HM H011735 N011035 1311(k) 3dO15 35a3A3a H
f�
A NOIS34 a '`.: ! I o1
d3�19 / i Loapa se adols awes z
rid 11 k , • I w
T r
s
=a„zit y a
,aa
E
.d/4,ad,b;Eaa+,S I S „b/EadulS -
�
6
it R a
B -•a... ce' �' � eg
(9+no„bJul
lNr
lgmo,Viol 'J.TatOI .:l a a„f a a
'a -Z/ T-T k
T
PR
E�
ci
nHVt E
REFILMED
FAR
LEGIBILITY
6
3 R. C
1-1 i2. R.
.
(Use 1R. for 4' curb)
— <
31' R. Wse 2
L9
for 4"curb)
i�
:' R:
a
d
c . Fo
lok 3/4"
D
Slope 3/4'' N
per
1
per
1/2"It,
N
a 1 1 :•
7"
P4
z
a o
rn
IV m y
zC 00
CD �"
Y w Hi
9Z
y =2
mZ vm
08
3 ~
w sy
fit -1
a
o
z
>0
yo
v / ylie'
Same slope as rmdlay 6 ,
REVERSE SLOPE (BITTER SECTION SECTION WHEN AD.ACENT TO BASE
(Forms may be tiled) DESIGN 6
Ol L2KT or L2KTB Joint when adjacent to rigid par't. or base
See Std. Plates 1140 61141 for keyway and Iolnt.
C
DESIGN V
All curb slope measuremmts are in
relation to adacent gutte•. slope
W=18'
W=24'
W=
"
_
DMEMSIONS
Z
'
Cu Yds.
Z
SY
BETE
Cu. Yds.
Lin. FL
Z
o
CONCRETE
Cu. Yds.
Un. F6Cu.
I x
CONCRETE
:
`� o
C R_
Cu. 1b.
N
A
ltn. Ft
YA{.
liw, Ft.
B
a
Per
Lin. Ft.
Ftr
Cu. Yd.
yNj Z
o
Re
LN. Ft.
Par
Cu. Yd,
W Z
G
Per
Lln. Ft.
Per
C,I. Yd.
W Z
o
Pv
F
Frr
Y
W Z
cPA.
ar
F t.
4
73/8'
11.1
BI32
0.042
23.8
637
15./
. 8�30
71
! 4
0.0
&
13.1 '
12
74
86
6
14.
8630
0.0798
12 S
0 090 1 0
S
8.
8
,67
1
8830
7
4
0.0697
14 4
MM4
0.0805
12.1
�0
0.0913
11.0
L1$6
0.1021 9 B
10
93%8'
175/B'
0.0589
17.0
8
DIMENSIONS
Z
CONCRETE
=
CONCRETE
°
LN� Ft.
u
OIICIl
CONCRETE
a
PM s.
N =
M s,
L 1.
=
u. Yds.
In. t
N o
u. Yh
L�, Ft
N o
tQ0111CRETE
Yds,
Lh, 'l.11n.
_ Ft,
u
_
Lln. Ft.
Cu Y
o
PerAr
I in Fl.
Cu. W.
:
IAr
LL..Fa.
M
Cu vi
:
C
e.
Ptr
n.. v.
1
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 130-85
PAGE. TWO OF TWO
2. Security for the development in an a
determined.
3. Rxhibit 2A to require the following:
a) Paved parking area to use H-6-18 (,-i
b) Move location of sign
c) Install curb cuts for water spillwa
d) Approval frnm Ramsey County for co:
in their right-of-way
e) Payment of all City expenses above
-y amounts previously submitted
i b) Other items as may be required by t
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVFU that the Mounds Vie
Commission recommends that a conditional use perm
includes the above items;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds Vi
Commission directs staff to forward this resolut
Council prior to approval of the minutes.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Adopted this 1st day of May, 1985.
Mayor
C1erk-Admini.s
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development,/,
DATE: April 30, 1985
SUBJECT: STREET SIGNS
As you may recall, one result of the on-strettt parking study
conducted in February of 1985 was to direct staff to purchase
install proper signs throughout the City. Police Officer Siluk
recommended the repair, placement, or addition of parking signs
on various streets throughout the City. The City Council
directed staff to secure quotes for this work and install the
signs.
Since the weather is improving and will allow us to install the
signs now, I have received quotes from vendors to furnsih the
signs. The 3 quotes are as follows:
TOTAL PURCHASE COST
1) Newman Signs $ 3,944.93
P.O. Box 1726
Jamestown, ND 58401
2) Gopher Sign Company $ 3,991.20
1567 Selby Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55104
r�
j 3) Earl F. Anderson & Associates, Inc. $ 3,890.49
- 9864 James Circle
Bloomington, MN 55431
Since this is a purchase of over $1,000.00, staff needs approval
from the City Council. The first 3 items on the quotation from
Earl F. Anderson & Associates, Inc. are for the street
intersection name signs. These street name signs will be used to
replace the fading, and in many cases, illegible street name
signs in the eastern portion of the City. We did this work in
the southern portion of Mounds View last year. The rest• of the
items on the list are for repair, replacement, or addition of
parking and other signs along City streets. This will correct
the problems identified in Officer Siluk's report. The budget
for street intersection name signs is in account 100-270-4126 in
the amount of $2,678.00. Since there is no budget for the
repair, replacement or addition of parking signs per Officer
Siluk's report, I suggest we take the money for that portion of
this project from the contigency fund in the amount of
approximately $1,300.O0.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend purchasing the signs per the quotation from Earl F.
Anderson & Associates Inc. in the amount of $3,890.49. The money
will come from the contingency account in the amount of $1,300.00
and from the 100-270-4126 account in the amount of S21678.00.
The contingency account has over S15,OU0.00 in it at the present
time.
SWT/bc
EARL F. ANDERSEN AND ASSOC., INC.
• Park and Racnstanal Equilm+nt
• interior/Extenor sgnsp
9W Janet Circle Bloomington, MN ss731
• Fines syaems
• Trsrke Products
EToB•FrM
��
WAT9 Lim 1-800.962-M a 912.99q-7300
• Site Furnanings
• Cusran s9%snd Markings
• Lwure Environments
• Traffic Marking Praduers
CampBM emi/9ng, dnIgn, layout and Instellmilm servins.
• etsacnei/Stadium Sating
QUOTATION
Date April 16th, 1985
• City of Moundsview
2401 Fh- No. 10 Your Rel. No.
Moundsview, MN 55112
Attn: Steve Thatcher
Gary Kardell
TERMS: Net 30 Days KI
To Be Arranged ❑
We are pleased to quote you the following:
QUANTITY
_ DESCRIPTION
PRICE EACH
TOTAL
_ _
216
E-450 W/G SC/AL Street Sign Plates
7.84
1693.44
75
E-450 Green S.S. Brackets
12.95
971.25
100
E-450 Green Clips
1.22
122.00
10
::. ......... .
OM-3 Object Markers 8x24 SC/AL Y/B
(5L) OR)
7.35
73.50
12
18 x 18 B/W No Motorized Vehicle
11.90
142.80
50
7Ft. 2# Channel Posts t.., .,
6.02
301.00
22
12 x 18 R/W SC/AL N.P. Anytime
7.35
161.70
16
12 x 18 R/W SC/AL No Parking
7.35
117.60
24
12 x 18 R/W SC/AL N.P. This Side
7.35
176.40I
6
12 x 18 R/W SC/AL N.P. 6 A.M. to 6 P.M.
7.35
44.10
SUB -TOTAL
(Material Only) SALES -TAX
FREIGHT
TOTAL
I O.B. Factory K) Destination ❑ WE ARE AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Bloomington
Shipment approx. in.-st-oaRer receipt of order.
NOTE: This quotation valid for30daysexcept S.S. plates
Please write for confirmation alter that date. By
'•Ilkc UOrsev
0
EARL F. ANDERSEN AND ASSOC., INC.
EEA �'�. jam ��� ��jh,�� �u�tlonNrrlar.
QUOTATION
. Park and a
rut EpWpncnlFil
thins
e stmf
# Traffic Product
0 culw n SiQrt W AwLup+
. Ste FurmeNngt
Ste Furni
. Traffic RirMlnQ Prddueu
. LMrvre Envnonrnenu
. aie+cheuSudiuro Seralup
Date April 16th, 1985 _
City of Moundsview Your Ref. No.
2401 Hwy. No.10
Moundsview, MN 55112
Attn: Steve Thatcher
TERMS. Ne130 Days Q
To Be Arranged ❑
We are pleased to quote you the_ PRICE EACH TOTAL
DESCRIPTION—___
QUANTITY-------_--
7.35 29.40
4 12 x 18 R/W SC/AL N.P. Midnight to 6 AM 27.90
rid. 27.90
1 30 x 30 SC/AL B/Y Watch For Children 29 40
4 12 x 18 G/W 2 Hr. Parking
7.35
* All Above Prices Are The Same or Less
Than Last Year.
No Freight Charges if Picked Up At
Earl F. Andersen
SUB -TOTAL
(Material Only) SALES -TAX
FREIGHT
TOTAL L_ jp7V'"
L-1
--- -.
ENT OPPORTUNITY EMPLO
Destination ❑ WE ARE AN EQUAL EMPLOYM
F.O.B. Factory k7 /
Bl mingtonrox � grnr4 after receipt of order.
Q�iipme apP e ce S lates /
g tt gg . ;e r
NOTE: This quotation FAA. 3b ays. By
Please write for confirmation alter that dale. / . Mike Dorsey
tiul'MtK SIUN CU. PRIUL WUU IAI lulu
1567 SELBY AVE.
.ST.rPAUL,MN55104 GOPHER SIGN CO.
Y'&l`l}2m SHNGt.LINTi•AY6.'A BT:%PAULr MFN'NEBOTA •58i 16•�ib'1�W1iLil !!y<4-0��r♦
� �'[ pp�.y�{CILiiSWYS]1
nur.,inYi�JA,+6iT.^ R
lau II•c.yrnJ'.I.
CiLv of (sound 'Jie^:!
TO
—
__,OII11U �J7 C'l•I y 1111'll I)5112 . ___-.— nl'Tnnu•; IT. .niZ un- o ue m Pe el
.�'1'1:.� ';L. e„n (I"I•ihri: •T' -- - - -------------`--- r.n ll. LLr, cn[c.
n•,I,Ir.r,
HERE IS OUR QUOTATION ON THE DODOS NAMEO,SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS NOTED: =
_ , rlu, r ly I I 1 ., . n rbnq br rhr IWmu UILu: al arr ir!ler.
CONPIIIONS 'Pr P• rs'Ird o-ucs
,I:d:.. ... I • .:..1, ,n 1 ,: r •r. :.,�. I _I J -car [omml. Nus we Lnsed an cans and
All grrvtuhum and ayrelm�ul. am mnbndent �I^^' r.Jrr r r
r l,r..p Ih 'n. .. r.�,
[onddr,o-s . •nhod an Jutu of quoluoon and nr•� s.R•'�I 1 ,._ • •.,.. r. r „.... v.l len yauenl to La <Lan rJ for pm mla.
.. .f
rs
brugrrqu.n.•I .nnl nenu,'uPlrrr coon mlr,•-•I L� ..::.� u. r,... r., �� r , ,�.. a .n... :•r � ., ! .mnr ,pr•;IL'o m;nrnal to Le Iwnrshr9 L1 the
Pmlhno-, us r✓.... L+hdrly 1u. pulnnt rend...P..... �, r .r.:. r
n. 1- ra :•.,n I rr;,Jm Lan
Imnl aF• 1 rP'r ullmnme mull be made lo[ 1 - d.l. 1 o o,d h[ r n Fln[h may OPP-41 an Rahtei s
�4nJ.1r4111 n.J .pruL[uly Ruled Mn• n d.,I Lc y. 1 r r :I,.I i i
lonnnl o'Jr, ..It not hr bmdwq on the 501,1
21ti
5inr-le face neoi.r.M.i.tc
24- 103en(Is. G :Ilu`
G-146 11-way 1•I•a0.kct:.
�YLfl Cel:LcJ• clips i'.Ltci;
�x2r1 1,t/Y13 0u�cct Inarkers
].: r.ln I3L/4111 [.0 notnr tiu!. rlr,•s
117-200 Chacr.el. 1'n;•ts
12x18 assorted si'O'S.
spec 3Gx?f0 Witte), o1L1: for, c)..i'_' ; r:n
�CENEU
q1V �F 1
..nuNir VIEW.c
wr.ro.w ' I..a....Iw.w.nufvFn—I...........
QUQTL VALID ruts . f•AyS.
�).4 ea.l �!>il, I U
11.00
.aj
8.00
11.00
"1.75
i5.00
�l1 6�•�D
h SI.Gu
n It2 •'D
II zb?b'0
ii. SI),op
ach 175.0
991,
ORIGINAL
n f.lYll w•• •.rN q, r. �.., .t n nn I•. �..bU'IAy4l G✓r.
h, ,.1985
RtCEIVED
civ OF
MOUN VIEW
�"�++ �+AAwn.. .yV t Ll.' R1 AQti •'� v' „ Al
C.1 7-v1 Gt� /�1CtKN� �fE �� G' • RY,X I-7Z
C 71 I G I A M ES' iZZ 1 ti tir Al n
DATE P.OI—YI'1M1�8Y, Jt lI L / ���QT�P7�� F,O.B..I" rN N�Sc'•t�9
Duantlty
S,pn No
Size
Gauge
Enp.
Hilnt.
Punce
Message
Color
Unll
Toiai
Z�,-2qxl,
ac.
ST9' E c r- N/it Si i<'..ti
tiG• .F_ FAC Ep
—LC
9xatl
61c
i
Cr;fSir:c.— P,.W
9 7;
I\S-3
JSXIS
/
N /l C;— . 1!E I�r E
1.� ,
.GEC%
15: i
Q -l•y
vz&-f
CEC
INC
$ E
' 6:.
$1uAL
I t L
C. if
Ljv
1 -' f' 1IJ _. ni r- lo An
(KJiA
- ZkIN
I
DATE APPROVED: April 22, 1985
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
April 8, 1985
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 Links at 7:30 PM on April 8, 1985.
The Pled-e of Alle-iance was said. 2. Pledge of
Allegiance
MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilmembers Quick, Blanchard, 3. Roll Call
as e, Han ner and Mayor Linke.
ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Meyers, Cierk/Admini-
strat— or Pauley and Public Works/Community Develonment
Director Thatcher.
Motion/Sacor_d: Hankner/Haake to approve the March 25, 4. Approval of
5 minutes as presented. Minutes:
March 25, 1985
5 ayes 0 nays
Motion Carried
Bill Fritz, no address given, questioned why a stop 5.
Residents
sign was installed at Long Lake Road and Hillview
Requests and
from
and asked whether the Council bad authorized it.
Comments
the Floor
Mayor. Links replied that it is a county road and that
Mr. Fritz was present when the Council discussed tae
request and petition. He added that it was a county
decision to install it.
Mr. Fritz replied he had written to county commissioner
Bob Orth and asked who had approved the sign, and was
told that it had been requested by Mounds View. He
asked what was going to be done.
Mayor Links stated that there had been a concern with
the residents of the area with slowing traffic on that
road.
Councilmember Blanchard stated it was her understanding
that the citizen who requested the sign had appeared
representing
before the county commission, and she was not
the City Council.
Councilmember Hankner reviewed a letter Mr. Fritz had
Mounds View City Council April 8, 1985
Regular Meeting Page Two
----------------------------------------------------------------------
referred to, from the City to the County, and clarified
that the City did not request the stop sign but rather
asked the County to consider the situation. She added
she would be contacting Mr. Orth.
Mayor Linke requested copies of the documentation from
Mr. Fritz and stated they would discuss it further with
him at the next agenda session.
Motion/Second: Blanchard/Quick to approve the consent 6. Approval of
agen a as presented and waive the reading of the Consent Agenda
resolutions.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Motion/Second: Hankner/Blanchard to have the first 7. lst Reading of
rea ing of Ordinance No. 385, an ordinance amending Ordinance No.
the municipal code of Mounds View by amending 385
Chapter 70 entitled "Municipal Water System" and
waive the reading.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Director Thatcher reported the City had received a 8. Considerat e
petition for the installation of a street light of Street Ljfit
on the walkway between Quincy Street and Erickson Petition
Road.
Mayor Linke pointed out a light on the walkway could
also light up back yards and stated he would like to
see it moved out to the street, where it would provide
a greater benefit.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley pointed out there is a
light on the walkway on Pleasant View Circle, and it
is very difficult to walk on one of the walkways at
night without a light.
Councilmember Hankner stated she would like to know
the reason for the petition, and whether there had
been any problems.
Director Thatcher stated it was his understanding
that the residents felt the area was too dark and
they were afraid of vandalism.
Councilmember Hankner pointed out that if the light
is placed on Erickson Road, they would have to contact
the people to see if they were agreeable to it.
Motion/Second: Hankner/Quick to table this item and
nave to nvestigate other possibilities to
resolve the problems.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Mounds View City Council April 8, 1985
Regular Meeting Page Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.--�,,
Director Thatcher explained that the only action 9. Consideration
required was to set the date for two hearings on Staff Memo Re -
the proposed minor subdivision. He added the garding 21. H.
Planning Commission was unanimous in recommending Anderson Sbdv.
approval to the Council.
Motion/Second: Haake/Hankner to set a public hearing
Tor 7: 0 -PM April 22, 1985 and 7:50 PM on April
22, 1985 for the conditional use permit for flood plain
excavating and to redeliniate the wetland boundries by
amending Chapter 48 of the Mounds View municipal code.
5 ayes 0 nays
Director Thatcher reported he had attended the Ramsey 10
County hearing on five year street maintenance and
capital improvement plans for Ramsey County.
Attorney Meyers reported.he had received a number of
responses to the letter sent out by the City
regarding the zoning issues brought up in the Greg
JU[Uison Case, and he reviewed -omI^ of the comments
received. He added that the League will become
involved in the City's appeal.
Attorney Meyers reported he had received a report from
Al Perez and had delivered it to City Hall. He added
the Council should sit down with Mr. Perez, after they
have had a chance to review the report. He also
reported the MPCA will be holding meetings to review
the noise rules and conditions set, and he feels it
is very importatit that the Council meet before the
April 19th meeting date to discuss their strategy.
Motion/Second: Hankner/Blanchard to have a meeting
iHth the City Attorney on litigation on April 16th
at 6:30 PM.
5 ayes 0 nays
Councilmember Quick had no report.
Councilmember Blanchard reported she had attended
the Fire Department meeting and had been told
everything was okay on the pension fund. She added
they may possibly be coming to the Council when
their contract is due.
Councilmember Blanchard reported she had attended
the April 3 Planning Commission meeting.
11.
12
Motion Carried
Report of
Director of
Public Works/
Community
Development
Report of
Attorney
Motion Carried
Reports of
Councilmembers
Mounds View City Council April 8, 1985
Regular Meeting ---- Page -Four
-------------------------------------------------
Councilmember Haake asked the status of the stop
light at Pleasant View and Highway 10. Mayor Linke
replied he had spoken with MnDOT and they will be
getting back to the City shortly with information,
but it appears they are considering a site about
500' to the west of Pleasant View.
Councilmember Hankner asked if a policy had been
written regarding copying material at City Hall.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley replied there is a policy
on what can be provided to citizens at no cost, and
as far as Staff is concerned, they have been given
guidelines to follow on what to print at City Hall
and what to have sent out, in order to be cost
efficient.
Mayor Linke reported they have passed the first
hurdle in getting a library in Mounds View, and he
will keep the Council posted on any further information.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported the Star Cities
conference has been postponed to September 17-19.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported the City has
been contacted by the Met Council regarding a grant
-application from the school district to fund a part-
time person to work with the senior citizen prugram
and transportation program.
Motion/Second: Haake/Hankner to authorize Staff to
send a Letter of support of the grant application.
1
13. Report of
Clerk/Admini-
strator
/ A
s
5 ayes 0 nays
Motion_ /Second: Haake/Blanchard to adjourn the meeting 14
at 9:32 PM.
5 ayes 0 nays
Motion Carried
Adjournuent
Motion Carried
E
I
CITY COUNCIL MEFPI'(NG
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
MAY 13, 1985
7:30 P.M.
A G I,'' N 1) A
1. Call to Order
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Roll Call - Blanchard, Haake, Hankner, Quick, Linke
4. Approval of Minutes: April 22, 1985
Regular Meeting
(Received in May 6, 1985 packet)
5. Residents Requests and Comments From The Floor
--------------------------------------------------------
CITI'LENS: BEFORE SPEAKING PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME
AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES
--------------------------------------------------------
6. Approval of Consent Agenda
ITEM A. Approve Placement Of Streetlight By N.S.P. On
Walkway Between Quincy Street and Erickson Road
ITEM B. Authorize Hiring of George A. Pajunen As A Full
Time Temporary Employee For A Period Not To
Exceed 66 Days At A Wage Rate of $5.50/Hour
Retroactive to May 1, 1985
ITEM C. Schedule Public Hearing For A Conditional Use
Permit For The Expansion Of Cross Of Glory
Lutheran Church For 7:40 p.m. on May 27, 1985
ITEM D. Authorize Purchase Of Street Signs From Earl
F. Anderson Per Quotation In The Amount Of
$3,890.49 And The Transfer Of $1,300.00 From
Contingency Fund
ITEM E. Schedule Public Hearings For The Consideration
Of Renewal Of Intoxicating Liquor Licenses As
Follows,
Muldoon's Off 10 - 7:40 p.m., June 10, 1985
Loose Ends on 10 - 7:45 p.m., June 10, 1985
Mermaid
- 7:50
p.m.,
June
101
1985
Simon's Liquor
- 7:55
p.m.,
June
10,
1985
B & R Liquor
- 8:00
p.m,,
June
10,
1985
Donatelle's
- 8:05
p.m.,
June
10,
1985
Budget Liquor -
8:10
p.m.,
June
10,
1985
Bel -Rae Ballroom -
8:15
p.m.,
June
10,
1985
AGENDA
MAY 13, 1985
PAGE: TWO
ITEM F. Approve Resolution No. 1886 Resolution of
Appreciation to Jack Mecyan
ITEM G. Approve Resolution No. 1887 Resolution of
Appreciation to John Kuusisto
ITEM M. Approve Resolution No. 1888 Resolution of
Appreciation to Dave Raymond
ITEM 1. Approve Resolution No. 1889 Resolution of
Appreciation to Paul MOtzet
ITEM J. Approve Resolution No. 1890 Resolution of
Appreciation to Hill Jackson
HEM K. Accept the City's Audited 1984 Findncial
Statements and the Auditor's Management Report
and Recommendations
ITEM L. Approve Resolution No. 1891 Authorizing the
City of Mounds View to File An Application and
Execute A Grant Project Agreement to Develop
Open Spaces Under the Provision of the LAWCON
and State Natural Resources Fund
ITEM M. Approve Developinent Agreement with Susan Gale
and Debra Yost for Gale/Yost Addition
On Laport Drive
ITEM N. Resolution No. 1894 Approving Just and Correct
Claims Against City Funds
ITEM 0. License for Approval
Gambling Devices - F.xpices May 29, 1985
Mounds View Lion's Club - Nev,
General - Expires 6/30/85
Gorco Construction Co., Inc. - New
Meister Construction - New
Northern Pine Construction - New
Masonry - Expires 6/30/85
Karl G. Jurgensen Masonry - New
Roofing - Expires 6/30/85
Westphal Roofing - New
Fence - Expires (Montgomery
Jack Newberry (Montgomery Ward) - Renewal
Swimming Pool - 6/30/85
Pool, Inc. - New
AGENDA
MAY 13, 1985
/► PAGE THREE
7. First Reading of Ordinance No. 390 An Ordinance
Prohibiting Development of Certain Properties On An
Interim Basis
8, Consideration of Resolution No. 1893 Resolution
Establishing Schedule for the UpdaLe of. the
Comprehensive Plan, Districts 6 and 12
9. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Insurance
Renewals
10. Approve Hiring of Police Officer Fffoct.ive May 15, 1985
11. Consideration of Request to Request Ramsey County Place
Stop Signs on Red Oak Drive at the Intersection of Red
Oak Drive and Ardan Avenue
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 387 An Ordinance Amending
The Municipal Code of Mounds View By Amending Chapter 25
Entitled, "Storm Water Management Fund"
13, First Reading of Ordinance No. 392 An Ordinance Amending
Chapter 101 of the Municipal Code of Mounds View
r� Entitled, "Non -Intoxicating Liquor."
I
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 391 Amending Chapter 52
of. the Municipal Code of Mounds View Entitled, "Parks,
Playgrounds, open Space and Recreation Area Rules and
Regulations", Subchapter 52.03 Intoxicating and
Non -Intoxicating Liquor
15, Second Reading and Adoption of ordinance No.388, An
Ordinance Amending Chapter 98 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code Entitled, "Wetland Zoning Ordinance"
16. Report of Public Works/Community Development Director
17. Report of Attorney
18. Report of Councilmembers: Blanchard, Haake, Hankner,
Quirk, Links
19. Report of Administrator
20. Adjournment
CONSENT AGENDA
MAY 13, 1985
The Consent Agenda is a technique designed to expedite
handling of routine and miscellaneous official business of
the City Council. The entire agenda may be adopted by the
Council in one motion. The motion for adoption is non
debatable and must receive ::nanimous approval. By request
of any individual Councilmember, an item can be removed from
the Consent Agenda and placed upon the Regular Agenda for
debate.
ITEM A. Approve PlacemonL of SLruetlight Hy N.S.P. On
Walkway Between Quincy ;treot and Erickson Road
ITEM B. Authorize Hiring of George A. Pajunen As A Full
Time Temporary Employee For A Poriod Not To
Exceed 66 Days At A Wagr' Rate of S5.5D/Flour
Retroactive to May L, 1985
ITEM C. Schedule. Public Hearing For A Conditional Use
Permit For The Expansion Of Cross Of Glory
Lutheran Church For 7:40 p.m. nn May 27, 1985
ITHM D. Authorize Purchase Of: SLreer. S u3ns boon Earl
F. Anderson Per Quotation To The Amount Of
$3,890.49 And The Transfer Of 51,360.00 From
Contingency Fund
Schedule Public Hearings For The Consideration
Of Renewal Of Intoxicating Liquor Liranses As
Follows,
Muldoon's Otf 10 - 7:40 p.m., June 10, 1985
Loose Ends On 10 - 7:45 p.m., June 10, 1985
Mermaid - 7:50 P.m., June 10, 1985
Simon's Liquor - 7:55 p.m., June 10, 1985
B 6 R Liquor - 8:00 p.m., June 10, 1985
fkro ateIleIs - 8:05 p.m., .tune 10, 1985
Budget Liquor - 8:10 p.m., .Tune 10, 1985
Bel -Rae Ballroom - 8:15 p.m., June I11, 1985
[TEM F. Approve Resolution No. 1886 Resolution of
Appreciation to Jack Maegan
[TEM G. Approve Resolution No. 1887 Resol-ItiOn of
Appreciation to John Kuusisto
[TV.M H. Approve Resolution No. IHH8 Rnsnldtion of
Appreciation to Ilnvu Raymond
CONSENT
AGENDA
PAGE TWO
ITEM i.
Approve Resolution No. 1889 Resolotion of
Appreciation to Paul Uotzet
ITEM J.
Approve Resolution No. 1890 Resolution of
Appreciation to Hill Jackson
ITEM K.
Accept the City's Audited 1984 Financial
Statements and the Auditor's Management Report
and Recommendations
ITEM L.
Approve Resolution No. 1891 Authorizing the
City of Mounds View to File. An Application and
Execute A Grant Project Agreement to Develop
Open Spaces Under the Provision of the LAWCON
and State Natural Resources Fund
ITEM M.
Approve Development Agreement with Susan Gale
and Debra Yost for Gale/Yost Addition
On Laport Drive
ITEM N.
Resolution No. 1894 Approving Just and Correct
Claims Against City Funds
1't'EM U.
Licenau for Approval
Gdmblin, Devices - Expires May 29, 1985
Mounds View Lion's Club - New
General_ Expires 6/30/85
Gorco Construction Co., Inc. - New
Meister Construction - Nev,
Northern Pine Construction - New
Masonry - Expires 6/30/85
Karl G. Juryensen Masonry - Now
Roofing Expires 6/30/85
Westphal -Roofing - New
Fence - Expires 6/30/85
Jack Newberry (Montgomery Waal) - Renewal
Swimming Pool _ 6/30/85
pool, Inc. - New
Is
1 RESOLUTION NO. 1886
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF IIAMSRY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO .JACK MEEGAN
WHEREAS, Jack Meegan has shown a sincere interest in the
welfare of the Citizens of Mounds View by assisting the
Mounds View Energy Council in the capacity of. Weatherization
Assistant; and
WHEREAS, Jack Meegan has won the respect and gratitude
of those who have had the privilege of working with him nn
the Neighborhood Energy Workshop; and
WHEREAS, Jack Meegan has volunteered time, training,
transportation, knowledge and expertise in assisting in the
City's energy reduction efforts;
r._ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
( the City of Mounds View, on behalf of the residents of the
— City of Mounds View, expresses its appreciation to
Jack Meegan for his dedicated service to the Mounds View
Energy Council.
Adopted this day of ' 1985.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Clerk -Administrator
RESOLUTION NO. 1887
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO JOHN KUUSISTO
WHEREAS, John Kuusisto has shown a sincere interest in
the welfare of the citizens of Mounds View by assisting the
Mounds View Energy Council in the capacity of Weatherization
A. sistant; and
WHEREAS, John Kuusisto has won the respect and gratitude
of those who have had the privilege of working with him on
the Neighborhood Energy Workshop; and
WHEREAS, John Kuusisto has volunteered time, training,
transportation, knowledge and expertise in assisting in the
City's energy reduction efforts;
NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Mounds View, on behalf of the residents of the
City of Mounds View, expresses its appreciation to
John Kuusisto for his dedicated service to the Mounds View
Energy Council.
Adopted this day of , 1985.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
-------- - — - — -
Mayor
Clerk -Administrator
9�
RESOLUTION NO. 1888
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE. OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO DAVE RAYMOND
WHEREAS, Dave Raymond has shown a sincere interest in
the welfare of the citizens of Mounds View by assisting the
Mounds View Energy Council in the capacity of Weatherization
Assistant; and
WHEREAS, Dave Raymond has won the respect and gratitude
of those who have had the privilege of working with him on
the Neighborhood Energy Workshop; and
WHEREAS, Dave Raymond has volunteered time, training,
transportation, knowledge and expertise in assisting in the
City's energy reduction efforts;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Mounds View, on behalf of the residents of the
City of Mounds View, expresses its appreciation to
Dave Raymond for his dedicated service to the Mounds View
Energy Cour-il.
Adopted this day of , 1985.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Mayor
Clerk --Administrator
A ^
RESOLUTION NO. 1889
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO PAUL HOTZET
WHEREAS, Paul Botzet has shown a sincere interest in
the welfare of the citizens of Mounds View by assisting the
Mounds View Energy Council in the rapacity of Weatherization
Assistant; and
WHEREAS, Paul Botzet has won the respect and gratitude
of those who have had the privilege of working with him on
the Neighborhood Energy Workshop; and
WHEREAS, Paul Botzet has volunteered time, training,
transportation, knowledge and expertise in assisting in the
City's energy reduction efforts;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Mounds View, on behalf of the residents of the
City of Mounds View, expresses its appreciation to
Paul Botzet for his dedicated service to the Mounds View
Energy Council.
Adopted this day of , 1985.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Mayor
Cferk-Administrator
RESOLUTION NO. 1890
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO BILL JACKSON
WHEREAS, Bill Jackson has shown a sincere interest in
the welfare of the citizens of Mounds View by assisting the
Mounds View Energy Council in the capacity of Weatherization
Assistant; and
WHEREAS, Bill Jackson has won the respect and gratitude
of those who have had the privilege of working with him on
the Neighborhood Energy Workshop; and
WHEREAS, Bill Jackson has volunteered time, training,
transportation, knowledge and expertise in assisting in the
City's energy reduction efforts;
I
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Mounds View, on behalf of the residents of the
City of Mounds View, expresses its appreciation to
Bill Jackson for his dedicated service to the Mounds View
Energy Council.
Adopted this day of , 1985.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Clerk -Administrator
Of.
TO: Mayor 6 Council
FROM: Bruce K. /+riders n bi ctor of Parks, Recreation 6 Forestry
I
DATE: May 9, 1985
RE: RESOLUTION NO. 1891
Enclosed is a copy of an ammended resolution which the State has
requested we submit due to the extra $5,000 that we have received
from the Federal Government for the Greenfield Park Grant. This
Resolution has changed numbers in it due to the additional dollars
we have received and other than that is the same resolution that
was adopted when the inital grant was approved in March.
Should you have any questions regarding this Resolution feel free
to contact myself directly at 784-3055 ex 20.
HA/ds
Attachment
RESOLUTION N0. 1891
P'i RESOLUTION AUTHURIXING THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW TO FILE AN APPLICATION AND
t EXECUTE A GRANT PROJECT AGREEMENT TO DEVELOP OPEN SPACE
UNDER THE. PROVISION OF VIE FEDERAL LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION
FUND ACT AND THE STATE NATURAL RESOURCES FUND
WHEREAS, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act and the State Natural
Resources Fund provides for the making of grants to assist local bodies in the
acquisition and development of outdoor recreation project; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View desires to develop certain land known us
Greenfield Park, which land is to he held and used for permanent open space;
and
WHEREAS, in order for the proposed project to he eligible for approval,
there must be proof that it is part of a comprehensive outdoor recreation
plan and five year captial improvement program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has an original five year action program
which Includes Greenfield Park; and
WHEREAS, it is estimated that the cost of developing said interest shall
be $L80,000.00; and
WHEREAS, upon project approval, the City of Mounds View must enter into
formal grant project agreements with the State for the specific purpose of
developing Greenfield Park.
i
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds
View:
1. That an application be made to the State of Minnesota, Department of
Energy and Economic Development, Parks and Recreation Grants Unit,
for a grant from the Land and Water Conservation Fund of 1965 as
amended for an amount presently estimated Lo be $5,000 and the ap-
plicant will pay the balance of casts from other funds available to
it.
2. That an application he made to the State of Minnesota, Department of
Energy and Economic Development, Parks and Recreation Grants Unit,
for a grant from the Natural Resource Fund (Minnesota Laws 1983,
Chapter 301, Section 31, Sub -division 5, Paragraph IS)) for an
amount presently estimated at $87,500.00 slid the applicant will pay
the balance of the cost from other funds available to it.
3. That the Mayor of the City of Mounds View and the City Clerk -Admini-
strator are and directed to execute and file (A) Such application,
(8) The five year action program with the State of Minnesota, De-
partment of Energy and Economic Development, Parks and Recreation
Grants Unit, to provide additional infnrmatlon and furnish such doc-
uments that may be required by said department and (C) To act as the
authorized correspondents of the applicant.
4. The proposed acquisition and development Is In accordance with plans
for the allocation of land for open space uses and that should said
grant be made, the applicant will develop and retain said land for
use designated In amid application and approved by the Department of
Energy and Economic. Development and the Nrulonal Park Service (NPS).
5. That the United States of America and the State of Minnesota ha, and
�\ they hereby are, assured of full cumthePlie by the applicant with
the regulations of the Department of Interior, effectuating Title 6
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
6. That the City of Mounds View enters Into an agreement with the State
of Minnesota, Department of Energy and Economic Development
and Recreation Grants Unit , Parks
, to provide such grants as are specifled
In numbered paragraphs I and 2, above, fur the years 1985 through
1988.
7. That the Mayor of the City of Mounds View and/or the City Clerk -
Administrator, are authorized and directed to execute such agreement
and any supplemental agreements thereof.
Adopted on Monday, May 13, 1985.
ATTEST:
Jerumc 6% Linke, Mayor
(SEAL)
Donald F. Pauley, Clerk -Administrator
19
IAI
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development
DATE: May 9, 1965
SUBJECT: GALE/yOST ON LAPORT DRIVE
Attached please find page 1 of the proposed Development Agreement
No. 89-70 for Susan Gale and Debra Yost. Also attached is
Exhibit 2A.
If you have any questions, I will be available on Monday night
to answer them.
SWT/bc
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
MOUNDS VIEW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 84-70
SUSAN GALE AND DF.URA YOST
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this _ day of
19, by and between the CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW,
County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, party of the first part,
hereinafter called the "City",
and Susan Gale end �41trs�—Y^`'
party of the second part, hereinafter called the "Developer",
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Developer, in consideration of
Land Development
and the issuance of permits thereof, hereby agrees with the City to
perform all of the acts required herein and to conform to all of
• the conditions set forth as follows:
1. Wherever the word "City" appears herein, it shall mean
and include the City of Mounds View and also said Cit1's agents and
employees; and wherever the word "Developer" appears herein, it
shall mean the developer, and any of its agents and employees.
Wherever the words "development site" appear herein, it shall mean
the premises described in the following exhibits:
Exhibit 1 (legal description)
Exhibit 2 (site plan)
Exhibit 3 Nater Sanitary Sewer & Street
Exhibit q (flans and Specifications)to su
)
Rev. 4/13/81
r
DEVEL(NIENT AGREEMENT 84-70
mu MT 2A
In addition to the foregoing conditinns, thw lovuloper agrees to
the following:
l) Payment of all City expenses ahove .nut hayond amounts
previously suhmil.l.ed.
2) Pay assessments at the same time thu property is sold.
3) Three (3) year assessment: payment. sucurity (assessment
dill he at 11% interest for 10 years).
4) Payment of park fees.
5) city approval of final plat and evidence of recording of
said plat prior to awarding const.uctinn contract.
6) Prior to awarding the construction contract, we shall
sign a statement that we agree to pay the assessments.
FOR THE CITY:
Date: -------------
FOR THE DEVELOPER:
Date: ---------•---------
IU'::i01,U1•ION NO. 1894 CA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSF.Y
S'I'ATH OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING JUST AND CORRECT
CLAIMS AGAINST CITY FUNDS
WIIF:REAS, the City Council of Mounds View, pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes 412.241, has full authority over the financial affairs
of the City and;
WIiERW, The City Council has reviewed the claims numbers:
016621 through 016635 in the amount of $ 53 389 9i�_
015834 through 015952 in the amount of $ 52.856.AL
016636 through 016638 in the amount of $ 40 164 73
_ through in the amount of $
TOTAL AMOUNT OF CLAIMS PRESENTED $ 146 411.15
and has found said claims to be just and correct;
(list of any exception)
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City CoancilOfMounds View
b
hereby approved the attached lists of claims dated Y the
vote ayes nayes
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Mayor
Clerk-Admin strator
u
CHECK
16636
16637
16638
ADDITIONAL DIRECT EXPENDITURES
AMOUNT CLAIMANT
$ 768.00 Tele-Terminals, Inc.
150.00 Donald Pauley
39,246.73 First State Bank
$40,164.73
PURPOSE
Maintenance agreement
Mileage
Salaries
.ClTY'OF MOUNDS VIFV
A f C 0 U N T S P A Y A P
}
I F OR-14-Fc PlCF 1
III; °
CFFfK a
e r C
A► T
016t21
5C.0C
CPAfUNIS CCNFFPENCF CTR
C.ONFEPENCES
,
s
t1tt22
147.5C
SCIFNCF 'USFUN OF MIN'►'
TICKETS + PFGTSTPATTCNS
i�
;1
o�
CW23
itC.CC
U S rrSTRASTFc
FOSTAGF
;
_I
'L
0WN
348.16F
CC'MMISSIC.NF.P CF PFVF.NUE
P F F U N D
- —!f
°
QIt625
345.5E
U p PGSTMASTEP
POSTAGE
tie
016t.2t
47t17t.45
FIPST STATE Oak Er
SALAPIES► PF.GULAR
�,
SAL4RIESLTEMP+PART TIME
..,;
'
e'^
ANO-CVERTTMEr REGULAR
Cltt27
10.58
TCPA PFTIPEPENT COPP
PF.NSICNS
01662F
I/42P.24
STATE T;FASUc FD
OF tPIN s
I3 _
C16629
2r634.45
STATE TREAS - P F R A
PENSIONS
5_
016630
125.00
CCVT TPITNINC SFPVICE
CONFERENCES
016631
4.7C
NCFTFFFN STATES H-W CO
FLFCTPIfTTY
•'I '
016632
1C.20
MINNESOTA MUTUAL L IFF
GROUP INSURANCE.
�y -
016633
85.90
FIDELITY + CUARANTY LIFE
CROUP INSURANCE
016634
2C3.22
IMCTT NFALTF PP(-7 PLAN
FPQ F TNSUPANCF
01605
27t.^8
STATE TREASURER
P F F U N P
f�!�i '
�•�
_
15
53089.9E
NFf ESSARY EkPEN'DITUFFS
SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING
fie:; � n •
4 .,�r
1:,
r Lill
,ly#
s f,•1°�1�.
®, CITY Cc NCL'e'rS VIFM A C C C 1: N T S P A Y s l f5-L4-A� cyrr 2
CHECK x A r r v T C L A T K e N T a U e P r e c
01934 1r4C8o0r ADVANCFr PRINTINC POINTING +.�•
5835 114.1E ALF.INSC_N SUFPLIESs STPEFTS - '---'�
WestEo`,`. ALrY CaAPHIC 5l'0PLY OPINTTNG t
015837 7.`.0 AMFRICAN LINFN SUPPLY CC CLFANINf-TCVELS + PACS
1` _015038 11Eo7C AKEPICAN EFFICE PPCCo NISC OFFICE SUPPLIFS
"I 015E39 llColf APFPTCAt, TM. SUrTLY INC SL'PPLTES)rPFPATTNG 'P�'.
015840 37E.82 BACON ELECTRIC PEP. BLFGS + f•PCUNCS
__:015841 3.15 BEISSVENGFR APPLIANCE SUPPLIES+ FOUIPMFNT
;'F C15842 57CoCC PCOY EVrtulUE INC FFCCPAY thSTRli(TOR�
015843 594065 DCNALr BFACER CONFFRFNCES Ia
015844 2060 5 8RICHTON VETERINARY NrSP OTHFfi PnOFESSICNAI SEP.V ---
i3, ,
�r'"I QI5845 E7o55 CAPITAL FLECTRCNICS REPAIRSO FCL'IPPFNT
015846 3l38E.CC CITY OF CHANFASSEN OTHEP. PROFESSIONbL SFRU
015847 93084 CFAPIN PUPLISF'ING SUPPLIES, STREETS
015848 54.2C CPTPFFYi SPPTt'GS COFP SUPPLTFSPIPFRATINC a
r«
_ n
?' :015849 140900 COMMUNITY TEACHFRS UI+tIM TICKETS + F[GISTRATICNS n '
P 15850 3100E CUPSTRUCTIrN TIP.E CCo SUPPLIES, FQUIPMFNT
015651 7o45 CCTTFNS INC SuPPLT[zr FCUIPMFNT I �
j` 015852 7C9o33 CPONSTPCRS PEPAIRSj EQUIPMENT �+
15B53 701,09 CYS MENS WEAR UNIFORMS + CLOTHING --
�1"' 035P54 35.3E D + D TPUCK INSTPUKENTS R PaIIFS, FCuIPMFNT
7 ITT. • '.
' 015855 537.43 DATA DCCUKENTS PPTNTINC7
' 7
• i'� 01585E 547965 CAVES SPORT SHOP SUPPLIFSPMRATING - I�
•y 015857 51.1C CAVTFS kATFQ FL'UIPFFNT PUPPLIFSP UTIITTIF�
,yl
• >j 015858 4C"8C ENVIRONMENTAL RE! CROUP CTHFP. PROrESSIONAL SFRV
015859 36o0C FMECUTINF CCOPUNTraTIONS-TELEPHONE
01586C 50E.30 FF.FP-PTTF CCNTPOLS Sl'PPLI[5, FCLiTPMF.NT ,_';`
"1
#::',CITY
OF ,.CL'N04 VTFW
A C C C L' T S F A Y
A P L F 05-14-85. PACE 3
1
II
Q)
fFEfk Y
A N f 1 n T
r 1. b .', 1 b T
G L' P P O t c
•.
ry
f
1.
o15B61
192.5C
FFATTAICNE EYFC I GPOG CCNTTNCFNCY
E
015P62
IP464.9C
CFNFPAL SPCPTS
SUPPLIES,OPFRATING
B .I
C15PF3
36.cc
GCCPIN CCMPANY
SUPPLIES9 L'TTLITTES
"
AND-PFF.i ELDGS + GROUNDS
_..
015P64
53.70
W V CPAINGFR INC
REPAIPS, EQUIPMENT
s
r
`
015865
20.1E
HAPMC'N GLASS
SLIPPLIF59 PLOTS+GPNDS
{
8•!'.__
015F•66
912.32
F•'AWKINS CHEMICAL INC.
SUPPLIESoCPERATING
L•
��
11
015P67
25C.00
INDEPEN9FN7 SCHL PIS
621 GRANTS + SUBSIDIES
'
015E68
2.37
TTFN CFEVPCLFT
SUPPLIFSP FQUTPNF.NT
ell
l
C15P69
290.79
J C AUTO SUPPLY
SUPPLIESs VEHICLE__
w'
AND -SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT
~'
AND-REPATRS+ VEHICLES
e '
015F70
15.84
J C AUTO SLPPLY
SUPPLIESp VEHICLE
ANC-SUPPLIEStOPERATING
I^
?'
015871
14.00
JEFFYIS FLCCF STCP.E
RFF., FLOGS + GROUNDS
f'
_-015$72
376.00
JIFS BUILDING FAINT
SUPPLIESs PLDDS+GRND5
®r
APO -JANITOR SFPVTCE
1"
015P73
__-1C•25-
LAYNE-MINNESCIA CO
SUFPLIFSi.L�TILITIES-
r
015874
117.01
LILLIE SUBURBAN `SEWS
LEGAL M07TCEF
i
o
AND-SUPPLIES+UPERATING—_._-
Ot5P75
93.35
LINCOLN ELEVATOR SERVICE
PEPAIFSP FOUIPMENT
!.
015676
31.30
LONG LAKE f6
MOTOR FUELS + LUBRICANTS
"
'
AND -SUPPLIES+ VEHICLE
n
015F77
16E.75
PIP PA
SALARIESYTEPP+PART TIMF
�r
ANC. -TRAINING
�,�
i'
015P78
26.86
VAN-C-LITE
SUPPLIESi BLOf:S+GRNDS
.
015P79
4p628.25
METPO WASTE CONTROL COMM.
P E F U N D
01588C
6rS87.5C
PICHARD MFYEFS
GENERAL LFGAL SERVICES
y
AHC-PROSECUTING ATTY SEPVICE
_ _.._-
K
ori
015261
775.2C
FIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
SUPPLIESP STREETS
_.4�.
1
]!
®1
AND -SUPPLIES+ OPERATING
015682
442.64
PINNFSCTA TCPC INC
SUPPLIES► ECUIPFF.NT
h�
Al
Ii
Q: (.CITY' CF NrLNils 1'if1 A C C C I: k T c F A Y A 1 l F f!-14-P° FdrF 4
7 C L e I F A "' T e n 0 F r c r
r 015683 12.97
____015EB4 1OF.54
1'I 015885 43P.3C
015086 20.31
_015887 374.65
I
i'L-015888 187.11
;;i_015689
375.QC
' 015890
325.8C
075891
5C..CC
015892
106.70
015893
9E.00
J' ,? 015E94
5.34
15E95
6a219.15
44�015E96
69.31
L_015697
134.CC
01589B
E41.CC
'I
015P99
40.30
0159C0
35.2F
��.'I
0159C1
1p;f9.49
1� 025902 IPE94.2C
1'015903 302.33
I
PTNNFSr7A lC FUNC
kroKFPS CrPPFNFATTON
rCU'rFVIFV CUP CkN
FCWF. SUPPLIES, PLDCS+CRNOS
ANC—SUPPLIFSv FCL'IPMFNT
INT-SUPPLTFS, VFFTr.LF
MCUNrS VIFW PFTNTINC
FRINTTNC-
ANr—OTHFP PPCFESSICKAL SEPV
ANC —SUPPLIES, STREETS
N W PFLL TFLFPFCNF
f7 r0!'YUA'IrATTrN5—TFLEPFCNF
NEENAF FCUNDRY CC
SUPPLIFSP UTILITTFS
NEW BFIW EN FDWE
SL'PPLTFS,CPERATINC
AKr—SUPPLTFS, FLOCS+CPNGS
ANV—SUPPLTFS, UTTLTTIFS
AND—SUPPLIESI ECUIPMENT
AND—PEPAIRSP F.CL'IPMF.NT
NCRTHRN WELDING
SUPPLT[St ECUIPMENT
NCVeCK INf
SIIFPIIFS. FrUIPMFNT
PENNSYLVANIA CIL COMPANY
INVENTrRY
PEPSI COLA BOTTLING
CC P E F L' N 0
PRCFFSSICKAL PPCCFSSTNC
C*FFP PRCFFSSTCNAI, SFRV
RADTO SFACM
SUPPLIES1 VFNTCLE
PABSEY CCUNTY TPEASUPFR SNOW PL06TNC-SANDING
AND —TRAFFIC STC!ALS - ELECT
AuD—PPINTINC
RECPEONICS CCPP
SVPPLIESsOPFRATING
PAMELA S ROSE
SALARIES,TEMP+PART TIME
CITY CF SFCPEVTEW
SUFPLIES,CPEPATTNC
SNYDEPS DPUC STCRFS
SUPPLIFSrOPERATTNC,
ST PAUL POCK+STATICNERY SUPPLIES►CPERATING
TFIFTFPFTNALS
FOUIPMFNT
AND—VISC OFFIfF SUPPLIES
TFYGAS INVENTCPY
KAUPFFN TFIFLFH f.�NFFPTMCFS
AND—PPrGPAP TNSTQUCTOP.S
r
L.'
�# CIIY'OF MOUNDS
VIFV
A f C C V N T S P A r! A
I F
CHECK p A P
O U N T
C L A I N A N T
p U p r C 5 F
-015904
663,00
TPCF'PSON C KLAVERKAMP
GFNEP.AL LEGAL SFRVTCES
'#
015905
37,77
TOIL CCPPANY
SUPPLIESr FCUIPNENT
015906
204.5E
UNTTCG PENTALS SYSTEM
UNTFrVFS + CLCTHINT
I�
g_ P _015907
202,25
VAN PAPER COMPANY
SUPPLIES9CPERATING
1
6.0C
VIKTNG ELECTRIC
.015900
SUPPLIESt L171LTTIES
+,� 015909
10.5C
VIKINGS APFPCVFC SAFETY
UNIFCPFS + CLCTHTNr•
.•
#�-015910
1f6.00
WASTE PGNT - PLATNF
REFUSE COLLECTION
ff
015911-
55.0C
JEANNE LANZ
PRCC•PAR INSTRUCTOR_5_...._-
I 015912
68.00
PPETT OHNSTAO
PROGRAM INSTRUCTDRSp;{
015913
432000
FIOMAkA UGAPTE
PROSECUTING ATTY SERVICE
•4i
!�
lj
_ 015914
60.00
TIP NOLAN
OTHER PPOFESSIONAL_SERV
T,
Ol`.gl5
80.00
RENEE RACK
PPCGPAP INSTRUCTOR$
p 015916
10000
ALICE HOULF.
PRINTING
7
_-j15917
45,00 .
LEE MCNIFSP
DEPOSITS- PUILOING USAGE
4`
"I 01591E
518.01
PN PLAYGROUND ?Rf.
SUPPLIFSP9PERAT1Nf;
4
S' jv�A�L t
�;---
---
AND-OTHR PR.GFESSICNAL -SERV
^� 1
?' 015919
85600
REVENUE SHARING APV.
9OCKS + PERIODICALS
015920
45.00
SUF ANN ZApIIIA
DFPGSITS- BUTLDTNf• USAGE
�
'1
_015921
7.5C
JOSEPHINE OJEkfC
k E F L N O__.-_
015922
7,50
ELIZABETH BUTLER
R E F U N 0
015923
7.5C
LCIS PFISTER
R F F U N C
y
'_ _.075g24 '
2350C
JIN F'EISF.P
P E F U-_N_0_---
015925
20.00
BLAINE PPTNTING
PR TNT IPG
#
01592E
69490
APERICAN STEEL
SUPPLIFSjp FCUTPNFNT
"I
015g27
20,54
APERICAN SIGPES
SUPPLIESY VEHICLE
��. 015g28
147,00
BLAINE POWER TOOL INC.
RF.PAIRSP FCUIPPFNT
015g?q
4q,5C
CGNSCLIfATED CENT CORP
SUPPLIFS,rPERATINC
_.LL
; CITY CF MCUNPS VTEW ! f f r t �, T S P A Y A° l F r,5—T4—P5 PACE 6
CHECK v A M f t' N T f t A 1 M A N T p U P P r S F
015930 1C,cc DEPT, CF NAT. RESCURCFS
015981 455,E5 FPI^LFY MECTCAL CENTEP
015932 65,00 SHAPCN GCAY
FI .
015933
3C,CC
KATHT ILLIC
015934
15.00
nAPBAPA IRVINP
5'i
"l
015c?`.
4#6CC,OC
MANACEMENT ADVTSCFS
I'
11,
015936
154CC
JCAN NALUNY
i
Ry _015917
21.GC-
BCNNIF NELSON
"
0159?6
15C.CC
PAM5FY CLINIC A_SDC,
015939
714.00
TTY/TCU CYST. OF MN
q,I
01594C
216.00
LAND CARE EOUIPMENT CO.
1
015941
15.CC
INT CCNF OF BLOC rFF,
}1
-.-015942
270e13
RN nFPT, OF HFALTH
9
`_.015943
30.94
TIP ?CLAFFERTY
015944
37 M-C
RAMSEY CTY FMER, SFPV.
u,
015945
40,OC
DANIEL YCGARRY
3F,.015946
30.0C
JOSEPH PERRY
I'I
015947
iC.00
PETH PIPLFY
p,l
101594F
Z35.00�,PC70RWAYS
LTC,
hf'
�
015949
15C.0C
PGOGEP.S C HAMMEPSTEIN
i� L
015950
15.CC
PAT LAWPFNCF
"L.
015951
?2C,CC
MCUNCS VIEW SWIM CLUE
rl
015952
479.2C
CPrSS NUPSERIFS, INC.
16
119
52,E56,44
CHECKS ARTTTFN
w
i1
TOTAL OF
134 CHECKS
TOTAL ICE,24h,42
SUFPLIF'i,CPERATTNC
OTHER PRCFFSSICNAL SFPV
CFPOSTTS— F[IILOTKG USACF
P. F F U N P
L E F U N n
rTHFc PcrFFSStCl'AL SERV
F F U N D
P. E F U N C
CTFFR F?CFFSSTCN'AL SFPV
EOUIPW!T
SUPPLIES, EOUIPPENT
"TSC CFFICE SUPPLIES
OTPER PROFESSIONAL SERV
R E F U N C
ECL'IPMFNT
RFFUN'DS
PFFUNDS
AEFUNP
PEF'JN0
GRANTS + SUBSIDIES
F F F U N r
SUIPPLIES, PLDGS+CRNDS
SUPPLIES, PLCGS+CRNDS
I4 !i
I
•1
�I
ORDINANCE' NO. 390
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING DEVELOPMENT OF CMR'rAIN PROPERTIES
ON AN INTERIM BASIS
The Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ordain:
1.01 Purpose and Interpretation
(1) The City of Mounds View is presently under—
taking an update of portions of the city's
Comprehensive Plan
The City anticipated land use applications
concerning land development which could have a
significant impact on the City's Long Range Plan
with regard to land use and zoning. The City
Council has determined that a study of portions
of the Comprehensive Plan is desireable in order
to evaluate development proposals.
(2) Development of certain portions of I:he City
l during the interim period could be detrimental
1 and contrary to the study now being considered.
1.02 Restriction On Development
Pursuant to M.S. 462.355, Subdivision 4, and to
procect the planning process and the health, safety,
and welfare of the citizens of the City no rezoning,
conditional or special use permits, variances, plats,
or subdivisions of privata lands, or othor authority
for new or eldditional building development, in the
areas described in 2.01 shall be permitted during the
interim period.
2.01 Restricted Area of Interim Moratorium
All property with frontage on T.H. LO lying within
Planning Districts 6 and 12 in the City of Mounds View
as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
by reference in this ordinance are hereby defined as
the properties controlled herein.
2.02 Duration of Interim Ordinance
This ordinance shall be in force for six (f,) months
from its effective date, unless renew,)d or repealed.
ORDINANCE NO. 390
PAGE TWO
2.03 Validity
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase
of the ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid,
such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance.
2.04 Effective Date
This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the
date of its publication.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View
this day of , 1985.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View this day of , 1985.
ATTEST: — --------------------------
Mayor / `%
t
(SEAL) -- - - - -----------
Clerk-Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
C
RESOLUTION NO. 1893
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SCHEDULE FUR 'rHE UPDATE OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, DISTRICTS 6 AND 12
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has determined that
a review and update of those portions of. the City'_= Compre-
hensive Plan known as District,, 6 and 12 is necessary; and
WHEREAS, in order to provide the time nooded to
perform the review and update without experiencing undue
pressure for development the City adopted Ordinance No.
390 Prohibiting Development On An Interim Basis; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has directed staff to begin
the process of hiring a planning consultant to assist in the
review and update of Districts 6 and 12 of the Comprehensive
Plan, particularly that property in those Districts having
T.H. 10 frontage; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Citv Council to
establish a schedule for the completion of the review and
update in order to ensure a timely completion of the study.
NOW, THEREFORE., BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Mounds View that the following is the schedule
for the review and update of the Comprehensive Plan as it
relates to Planning Districts 6 and 12.
DATE
ACTION
5/20/85
Presentation of
Consultant
Proposals
5/27/85
Hire Consultant
6/17/85
Presentation of
Preliminary Finding
to City Council and
Planning Commission
RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL/GROUP
Director of Public Works/
Community Development and
Clerk -Administrator
City Council
City Council
RESOLUTION NO, 1893
PAGE TWO
DATE ACTION RFSPONSIBLF INDIVIDUAL/GROUP
7/22/85 Hold Public City Council
Hearing and Amend
Comprehensive Plan
Adopted this, 13th day of May, 1985.
ATTEST:
Mayor
(SEAL)
Clerk -Administrator 1
11
91
M
r) TO: Mayor 6 Council
^ t 4-�
FROM: Finance Director -Treasurer Brager
DATE: May 9, 1985
RE: INSURANCE RENEWALS
Pursuant to Council direction Staff and Brian Colway of Corporate
Risk Managers, Inc., our insurance consultant, obtained renewal
quotations for our various insurance policies, which expired on
May 1, 1985 and ordered policies in order that the City might
have uninterrupted insurance coverage. The following policies were
obtained and their costs are compared to the previous year's cost:
Policy
Package
Boiler 6 Machinery
Automobile
Umbrella Liability
i
Worker's Compensation
:public Officials
Present
Premium
Premium
Company
85-B6
84-85
Difference
Home
$12,830
$
7,909
+$
4,921
Hartford
$ 2,916
$
01
t$
2,916
Home
$10,738
$
5,411
+$
5,327
Investors
$ 4,685
$
650
+$
4,035
MN,Bteta Mutual
$26,951
$14,572
+$12,379
Lloyd's of London
$ 3,763
$
1,251
+$
2,512
TOTAL $61,883 $29,793 +$32,090
The boiler and machinery coverages were included in the Package Policy
in 1984-85.
Costs of these policies are $32,090 greater than the 1984-85 renewal
premiums. Our insurance consultant advises that insurer's of govern-
mental entities have experienced underwriting losses in the past few
years. Those losses have caused a number of companies to stop writ-
ing governmental business and those that have remained in the market
to increase premiums dramatically. I have been advised by our insur-
ance consultant that while our premiums have increased dramatically
they are reflective of the present insurance market and are compar-
able to the increases of his firm's other governmental clients.
Therefore staff recommends that the Council approve these renewals.
These renewal premiums are over budgeted -amounts. A 15% increase in
premiums was anticipated when the budget was prepared. The actual
increase in premiums is 108%. The total amount budgeted for insurance
was $36,159. The actual cost is $25,724 over budget. Staff recommends
May 9, 1985
Page 2 0
that $25,724 be transferred from contingency to the various insurance
accounts to cover this unanticipated increase in insurance premiums.
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Council approve, by motion, renewal of the City's various
insurance policies through Transcontinental Brokers, Inc. in
the amount of $61,883.
2) Council approve, by motion, the budget transfer of $25,724 from
the 1985 General Fund Contingency Account to the various insur-
ance accounts to cover the unanticipated increase in insurance
premiums for 198i••86.
DB/ds
0
TO: Mayor, City Council and Clerk -Administrator
FROM: Police Civil Service Commission
DATE: May 8, 1985
RE: HIRING OF POLICE OFFICER
On ADril 22, 1985, the Mounds View Civil Service Commission submitted
the following three names to the City Council for the purpose of hiring
new Police Officers
Robert Nelson
Margaret Wolverton
David Anderson
The City Council approved the hiring of Robert Nelson and Margaret
Wolverton. Margaret Wolverton has since accepted a position as Police
Officer in another City.
Therefore, the Mounds View Civil Service Commission requests that
City Council authorize the hiring of David Anderson to the position
of Police Officer effective May 15, 1985. Mr. Anderson's probationary
period will be six months with salary and benefits to be paid per
Local Union Agreement.
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development
DATE: May 9, 1985
SUBJECT: CODE REVISIONS - CHAPTER 25
The attached revision to Chapter 25, Ordinance No. 387, has
been reviewed and approved by Attorney Meyers. The only
insertion was under Subdivision 1, Item (e).
I will be available at Monday night's meeting if you have any
questions.
SWT/bc
ORDINANCE; NO. 387
CI'ry OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE
EkOMANAGEMOUNDS
VIEW
EUND
n
AMENDING CHAPTER 25 ENTITLED,
The Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ordain:
SECTION 1. Chapter 25.04 is amended by adding the
following:
When the City Engineer determines that the applicant's land
directly or indirectly contributes storm water to the existing
storm sewer system the applicant shall pay the Storm Water
Management (SWM) charge for directly or indirectly contributing
water to the City's storm sewer system, for utilizing the City's
existing storm sewer system and for maintenance of the City's storm
sewer system. When the City Engineer determines that the
applicant's land does not directly or indirectly contribute storm
wafer to the City's existiny storm :ewer. system, the applicant
t
shall pay 20% of he SWM charge for benefits accruing to the
applicant for the city's existing storm sewer system and the
maintenance of the City's storm sewer system.
SECTION II. Chapter 25.05, Subdivisions 1, 2, 3 and 4 are
deleted.
SECTION III. Chapter 25.05 is amended by adding the
following:
Subdivision 1. New Developents. The SWM charge: for any
ch there is no existiny principal building,
parcel of land upon whi
as defined under Chapter 40 of the Municipal Code, shall be as
described below:
a) The minimum SWM charge shall be twenty-five dollars
($25.00).
b) No provision herein shall be construed to prohibit the
payment of more than one SWM charge for a specific
parcel of land.
c) The sWM charge shall be zero whenever a building memit
is issued for. the addition, alteration, improve
to an existing single family residential structure or a
lot which has an existing single family residential
structure in an 11-1 zoned district.
ORDINANCE NO. 387
PAGE TWO OF TWO
d) 'rhe SWM charge shall he as follows:
Pro ert Zoned SWM Charge
R-1 S170 per lot
R-2 $830 per acre
R-3 S1,200 per acre
R-4, R-5, R-O, $1,650 per acre
B-1, B-2, B-3,
B-4 and I-1
e) The SWM charge shall he zero whenever a buiding permit
is issued for the addition, alteration, or improvements
to an existing principal structure on land zoned R-2,
R-3, R-4, R-5, R-0, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 and I-1 if they
have paid an SWM charge after November 24, 1981.
Subdivision 2. The SWM charge shall be adjusted annually on
July 1st according to the change in the Engineering News Record
Construction Cost Index for. the Minneapolis -St. Paul area.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View the
day of , 1985.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds
View this day of , 1985.
ATTEST:
Mayo
---r ---------•------------ --
(SEAL)
--- ---- - ------------------
Clerk -Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
%3
ORDINANCM NO. 392
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF MOUNDS VIEW
BY AMENDING CHAPTER L01 ENTITLED, "NON-INToxtCA'r1NG LIQUOR"
The Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ordain:
SECTION I. Chapter 101.02, License Required, is
anended by adding the following,
(4) Temporary "on sale" licenses may
be issued pursuant to the provi-
sions of MunicL al Code Chapter
52.03 for the sale ofle of non—__ ln— toxin— t�sica-
ting malt liquor b- a club or
charitable, religious or non-profit
SECTION II. This ordinance shall take effect 30
days after the date of its publication.
Read by the Council of the City of Mounds View on
this day of , 1985.
Read and passed by the Council of the City of Mounds
View this day of ,
1985.
------
ATTEST: — Mayor
(SEAL) Clerk -Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Citl% At.6ir:icly
MEMO TO: Mounds View City CUUnCi
e
FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Dire u .o lyarq, Recreation
and Forestry /A\Y
DATE: May 9, 1985
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 391
Attached is a copy of Ordinance No. 391 amending the Municipal
Code, Chapter 52, specifically as it relates to intoxicating and
non -intoxicating liquor.
The attached ordinance modification is a culmination of the
Mounds View Parks and Recreation Commission, City Council, City
Attorney and Staff's efforts on revising Chapter 52.03 as it
relates to intoxicating and non -intoxicating liquor within the
City's park system. The ordinance has been changed in only one
major area since the Agenda Session on Monday, May 6, 1985, and
that would be in Subdivision 7 (1). We changed that section to
read as follows:
Sale of beer is allowed only in connection with civic
celebrations, sanctioned athletic tournaments, and
community organization sponsored events. `
The previous reading alluded to national and state holidays as
separate items and staff feels that these events would take place
under the three large areas as listed.
Once again, the major change in the ordinance would be to allow
the sale of 3.2 alchoholic beverages based on a permit approved
by the City Council as well as allow consumption of 3.2 beer
within the City's park system without a permit.
This would be the first reading of ordinance No. 391 and would
require second reading at a future City Council meeting. Staff
will be on hand at Monday evening's CounciL meeting to respond to
any questions or concerns you may have regarding this issue.
BKA/bC
fORDINANCE NO. 391
CITY ON MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OP MOUNDS VIEW
HY AMENDING CHAPTER 52 ENTITLED, "PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS, OPEN
SPACE AND RECREATION AREA RULES AND REGULATIONS",
SUHCHAPTER 52.03 INTOXICATING AND NUN -INTOXICATING LIQUOR
The Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ordain:
SUBDIVISION 52.03 is amending by adding the
following,
INTOXICATING AND NON -INTOXICATING BEVERAGES. No
intoxicating beverayes except malt beverages
containing in excess of 3.2 percent of alcohol by
weight shall r: consumed, displayed, or possessed in
any park, playground, open space or recreation area
in the City. In no event shall any non -intoxicating
liquors besold or bartered in any park, playground,
( open space or recreation area : , exce t by a valid
permit issued by the Mounds View City Council.
Subdivision 1. Definitions. 11he following terms
shall have the meanings described herein_
(1) "Sale" means all means of furnishing,and
includes but is not li_ mited to_the furnishin
for money or other consideration.
(2) "Beer" means any beverage which is.produred
wholly or in part from the brewin�of any
grains or malt or malt substitute and
containing more tan
han e one-half of onep rcent
alcohol by volume d not more than 3.2
percent by wei !q_t_
(3) "Organization" means an entity Navin
religious, veteran, charl�e or non-profit
activities as its prince al purpose and which
qualifies in all:Es ects for the issuance of
a license Co sell the tL o -beer to be
at t
furnished hectiv aity or event_ fur which
thepbuinysou
Subdivision 2. Permit__ Ank_og.inization deslrin
to sell beer in a City Park must apply for a ep form
to do so. Such a� licatlon shall be made uponforme
furs shed by tthe_Cit�arks and_Recreaton Director
forr _F hat Ere su
ORDINANCE NO. 391
PAGE TWO
Subdivision 3_ A &lication. The a)
contain the foilowinl in G3rmation to
a ditional information rer.uested —_
lication she
ether with a
(11 Full name and address of the
organization_ —
(Z) A brief staknuonl ul the nrcl.uiization's
purposes and activities. ^
(3) The length of time the Manization
has been in existence.
(4) The number of active members.
(5) A brief description of the event or
activity for which the permit is being
requested_
( 6 ) The�rk)r posed to be used for the
activity_including any Eacilities_in the
park which will be used.
(7) The dates and times for which the permit
is requested.
(8) The anticipated number of participants.
(9) The person or persons from the
organization who will be in responsible
charge of the event or '.ictivitY and of
the sale of Leer.
Dlication shall be made to the Cif Parks and
tion Director who may refer the application t(
epaEtments es he deems advisable for review.
tv Parks and Recreation Director shall then
nt or
Subdivision 4. Permit Fee. The fee shall be
$50.00 and shall be eaid in full at the time of
application.
Subdivision 5. _Bond. The Council m� re uy firer
on of issuance of the permit, an
or character and reimnursing
rfu rl .moon nr rlPnn-W] COStE
u
ORDINANCE; NO. 391
PAGX 'THREE
Subdivision 55Hond. (continued)
bond, that the organ ization_furnish_Eroof of
insurance adequately covering all such actions,
claims or costs, and may reyulre that the_ Ci- be
made an additional fnsurud.
Subdivision 6. Conditions of Issuance.
Or anization_2ermits may be_tssuea one rg
organizations which qualia_in all respects with the
following_criteriae
(1) Is located in the City of Mounds View or
directly afflicted with the Ci�_through an
athletic league.
(2) Has been in continuous existence for a period
of at least one -year_
(3) Has at least 20 active members.
(4) Has establishod to the satisfaction of the
City that the proposed event or activity will
___�.._•..,, ....., ..,;tt h, nnnrrnlled in such a
way as not to constitute a hazard to
source of nuisance or annoyance to of
nersons in the park or on adjacent p
(5) Has des i nated persons in the organization
responsible charl�toee who are free to convictions
for offenses relatithe fitness of such
per to per:- fom their duties.
(6) Has a current!j valid license issued bj the
City authorizin the sale of the type of beer
to be sold atthe activity or__ev_ent for which
the�ermit is- beinc_sought_
Subdivision 7. Conditions of Permitted Activity.
(1) Sale of beer is allowed
with civic celebrations
rep events. bait: a11U uuoumr�•
. Limited to the dates and times
(2) The sale and consumption of beer is not
allowed in streets or
�arking areas adjacent
to the ark. The Council m�_further limit
S----- - -----
the areas within the Bark where beer may be
sold or consumed.
ORDINANCE NO. 191
PAGE FOUR
(3) The sale of beer_ to and consumption of beer b
individuals who arc forbidden bk any statute
or chapter t7f the Munici2alCode_from
is not
Erchasing_or_consumin Such beverage
alled under thejermit. '1'he Council ml
ow
further limit the sale or consnm tion to be
allowed under_th_ a permit.
(41 Alcoholic beverages other than the beer sold
io holdfnE hermit may not
by the or anizatn
j)ark.
c be onsumed in th�—
(5) The event or activity must be conducted and
lesuch a manner so as not to
controld in
hazar_source f nuisance
constitute a d to or ao
or annoyance to cir,her-persons_in the ap rk or
on adjacent property_.
(6) All rubbish, trash and debris shall be removed
_ from the park and dis osed of by the
the
organization protly at the conclusion of
be
event or activity. The organization shall
responsible for all clean-up expenses.
(7) only non glass containers will be permitted.
Subdivision 8. Cancellation of Permit_ If, at any
time fnllowin9 the issuance of the permit, the City_
o__ f police
parks and Recreation Director or the Chief
R b_eor for which the oermi.t
conclude that the sale
ikely ba detrimentall to the public
was eraata
health, safety or welfare, or will likely result in
uc relating to the
violati statutes ordinances
is likely not to be
sale of alcoholic beverages, or
by the organization, then
ade uately controlleJ
either may recommend to the Council that the permit
be caned.
The council shall consider the _ e recommendation at its
next regularly scheduled Council meeting occurring
at least f from the date of such
The Council may cancel the permit,
recommendation.
it to continue in effect or ma modif such
or allow
ep rmit as it deems necessar .
If the event has alreadyom cmenced, or_i_f sufficient
before the
time does not exist to bring the matter_
Parks and Recreation Director,
Counci City
the recommendation of the Chief of Police, may
won
act to revoke the uermit_ If the permit is revoked,
_
while the activity is in rp ogress, the police
ORDINANCE: NO. 391
PAGE' FIVE
subdivision B. Cancellation of Permit_ (continued)
department shall immediately notify tile _person in
charge of the_ sale of beer of such revocation_ The
ganizat
orion shall 'immediately cease the sale of
be and shall immediately —remove all unsold -beer
from the park. ^At the request_of thejolice
d1rtmnnt thin nrq,�nir..iPinn will assist in Lhe
restoration of order in the park and shall, if
requested, cancel t_he_event or activity.
Subdivision 9. Consumption and Possession After
Cancellation. Any person lawfully,eurchasing beer
from the organization rior to cancellation of -the
P-ermit ma lawfully-Possess and consume such -beer
in the park for a period of. 30 minutes EoLlowiny
such cancellation. Thereafter,__possession or
consumption of beer in the Sark is_illegal_The
police department take reasonable steps to notify
those present in the park of such time limit but
failure to give such notice to a_Raeticular
individual shall n_ot constitute a fefense_by_such
dividual to any charge ar.lsin2_out_of.suchlle al
in
possession or consumption._ Before any individual
may be charged under this subdivision, he shall be
informed that his_Eossession or consjE on is
illegal aad-be ,7 ven an opportunity to surrender the
beer in his possession. No charge shall be brought
against such individual if he e_ro�ly and
voluntarily surrenders his beer at that time.
This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the
date of its pubiication.
Read by the Council of the City of Mounds View on
this day of , 1985.
Read and passed by the Council of the City of Mounds
V1P.w this day of , 1985.
ATTEJsT: — ----------------------
Mayor
- - - -- - (BRAE) le Crk-Administrator ----
1
�vPL l5
)
ORDINANCE NO. 388
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE; AMENDING CHAPTER 48 OF THE MOUNDS
VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED, "WETLAND ZONING ORDINANCE"
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 l of the Municipal Code, is hereby
amended by recjineating tho wetland boundary fur Wetland
I.U. No. 1-15 as per the attached exhibit.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days
after the date of its publication.
Read by the Council of the City of Mounds View on the
day of 1985.
Read and passed by the Council of the City of Mounds View
this day of 1985.
ATTEST: _-----.----
Mayor
(SEAL)
Clerk -Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney —
W