HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1989/06/19CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL
el AGENDA SESSION
JUNE 19, 1989
7:00 P.M.
1. Presentation by Pat Story, Ramsey -Washington County
Resource Recovery Project Manager Regarding Newport RDF
(Refuse Derived Fuel) Facility
2. Discussion of Request of Dynamic Designers for Wetland
Alteration Permit to Construct a Four -Flex in a Wetland
Buffer Zone at 7656/7660 Woodlawn Drive
3. Discussion of Request of Everest Development for Concept
Plan and Development Stage Plan Approval and Wetland
Alteration Permit for Mounds View Business Park South,
Planning Case No. 199-86.
4. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Silver View
Park Pathway Extension Project
5. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Development
Securities - Walter F. Bauer, Development Agreement 76-6
6. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Election
Equipment Maintenance
7. Consideraticn of Staff Memorandum Regarding Composting
8. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Vehicles and
Junk Vehicles on Private Property
9. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Liquor
License Fee Payment
10. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding July 3, 1989
Agenda Session
11. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Landmark
Estates' Decks
12. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Boulevard
Grass Mowing
13. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Oakwood Park
Imorovement Plan
14. Continued Discussion of 1989 Long -Term Financial Plan
15. Continued Discussion of First Draft of 1990 Budget
® 16. Continued Discussion of Ptoposed Parks and Public Works
Maintenance Standards
AGENDA
PAGE TWO
NNE 19, 1989
17. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Partial
Payment Request No. 2 by Automatic Systems Company,
Project 88-11
18. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding House
Numbers
19. Consideration of Request from George Winiecki, 2732
Highway 10 Regarding Highway 10 Moratorium
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCAl P R O V E D
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
�1 Special Council Meeting
June 1, 1989
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
------------------------------------------------------------
The ,Mounds View City COUnCil was called
to order by Mayor Sue Hankner at 6:00
P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Hankner, Council -
members B anc ard, Wuori, Quick, Paone
ALSO PRESENT: Clerk -Administrator Pauley
an City P anner Michelle Hren.
Michele Hren reviewed staff report and
proposals for recycling.
MOTION/SECOND: Paone/Blanchard moved
to accept proposal with Ramsey
Recycling, Inc.
5 ayes 0 rays
The meeting was adjourned by Mayor
Hankner at 6:22 P.M.
Donald' F. Pa
Clerk-Admini
DFP/MJS
' Call to order
2. Roll Call
3. Accept -Propo-
sal with
Ramsey Recy-
cling, Inc.
Motion
Carried
4. Adjournment
ted,
n
DATE APPROVED 6/12/89
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
.1 Regular Meeting
May 22, 1989
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
The Mounds View City Council was called to order by I. Call to
Mayor Hankner at 7:00 PM on Monday, May 22, 1989. Order
The Pledge of Allegiance was said. 2. Pledge of
Allegiance
MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilmembers Blanchard, Nuori, 3. Roll Call
Paone,— Quick and Mayor Hankner.
ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Karnev, Clerk/Admini—
strator Pa and City Planner Hren.
Motion/Second: Paone/Quick to approve the April 24, 4. Approval of
1989 and May 8, 1989 minutes as presented. Minutes:
5 ayes 0 nays and1May48,1989 1989
Motion Carried
Bill Frits, 8072 Long Lake Road, reported a low 5. Residents
flying aircraft had gone over his house at 4:51 Requests and
that afternoon. Comments from
the Floor
Clerk/Administrator Pauley read the items on the 6. Approval of
proposed consent agenda. Consent Agenda
Mayor Hankner asked that the wording be changed
in Items H and J to indicate consideration of the
request, rather than approval.
Motion/Second: Wuori/Blanchard to approve the
consent agenda as read, and waive the reading of
the resolutions.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Mayor Hankner introduced Michelle Hren, the new 7. Consideration
City Plr.nner. of Rslt. No.
.1
May
,
22, 1989
Mounds view City ^_ounci.l page
Two
Regular Meeting ---------------------------
-------------------------------------
City Planner Hren reviewed the request of the
lot line sub --
applicant, Wally Bauer, for a zero
2565/67 County Road I. She explained
division at
each lot meets all regjiremen.ts, and the Planning
Commission has reviewed the request and recommends
inclusion of the contingencies
approval with the
listed in the proposed resolution. She reviewed
those contingencies and also explained what a zero
lot line subdivision is.
Motion/Second: Quick/Paone to approve. Resolution
No. 2483, approving a zero lot line minor sub-
2565/67 County Road I,
division for Wally Bauer,
No. 261-89, and waive the reading.
Planning Case
Motion Carried
5 ayes 0 nays
Mayor Hankner closed the regular meeting and opened 8.
Public Hearing:
CUP for Gerald
the first public hearing at PM. ._„Clobes,
• 8044 -
�7c.12
-
''
City Planner Hren reviewed the request of the
Edgewood Drive
applicant to construct an oversized garage and move
an
the existing garage in the rear yard for use as
he will be
accessory building. She explained
within the allowable square footage of the ordi-
nance and setback requirements would be met.
has reviewed the request
The P'_anniug Commission
and recommends approval.
Mayor Hankner closed the public hearing and
reopened the regular meeting at 7:14 PM.
9. Consideration
Motion/Second: Quick/Blanchard to approve
conditional use
of Resolution
Resolution No. 2484, approving a
Ciobes to construct an
No. 2484
permit request for Gerald
and accessory building at 8044
oversized garage
Edgewood Drive, Planning Case No. 262-89, and
waive the reading.
Motion Carried
5 ayes 0 nays
Mayor Hankner closed the regular meetin8 and opened
10. PublicrHearing:
CUP fo2345
the second public hearing at 7:15 PM.
County
City Planner Hren explained a conditional use
MWCC in
Road H
permit had originally been granted to the
of a
February 1987, for the construction public
2345 County Road H.
facility in an R-1 district at
a request from the MWCC
V�
The City has now received
the conditional use permit.
for an extension on
r.
Mounds View Cicy Coun_il May 1989
Regular Meeting Page Phree
----------------------------------------------•----------------------
The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed
changes to the plan and recommends approval of the
extension of the conditional use permit.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley explained the location
of the property in the City. He added they hope to
begin construction this summer.
Wayne Burmeister, no address given, explained he
works for the MWCC and reviewed the planned use of
the new building.
Public Works Director Minetor joined the meeting
at 7:19 PM.
Mayor Hankner closed the public hearing and reopened
the regular meetng at 7:19 PM.
Mayor Hankner closed the regular meeting and opened 11. Public Hearing:
the last public hearing at 1:20 PM. Planned Unit
Development and
City Planner Hren explained Everest Development has Conditional Use
applied for two conditional use permits and a PUD Permit for
for Kentucky Fried Chicken and Taco Bell, to be Taco Bell and
®located in the Mounds View Business Park. She stated Kentucky Fried
the site plan meets all parking and setback require- Chicken, Mounds
ments, and they meet the requirements for a CUP. She View Business
added they are working on drainage# and the land- Park
scaping plan has been addressed by the City Forester.
The properties are two separately owned parcels,
which they plan to condominiumize, for access.
The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal a
number of times and recommends approval to the
City Council. City Planner Hren handed out copies
of the resolution passed by the Planning Commission
at their May 17 meeting.
Tim Nelson, of Everest Development, reviewed the pro-
posed plans for Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken.
He explained they are requesting approval of the PUD and
CUP final plans tonight, subject to Staff review and
approval.
Mr. Nelson reviewed the landscaping plan, elevations,
parking and traffic flow plans. He also reviewed the
minor changes being proposed by Kentucky Fried
Chicken in the drive lanes and parking stalls. He
showed where stairs are planned to go to the motel
® adjacent to the property.
Mr. Nelson explained the condominiumization process,
which will make the drive lanes and packing st=__ls
-.7 t . _'ad on _ha t'+: re.a = _
Mounds view City Council
Regular Meeting
--------------------- May 22, 1.91j�;
Page Four
Attorney Kerney advised -----
commercial condominium this would be the first
Protect in Mounds View. He
stated he is awaiting
from Everest Development# andit paperwork
from the attorney
to two weeks to review it and will take him one
prepare an answer.
Bill Frank, of the Everest group, apologized, as
he had thought the makersuhad
rbeen delivered already.
He stated
he would
would likeey
first g the following morni�ng.were He statedred they
to move this through the City as quickly
granting
as possible, and requested the Council consider
approval tonight, subject to the review
by the attorney.
Mr. Nelson explained how this area was origiraiiy
Planned with a full service, sit-down restaurant in
mind, but after doing market research, they realized
that type of operation would most likely not be
successful in this location. He added that Taco
Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken are owned by the
same parent company. Both restaurants plan to be
open and operating by fall, before school starts.
Mayor Hankner closed the public hearing and reopened
the regular meeting at 7;43 PM.
Blanchard/wuori
0
tion�Motion/Second:
to a
2485, reapproving a conditionalvuseeperu-
construct aopublicWaatelity
tor
12. Consideration
the inlan R-1 distei�tit
Of Resolution
ion, at
2345 County Road H, Planning Case
No. 2485,
waive the reading. No. 230-87, and
Reapproving a
5
CUP for MWCC,
ayes 0 nays
2345 County
Road H
Motion/Second- panne
Motion Carried
No. 2— 485-" provin a/4uick to approve Resolution
two Planned unit
13'
conditional use development and
Taco permits for
Consideration
Bell and Kentucky
Everest Development's
Planning Case
Fried Chicken restaurants,
of Resolution
No. 2486,
Nos. , and 265-89, contingent
Upon the City Attorney
Approving a PUD
zation documents, andyStaffereviewirgcandoapproving11�iand
Two CUPS
the changes Presented tonight.
for Everest
Development
i ayes 0 nays
Notion Carried
Mrunds view City Council
Regular Meeting
May 22, 1989
Page Five
Public Works Director Minetor reported
the week of
14. First Quarter
May
21 is National Public Works Week.
He explained
Department
Head Report -
what
public works is and the work they
do. He also
Public Works
gave
a slide presentation, showing the
public works
crew
at work, and reviewed upcoming projects for
the
department.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley explained the Council had 15. Consideration
previously authorized the purchase of two flagpoles, of Resolution
and the proposed resolution addresses responsibility No. 2487
for maintenance of the flagpoles.
Motion/Second: Quick/Blanchard to approve Resolu-
tion—` No. 2487, assigning responsibility for mainte-
nance of City Hall flagpoles.
5 ayes 0 nays
Mayor Hankner read Resolutior No. 2487.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley explained that as a result
of the training sessions held last fall for City Staff,
the Customer Relations Task Force was formed. They
have been meeting since then and have proposed eight
G-changes to be made, seven of which are procedural and
one which is structural. He added the proposed
resolution adopts the seven procedural recommenda-
tions, and directs that a cost analysis be done
of suggestion number eight.
Mayor Hankner explained what some of the proposed
changes are.
Motion/Second: Wuori/blanchard to approve Reso-
lut on No. 2488, accepting recommendations of the
Customer Relations Task Force and commending the
members, and waive the reading.
5 ayes 0 nays
Attorney Kerney had no report.
Motion Carried
16. Consideration
of Resolution
No. 2488
Motion Carried
17. Report of
Attorney
Public Works Director Minetor explained the developer 18. Report of
of 8141 Red Oak Court has requested to be allowed to Staff Members
encroach into the drainage easement on the lot, as
the house to be constructed will not fit within the
building ,ad area without encroaching into the
easement.
Mounds View City Council May 22, 1989' r
Regular Meeting Page Six
Public Works Director Minetor stated he has reviewed
the location of the storm sewer within the easement
and feels the requested encroachment could be accomo-
dated with certein conditions, to include the require-
ment of frost footings for any construction within
the easement and that no landscaping other than lawn
be allowed within the easement area. He added it
would be the garage that would be encroaching, and
would not include a basement.
Mayor Hankner questioned how the City knows that the
buyer is aware of this, if they are working through
a builder, who is working through a developer.
Public Works Director Minetor replied it would be
disclosed to the owner and recorded with the title
to the property.
Attorney Kerney advised adding a statement saying
the City cannot be held responsible for any damages
causes by building on the easement.
Public Works Director Minetor stated he would work
out an agreement with Attorney Kerney, to go to the
developer.
Motion/Second: Paone/Hankner to approve the
easement encroachment at 8141 Red oak Court, and
direct Staff to work out an agreement to hold the
City harmless.
5 ayes 0 nays
Councilmember Blanchard had no report.
Councilmember Wucri reported she had attended the
first birthday celebration at the Pinewood play-
ground earlier in the day.
Councilmember Paone had no report.
Councilmember Quick had no report.
Motion Carried
19. Reports of
Councilmembers:
Councilmember
Blanchard
Councilmember
Wuori
Councilmember
Paone
Councilmember
Quick
Mounds View City Council
Regular Meeting
4yor Hankner provided an update of the activities of
ne State Legislature and bills that were recently
passed. She expressed concern for the cost of this
legislation, and stated she appreciates City Staff
and what they do.
Mayor Hankner reported the management audit report
is expected soon. She also commented on a picture
published in the New Brighton Bulletin, concerning
the triangular piece of property and work done to it.
1
Mayor Hankner also congratulated four local students,
who are residents of Mounds View, for being winners
in the state spelling bee, at various levels. She
also noted a teacher an9 two students from Irondale
High School that have recently won awards, and noted
the high quality of the residents of Mounds View.
May 22, 1989
Page Seven
Mayor Hankner
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported Oneon Corporation 20. Report of
has requested a temporary occupancy certificate to Clerk/
begin moving into the portion of the building they Administrator
are leasing at Mounds View Business Park. Remaining
work is promised to be completed on the building
prior to scheduled occupancy on June 1, and Building
�ficial Tobias has recommended the Council issue a
mporary certificate of occupancy, subject to
satisfactory completion of work.
Motion/Second: Quick/Blanchard to approve the
temporary occupancy permit fcL, Onan Corporation for
Mounds View Business Park.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reviewed his memo of
May 19 concering City Hall roof repairs, and
recommended the Council accept the low bid of OMNI
Roofs.
Motion/Second: Blanchard/Paone to approve the 'low
E�idoFOMNI Roofs, in the amount of $17,806 plus an
additional $500 charge for the prevision of a per•-
formance bond, for a total contract of $18,306.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carrie6
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported the Ramsey
County Library Board would be meeting at 7 PM
June 1, at the Mound3 View School District
Cfice, to discuss a futures study, and they would
ke a representative of the C.,uncil to attend.
Mounds View City Council
Regular Meeting
Councilmember Wuori indicated she would plan to attend
the meeting. Mayor Hankner stated she would try to
attend also.
There being no further business before the Council,
Mayor Hankner adjourned the meeting at 8:36 PM.
tfully
F.
Admi
May 22, 1989
Page Eight
21. Adjournment
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCI
FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRATO
DATE: JUNE 14, 1989
SUBJECT: MOUNDS VIEW BUSINESS PARK SOUTH
During the June 12th Public Hearing on the referenced
project, three main issues were raised by the residents
present. The Council directed staff to respond to these at
i
the June 19th Agenda Session. The sues and staff response
are as follows:
1. Woodale Drive, existing road and extension.
Residents questioned the Comprehensive Plan
designation as a collector street, the City's
designation as an MSA street and the use of the
street by trucks.
I have directed City Engineer Minetor to respond to
these concerns by separate memorandum, attached
hereto. Mr. Minetor prepared his report after
discussing the issues with City Planner Hren and
myself.
2. Criticism of Public [ic.aring Notice as not being
descriptive of the project.
® The past practice cf the City has been to send out
public hearing notices containing the following
information:
a. Date, time and location.
b. Name of the applicant and/or property owner,
iddress, if available,
and legal description of
the property.
c. A map showing the location of the property in
relation to the general area of the City in
which it is located.
d. A description of the purpose of the hearing,
i.e. what the applicant has applied for that
requires a public hearing.
e. Name and address and/or phone number of City
staff person to contact for further information.
The notice is mailed to all registered ownerss f
property within 350 feet of the prof
boundaries. If staff is aware of rental units, a
' notice is mailed to each unit addressed occupant. If
staff is aware that interest in the project exists
beyond the 350 foot limit, notice is mailed
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
PAGE TWO
JUNE 14, 1989
to each property, addressed occupant, that we are aware
of or feel would be interested. This last mailing is a
good faith effort on the part of the City to inform as
many people as possible.
Staff has discussed the issue of a more descriptive
notice listing "significant aspects" of the proposal
among themselves and with City Attorney Karney.
Although no legal concerns exist in the opinion of City
Attorney Kar.ney, a common concern was voiced by all
that we wish to communicate to the Council. This
concern should not be viewed as an unwillingness on the
part of staff to expand our notices, but a concern that
such a notice might open us up to greater criticism.
The expansion of the notice to be more descriptive of
the proposal leaves to individual, subjective judgement
and possible criticism the determination of what is
significant. Also, a more descriptive notice could
instill a false sense of comfort in an individual that
they knew all they need to about the project when in
reality the description might leave out something they
would see as being important.
Staff is of the opinion that a public hearing notice
should provide enough information to communicate to the
receiver that a proposal is being considered in their
neighborhood and prompt them to take it up:n themselves
to find out the details.
'Lour direction on this matter is requested.
3. Wetland Alteration, residents voiced concern
regarding the possible loss of wildlife species
and/or return of wildlife after the work oas
occurred.
A review of the proposed wetiand alteration is being
conducted ny the Corps of Engineers, City of Mounds
View, and Rice Creek Watershed District as part of
the permitting process for each of these agencies.
The Corps of Engineers is reviewing the proposal in
consideration of a national permit. Notices
requesting comment were .sent out to over 100
Federal, State and Local Agencies, private environ-
mental organizations and residents in the area of
the wetland. Attached is a copy of the Corps'
notice and mailing list for your review. Included
in the evaluation by the Corps are considerations of �
the project on wildlife.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
PAGE THREE
JUNE 14, 1989
The Rice Creek Watershed District Permit evaluation is
based solely upon the measurements they use to
determine impact upon Rice Creak. Items considered
include total storm water flow, sediment control
measures and phosphorous content.
741E City's review, performed by Barr Engineering, copy
attached, was based upon previous studies and the
requirements of Chapters 48, 49, and 49A of the City
Code.
The issue.of the loss of wildlife species and/or return
of wildlife is one that no one individual or
ogarization can speak to definitively. Rather, any
knowledgeable opinions offered are based on experience
or knowledge of similar projects. In response to the
assertion that wildlife will leave this area never to
return, I would ask you to consider the impacts of
wildlife of the Silver View Park and SYSCO Projects in
Mounds View and the Spring Brook :Nature Center in
Fridley. In each of those cases alterations have
occurred in wetlands, in two cases walking trails were
installed, development and heavily traveled roads are
in the immediate vicinity, and in one case airplane
traffic frequently flies over the are at low levels.
Should you have any further questions or require additional
information, please let me know.
DFP/MJS
Barr
FigW1f1g CWW f a"11
18030ienmy Road
Minneapolis, MN 55435
8I21830.0555
May 3, 1989
Mr. Donald Pauley
City Administrator
City o5 Hounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
Re: Mounds View Business Park South
Dear Mr. Peulry:
The following letter report has been prepared at your request for the
purpose of evaluating the level of compliance of the Everest Development LTD
Mounds View Business Park South site plan with the provisions of Chapters
48, 49 and 49A of the Hounds View Municipal Code (Ordinance). The evaluation
process included the review of:
o Chapters 48, 49 and 49A of Mounds View Ordinance No. 319;
o The "City of Mounds View Wecland Inventory" (Ramsey County Soil and
Water Conservation District, December 1988);
n The "Flood Insurance Study" prepared for the City of Mounds
View (September 2, 1982);
o The Everest Development LTD submittal dated April 12, 1989;
The evaluation was conducted during April and May 1989. Discussion or
the results from the evaluation are presented in the following paragraphs.
The discussion of results includes: a brief overview of the development
project with respect to wetland issues; a discussion of the development
projects level of compliance with the requirements of the Ordinance; a list
nt to consider for approval of the
of conditions which the Council may wa
developmenr rc• sal; and a summary of issues.
Overview
The Everest Development LTD submittal indicates that the proposed
development project includes construction of a business park, a roadway, a
walking trail, a Type 4 wetland, and two scormwater runoff detention basins.
Construction Of the business park is proposed for an upland area located on
the east side of the 1-3 wetland. Approximately 2 acres of th= business park
are located within the buffer zone of the 1-3 wetland zoning district.
Construction activities associated with the business park reportedly will
impact 0.006 acres of the Wecland.
Mr. Donald Pauley April 10, 1989 Page 2
Construction of an extension to Woodale Drive is proposed. The proposed
extension of Woodale Drive will connect the eastern terminus of Woodale Drive
to Stare Trunk Highway 10. The extension involves the excavation of wetland
soil and placement of fill it-o :he 1-3 wetland. Approximately 0.1 acres of
wetidnd, and 2.3 ac;is of upland buffer will be impacted by the extension to
Woodale Drive. Wce.ale Drive is located at the northern limit of the 1-3
wetland.
Construction of a walking trail is also proposed in association with the
construction of the Mounds View Business Park South development. The walking
trait rs located in the wetland. Construction of the trail will require
placement of fill over 1.3 acres of watland. The trail is proposed with the
intent of providing the citizens of Mounds View with a low impact access to
the 1-3 wetland for educational purposes.
Construction of a Type 4 deep marsh wetland is also proposed in
association with the Mounds View Business Parx. The Type 4 wetland will be
located within the existing 1-3 wetland, and will replace approximately 2
acres of existing Type 2 wet meadow and Type 6 shrub swamp. The Type 4
wetland is proposed with the intent of increasing the diversity cf habitat
within the 1-3 wetland.
' Construction of two scurmwater runoff detention basins are proposed as
part of the development. The detention basins are located on cplands, and
are designed to provide stormwater storage and water quality treatment. The
discharge from the largest detention basin is directed to the wetland. The
discharge from the smaller detention basin is directed to Rice Creek.
Ordinance Requirements
A variance from the wetland zoning district regulation requiring a 100
foot setback from the wetland has been requested as part of the development
proposal. The justifications for the variance include the lack of feasible
alLernatives, and mitigation compensating for the loss of the 100 foot
buffer. The request for a variance also references Chapter 48.05 Subdivision
5 of the Ordinance which has been interpreted by Everest Development LTD to
specify that the 100 foot setback regulation "only" applies to lands which
are both subdivided and lying within the wetland zoning district. This
development proposal does rot include a request for subdivision.
Two wetland alteration permits have been requested as part of the Mounds
View Business Park South development proposal. Multiple permits were
requested with the purpose of allowing the Council to separate development
driven permit needs from wetland enhancement driven permit needs. The
wetland alteration permits are required as a result of the proposed placement
of structures within the wetland buffer zone, placement of fill in the
wetland, and excavation o: material from the wetland.
Mr. Donald Pauley April 10, 1989 Page 3 0
The development submittal addresses each of the standards which must be
met if a wetland alteration permit is to be issued by the Council. The
results from Barr-s review of the development proposal indicate that the
development proposal is in compliance with the permit requirements.
Recommended Conditions
The Council may want to consider the incorporation of the following
conditions to approval of the wetland alteration permit. The conditions are
largely related to requirements of the Ordinance. The conditions are as
follow:
o A specific construction schedule shall be specified;
o The limits of construcci.on shall be specified, and staked in the
wetland zoning district;
o The scormwater detention basins shall be constructed prior co
general site grading. and maintained immediately following
completion of the development; and
o A stormuater detention basin maintenance plan and schedule shall
be developed.
Summate
The proposed Mounds View Business Park South development will impact
both wetland and buffer. Approximately 1.4 acres of wetland will be lost as
a result of activities related tv the development. The wetland loss,
however, is largely (93 percent) the result placement of fill with the
purpose of creating a nature trail within the wetland. Development of a
nature trail falls within the findings and purposes of the Ordinance which
reference the educational, aesthetic, and recreational values of wetlands.
The development will also impact approximately 4.3 acres of wetland
buffer. The impacLs to the buffer are the result of the proposed development
(2 acres), and the extension of Noodale Drive (2.3 acres). A variance from
the buffer requirements is presented in the Everest submittal.
The proposed development also includes several features which may be
consid-red net benefits with respect to public interests. These benefits
include the construction of a nature trail within the wetland for educational
Hr. Dcnald Pauley April 10, 1989 Page 4
fols
any recreational use, creation of increased habirat diversity (Type 4
wetland) within the existing wetland, and extension of Woodale Drive to State
Highway 10.
If you have any questions regarding this letter report, please call.
Sely, p
Peter Sabee
PAS/amd
A:FVF.RFST
Memo To :mayor and City Council Members
From :Ric Minstor, City Engineer
Date :June 15, 1989�
Subject :Hounds View Busines3 Part; South - Woodale Drive
The issue of extending Woodale Drive from o'Connel to TH 10, and
constructing Woodale to MSA standards between Edgewood and TH 10
was raised at the recent public Hearing for the Mounds View
Business park South - Planned Unit Development. The issue can be
considered as 2 distinct concerns. The first is the extension of
Woodale to create a through street from Edgewood to TH 10. The
second concern is the designation as an MSA street and
construction to HSA standards.
Extending Woodale Drive to establish a through street between
Edgewood and TH 10 is proposed due to its proposed function. our
streets are classified based on their functional characteristics.
Woodale is proposed as a collector due to its meeting the
criteria of a collector functional classification. These criteria
are:
a) Connecting neighborhoods within and between subregions.
b) Providing mobility between neighborhoods and other land
uses.
c) Access to higher level streets or other collector
streets.
d) Serving to collect and distribute trips between local
streets and higher level streets.
rhood
ch would
the houses fronting l 0 Connel,bJeffrey,l and by WGreenfield oodale is �rWoodale
would primarily carry traffic generated within this neighborhood
and accessing TH 10. Additionally, the Edgewood Community School
would benefit from this street and some traffic using Woodale
would be generated from this site. Finally, some traffic from the
neighborhood between Lon? Lake Road and Edgewood zay use Woodale;
however, there is better access for these people via County
Road H or County Road H-2 and we would expect a very small amount
Of traffic from this neighborhood.
Currently the neighborhood served is accessed only by Edgewood
and existing 'Woodale and by Greenfield. Emergency services would
normally be arriving via TH l0, and both of these accesses are
served by County Road H-7 from TH 10. In the event of an
accident, or blockage of H-2 at TH 10, this neighborhood can only
"I$
bs accessed by circuitous routes. The extension of Woodale would
provide additional access for emergency services, including fire
" protection, police, ambulance, and similar services.
The issue of truck usage, especially from the business park, was
also a concern. The traffic study does not conclude that there
would be any trucic usage and logically there is no benefit to
trucks using Woodale west of the proposed business park entrance.
The only trucks with any interest in using Woodale would be those
intending to head west on County Road H-2. The difficulty of
turning onto Edgewood and then onto H-2 would discourage these
trucks since a direct access to TH 10 and then a signalized turn
onto H-2 is a preferable route. Any trucks with other
destinations would have to back -track if they used Woodale to the
west.
The second major concern was designation as an municipal State
Aid Street and construction to NSA standards. The City is allowed
up to 8.79 miles of State Aid designated streets. Currently, we
have only 7.42 miles designated. A street must meet certain
criteria to be eligible for state aid designation. These criteria
include designation as a collector in the City's Comprehensive
plan, connecting points of major traffic interest, or providing
an integrated street system. Only certain streets can qualify as
shown by the fact that we are not fully able to utilize our
current allowable mileage. To eliminate Woodale from the system
would mean elimination from Edgewood to TH 10. This segment is
0.35 mile in length. We zeceived $257,005 as our 1989 allotment
from state aid. This segment accounted for $12,122 of the
allotment. We are allotted approximately the same amount each
year. Actual cash received for maintenance purposes is 25$ of our
allotment. This means we could lose $3,040 each year from our
maintenance funds. over 25 years this would be in excess of
$75,000 of lost revenue.
Designation as a State Aid street requires construction to state
aid standards. Width and pavement structure are the primary
standards of concern. The following table shows the width
standard:
Width Parkin Lanes
40 feet Both Sides
34 feet One Side
28 feet No Parking
The current roadway width is approximately 23 feet including the
aspnalt gutter. Since we would also install concrete curb and
gutter, the very minimum design would require a width of 29 feet
from beck of curb to back of curb, G feet wider than the current
roadway. A number of residents do park along this street, and for
their convenience, i still believe a parking lane along the north
side is appropriate. While there may be some conflicts when
the athletic fields are in use, this is minimal compared with
the amount of time residents use the parking area. The parking
lane could be on the south side if preferred by the residents,
but I do not believe it would be as convenient for them. The
roadway will be crowned between the 2 traffic lanes, therefore
the decision regarding the parking lane should be decided before
construction and not changed at a later Gate.
The minimum pavement design is for nine ton axle loading. This is
necessary to accommodate garbage trucks, moving vans, busses, and
other heavily loaded traffic which will serve the neighborhood.
The actual design procadure considers the effects of axle
loading over a 20 year design period and refers to this as the
summation of equivalent 18,000 pound loads. The range of
equivalent axle loads varies from 0.0004 equivalent for a
passenger car. to 4.10 for au overloaded truck. The design
procedure provides the necessary structure to support the legally
loaded vehicles using the street, the estimated traffic over the
design period, and a factor of safety for some overloads or
extended service life. Garbage trucks as well as moving vans can
exceed the legal weight limits at times, therefore this approach
assures adequate pavement structure for the life of the street.
Although we are only required to f.,llow this approach on state
aid streets, I recommend following this design approach on all
street construction or reconstruction projects. This was not done
in the past and some City streets are restricted during the
spring thaw to lesser axle limits. This requires garbage trucks
to only partially load, limits deliveries of construction
materials to new homes or remodeling projects, and can cause
problems for bus routes. While some of these activities are
exempted from the weight limits, the road deteriorates much more
rapidly when the limits are exceeded.
�1�,�r��41�51�617�g��
THE EVEREST GROUP LTD °'
aurR� .
TRANSMITTAL t� ,og
,1lIEOE5��\
Date:(/ 15 / 8 9 Job No.:
TO; City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
Attention:
Don Pauley
Mounds View Business
Park South
WE ARE SENDING YOU X Attuhed — Ur -der Separate cover via _ the
following itch:
__Shop dnwinp _Prints _Plane _Samples —Specifications
_Copy of letter _Chance Oder _
Copies / Datc / No. / Daeription
US Army Corps of Engineers (Public Notice)
—/__
T&ESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
_For approval _ Approved u subraitted _Rerubmlt_._eopin for approval
_For your we _ADprovd u voted Submit espies for distribution
As requested _Returned for wrrecticns ____R+tum_comcted prints
_For review end comment
FOR BIDS DUE Ip_ _PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
COPY TO
SIGNED f
Tim Nelson
p � • ...I !:'•7 . I•..,... lib., ::\', is i 1
Public Notice
US Am,y COrps APPLICANT: The Everest IssuzD: May 25, 1989
of Engineers croup, Ltd, ESD?IRES:June 15, 1989
.St.Paul District REFER TO: CENCS-CO-R (89-842-12) SECTION: 404 - Clean Hater Act
1. APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO place fill material into a wetland adjacent to
Rice Creak Luring the construction of a road extension and a trail system. A
total of about 1.4 acres of wetland would be filled.
2. SPECIFIC INFOuNATION
APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 2685 Long Lake Road.
Roseville, Minnesota 55113 L MAY 2 6 11
PHONE YIMBER: (612) 636.5500
AGENT: Mr. Ronald Peterson
Westwood Professional Services
7101 York Avenue
Edina, Minnesota 55435
PHONE NUMBER: (612) 921-3303
PROJECT LOCATION: S112 of Section 8, T30N, R23H, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The project is being conducted jointly by the
Everest Group and the City of Mounds View, The developer is constructing an
office complex entirely on the upland area to the east of the wetland. As
part of this business park project the existing Woodale Drive would be
extended to complete a public street and improve local traffic. It is
estimated that about 0.1 acre of wetland would be filled by the roadway.
Other work in the wetland would involve tho excavation of it wildlife pond
and the construction of a pedestrian trail around the fringe of the wetland.
It is estimated that about 1.3 acres of wetland would be filled by the trail,
which would be covered with a pervious substance such as wood chips. This
trail segment would ultimately link up with the Ramsey County Regional Trail..
The purpose of the 2 acre pond and the trail would be to increase the
wetland's interpretive value for the local community and for the school
located immediately to the vest.
QUANTITY, TYPE, AND AREA OF FILL: It is astinatad that about 2.000 cubic
yards of fill would be placed in the vetland for the road. Pond excavation
would involve removing about 11,700 cubic yards of material. This material
would be used for an island in the pond, for trail construction, and for
topsoil on the upland. The trail would require the placement of about 4,000
eubir. yards of material in the wetland. All excavated material not used for
these 3 purposes would be placed in an upland area.
The trail would have a top width of about 10 feet and a bottom width of
about 22 feet. The sideslopes would be 3 to 1. Approximately 2,500 feet of
the trail would be in the wacland.
1
CENCS-CO-R (89.842.12) ISSUED: May 25, 1989
SUBJECT: Notice of Application for Permit
VEGETATION IN AFFECTED AREA: The current wetland is about 14.6 acres in
size and would be considered predominately a Typa 7 vooded swamp, with smaller
inclusions of Type 2 meadows and Type 6 shrub areas.
3. REPLIES/COMHENTS
Interested parties are invited to submit to this office written facts,
arguments, or objections vithir. 20 days of the date of this notice. These
statements should bear upon the suitability of the location and the adequacy
of the project and should, if appropriate, suggest any changes believed to be
desirable. Comments received may be forwarded to the applicant.
Replies may be addressed to the District Engineer, St. Paul District, Corps of
Engineers, 1421 U.S. Post Office and Custom House, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-
9808, ATTEHIION: Regulatory Branch.
Or, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT, call Mr. Tim Fall at the -St. Paul
District, at (612) 220-0360.
4. THREATENED OR ENDANGERED WILDLIFE OR PLANTS OR THEIR CRITICAL HABITAT:
None were listed by the applicant or are known to exist in the permit area.
However, Ramsey County is within the known or historic range of the following
endangered (E) species:
SDeCies 'Habitat
Peregrine falcon (E) Potential breeding
This application is being coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Any comments they say have concerning endangered or threatened wildlife or
Plants or their critical habitat will be considered in our final assessment of
the described work.
5. JURISDICTION: The wetland complex is considered adjacent to Rice Creek,
which is a tributary of the Mississippi River, a navigable water of the United
States.
REGULATORY AUTHORITY: The application will be reviewed according to the
provisions of Section 404 of the Clear. Water Act. Therefore, our public
interest review will consider the guidelines set forth under Section 404(b) of
the Clean Water Act (40 Code of Federal Regulations 230).
THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THE. FOLLOWING LOCAL PERMITS WILL BE
REQUIRED: City of Hounds View and the Rice Creek Watershed District.
6. WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION: 'Phis Public Notice has been sent to the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and is considered by the District Engineer
to constitute valid notification to that agency for water quality
certification. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has indicated that it
intends to review this project to determine the appropriate action under
N
CENCS-CO-R (69-842-12) ISSUED: May 25, 1989
SUBJECT: Notice of Application for Permit
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Any comments relative to Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency actions may be sent to:
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Program Development
Division of Water Quality
520 Lafayatte Road
St. Paul, Rinneeota 55155
7. DI STORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL
This public notice is being sent to the National Park Service, the State
Archaeologist, and the State Historic Preservation Officer to determine if
there are known cultural resources Which may be affected by the deccribed
work. Any unknown archaeological, scientific, or historical data could be
lost or destroyed by the work described in the permit application. However,
the latest version of the National Register of Historic Places has been
consulted and no listed properties (known to be eligible for inclusion, or
included in the Register) are located in the project area.
S. MBLIC HEAF.IHO REQUESTS
Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in
this notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this application.
Requests for public heartngs shall state, in detail, the reasons for holding a 1
public hearing. A request may be denied if substantive reasons for holding a
hearing are not provided or if there Is otherwise no valid interest to be
served.
9. PUBLIC INTEREST REVIEW
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the
probable impact, including cumulative impacts, of tho proposed activity on the
public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both
protection and utilization of important resources. The benefit which
reasonably may be expected to &ecru* from the proposal must be balanced
against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be
relevant to the proposal will be considered, including the cumulative effects.
Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental
concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards,
floodplain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion,
rocreation, rater supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs,
safety, food and fiber production and, in general, the needs and welfare of
the people. Environmental and other documents will be available for review in
the St. 2aul District Office.
FOR THE DISTRICT ENGINEER:
1 Encl WH. L. GOETZ
Chief, Construction -Operations Division ��
,
'1
LOCATION MAP
AA le:tlon By: Everest Csvulopmsnt, Ltd,
City Of: Mounds View Mounds View Buslness perk South
County Of: Rsmssy, MN
April 1939
M1
WOf�DALE.-DRIVE
eoum
yElOs7ING�rd'°u""gym mnenn
An•p.lwit a31 • �• •aa •fM10■, ~
0
LOT
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT
AND NATURE TRAIL PLAN
gq - gq2
Application By: Evsrsst Dsyslopmont, Lid.park
Mounds Vlsw Buslnsoo AprilaOPe;
City Of: Mounds Visw
County Of: Ramsay$ Mid
WOODALE DRIVE EXTENSION
190SS-SECTION - NORTH TO SOUTH
A►MOAMAT[ •[TLAND BOUNDARY
Itl' i
�e I ,MorowD
WftDAL[ DRIP[
•ev \ �
F
St0' too' 300'
TIMO GROUND
` ems, �IYti=N
ter. Ti0' sit' 000'
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT AND INTERPRETIVE TRAIL
f'QOSS-SECTION - WEST TO EAST
IL PROPOSED BuuN 118 PARR
: Ir
A►►RO%IMAT! WITLAND ROUNDART _� rnw""V
AITAIMOft 11LLL
IOTBALL PROPOSED
fl[LO i f NATURE \ GROUND [LEYATION
NAY'UTRAIL
�E
1%1l lIMD` \ [LlT10N
DITCH p YA
\\\\ 1\]•,' I !A��
NORMAL WAVER'
[LEVATION (093.0)
T— "T-
100' tea' 310' 400' sell 480' Ts0' s00' 0l9' 1"9' 1101
V2' 5(�2 - (2
Apk.,sstlon By: dvarost Development, Ltd,
City Of: Mounds View Mounds Blew Business Perk South
County Of: Ramsey, MN April 1989
)
Postmaster !
Mounds View, MN 55112
t
1
Honorable Jerry Linke '
Mayor of Mounds View
2401 Highway No. 10
St. Paul, MN 55112 1
! Commercial Property Investments, Inc.
P.O. Box 13292 1
Roseville, MN 55113
1
Herbst 6 Sons Construction and
Ervin M. 6 Eleanor J. Herbst, et al )
2299 County Road H
Mounds View, MN 55112
J
Norman D. S Glenda M. Burrows )
5200 O'Connell Drive
Mounds View, MN 55112
Gary D. d Carole J. Olson J
5209 O'Connell Drive
Mounds View, HN 55112
)
Melford C. Christensen, et al. )
2310 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
Daryl G. Madison, et al.
5200 Jeffrey Drive !
Mounds View, MN 55112
1
LaDean L. Norton, et al.
5209 Jeffrey Drive 1
Mounds View, MN 55112
!
Stuart M. Rothgcber, et al.
5200 Greenfield Avenue
Mounds View, MN 55112
Leo C. Westerlund, et al.
5209 Greenvield
Mounds View Avenue
MN 55112
,1
North Suburban Sanitary Sewer Dist.
t
c/o Metorpolitan Waste Control
350 Metro Square Building
St. Paul, MN 55101
�he Everest Croup, Ltd.
2085 Long Lake Road
Roseville, MN 55113
:
}
Mr. Ronald Peterson
Westwood Professional Services
7101 York Avenue
Edina, MN 55435
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Program revrlopment:
}
520iLsfa ette3Road�ality
}
St. Paul, MN 55155 ,
.F
}
sr,nviptipMLgNPau�,*t:wik'tc.�t+:�"��+,; 7.ut;:••..;c'aNQ�PiGtdita!laaE.; "'S
i
}
t
i
}
1
�
}
�
i
-
�.X 14—ryry —
_. BOX E7
ISc7S �:SS:SSi=•=•: — —
j
I
r'. li:}_•?Tv}�\. i— ��: f4n4
i
=fib \. •rCiq_^S.-`v�_"
�. EvX 726
r: i
1
J
WG35r.Ily�'��h.
L'C ca_:S
BNB-
' J" _:!f._
E'3/:3/aS
_
i
o
'+;v .;.'.-=9 RcSJ.'+.l"SS N:•+'�tD �
ny .V_3O`- -_��.''ia�H_ ..:•L�:-'•'
SOO :fUR .i'
i"'_'q• -CU _Y=-"fit'[
5"' �•:_... nh- `_ire
- --ai� - _"�iY C=V-_-
n: '•:L__U _F .__-_ ._ . l:J^.-:q�_ :3.I;..
�' �. TM:K3 tit '_\
::,1:5_.n
"—=V=—c'� _�;crot•_ :::; =:•r .
L' n�-'_� vL.V __..5.
t=h B`:'� v�. Y'. Cam___
±+'R 9E=•". GP 'vq-, �_SJI.lKi G-y
=,_G4 KL°�-�
vaTJBG_ -_K: 7--GE -:,J R=t'
.��5 7!_a•i-'_'� Sx�'"..
ELIPFCA
'••Cn ?Rini-11, YN 5=,!a
Sett! _l. Y.— - Rii r' % 7
5? "AJ_. Wh 55155-40:_7
., ._n. 4''_JIa: G:•:_ -4=R1i:I:IIn S-=
H•;''�fi_'i ,u S+iL✓
BCX a5
Li.J.:j = :,_Q(a w�S-
5472P.-
!
_aa
i
5463 3ROAD.WpV
!
= �s- _PKE.
•-~'___7L!^
--'a —yam _— _. !
.)�tlh G,]Y�ES
57. ='4'_. ��' 55_Z!
_
=_FVv:NG SERViC=E
j
560 6. ^b1Y 55
V
,375
:. L-. KX
BOX
C5n6
_ _ 1
7.
DAWSD.\. '4 5623E
J KENNETH MYERS
112 EAST REDWOOD STREET
MARSHALL. MN 56258
ALLEN GRUCHOW
RR 5. H0X 105
MONTEVIDEO, mN 56265
INDEPENDENT
ATTN: J.D. KAERCHER
BOX 336
ORTONVILLE. MN 56278
HARRY HAMRE
RR 2, B0X 14A
SACRED HEART, MN 56265
RICARD RAVELi�G
RR '_, FOX 47
BROOTEN, rN 563:6
JAMES p. MILLER
ROUTE I. BOX 157
SAUK CENTRE, m 56376
wiK".ESO-A S'P.T= °RC.,P2 �_D3iS-
A T TN: C-'.F.I57Y A. CA: NE
OFC OF S-A-E FRC-AEO_OGIS-
rAR ROU � a
HACKENSAC(. MN 56452
ALA.N P B?E.:9ERV
_O'S d
BEY'J:i STfi-E\iVER6:-Y
P. D. BOX 221
CARLTON. '}1N 55718
SANDY LAKE DAM
DA, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
HCR 4, PDX 362
MC GREGOR, ?.N 55760-0192
CYN-HIA rAGLEY
ASI-EPA
6201 CONGDON DOULEVARD
DULUTH. MN 55804
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ST. PAL' DIST. CORPS OF ENGRS
MISS RIVER PROJECT OFFICE
33 SOUTH WALNUT STREET #11
LA CRESCENT, MN 55947
ROGER REMINGTON
READS LANDING. MN. 55966
rARY(CROSBIE
5i2 EAST LAWRENCE BLVD.
WABASHA. rN 55981
FEED NELSON
106 EAST GRANT BLVD
WABASI-iP. MN 5:5961
B0': TON d 'nENK
2i5 ti. rAlti
=A tMDN-. MN 5603,
.ERRY OV=-*N
.. UN.
AUD:-u'A - -E 5 EUn C_u. Y
P.D. BOX :27
-= C'vTER. Y% 56057
-aap_D iReN6__
I100 SILVE% S- .:
r%%Y c
r < ,_
D;Kce,-D? C= TRP. SZOATM71,_R
--»uo-SL I 3�c• ila5:G-G♦ avE
135-343
C;-Y 0= 'C:NN=-CjNA_-
v53'r
DMPCtWE_�-
I �bOS ;r.;hti= ]N.iA A, VD
554a S
J1t1 y�.,iN^_-'UI\Ili'rl. �':V .55345
JGry
4 S':":a'. _`.l
C '?S�r�
. e;z.G
__
:i '� 1 �C _.
_
bit!- .+_ _ ___J.1 �:1 !7
3.54: '
1 4652 - -� RAN S-
_AKc. Y", 5.=372
•V :.�-=K=mot;_ :c. _., 'A-__
I 1cL7$ _.ic3K+.�^1 -;K�:=
l�
I
i
O200°pp e6120
gNI'• OL
US RRMY ENGRD'yT, ROCK i5-FIND
COO'yIILDTNG
CLOCK TOWER EL 61204-2�54
RGCK ISLFND, IL
� ,JrR aRn9 INC
O, I,GX 69_ 62236
CO:U E:P• -
COMMFND
-R (5AN) pISTRIC,
Op5T GUARD
SECZ IVE 9TR"1 e396
1430 D- MO 63103
ST. LOUiS+
C
wiIDWE5T MRRiNE
236 WcST 74Tr
Ka:asas CITY.
CON T RFCTING "Ij
MO 64114'S726
nn
NRTI�tiPL REG. •-r'FRD�S^RVICc
++T I�wEST
1709 JAL5 . Z.P-
DNpHF.
6E22
U.S. RRMY ncM D'RYlICT. O'a fl
215 NORTH 17 6F1�2_4370
Ok.pHF. N=
N' Ec I dETT
I1pRC DRiL r I=
.,727 5 UTr
TIT
Of;,
M.S,i 7c.i;51
j..
C/O ERANCH G: REALTY
RED LAKE
FGENCI i671
RED LFKE,
MARSHALL COUNTY SWCD
PO BOX 74MO 56762
WARr.F N.
,cE=EnERa-;:R
NATIONAL WILDL-S RES Cc+jTER
:.RpIRIE WET'-PNDRV=
1607 E CAPT.0 5 53:
DISMARCK.
MpRIM1c PRODUCTS
c
CHARLESI IEW DRIViL 6000a
4902 MEADOWS•
ROLLING
STEEL-CORPORAT: N
SKYLINE I ` D RD.
TErs=L IL 60:6:
y7M703 EL - PAGE.
OAKEROOK I r- -
.GS INC
SUPERIOR P ` 3'S =RE 6Z455
7555 WEST 7 -
ERIDGEVIEW.
CO
GREAT MRKw MEIER
pTTN: ARK READ 2122 i` 6052:
Y�
OF{ EROOK+ ,
_ 5=C^t Qu {J
DREDG= -M-cR-.4ANNC' OGE CY
ATTN0.OvMv'F.. aRa' g-RE
=N'1I DaAR-O
230 SOUTH 5062,4
CHICAGO!
cnERGY R-GJ.-p.O,YO+
cED T GIwG P13C.,�. 3.s
;Et) E1%-'- --CE
aRRN
230'SDU` OUcsc- 1D45-R
C�ICfl3O• -- - C,ICgr
J5gA5 Dsp "DR~ J tk4Y 7=7 J
��. Tn. %J sYOR -
FROM:
DATE: JUNE 1, 1989
SUBJECT: SILVER VIEW PART: PATHWAY EXTENSION PROJECT
41t2-141� 4
The materials cost of the pathway extension has been budgeted in 1989. It was originally
planned that City staff would perform the pathway installation. However, the heavy
schedule of Public Works does not allow timely installation of this pathway (early Sumer)
as indicated to the residents. Therefore, staff has requested bids on this project. Three
bids were received. Those bids are attached. I have performed reference checks on each
and I am prepared to discuss each proposal at the agenda meeting.
It has also been recommended and staff agrees that installation of a large culvert at the
west side storm water sewer outlet would be a wise investment. This culvert would allow
park maintenance vehicles to drive on the nail and over the ditch for greater efficient trail
maintenance, The cost of the two culvert options are:
option #1 - 48" culvert $ 6,500.00
Oprion #2 - Metal arch $13,000.00
Option #3 - Inexpensive pedestrian bridge which
would barely allow a small pick-up.
$20,000 - 25,000.00
The size and style of the second culvert option has been recommended by City Engineer
Minetor. It will be large enough to 1" 1e the five year storm.
The for the basic
extension which
basically get coversthe materials oco is of all thetprop proposals (except the asphalt option
The additional options of labor for contracting the work and the cost of installation and
Purchase of a culvert is additional unbudgeted expenses that could be funded with monies
from the Park Improvement Fund.
Staff will be in attendance at the agenda meeting to discuss this park project and seek
direction from the council as to how this project should proceed.
MS/SL
Attachment
BE) StnAIP17 CHEr,,
MIDWEST LANDSCAPING
TOTAL ...... $6,077.00
Labor ...... $2,609.00
Materials.. 3,468.00
1
References: City of Maple Grove
City of Coon Rapids
DARRELUS CONTRACTING LNC.
Option #1 Crushed limestone with mat
$9,250.00
Option #2 Crushed asphalt and concrete without mat
$5,165.00
Option #3 Crushed asphalt and concrete base and blacktop
$12,750.00
References: City of Blaine
Su-.zell Masonry
GREENS FOREVER LANDSCAPING (Does not have equipment to install culvert)
TOTAL ..... S4,946.00
Labor ..... $1,782.00 (additional $200.00 packing - has never packed before)
Materials.. 3,164.00
ti.
GREENS FURF.VP.R LANDSCAPING
Jav Clemens
755-5H2H
17J�7
Phone: _
MATERIAL: \
Timber ...........................
Spikes•
Rock... 3✓tf . ���?{�.�1 ..'4°�K Ji'', ,
Ed4ina ...........................
Stakes. ::Is:'
E+sl. , ..f Og:../0- X . y!a. e
Plants & Shrubs..........
TreeLcis .� ..... ?3 Cr
bed.
Black Dirt .......................
sab"t............... •...........
Other ............................
Total Material
+ 6% Sales 'fa::
LABOR:
General Labor ...................
Sod Labor ...................... '
Total Labor S fg�'
TOTAL: ........................�.....
THANK YU
Ji D`YJ ')0
� CT
MIDWEfr
`AnnfcApinG
Proposal Submitted To:
City of Mounds view
2:01 Highvay 10
Mounds View, W 55112
Attn: Mary Saariart
PROPOSAL:
Sheet.No.: 1 of 1
Date: 5/11/89
Work To Be Performed At:
Silverview Park
Trail Connection
_ I •t-
We hereby propose W turnuh all the materials and perform as the labor neceuary for the completion of:
Excavate 725' x 81 x 4" OS.00
2
Install GTF 200 Geotextile Fabric 10
08.00
Install 3/16 minus Limestone 4" Deep 21560.00
Pack Limestone 600.00
06,077.00
All material is guaranteed tabe•u lWdiied,and the abovework w b>pe;formed in ucn dam swi,t(hthedrawinysandspecu7c:u:nna submitted• and completed in asubstantial workmanlik, manner for the sum of d ,2651.
Dollars.
2w�0.paymenttobemadeurdowr.Pavment in full due in 30 ddvs from subs
service charg¢evill loom be aslessp.f, o>1 the 31st d and .h month they after mrf�til paid.
Any alterumm nr dexnanun tram abtn'e specu anuns uo'o v:ng extra cusp, w: be exec�..,d only upon tl th nrt ofeinim coal become an exam char{e over and above the estimate. M agreemenu cnnungent up.m .tiikes. accidents or delays beyond •cur control. Owner :o carp' are. tornado. and other necessary imumnce ppm above work Workmen's Cumprmanis e o d .,ur Liability Insurance on aWre work to he taken out by {lidwblic
est Landsc:i ,/(w` q //��
Respectfully submitted — ,:_`''L:e.Y'C• 1&046
Snte • Thu pmpusal may be withdrawn by y Jnnt acceprefl within120
.................................... I.,.......................
days.
Warrarvir. Wdwr.: l.an:baapiwvvili replar.•nI've Anv lr,r•nr.hruh [hat Iad, I-, live G r nnrpwr Yrnm Burr nl Vlaannl Lrm:d�.d.
plarl• has, h, .1 prnper!y :+u .u:rn.-I.:lu• 4i..Im:. br�•n n•pun.nl wulun chat yvnr. rl.r hr.. h:u :un hrrn \an•�•rl m.:u an y^...f �lisraa•. and thr,.rrnunt saem.•n pa:d ar..nneng m:Inns.
ACCEPT.UCE OF PROPOSAL
i S••.mn., pits epee ;tinnnn. INI •'nndinnn\ ar. atb 4I"ur, .Ind irr't<f•'P\ ai rpp"l. Gin .IP' Ins.^.nflzr•I '.• lu qL' \..•- p •V^:a h\r..-• anl'•snp• ...•ur.:n•.!.vrv".• I,'nw..,ty:d
Galan••, -'..o: :: a,...n••i ...:�. ...
ma\ 'r mar:%d .I owm•^: :. ,;,u ra:ub a .prntird. .�
67)
�avo
S,/6Sdo �i
f
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCI
OR FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRATO
DATE: JUNE 9, 1989
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT SECURITIES - WALTER F. SAUER
DEVELCP,.,ENT AGR8EMENT 76-6
Walter Bauer received approval from the City of Mounds View
in 1976 to construct a duplex on Woodlawn Drive. It
recently came to the attention of the City staff that the
City still holds bcth the Development Agreement and storm
water pending maintenance securities for this project even
though the project has been approved and the seven year
period for holding the securities for the maintenance of the
storm water ponds has expired. Therefore, staff is
recommending that Council authorize refund of the $2,000 in
securities for this project.
DFP/MJS
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNC
FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRAT R
DATE: JUNE 5, 1989
SUBJECT: ELECTION EQUIPMENT MAINTENANC8
Over the past several months, an informal group of City
Clerks from the seven -county metro area have been
negotiating with .representatives of Business Records
Corporation, Inc., the supplier of the City's election
equipment, a maintenance agreement for the maintenance of
the optical scanning equipment sold by Business Records.
These negotiations have resulted in a variety of different
maintenance agreement options being made available to ciLlbS
in the teven-county area depending upon their needs and the
number of elections they have on an annual or every two year
basis. The most reasonable of these proposals for the City
Of Mounds View, considering the fact that we have only two
regularly scheduled election every two, years, is an
agreement that calls for the servicing of each'of our four
tabulating machines prior to each election at the cost of
$79.00 per machine including parts and labor. The contract
also provides that should any equipment fail during an
election, a loaner machine would be provided to the City at
® no additional charge as well as Business Records providing
technical service and advice using a toll free number on the
day of elections. The only obligation to the City of Mounds
View is, in addition to paying the $79.00 per machine cost,
to conduct a diagnostic test on each machine every o months
using software provided by Business Records.
I have included this item in the 1990 Budget in anticipation
of your approval of having maintenance done on these pieces
of equipment prior to each election. Further, Business
Records is requesting conformation of each city's intention
to enter into these agreements by July 1 in order that they
might finalize all contracts before the first of 1990. In
consideration of that request, I am requesting Council
approval of my advising Business Records of our intention to
enter into a contract for the $79.00 per election
maintenance agreement on our four machines for 1990.
DFP/M.JS
Attachments:
11
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CLERK -ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: MAY 23, 1989
SUBJECT: COMPOSTING
As you may recall, you recently directed City Staff to
prepare an amendment to Chapter 104 of the Municipal Code
entitled, "Garbage and Rubbish" to allow for composting by
property owners in the City of Mounds View. Attached please
find a copy of Ordinance No. 468 which amends Chapter 104 by
adding a definition for compost and allowing composting
under certain conditions by property owners in the City.
Your review and direction on this matter would be
appreciated.
DFP/MJS
j
ORDINANCE No. 468
r
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MiNNESOTA
NDS
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TIT,MUICIP"GARBAGE L CODE FAND URUBBISH"
`r
By AMENDING CHAPTER 104 ENTI.LEDLED
The City Council of the City of Mounds View does
J
hereby ordain:
SECTION I. Chapter 104.01 is amended by adding the
following:
ant
(3) "Compost" as used herStrawein hand non-woodyall include plant
materials, such as grass, lea le 9,
materials stored on a Pelson 's property for the purpose of
recycling organic materials as a soil conditioner.
SECTION II. Chapter 104.09 entitled, "Composting",
is added as follows:
104.09 Com ostin Any �e-�cn, firm, or.
rovide for the handling of certain yard
corporation may p 01, (3) of this chapter by means of
wastes as defined by 1045hall be accomplished above ground
composting. Composting a fence or other structure which
in a controlled area using en and moisture. At
an
eoxyg
allows for the decomposition ofateerial through
aerobic process providing
no time shall composting create a health hazard or a
nuisance to adjoining properties.
. This ordinance
peffect
SECTION III
thirty days after the date of its
Read by the Council of the City of Mounds View on
this , 1989.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of
Mounds View this day of r
1989.
Mayor
ATTEST:
(SEAL) Clerk -Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
41 I'l,L /
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUN IL
FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRA
r
DATE: JUNE 2, 1989
SUBJECT: LIQUOR LICENSE FEE. PAYMENT
The City has recently experienced some problems with the
payment of liquor license by the owners and operators of
Loose Ends. Specifically, the problem has been that their
last two payment checks have been returned to the City for
non -sufficient funds and we have been forced in both cases
to demand that the operator make payment in the form of
cash. Although the payments were made on time, they did
require a significant investment of staff time to make
contact With thG apyliufl,iL slid cu,iLinUe tU follow up untli
the cash was received.
It was my thought that, unless the Council objected, any
future notices to liquor licensees for on -sale intoxicating
be reouired to make payment of their license fees in the
form of a certified check or money order 'Which would a6s3te"
us that the payment is complete upon its initial receipt and
we are not attempting to make good a bad check at a future
check. Your direction in this matter would be appreciated.
DFP/MJS
3
I
MEMO TO:
FROM:
DATE:
OBJECT:
FILE
CLERK -ADMINISTRATOR
JUNE 5, 1989
JULY 3, 1989 AGENDA SESSION
S
The first regularly. scheduled Agenda Session for July of this
Of July 3rd. Since this is the eve of the
year is on the evening ro riate to raise the
Fourth 0f Julys I felt it would be not P
you felt
to t would be not you wish to have a meeting
0o wish er cancel the meeting that evening,
question with y this matter
that evening and if Y your direction in
when do you wish to reschedule it7
would be appreciated.
Vim- iv
DFP/MJS
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CLERK -ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: JUNE 6, 1989
SUBJECT: LANDMARK FSTATES' DECKS
As some of you may recall, during the tail end of -the completion
of the Landmark Estates apartment complex project the City was in
conflict with the developer and owner, Mr. Chris Anderson,
regarding his use of untreated wood for the structural members of
the decks on his units. At that time, and to this date,
Minnesota Building Code has required that such structures be
constructed of redwood, cedar or pressure -treated wood.
Mr. Anderson agrued that since his wood had been treated with an
appropriate chemical contained in a stain, that the wood was safe
and replacement unnecessary even though the wood did not comply
with the Building Code. A settlement to this confiiul was
reached when the City entered into an agreement with Mr. Anderson
on October 9, 1985 which required that the developer rebuild all
deck structures with cedar, redwood or pressure -treated wood on
or before August 31., 1988 and post a $60,000 bond to ensure
compliance. Since Mr. Anderson did not fulfill his obligations
under the supplemental agreement, City Attorney Meyers filed
claim against the surety bond prior to its expiration.
The surety bond company has not seen fit to respond to our claim,
even after several attempts by Attorneys Meyers and Karney to
prompt a response from them. Christoper Companies has submitted
to the City two inspection reports from HDR Engineering, Inc.
indicating that the deck structures are sound and not in need of
reconstruction due to rot, decay or other circumstances. Also,
Building Inspector Tobias has performed an inspection of those
decks he was able to access and has indicated that the decks
appear to be in good condition and not in need of any replacement
at this time.
Christopher Companies has proposed that the October, 1985
supplemental agreement be superceded by a new agreement between
the City of Mounds View and Christopher Companies which would
call for Christopher Companies to perform annual inspections on
the decks and replace any decks on which defects are noted within
60 days of notification of the defects. The notification would
be as a result of their engineer's report and/or the City's
Building Inspector advising them of any defects noted in his
inspection. The agreement would further provide that should
Christopher Companies not replace the defective deck(s), the City
has authority to enter the property, replace the deck(s) and
assess said costs against the property.
Ci'cy Attorney Karney and I have discussed this matter in detail
and are recommending that the Council agree with the revised
k J agreement for the following reasons:
z me )_` the decks at this :.c:e shuw any defe..e
_.:� ._. .7 .... .. ... e�' '.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
PAGE TWO
JUNE 6, 1989
2. Ar. Tobias would state, should the matter go to
Court, that no decks appear to be defective at
this time.
3. The bonding company does not appear to be willing
to relinquish the bond amount without the filing
of appropriate legal action to force them to do so.
Besides the question of whether or not the Council wishes to
agree with our recommendation for a replacement agreement, a
further question exists regarding whether or not you wish to have
this replacement agreement also contain a surety bond
requirement. It is my feeling that since the agreement would
call for the City having authority to enter the property and
assess any work, a surety bond would not provide us with any
ddditional protection considering the unwillingness of most
surety bond companies to relinquish funds without a court battle.
Your direction in this matter would be appreciated.
DFp/MJS
A
C
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRAT
DATE: JUNE 9, 1989
SUBJECT: BOULEVARD GRASS MOWING
Staff has recently been inspecting several properties in the
City where grass has gone unmowed to identify owners and
seek cooperation in having the property mowed before the
City is forced to do it and assess the property. During
those -discussions Mike Ulrich raised the issued of the fact
that several owners of property whose rear yards front on
County Road I between Jackson and Quincy are not mowing the
County Road I boulevard area. Although the G.cy has
experienced in the past a few isolated incidents where
residents do not mow t:Leir boulevards, this is the first
time we have seen it occur in a concentrated area of such
high vis'bili.ty.
During our discussions staff..'dentified two q tions for
dealing with tt:s situation. The first is to Have City
crews mow the unmowed boulevards on a regular basis at no
expense to the property owners. The second option is to
have the City or a private contractor mow the unmowed
boulevards on a regular basis nd
l or assess
property a
owners for not mowing their
rboulevards. the
Staff is currently bringing this issue to the Council for
direction as no policy currently exists with respect to the
mowing of boulevards by the City at no expense to the
property owner or assessing said costs to the property.
Your direction in this matter would be appreciated.
FP/MJS
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNC'.t.MEMBERS i lip �3
FROM: MARY SAARION, DIRECTOR
PARS, RECREATION AND FORESTRY
DATE: MAY 31, 1989
SUBJECT: OAKWOOD PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN
The Parks and Recreation Cotrdnission has been working on ideas for an Oakwood
Park improvement plan. Ideas for this plan originated from residents who were
invited to a meeting for their input on needs at Oakwood Park. A survey was sent to
surrounding residents requesting ideas for Oakwood Park improvements.
The Commission has spent the last two meetings discussing prices, site Plans and
needs for park improvements at Oakwood. Here is a list, approximate cost and total
cost of a plan for Oakwood Park. This plan will be open for review by residents who
will be invited to the June 22, Park and Recreation Commission meeting.
The Parks and Recreation Commission proposes to fund these Oakwood Park
improvements with a portion of the $50,000 Park Dedication Fees received in 1989
from Sysco, Corp.
IMPROVEMENTS
APPROXIMATE COST
Site preparation
$8,000.00
Play equipment
11,000.00
Bleachers (3 tier)
334.00
Backstop
2,000.00
Two (2) players benches
500.00
Ag-lime infield
2,000.00
Sand volleyball court
1,500.0o
Water fountain
1,000.00
Path re -alignment
1,000.00
Two (2) picnic tables
700.00
One (1) picnic grit
180.00
Four (4) h:.seshoe counts
500.00
$28,714.00
The site grading plans will be at the meeting for review. The proposed plan offers
adequate drainage using a crowning affect on the infield. SEH provided an alternate
plan which offered much better drainage at twice the cost.
The Commission reviewed the zmc SEH plans and offered revision ideas for the first
less expens+ve plan to offer some additional drainage with minimal cost increase. This
revised plan is the one recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission.
r
MS/SL
E.
i
yau7N Soccrr Field
pr ate' saR7�Ru ��
TT ag5Ee to F/ELA
7
u
r
PLAY tQViNdy
@uAIA'
V8 n
S17F C4Afef-tt)r
Pit)gN (PRCUMINAkr)
ITEM 17
KWRUDUM
Morro To :Mayor and City Council Members
From :Ric Minetor, City Engineer -/-
Date :June 15, 1989 & -'-
Subject :Partial Payment Request 12 - Automatic Systems Co.
Project 168-11
Automatic Systems has requested a partial payment for the work
contracted in 1988 under project 88-11. They are requesting
Payment for the delivery of the remote terminal units to be used
in the water monitoring system. This is to be charged against
1988 funds and account number 700-4122-123.
I recommend payment of this request in the amount requested,
$50,244.00.
INVOICE
AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS CO,
P.O. BOx'07
AMES, IOWA 50010
PHONE (515) 232.4770
PLEASESENUREMIrTANCETO:
Autematic Systems Co.
P.O. Box M90
St Louis Park, MN ZA26
r
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
SOLO 2401 Highway 10
TO Mounds View, MN 55112
La
r
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
smp CITY SHOP
To 2524 Bronson Drive
Mounds View, Minnesota 55112
L
ATTN: Mr. Mike Ulrich
ASO 902011qContract SEE BELOW — "9'sO0'i �«M�
_ Motor Frt 6/2/89 X Bruce Wirth
QUANTITY DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
Four(4) Class 9501 Microcat Well Site RTU's, Oper_
Chassis 120VAC, Units C1 - C4
Two(2) Class 9501 Microcat Well Site RTU'3, NEMA I,
120 VAC, Units D1 6 D2
One(1) Class 9501 Microcat Elevated Tank RTU, NEMA IV
120 VAC Writ E)
One(1) Class 9501 Microcat Reservoir/Booster Station
RTU, Upen Chassis, 120 VAC (Unit F)
All of above as manufactured by AUTOCON Indus-
tries Inc., St. Paul, Minn- ------------------- 30,244.00 ,24$30,244.00
SUBTOTAL--------------------------------------- $30,244.00
Minnesota 6% Sales Tax------------------------- 4.00
No Shipping or delivery charges applicable.
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE ----------------------- I I$32,058.64
unlGd whMurendemm" nere Wan 1-00end apOmvdm wnunq pyln'$office W time dlmdn, payment isduem tud And
prysdls 70 drys Irdm the dab 01 i... im, "J" 1te11 up lsmG s rpmrsd pnOrlo 1M uprylgn OIIM 70dsyt, N rhtll GNprymMlq OVern NIIOrmltOsilliup YOVrpryr,m IOUs wd; OG GGoonoell leP .dMtupdnr"Pt01 pfr"t
dY YdV Irdm MY d1hirP=y. My 1412nGnrnunrn4 due]I drys beyondIon'IwoB first* r11100sudpq IO s LdpM unl monthly SM-09 IN Will 9&d.
ORIGINAL
r..
ITEM 18
MEMO Tog Mayor and City Council
FROM. City Planner Hren
PATE: June 14, 1969
SUBJECT: HOUSE NUMBER CHANGE
lease d Ordinance No. 469 amending Chapter 47.05 of
Attached p fin
Code, " and Building Number
the MunicipalSpecific House
Changes • was subdivided in
subject property, 8249 Spring Lake Road, County•
The subj recorded with Ramsey
1983 and the division was r- Ardan Avenue and Spring
is located on the corner of and Ave
a result of
The property the property
La a Road, There he a home °n resent address of 8249 Spring Lake
the subdivision, the lot the home is located on now fronts °
an Ardan Avenue address (2908 Ardan
Ardan Avenue. Therefore, Lake
Road must be changed to °n Ardan Avenue and Spring
Avenue)- The new lot created Lake Road'
Road will become 8249 Spring
estions, please let me know.
If you have any qu
/bac
ORDINANCE No. 469
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF
MOUNDS VIEW BY AMENDING CHAPTER 47, ENTITLED,
"HOUSE AND BUILDING NUMBERS"
The Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby
ordain:
SECTION I. Chapter 47.05, "Specific House and Building
Number Changes" is hereby amended by adding the following:
PREVIOUS NUMBER. NUMBER CHANGE TO
8249 Spring Lake Road 2908 Arden Avenue
n
(Legal: Auditor's Subdivision No. 89, except west
105 feet of following; west 248.2 feet of south 131
feet of north 234 feet of Lot 34; PIN 06-30-23-24-0054) `.
None (new lot created 8249 Spring Lake Road
from subdivision of
8249 Spring Lake Road)
( south 131ufeetr's Sudiision No. of northv234 feet of9Lotest 105 feet of
34;
PIN 06-30-23-23-0040)
SECTION II. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days
after the date cif its publication.
Read by the Council of the City of Mounds View on this
26th day of June, 1989.
Passed by the Council of the City of Mounds View this
day of 1989.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Mayor
Clerk -Administrator
M
11111 h / !;-
INN Insurance Agency Mouou Highway 110
11111 ndss View. MN 55432 612/780-5600
June 15, 1989
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
AITIRWICH: Don Pauley
Clark Administrator
Dear Don:
I would like to be put on the agenda for the City
Meeting taking place on June 19, at 7:00 P.M.
�- I would like to discuss the rezoning of Lot 2740,
Highway #10 in Mounds View, and also the new ordinance
1466.
,jere
�a J. ea
Y
OWJser
S