My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes - 1999/09/13
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
Minutes - 1999/09/13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2025 1:24:50 PM
Creation date
8/1/2007 11:32:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Minutes
MEETINGDATE
9/13/1999
Description
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council September 13, 1999 <br />Regular Meeting Page 20 <br />MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Marty. To Approve the First Reading of Ordinance No. 639, <br />an Ordinance Amending Section 1109.04 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Pertaining to <br />Conditional Uses Within the R-4, High Density Residential Zoning District; Mounds View <br />Planning Case 559-99. <br />Aye - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. <br />Council Member Stigney stated he understood the parking requirement to be one stall per <br />employee on the busiest shift. He inquired regarding the implications of the word "employee." <br />He explained that many employees are contract people coming in and out of the building. He <br />inquired if someone was contracted for a day, would they also require a parking stall to be <br />provided for them, or does this just pertain to full-time employees. <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated the intent was to consider a person an employee, if they were <br />going to be present eight hours a day, five days a week, on any given shift. He explained that it <br />would probably be a judgement call at the time this type of use came before the City with the <br />Conditional Use procedure, as to how they would clarify or quantify the number of employees. <br />He stated this was a valid point. He noted staff did not want to further complicate the issue by <br />indicating full-time equivalent, consultants, and the like, and given that this type of use would <br />have to come before the City Council, they felt this language would be adequate. He explained <br />that they could respond to each proposal coming forward, knowing that the number of stalls <br />would be for the number of people present on one shift, be that consultants or employees. He <br />added that he did not think the Code intends to provide a stall for someone who is there, for <br />• example, two hours each week, but certainly for someone who will be present on a full-time <br />basis. <br />Council Member Stigney noted that it was presented that a large portion of the facilities' staffing <br />would be handled on a contract basis, however, he thought this language provided would <br />probably be sufficient for the overall purpose intended. <br />E. Consideration of Resolution 5370, a Resolution Regarding Changing <br />Rooms/Showers at the Community Center. <br />Teri Blattenbauer, YMCA Program Executive, provided the Council with information requested <br />at the August 23, City Council Meeting, in regard to the additional projected revenue from the <br />additional amenity to the Community Center. She stated that very conservatively, through <br />additional in-house and MSS sponsored tournaments at different times throughout the day, they <br />projected $5,600 for the first year. She reiterated this was a conservative estimate. <br />Ms. Blattenbauer stated the additional projected expense, which would include the cleaning and <br />maintenance supplies, water, etc, would be approximately $7,500 for the first year. She noted <br />they anticipate that in subsequent years they could increase the revenue to almost double the <br />estimate, approximately $10,000. <br />Ms. Blattenbauer stated staff had contacted two architectural firms, to determine the architectural <br />fees, which were not included in the original cost estimate, and the original fee would be <br />approximately $12,000. She stated of the two contacts she had made, one was $4,000 less than <br />the other. She stated it would be her recommendation to hire the architectural engineers who had <br />bid in at the lower end. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.