My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-01-2016 Parks & Rec Packet
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
12-01-2016 Parks & Rec Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2022 5:10:23 PM
Creation date
2/9/2022 5:08:17 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />employees, expected volume and turnover of customer traffic, and expected frequency <br />and number of delivery or service vehicles. For structures containing multiple uses, <br />parking shall be calculated separately for each use <br /> <br />Shoreview - The City requires off-street parking facilities to meet the parking needs of <br />residents and businesses since City streets are designed to accommodate traffic <br />movement. Parking regulations are intended to balance the need for off-street parking <br />with regulations that address the aesthetic and environmental impacts of the resulting <br />areas of impervious surface. Property owners and developers are encouraged to <br />identify realistic parking needs for their property, install parking areas to meet <br />anticipated demand, and show proof of parking to comply with City minimum parking <br />requirements. For parks, it is done on a case by case basis. <br /> <br />Based on the code provisions of these cities and the fact that normal usage of the park <br />does not create parking problems, it would seem logical that we should revisit our code <br />relative to required parking for park facilities (and perhaps all offstreet parking <br />requirements) to see if a change is warranted. If a code change is merited, we would <br />avoid a parking lot expansion project and its estimated $80,000 expenditure from the <br />General Capital Improvement Fund. The Commission and the Council should comment <br />on this possibility. If the code should be evaluated, then it should be forwarded to the <br />Planning Commission for their review. <br /> <br />• Capital Improvement Budget Update – Staff has met and attempted to modify the <br />General Capital Improvement Fund (#400) and the Park Land Acquisition Fund (#456) <br />based on the direction received at the workshop meeting. We moved $244,775 in costs <br />for park improvements from the 400 Fund to the 456 Fund. (Note: this was less than the <br />$300,000 discussed primarily because we have funded the top nine (9) items off the <br />Commission’s list and the next items on the list are either higher expenditure items or <br />could/should be funded from another area.) The Commission’s listing is attached to this <br />memo and you will notice we also reordered a couple of items to keep similar items <br />(signage) together from an economy of scale standpoint. <br /> <br />Coupled with the acquisition needs previously identified and discussed, we have <br />somewhat balanced costs on a year to year basis. Keep in mind that this is not a perfect <br />balancing act due to the wide disparity in costs between various projects. It is also <br />important to remember that the acquisition costs are “place-holders” as we can’t predict <br />when they will actually take place. <br /> <br />Your comments on this iteration are welcomed. <br /> <br />• Transition Planning – Jim Morelan has hit the maximum allowable hours under the <br />Phased Retirement Option agreement offered through the Public Employees Retirement <br />Association (PERA). That limit is 1,044 hours and ran through the end of February. <br />After 30 days separation, Jim could return and work for us on any basis we can agree <br />upon. However, he has indicated he would prefer not to do that. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.