Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1997/02/24 • The City Council is provided background information for agenda items in advance by staff and appointed commissions, committees and boards. Decisions are based on this information,as well as City policy and practices, • input from constituents and a Councilmember's personal judgement. Ifyou have comments, questions or information regarding an item on the agenda,please step forward to be recognized by the Mayor during the "Residents Requests and Comments From the Floor"item on the agenda. Please state your name and address for the record All comments are appreciated A copy of all printed materials relating to the agenda item is available for public inspection at the Recording Secretary's Table. 1. CALL TO ORDER, 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL McCarty Stigney Koopmeiners Trude Quick 4. Agenda Additions Item 1: Item 2: Item 3: 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 10, 1997 - City Council Meeting COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: AGENDA • FEBRUARY 24, 1997 PAGE 2 6. ACCEPTANCE OF ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES: Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes:November 7, 1996. Cable TV Committee Meeting Minutes: January 8, 1997. COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: 7. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: • 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Adopt Resolution No. 5089 Approving Just and Correct Claims Against City Funds. B. LICENSES FOR APPROVAL: . ROOFING-Expires June 30. 1997 Berwald Roofing Co. -New COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: 9. RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR Citizens'comments are encouraged to allow individual citizens to address the Council, as a whole, on a matter of interest or concern to the citizens. The preservation of the Citizens'Comments item on the agenda is important in order to encourage and maintain this information flow. To preserve and protect this valuable communications link a speaker is limited to three(3)minutes. CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 1(1 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing and Introduction for first reading of Ordinance No. 596 Amending Section 1106.02, Subd. 2 and 3 of the Mounds View Zoning Code to Allow Eight Children in Family Foster Homes; Planning Case No. SP-014-97, Staff Report No.97-1974C Staff Presenter:Pam Sheldon I AGENDA FEBRUARY 24, 1997 PAGE 3 COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: 7:10 p.m. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Linder's Greenhouse at Mounds View Shopping Center, 2535-2585 Highway 10; Planning Case No. 470-96, Staff Report No. 97-1975C Staff Presenter: Jim Ericson COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: • 7:15 p.m. Public Hearing of Old Highway 8 Reconstruction Project (Consider Resolution No. 5091 Old Highway 8 Reconstruction Project) Staff Report No. 97-1976C Staff Presenter:Mike Ullrich COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: 41111 7:20 p.m. Public Hearing and Introduction for first reading of Ordinance No. 594, An Ordinance amending Chapter 606, 607 and 1005 of the Mounds View Municipal Code related to the requirement to mow tall grasses and creating an exemption for wetland and native vegetation;Planning Case No. SP- 012-97, Staff Report No. 97-1977C Staff Presenter:Jim Ericson COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: 7:25 p.m. Public Hearing and Introduction for first reading of Ordinance No. 595, An Ordinance adding day care centers and group nurseries as a conditional use in the B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, and I-1 zoning districts;Planning Case No. SP- 013-97, Staff Report No. 97-1978C StaffPresenter:Pam Sheldon COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: 11 . COUNCIL BUSINESS: A. Status Report on Pedestrian Bridge over Highway 10, Staff Report No. 97-1979C Staff Presenter:Pam Sheldon AGENDA FEBRUARY 24, 1997 PAGE 4 COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: B. Status of TIF Plan for Bel Rae, Staff Report No. 97-1980C Staff Presenter:Bruce Kessel COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: 12. REPORTS: 1. Report of Councilmembers: Trude: Koopmeiners: Stigney: 4111/ Quick: 2. Report of Mayor McCarty: 3. Report of Clerk Administrator: 4. Report of Staff 5. Report of Attorney: NEXT COUNCIL WORKSESSION: MARCH 3, 1997 6:00 PM NEXT COUNCIL MEETING: MARCH 10, 1997 7:00 PM ADJOURNMENT: Item No. //A Staff Report No. q7- /979e. Meeting Date: February 24, 1997 • Type of Business: Council Business WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Status Report on Pedestrian Bridge Date of Report: February 22, 1997 Issue: At the City Council meeting on February 10, 1997, staff provided a status report on the pedestrian bridge proposed to cross Highway 10 at the Long Lake Road intersection. A number of issues were raised with respect to this project, which are noted in the discussion section of this report, and the discussion was continued to this meeting on February 24. It is our understanding that City Council intends to reach a conclusion at the February 24 meeting on how to proceed with this project. Discussion: The issues mentioned at the February 10 meeting are noted below. In addition,Mayor McCarty • has provided a memorandum to the City Council and the Clerk Administrator with a series of questions (see Attachment 1). The issues raised by these questions are included in the list below as well. The questions have been grouped by topic. Public Notice and Participation • What was extent of written record for and scope of meetings held on the pedestrian bridge, in particular before Resolution 4843 passed which established sources of funding for local share? • Were there any other special purpose committees in addition to Trailways Advocacy Group involved in project? • Were there any"pre-decision"pedestrian bridge meetings noticed as broad based public hearings, in keeping with the spirit and intent of Section 8.04 Subd. 2 of the City Charter? Written Record and Scope of Meetings: Staff has assembled a chronology of the events associated with the pedestrian bridge, beginning with the adoption of Resolution No. 4227 establishing a Comprehensive Trailways System Policy on May 11, 1992 and continuing to now. Most of the events occur in 1994-1996. This chronology is listed in Appendix A. Every effort was made to make sure it was complete, but we did have time constraints in doing the research. The chronology lists worksession and meetings, with the topics discussed, resolutions and motions passed, and news articles which appeared in the local and metropolitan newspapers. Appendix E includes copies of all the staff reports, resolutions and minutes from the meetings referred to in the chronology. No minutes are kept for worksessions. We were not able to do an 1110 extensive analysis of what this list represents in terms of public notice and participation. We assume that all regular meetings of the City Council were noticed in accordance with the Open • City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge February 22, 1997 Page 2 Meeting Law, and that they were televised. Agendas were prepared for both regular meetings and worksessions. We do not know if a specific newspaper advertisement was done for any of the meetings. In March, 1994 when the grant application was submitted, the City received nine letters endorsing supporting the project. Supporters included the Park&Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, Wildwood Manor, Scotland Green, Edgewood Middle School, Minnesota State Patrol, Mounds View Police Chief, Dick Wedell (Ramsey County Commissioner), and the Ramsey County Public Works Department. Between March 14, 1994, when expenditures were authorized for preparing the grant request, and November 13, 1995, when a decision was made on how to fund the local share, there were: • five regular City Council meetings and two worksessions where the pedestrian bridge or related matters were on the agenda • seven news articles in either the New Brighton Bulletin, the Focus or St. Paul Pioneer Press • thirteen letters received, signed by 46 people, favorable to the pedestrian bridge. Of these, 23 were seniors at Wildwood Manor, 10 were other citizens, six were Parks&Recreation commissioners, five were Planning Commissioners, and there was one letter each from Edgewood Middle School and Mounds View Square Shopping Center. •411 letter received in opposition to the bridge and one letter requesting more information • five citizens who spoke opposed to the bridge, one person in favor, and one person offering information at the City Council meeting on 10/23/95 when the pedestrian bridge was discussed as part of budget discussions Between November 13, 1995 and now, there were: • eight regular City Council meetings and three worksession were the pedestrian bridge or related matters were on the agenda • five news articles and a letter to the editor • twenty three letters received, signed by 29 people, favorable to the pedestrian bridge. Of these, 2 were citizens, 5 were Planning Commissioners, 3 were Economic Development Commissioners, 18 were students at Pinewood Elementary, and one was from the Ramsey County Library • two people who spoke in favor of the bridge, one who spoke against, one who wanted information on costs, and one who was opposed to the process being used to decide funding at the City Council meeting on 11/27/95 when the pedestrian bridge was discussed under citizen comments • We hope to have the count of how many citizens spoke for and against the bridge at the recent meeting on 2/10/97 for your meeting on 2/24/97. • two phone calls have been received in Community Development from citizens favorable to the bridge, and one unfavorable, since this issue has been on the agenda in 2/97. City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge February 22, 1997 Page 3 Copies of the letters in our files have been included in Appendix F; copies of the news articles are in Appendix G. The grant application included a number of letters of endorsement. A copy of the application has been provided to Council members as part of this packet (see Appendix D). The question of whether Section 8.04 Subd. 2 of the City Charter applies to the pedestrian bridge was raised at the February 10 meeting, and we have discussed this issue with the City Attorney. He has indicated that it would not apply since no portion of this project is being assessed. Projected Costs/Funding • Is the current estimate of the cost for the pedestrian bridge considered a cost overrun in keeping with the spirit and intent of Section 8.04 Subd. 3 of the City Charter? • Is there an argument that TIF funds could be used for utility modifications and undergrounding and traffic signal modifications,with or without bridge? • Is the allocation of money for the bridge from the Street Lighting Fund consistent with Section 904 of Municipal Code? • Is the allocation of money for the bridge from the Franchise Fee consistent with Section 1402 of Municipal Code? • What were costs of preliminary engineering to determine pedestrian bridge effectiveness? • Were any alternatives to pedestrian bridge considered? • Are there alternative funding sources available to pay the local share from those chosen in Resolution 4843? Section 8.04 Subd. 3:In talking with the City Attorney about this issue,he indicated that Section 8.04 Subd. 3 would not apply to this project because no part of it is being assessed under the procedure outlined in the City Charter. Use of TIF' utility modifications, undergrounding and signal modifications: TIF funds can be used for these types of improvements,and making such improvements in the Highway 10 corridor would be consistent with the priorities which have been established by City Council for use of TIF funds i.e. spending money on redevelopment of Highway 10. These utility and signal modifications will not be needed, however, if the pedestrian bridge is not built. We did obtain information from MnDOT on February 21 that the utility companies will be required to pay the cost of utility modifications and undergrounding under the permit they have to be in MnDOT right-of-way. The cost of signal modifications are expected to be much less and may be paid in part from grant funds(see discussion under cost issues.) We are now estimating the projected cost at$30,000 to$35,000 less with this new information. Street Lighting Fund: Section 904.01 states that the purpose of the street lighting fund is"to operate,maintain and improve upon the street lighting system throughout the City. It is the Council's intent to encourage this program throughout the City to promote the general health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Mounds View." From this, staff concludes it is possible to use money from this fund for lighting associated with bridge since it is located in Mounds View and it would promote health, safety and welfare for citizens using the bridge or walking or riding City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge February 24, 1997 III Page 4 bicycles in the vicinity. Whether the City Council chooses to do so, as opposed to placing lighting elsewhere with the same funds, is a policy decision. Franchise Fee: Section 1402.01 Subd. 12 explains how the franchise fee will be levied, but does not state a specific or limited purpose for the revenue generated. It is staff's understanding that the franchise fee was established to provide a source of revenue for City expenses other than property tax. We would conclude that the funds generated by the Franchise Fee may be used for a capital project such as the pedestrian bridge, but it would be a policy decision to allocate the funds to this project as opposed to another project. Costs ofpreliminary engineering: On March 14, 1994,the City Council authorized $1,900 to be used to prepare a very preliminary, initial design for the bridge to be used as part of the grant submittal. Alternatives to bridge: On March 23, 1994, SEH who serves as the City Engineer provided an analysis of using a tunnel versus the pedestrian bridge to cross Highway 10(see memo included with staff report dated 3/24/94 in Appendix E). They strongly recommended that a bridge be used rather than a tunnel, from both a cost and a lighting, security and drainage standpoint. It is our understanding that tunnels are viewed as presenting more safety problems to users than bridges because the users are not visible to passersby. We did not find information on whether modifying le signal timing has been explored, but common wisdom would suggest it is difficult to gain precedence for pedestrians against a four-lane highway,whether it is part of the State highway system or not. The sheer width of the highway works against signal timing which would allow pedestrians to cross in one signal cycle unless they are fleet of foot. Alternative funding sources: The short answer to this question is yes. A listing of the funding sources available is detailed in Appendix B. In summary, funds available from sources other than those already used in budgeting for the bridge would be as follows: MSA(State Highway Funds) as of 1997,balance in fund is $631,804(1) Tax Increment Financing as of 1997,balance in Highway 10 fund is $680,775 Interest Earnings $9,900 (2) (1) It should be noted that the MSA Account is usually used for street reconstruction projects, and there are projects which are in the pipeline which may be affected by adding the pedestrian bridge to the list. Please see Appendix B for more discussion on this point.) The funds from this source could be used for bridge construction,design and inspection. They probably cannot be used for the drainage pond improvements,landscaping or lighting. (2) The 680 Account established to pay the local share for the pedestrian bridge,after transfers were made following Resolution 4843,has earned about$9,900 in interest. Additional Information of Project Budget: As is noted earlier, since the City Council meeting on • February 10, we have met with MnDOT to discuss whether any of the project costs could be reduced. We also learned that the cost of utility modifications and undergrounding will be paid City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge February 24, 1997 Page 5 by the utility companies as is required by the permit they have to be in MnDOT right-of-way. The cost of signal modifications are expected to be much less and may be paid in part from grant funds. We are now estimating the projected cost at$30,000 to $35,000 less with this new information as follows: Amount/Responsible Agency Costs C Others Bridge Construction $120,000 $480,000 Design&Inspection $65,000 Easements $ 10,000(1) Landscaping $ ? Design work on drainage pond alternatives $ 7,600 Improvements to drainage pond $ 33,900 Utility modifications,undergrounding $ 30,000 Traffic signal modifications $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Contingency $ 5,000 $246,500 $515,000 (1) This is an estimate of what the fmal amount might be. Expenditures to date have been$5827.50. The primary reason for the project budget being greater than the $190,000 anticipated has been the drainage pond; $51,500 of the additional $56,500 is attributable to dealing with this item. Without that expense, the City is within$5,000 of the original obligation of$190,000 and $5,000 of that budget was contingency. The landscaping costs could be covered by directing, to this project, a portion of the money spent on landscaping throughout the city each year. We also learned from MnDOT that if there are unanticipated additional expenses which occur in the field which occur during construction,they will be covered by the grant and the local share at the same split as is in the contract award. So if the bridge bids come in below or at$600,000,then the split on any additions will be 80% federal and 20% local. The City does not have total exposure for these additional costs. Impact of Bridge • What will be the effect of"funneling" children into the shopping centers along Highway 10 north of Long Lake Road? • Will the bridge present a false sense of security and safety for people using it? • Was a professional engineer's opinion obtained as to the advisability of placing a pedestrian bridge over an uncontrolled highway? • What do we know about the demographics of the community, and how they relate to expected usage of the bridge? • Will maintenance costs go up with the addition of the bridge? • What has been the history of vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian accidents on Highway 10 Funneling children: Staff feels that bridge would not funnel children to the shopping centers any more or less than the road and sidewalk systems do from the residential neighborhoods surrounding these shopping centers. If children are now going to the shopping centers on their • • City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge February 24, 1997 0 Page 6 respective sides of the highway, and the bridge will make it more likely that they will also go to the shopping center on the opposite side of the highway, the result may be the same number but different children. Mounds View Square Shopping Center has written a letter supporting the bridge. They have not indicated that they see the bridge as a problem in terms of bringing more children to the shopping center. False sense of security: Staff feels that if people choose to use the bridge rather than cross at grade, more safety will be provided rather than a false sense of safety. Whether people crossing the bridge will be safe from other people using the bridge has more to do with the Mounds View community than the bridge itself. Advisability of Placing Bridge over Uncontrolled Highway: We have not had an opportunity to consult with the City Engineer, but will attempt to do that before Monday. We do have letters from both the Mounds View Police Chief and the Minnesota State Patrol supporting the bridge. According to the State Patrol, "there is no doubt that a walkway would be a life saving investment." Staff is of the opinion that any time you can separate pedestrians and bicyclists from vehicles, you increase safety. A bridge may be more effective, in terms of getting people to use it, when it is across a controlled highway than an uncontrolled highway. But when you compare having a bridge versus not having a bridge, regardless of the type of highway, you gain greater safety for pedestrians and bicyclists when they use the bridge. 11111 Demographicse: We were unable to locate Census information in the time gj'aP of Communi t1'/Usa g available. Based on staff observation, there are a sizeable number children and seniors living in Mounds View. It is both of these population groups which would have most need of a pedestrian bridge. Both of the senior citizen housing developments are on the south side of Highway 10. Neighborhood shopping is on the north side. Staff has asked Greg Felt and Robb Urquhart, both engineers at MnDOT, what MnDOT's experience has been with the success of pedestrian bridges. They indicated the community into which the bridge is placed and the width of the highway are indicators of whether or not the bridge will be used. There is no generic answer. Bridges over highways which are wide and require pedestrians and bicyclists to wait at long signals are more likely to be used. Bridges where there is strong community commitment to using them, get used. City Council will have to assess the strength of Mounds View's residents' desire to have and use a pedestrian bridge. Maintenance: Public Works Director Mike Ulrich prepared a memorandum in August, 1995 stating that the bridge itself would only require minimal maintenance. Maintenance activities would include clearing of snow and using chemicals for deicing. The department did not expect maintenance of this structure to add a burden to existing maintenance activities performed by current staff. This same viewpoint was noted in the City Council worksession on February 3, 1997. A copy of the memorandum is with the staff report for the 9/5/95 worksession in Attachment 2. • Accidents: Police Chief Tim Ramacher has provided a memorandum on the accident history for Highway 10 between 1/1/91 and 12/31/96, or 6 years (see Attachment 3). It shows a total of 195 accidents of which three involved pedestrians and five involved bicycles. City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge February 24, 1997 Page 7 111 In talking with Greg Felt and Robb Urquhart at MnDOT, they indicated that the federal and state highway agencies use as a gauge, in doing cost/benefit analysis, that an individual life is worth$1 million. So, according to this method, if the pedestrian bridge saves at least 1-2 lives in the entire time it is in place, it will have been a worthwhile investment. Conclusion The City has received a$480,000 grant for construction of the pedestrian bridge. The total cost of the project is estimated to be$761,500 of which $5,000 is contingency and $41,500 is the drainage pond. The City is responsible for$246,500 of these costs. Funds to cover these costs have been budgeted as follows: Construction $120,000 Franchise Fee/General Fund Design&Inspections $ 65,000 Special Projects/Street Light Contingency $ 5,000 Fund/Recreation Activity Fund Easements $ 10,000 Amount not budgeted;being paid from 680 account Design work on drainage pond alternatives $ 7,600 Surface Water Fund Improvements to drainage pond $33,900 Traffic signal modifications $ 5,000 Not budgeted It appears there are three options at this point: • Proceed with the pedestrian bridge under the current approach for funding and identify the source of funding for the easements and the traffic signal modifications. • Proceed with the pedestrian bridge using different sources of funding or a combination of current sources and alternative sources. The approximate amount of funding needed is $246,500. Alternative sources of funding are discussed in this report and in Appendix B. • Halt the project. Costs which have been incurred to date include approximately$58,337 plus the initial $1,900 spent on the original bridge design for the grant application, and staff and committee members' time. Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director N:\DATA\USERSTAMS\SHARE\SPECPROASP009.96\2-2497.SR • MEMO ciA, 0: City Council, Clerk Administrator rom: Duane McCarty, Mayorailda4/dd ..\4114.4d illit' Subject: Pedestrian Bridge Process Date: February 10, 1997 Concerns, regarding the pedestrian bridge project at Long Lake Road and Highway 10, have been identified by Staff via a memorandum (report) dated February 6, 1997. This report is helpful in identifying key issues regarding process and cost of the project. I am submitting the following thoughts on the bridge for discussion purposes. Public Notice and Participation. 1. Please provide me with written records of pedestrian bridge hearings, including recorded public testimony, held prior to the adoption of Resolution 4843. 2. Describe the "scope" of meetings on this project before the Council decision to build was made. 3. Were there any other meetings held by special purpose committees in addition to the Trailways Advocacy Group (established under Resolution No. 4227) under open meeting notices posted at city hall? 4. Were any of the "pre-decision" pedestrian bridge meetings noticed as broad based public hearings, in keeping with the spirit and intent of Charter Section 8.04 Subd. 2, including substantial notification in .41ublications such as the official newspaper or city newsletter? jected Costs. 1: On page 3 of the report, ..."total costs are now approximately$750,000 based on the information known at this time." This amount represents an increase of 25% over the ori al$600,000 estimate for the Is this considered a reasonable cost over-run,in keeping with the spirit d intent of Charter Section 8 04ct. Subd. 3? 2. Support an argument that recently discovered additional costs, for utility modifications and undergrounding and traffic signal modifications, would benefit the Highway 10 corridor as well as the bridge: Can it be established that such improvements are in demand for the corridor without the pedestrian. bridge project? (But For Test to use TIF funds) 3. $25,000 was transferred from the Street Light Fund to the pedestrian bridge project. Is this transfer in accordance with the intent of Municipal Code Section 904 and the reasons given to adopt a street light fund with related charges assessed to resident's utility bills? 4. $82,642.000 was transferred from the Franchise Fee Fund to the pedestrian bridge project. Is this transfer in accordance with the intent of Municipal Code Sections 1402 and the reasons given to adopt a Franchise Fee Fund with related charges assessed to resident's NSP bills? 5. The report lists construction cost estimates only. What were the costs for preliminary engineering studies to determine pedestrian bridge effectiveness on open access highways, needs assessments, demographics etc. 4,0 escribe any alternatives to a pedestrian bridge that were considered eg intersection traffic control ovements. ATTACIIENT 1 • i• MEMORANDUM . MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public WorksA4' DATE: August 31, 1995 U SUBJECT: Pedestrian Bridge Park and Recreation Commissioner Dave Long spoke with me yesterday about any maintenance concerns I might have regarding the Pedestrian Bridge that is proposed for TH 10 . I explained that maintenance of the bridge is a concern and was addressed by the interview team with the consultants that replied to the RFP. During each interview questions were asked about snow rem Oral, graffiti, and painting. Each consultant responded that the bridge • would be designed to-require minimal maintenance . Concrete could-be colored to eliminate painting. Snow removal equipment would have adequate access and clearance for operation. - If this bridge were constructed, 'additional labor would be required to completely clear snow from the edges of the bridge following a snow storm. This would occur after the bridge has been cleaned initially, and would prevent snow on the edges from melting and freezing on the bridge deck. If chemicals are necessary for deicing, and noncorrosive materials would be a relatively small additional expense . Staff does not' expect that the maintenance of this structure will add a burden to the existing maintenance activities performed by the current staff. If Council has any questions concez-ning maintenance of the proposed bridge, please feel free to call me. M ATTACHMENT 2 MEMO To: Pam Shelton From: Chief Ramacher Subject: Traffic Accident Information Date: February 18, 1997 Chuck requested"traffic accident information along Hwy. 10". This information was to be provided to City Council prior to the February 24th meeting. Since Chuck did not establish specifics, I used the following: All accidents between 1-1-91 and 12-31-96, and all accidents on Hwy. 10, between Co Rd. H2 and Silver Lake Rd. inclusive. The following is a synopsis of the above parameters: TOTAL ACCIDENTS 195 Property Damage 122 Personal Injury 71 Fatal 2 Pedestrian Accidents 3 * one of the pedestrians was killed---the accident occurred at 0130hrs. A man was walking w/b hwy. 10, near Silver Lk. Rd. * the two other pedestrians accidents did not involve serious injury, one occurred at Co. Rd. H2, the other at Silver Lk. Rd. Bicyclist Accidents 5 * all five accidents did not involve serious injury * one accident occurred at Co Rd. 112 * the other four occurred at Co Rd. I Please include this memo in the information packet to the City Council . Thank-you. ATTACHMENT 3 APPENDIX A 0 CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS RE: PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE Date Event 1992 5/11/92 Adoption of Resolution No. 4227 establishing a Comprehensive Trailways System Policy for the City of Mounds View(regular meeting) 1994 3/14/94 Motion passed to approve expenditure of$1,900 for engineering services from SEH for information regarding a pedestrian bridge across Highway 10 to be used in an ISTEA grant proposal, funded from the franchise fees for special projects, Fund#295 (regular meeting) 3/22/94 "Hwy 10 pedestrian bridge grant sought" (Focus) 3/23/94 Letter from SEH: Evaluation of tunnel versus bridge showed costs higher for tunnel; recommended pursuing bridge option; preliminary design for bridge using switchback ramps attached (transmitted to City Council for 3/28/94 meeting) 3/28/94 regular meeting II) • Adoption of Resolution No. 4530 approving the STP ISTEA Grant for a pedestrian bridge across Highway 10 • Adoption of Resolution No. 4531 approving the TEP ISTEA Grant for a pedestrian bridge across Highway 10 Both resolutions include a statement that the City of Mounds View is committed to 20% of the cost of the bridge and continued maintenance of the facility. 3/30/94 Grant application submitted to Transportation Advisory Board. A copy of the grant application is included in this packet. Letters of support included from: • Chief of Police Tim Ramacher • Parks&Recreation Commission • Planning Commission • Minnesota State Patrol Division • Regional Transit Board • Wildwood Manor • Edgewood Middle School • Ramsey County Public Works 7/7/94 Letter from Transportation Advisory Board stating pedestrian bridge had preliminary approval for funding for FY 1996 12/30/94 Letter from Transportation Advisory Board stating federal funds had now been obligated for pedestrian bridge for FY 1996 12/94 Pedestrian bridge listed in Long Term Financial Plan which was part of 1995 budget as 1996 project. N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\SPECPROJ\SP009.96\2-2497.APP • City of Mounds View Staff Report • Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge-Appendices February 21, 1997 Page 2 1995 5/1/95 Consideration of selecting BRW to provide pedestrian bridge services; opportunity to remove storm water pond in coordination with bridge project; appointment of citizen review committee to offer input on design of pedestrian bridge; reference made to using special projects funding for bridge (worksession) 7/10/95 Continued discussion of pedestrian bridge...Letters signed by 33 individuals endorsing the construction of the pedestrian bridge included in packet (regular meeting) 7/18/95 "Funding debate ties up bridge project" (Focus) 7/21/95 Received opinion stating pedestrian bridge is eligible for use of TIF funds from Attorney James O'Meara of Briggs and Morgan 7/24/95 Copy of legal opinion from O'Meara on use of TIF funds for pedestrian bridge provided to City Council 8/1/95 "Support proposed pedestrian bridge in MV" (letter to editor; Focus) 8/16/95 Letter from Planning Commission stating continued support for pedestrian bridge and urging City Council to approve matching funds 8/30/95 "Mounds View seeks money for bridge" (St. Paul Pioneer Press) 9/5/95 Continued discussion of pedestrian bridge over Highway 10; funding options using TIF, partial TIF, no TIF (worksession) 9/7/95 "Mounds View gets a deal on bridge, with one catch" (St. Paul Pioneer Press) 9/14/95 "Tax hike considered to fund bridge construction over Highway 10" (Focus) 9/26/95 "Fate of tax hike rides on bridge support" (Focus) 10/23/95 Discussion of 1996 budget; extensive section on pedestrian bridge (regular meeting) 11/13/95 regular meeting • Resolution No.4843 adopted amending the 1995 general fund budget to pay for the City's portion of the construction of the pedestrian bridge over Highway 10. • Resolution No.4842 adopted awarding the contract to BRW,Inc for the engineering,design and inspection services related to the construction of the pedestrian bridge over Highway 10 • Resolution No.4844 adopted which directed staff to coordinate in conjunction with the pedestrian bridge project the removal of the storm water detention pond at the northwest corner of Highway 10 and Long Lake Road 11/16/95 "Bridging the city;Highway 10 pedestrian walkway funds approved" (Focus) 11/21/95 Contract between BRW and Mounds View for professional engineering services for pedestrian bridge in amount of$62,680 11/22/95 "Highway 10 pedestrian bridge gets go-ahead" (New Brighton Bulletin) 11/27/95 Citizen Comments re: pedestrian bridge; City Council requested legal opinion on whether 4/5 vote needed to for use of interest from special projects fund (regular 11111 meeting) • 0 City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge- Appendices February 21, 1997 Page 3 11/30/95 "Thanks for Hwy 10 bridge vote" (Letter to editor; Focus) 12/6/95 "Former mayor questions pedestrian bridge decision" (New Brighton Bulletin) 1996 1/22/96 Adoption of Resolution No. 4889 appointing a citizen task force to select a design for the Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge (regular meeting) 2/6/96 Meeting of Pedestrian Bridge Citizen Task Force; spiral ramp design selected pending discussions with landowners about easements 3/4/96 Consideration of engineering proposal for abandonment of surface water pond (TH 10 and Long Lake Road) (worksession); diagram showing spiral ramps included in packet. 3/25/96 Consideration of surface water pond abandonment at Long Lake Road& TH10; two bids presented for preliminary engineering work (regular meeting; staff requested it be tabled to April 1 worksession) 4/1/96 Staff report sent to worksession; outcome unknown since no minutes kept of 11111 worksession discussions. (worksession) 4/11/96 "Bridge project meets new roadblock; MV Square owner says view of center is impaired" (Focus) 6/10/96 Motion passed to authorize staff to sign agreement with SEH to complete engineering analysis to relocate surface water pond adjacent to Bridgeman's, for construction of the pedestrian bridge, for the amount of$6,900 to be funded from the Surface Water Management Fund, System Maintenance 420-4122-303, Professional Services (regular meeting) 6/19/96 "Pond near bridge site may be relocated" (New Brighton Bulletin) 9/3/96 worksession • Discussion of options for obtaining easements for Highway 10 pedestrian bridge • Review of surface water abandonment for pedestrian bridge construction 9/9/96 Motion passed to approve option#2 (re: surface water pond) and to authorize the staff to negotiate with the two engineering firms to determine who will do the work and to authorize the expenditure from Surface Water Management Funds up to $30,000 (regular meeting) 9/23/96 Adoption of Resolution No. 5009 initiating eminent domain proceedings and the use of the quick take process under Chapter 117 of the Minnesota State Statutes for an easement on a portion of the property located at 2535-2585 Highway 10 and identified by PIN#08-30-23-11-0079 for construction of a pedestrian bridge over Highway 10 (regular meeting) 0 11/21/96 Permit submitted to Rice Creek Watershed District by BRW • City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge-Appendices . February 21, 1997 Page 4 1997 2/3/97 Pedestrian Bridge over Highway 10 (worksession) 2/10/97 Status Report on Pedestrian Bridge (regular meeting) 2/11/97 "Footbridge plan disputed" (St. Paul Pioneer Press) 2/19/97 "City council delays Highway 10 crossing" (New Brighton Bulletin) 2/24/97 Status Report on Pedestrian Bridge (regular meeting) • lI)-b'-&Ck7n&r1d- Section 9 Redevelopment Plan, Highway 10 Corridor SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. February 12, 1997 • Feedback from DESIGN WORKSHOP (Held February 8, 1997) Land Use o Two residents of homes along Silver Lake Road do not want to see any commercial established at the intersection of Silver Lake Road and CR "I" o Significant support was voiced for the establishment of senior housing within the corridor, specifically within the area north and west of the existing senior complex and on the vacant parcels along the north side of Highway 10. Several discussions involved providing for varying levels of independent and assisted living arrangements within the immediate area to allow residents to age in place. o Some of the residents acknowledged that some level of residential use could serve as a transition use between the highway corridor and the Silver Lake Park neighborhoods. o Mention was made of a convenience establishment or restaurant such as Boston Market or Old Country Buffet (restaurants catering to seniors) on the Win Insurance site. o Mention was also made that Mounds View does not need another convenience store. III ° Offices would fit in well along Highway 10 frontage between Win and TJB. o Townhomes would be nice on the EDA property; commercial or office is not reasonable. o Good uses are needed within Section 9 to increase value of properties of adjoining properties. o Some people felt that an office complex would offer great successes for the corridor. o One person who was familiar with some of the public safety issues within the corridor spoke of his desire to get rid of the multifamily housing complex. o With regard to the multifamily units, one person spoke of how "bad" the population diversity was. o A couple of comments were received supporting the development of a senior housing complex on the EDA/PTW sites if combined. 0 Section 9 Redevelopment Plan, Highway 10 Corridor SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. February 12, 1997 Transportation 41, o There need to be transit services that would serve seniors within the area. o There is terrible congestion during rush hour on Silver Lake Road at its intersection with Highway 10. o Several people noted that new access points along Highway 10 are not realistic in light of the traffic volumes and that this is accepted as a given. o Need to look at cul-de-sac design for terminus of Mounds View Drive near the wetland. o The speed limit is not enforced along Highway 10. o Highway 10 is perceived by some as a barrier (but a barrier that perhaps can be bridged or overcome by pedestrian elements that promote safety and logical circulation). Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation o The pedestrian bridge may or may not happen at Long Lake Road near the library. People with children see that the bridge is necessary for safe crossing of Highway 10, and people • without children are not willing to support the bridge crossing. o Sidewalks along Highway 10 are not needed for access to businesses and services along that roadway, but are needed to make connections between the adjacent neighborhoods, area parks and the regional trail system. o Sidewalks are needed along Silver Lake Road to help access bus service. o The St. Paul utility easement is appropriate for pedestrian element that services the immediate neighborhood but cannot and should not play a role in the regional trail system. o Pedestrian connections to the neighborhoods are badly needed, and redevelopment of the corridor needs to address this. o Concept of a boardwalk overlook in the wetland received mixed reactions. o There need to be enhanced pedestrian crossings at the signalized intersections within Section 9. • Section 9 Redevelopment Plan, Highway 10 Corridor SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. February 12, 1997 Design/Character/Image/Landscaping 0 ° The wetland area provides good wildlife habitat and should be left as is. o The wetland area should be filled because it is an eyesore. o Several people questioned the possibility of doing some planting within the right-of-way or within the median specifically. o One person said that the long-time residents of Mounds View live with the mythology of this being a rural community - perhaps some images are needed to enhance this mythology within the corridor. o Mounds View is a small, suburban community, and many people within the metro don't even know where it is. o City Forester (shared half-time with New Brighton) currently does landscaping reviews and recommendations. Does the City need to give thought to establishing minimum landscaping requirements in zoning ordinance? There are better things to be done with the tax dollars than creating design elements, • landscaping, pedestrian bridges, buying ballrooms, etc. o Screening and buffering between residential and non-residential areas needs to be done better. o There needs to be landscaping incorporated into both existing and new parking lots. o Overhead utilities along Highway 10 may pose a barrier to establishment of overstory or conifer trees. o Large trees in front of multifamily complex provides for screening of unattractive apartment structures. i ((+I1-a tit me 151 Section 9 Redevelopment Plan, Highway 10 Corridor SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. February 10, 1997 ID . GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The ultimate success of the Section 9 Redevelopment Plan rests in the effective implementation of a defined set of goals and objectives. These will serve as policy statements to guide the decision-making process in matters that affect the development or redevelopment of corridor properties. The Section 9 goals and objectives have evolved from the refinement of various sources of baseline information and stakeholder input as well as the creation and analysis of a series of issues, opportunities and constraints. There are some broad considerations that have been drawn from the initial phases of this project that can serve as a prelude to the goals themselves: 1. The development of Section 9 of the Highway 10 corridor must reflect the vision of the community yet must recognize the existing physical, economic and socia/environment. 0 2. The character of the Highway 10 corridor is that of a broad, high-volume, trunk highway that is often portrayed as a barrier to community unity. The fundamental qualities that characterize this roadway as such cannot be changed to any great extent by the successful achievement of this plan's goals and objectives. 3. Any efforts to enhance the image and health of Section 9 must give consideration to land use, amenities and design elements that lend distinction to the area. Steps taken to affect meaningful change within Section 9 are necessary and reasonable at this time. 4. The plan for the redevelopment and enhancement of Section 9 is a tool to initiate action, to provide momentum, to guide the development community and to give policy direction to community decision makers. S. The continued vitality of Section 9 and the balance of the Highway 10 corridor relies upon establishing and maintaining a mutually beneficial, Illcooperative relationship between City government representatives, business people, property owners and community residents. • Section 9 Redevelopment Plan, Highway 10 Corridor SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. February 10, 1997 LAND USE 1111 • Goa/#1: Section 9 represents an area of diversity and mixed land uses, and the City will encourage and support the continued establishment of a wide variety of land uses in order to generate interest and to promote opportunity. o Objective : To support development plans and programs that encourage the mixing of uses in order to generate and maintain interest and diversity within the area. o Objective: To ensure that the City's Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the benefits gained from land use diversity within the corridor. o Objective: To ensure that land use controls (subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance provisions) facilitate the creation of mixed use areas. • Goal#2: Highway 10 is a highly visible corridor; and, as such, the City will strive to achieve the highest and best land uses for properties within Section 9. 11111 o Objective: To target those commercial uses that provide needed services and products for Mounds View residents and that attend to the needs of the motoring public. o Objective: To identify those residential uses that would enhance life- cycle housing opportunities within Mounds View and that would furnish residents with safe, affordable and livable shelter. o Objective: To target uses that are compatible with surrounding land uses. • Section 9 Redevelopment Plan, Highway 10 Corridor SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. February 10, 1997 DESIGN • Goa/#1: Section 9 will serve as an area for the implementation of creative techniques for achieving functional as well as aesthetic excellence in design. o Objective: To create or integrate facilities that enable or enhance pedestrian and bicycle circulation and provide connections to existing and proposed trail facilities beyond Section 9. o Objective: To utilize those standards and elements of design that generate interest, express vitality, lend character and help to define a "sense of place" for the neighborhood and the corridor. o Objective: To incorporate design elements within Section 9 that will be of a scale and character practical for adoption throughout the Highway 10 corridor in order to create a single design character. • Goa/#2: Planning for the redevelopment of Section 9 will afford the • City an opportunity to address city policy and regulatory standards that can promote thoughtful and responsible site design methods and property maintenance issues. o Objective: To promote the use of contemporary standards in the design and construction of parking facilities that are environmentally sensitive and aesthetically pleasing. o Objective: To ensure that the City has landscaping standards that require and/or encourage the planting of trees and shrubs along major roadways, within parking lots and public open spaces, and as buffers between land uses. o Objective: To support positive sign regulations that facilitate advertising while avoiding deterioration of the visual environment. o Objective: To maintain and enhance both the natural elements and structural improvements of properties within Section 9. • } Section 9 Redevelopment Plan, Highway 10 Corridor SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. February 10, 1997 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC • Goal#1: The transportation system within and adjacent Section 9 will be of sufficient capacity to move traffic safely and effectively. o Objective: To address the issue of street access for all properties within Section 9 as part of the ongoing evaluation of plans for site development. o Objective: To maintain a continuing understanding of elements of the transportation system (traffic signals and signs, street surfaces, medians, streetlighting) to accommodate existing and anticipated levels of traffic. o Objective: To consider how decisions that affect the transportation system within Section 9 may impact the balance of the Highway 10 corridor. o Objective: To work with Mn/DOT and Ramsey County officials to ensure a coordinated approach to land development as it may affect area roadways. • o Objective: To promote the establishment or expansion of transit elements to serve those who work, live and do business within Section 9. • Goal#2: The pedestrian and bicycle systems within and adjacent Section 9 will be developed and maintained to encourage their safe and enjoyable use. o Objective: To help promote alternative modes of travel. o Objective: To contribute to a network of community trails and pedestrian ways and to make connections with regional trail facilities. o Objective: To facilitate pedestrian movement between residential neighborhoods, commercial service and retail centers and public open space. o Objective: To contribute to the diversity of recreational opportunities within the community. o Objective: To lend an atmosphere of activity to the corridor. • Section 9 Redevelopment Plan, Highway 10 Corridor SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. February 10, 1997 PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL RESOURCES • Goal#1: Section 9 will exemplify the City's commitment to achieving and maintaining open space for use by the community. o Objective: To promote the incorporation of public or private open space on development and redevelopment sites within the corridor. o Objective: To establish an image within the corridor that can serve to demonstrate to the broader community the importance of open space. o Objective: To encourage the reduction in the amount of hard-surfacing through shared parking arrangements in order to derive more useable open space. o Objective: To determine whether reasonable sites exist within Section 9 for the establishment of public parklands. • Goa/#2: The City recognizes the importance of its natural resource base and will strive to maintain these valuable amenities. • ° Objective: To incorporate sensitive natural resources into development plans in a manner that promotes the creation of on-site amenity features for enjoyment by the broader community. o Objective: To support the retention of mature tree stands on properties within the corridor where such woodlands can reasonably be incorporated into site design and will not significantly compromise the site's development potential. • Objective: To enhance existing wetlands in order to derive maximum aesthetic benefit for surrounding properties. Section 9 Redevelopment Plan, Highway 10 Corridor SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. February 10, 1997 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT • Goa/#1: Economic development and redevelopment efforts within Section 9 will focus on the creation of a strong and diverse neighborhood while enhancing the city's tax base. o Objective: To retain existing businesses where possible. o Objective: To recruit those businesses that would enhance and diversify the business climate within Section 9 and along the entire Highway 10 corridor. o Objective: To target uses that can contribute to an increased tax base for the city without compromising sound land use planning practices or corridor goals and objectives. o Objective: To provide financial assistance, in conformity with EDA policy and State Statutes, in the establishment of needed and desired uses. • Goa/#2: The City will promote Section 9 and other areas of the Highway 10 corridor within Mounds View as an area of new opportunities and new ideas. o Objective: To highlight Section 9 as a redevelopment demonstration area within the Highway 10 corridor. o Objective: To make area businesses, local and state agencies, service organizations, property owners and the development community aware of the corridor enhancement and redevelopment efforts. o Objective: To provide a setting for local events which highlight the residential and commercial opportunities of Section 9 and the balance of the corridor. 01 - (r) N ... co Q . :.. 0 Z} :::::::.:411:-:,::::_::: la 3 IOU3 D o <-- 4-- 4-- (o o O x, -tri O O -+ n 3 3 0 � W N -3 n 0 �_ �' � � C y " OAC tp CC. y * 0 � a I.0 c co -0 * c co 3 3 y 0 o f { 1......c.,-1 to N co o 0 s N n z 0 c0 to 0.. 3 co 7G -.> oC3n Npo3 -< a0 * n3 -:� . . S 3 3 - -CS, C A A_ O y t0 O :....,.:-:.:::.q::::...::::::::::: '>? 0S N S H ~. n 0 X. -8 •ZO n , O p < -< (0 - S r op 0 0 A n -h N N -o N 0 -• O 0 -a to_ . O z ic -+ -0 m - :- ( ' N zz -3 CI-, N { � O o p "3 * no < * Of0 -F - 0 -... - •< N ncD { 3 3C n(o < N �. 3 c0cc-. c° -. 3 - °- _ D t" o(p yN z NAfzco "v' n1:1- z (o , tD 'ip- o, �- N C Cr n -+ to C 0 : > >>: :- C (0 c0 n � i A fy ,ti, s N .-. .+ NSy 3 a II -+ r' ZlA (0 d co o c0 O -+ . ° 3 N z ' z Er- O ' 3 -+ 0 IIZ (0 x A S St -+ S S < N T Oc0 —I, oan = z ° AsA3zwcsz ° N ti -a '4' n Cl. 3 'z• c ° (0 a :> ZS C A_ Cc (0 A A 3 o_ 0N n c O =4 { c0 3N -1+ el-, ; ° y3d — n •- fit, a 3 sa s fl Ul± too -+ c co A N n-i' co tO 7- 3 n 3 s ' a c0 m .4s sp nz -F 3N :»:.< :s>ss:N A A W f0 O O Z f7?+ LE O X — OU Z CII :ii•0- g 41 Iv 0 • f -a = = 0000y -330 ° zc � otoo * us � = o its_ a a s co 3 N o { w 3 cNo s a = As a- ti s 3 c0 O n a o 3. 3 to z -1? z (0 (0 . 3 -+ - c' w A (o a n 0 c N co N N { -< x a- A W 11 3 : c 3 3 @ 1 ..... �' �, 3 -a+ 3 c co n_ i 0 .� a �, o- -+• ci 0 r‘, ' r n-i �' - ( X -+ p .0+ (0 '{• 4 _- A y S -4' 0 - 3 ° G 3 f ;(1;;:;:::3 0s A t„ co s -s -+ n- • s n (o N. 3 3 C co -+ ° .::-...::-..•:::'.'.....::::::::: :7d p N (0 A_ . N A N N n O -f• N S ..r -+. N -} Q- 0 2 S (0 (0 c c Z C p: =- 3 S O = 5 O i . s N �< x N C z -+ tD N < N ` A CL A ° 9 A lfl -� s N S O to 3 W N n = N cno (°LA : czo (o to s 0 ° 3 t p co "h a� 3 — ., t-.;::.-:.-: cL T• D_ C cnn V A' H -Q cno o C' — H 3 A N O_ E.t-AS co o A O A A N A -4+ (1 ° W 3 (p -+ 3 -m ►- = C z H l0 (0 rs a c W y D A = t0 O -e o: v A 3 N a a a -0 0 _= H 0 .-.-0 0 n v_, - s 3 y O C • �' n O o -4, 0 tD C `". �. y x (0 0 0 ( b c CO i a- CO A_ Ce f (0 « :t-i:: >::,; (N/1 c d 3 N 0- _y N 3 (0 A. 3 3 ` s s = c .,, °• 3 3 0 3 z :>< `:_:>€ :`; 0 `< -4+ ° (0 s - ° 3 30 — a : I I -3 -� •• W .p -•h ss o - 3 s 3 O Z Fs G vii y `� c. n 0 S n 3 A A N ::: :-tn:::M N tc s a - 3 _� (0 f0 t0 c0 .• A z ° (0 ,m.. to { -I- 0 S S • : :D < p : ,,;:�:s;;:: Z Co C •n ut0i z - -t0+ � c ..:70.:.-:.:-.:..:...i-: c (3p D -+ tL t1 a D 3 p 0 to to 0 { y > toy c co la -I-C) N 3 c -. O IZ. -f, -3 < nfj) 17 3 N V,C O 3 N -3+ a C t{o o CO 0 { C ^ -3 0. 3 -v 3 r . co p p C !Z :..:_...7.-:::.:. >»:. z N o co t?' c tp u3_' O N <:«<7D.»::i:;«': c o n p f to -• X .‹ -n c to 3 to Co {_u3• 5 n z F, 3• a CO '- 3 t1 c 3 to -0 • y { C (0 <<0 N C t30 = to d 0 rn : 3 +a 3 _+ to v < c co -'s � o co to t° c co 0 s N o H s t0 -0 to 'cQ co C 0, -o 3 'Q N Us. 3 =• CO3O C Co CO 3 tap p r N N to -4, �_ tL 3 t1 p 3 -+ 3 70 : >;::: .:.:�; - f1 3 N 3 n { -0 0 O D 0{ W >S7D p * -t- -+ n D -• O3 -moi -t, -++ --r �tpp t0 t 0 z- T .y, -+ O Cl. Co p �-+ p N +n 3 O .: t3o N 3. 3 t° n - ' =f os < :...:ti7..;:::``<` . tp f (NO 0 to N O { p -oi,-° << 0 3 c0.0 n uo (p { D f 3 0 On 0 O p to 3. 3 z 3 ' o 0 ",c°. ,N.* 3 a { o n '0 3 ea n. 3 p_ tl D 3 p 3 -3 ° c ct0o to ° i 3 cno ft i to to < z 9 3 0 +n, 3• - 0 3 s to c<o o v- 3 to -+ 3 n t0 c { -a p Co o z 0 C 3 H t0 G f f p �- y 0 y 3 . O z O z N40 0 , O 3• _ _ N s tl lfl N y LL T 0 (3p 5. t0 D 3 N 3 0 (p kElo n t0 X --F : tl'} ': n ' 3 3 _ in • °- n .y, p N CO s 7p -0 0 = -t- _+ 3 n o t L 3 .+ N• p txp M 1p -°s f o tp o co.. s Z : 'o t� -°st t - -3+ z 3 =to 3 <F. N a. N t1 -+; n c ti tD y < ( U; f c N z w 3 = co ... f n N O N lfl. S O� n C p O D ( n • p 0 p • p N N V :::: [g i Z p p -t p O c 11 la n . •• co 3 -+ < 3 -t- -+ c• 0' z { 3 z = -- 3 s 3 sap co 0 m N n • s (0 in• (0 p C p• S N tL C.II tD a p• -+ 3 3 . n. to p 3 N. - -p+ 3 n (o S -*,Lo .p< cno D O O = »' D 's 3 (0 u3 c = n CL N n i "!aG p N ; : <::: ::O t0 CL 3 N {y S ; _ -moC G - , ' <%i�' iii O t0 N ;fO c -4, O D Icr S N O N ......:...,.. ti n 77,) 71A ai is Page 1 11J L Li January 27, 1997 Mounds View City Council PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA Regular Meeting January 27, 1997 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Hwy. 10,Mounds View,MN 55112 ********************************************************************************** CALL TO ORDER The Mounds View City Council was called to order by Mayor McCarty at 7:00 p.m.on January 27, 1997. • PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANC& ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor McCarty,Council members Trude, Quick,and Stigney MEMBERS ABSENT: Council member Koopmeiners ALSO PRESENT: Chuck Whiting,Clerk Administrator Pam Sheldon, Community Development Director Jim Ericson,Planning Associate Michael Ulrich,Director of Public Works Bob Long,City Attorney ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: Council member Trude noted that there were residents present who had an interest in the Bel Rae issue and she asked that Items 11 (C)and(G)be moved ahead and considered after the Consent Agenda. Mayor McCarty asked that Item 8(E)be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Mr.Whiting wished to add Resolution No.5082,to be considered as part of Item 11(E). Mr.Ulrich asked that Resolution No.5083 be added,Setting a Public Hearing for the Old Highway 8 Reconstruction Project,to be considered in place of Item 11(A). il‘ e Page 2 January 27, 1997 lb Mounds View City Council Ms. Sheldon asked that the dates be changed on Items A and B of the Consent Agenda. The dates for the Public Hearings should be Monday,February 24, 1997 rather than February 10, 1997. VOTE ON ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: 4 ayes 0 nays Carried APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 13,1997-City Council Meeting: Council member Trude noted a correction to Page 4,Lines 22 and 23. She asked that the following words be added"...eliminate the possibility of existing towers for co-location". MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Quick to approve the Minutes for the City Council meeting on January 13, 1997, AS AMENDED. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried ACCEPTANCE OF ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES: III There were no Advisory Commission Minutes for consideration. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: There was no Special Order of Business. CONSENT AGENDA: Mr.Whiting read the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Set Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m.,Monday,February 24, 1997 to Consider Ordinance No.596,Amending Section 1106.02,Subd.2 and 3 of the Mounds View Zoning Code to Allow Eight Children in Family Foster Homes. B. Set Public Hearing for 7:110 p.m.,Monday,February 24, 1997 to Consider a Conditional Use Permit for Linder's Greenhouse at Mounds View Shopping Center,2535-2585 Highway 10. C. Adoption of Resolution No. 5077,Certifying the Reapportionment of Assessments for 7775 Spring Lake Road. D. Adopt Resolution No.5078,Approving Just and Correct Claims Against City Funds. Item E.was removed per a request by Mayor McCarty,for further discussion. F. LICENSES FOR APPROVAL: Ill -1 �....� Page 34110 January 27, 1997 Mounds View City Council Cigarette and Tobacco-Expires December 31. 1997: Mounds View Phillips 66-Renewal Gasoline-Expires December 31. 1997: Mounds View Phillips 66-Renewal MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Stigney to approve the Consent Agenda AS PRESENTED. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried RESIDENTS REOUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR: Ed LeTendre,Sr.,2088 Rustad Lane,was present and introduced several citizens who,along with himself, have been a part of the Fare for All Program run under the Ramsey Action Program. This program rewards community volunteerism with an opportunity to purchase a grocery package each month. Other citizens who were present to provide information about the program were Jerry Johnson, Jennifer Walsh,Pat Michna,Laura Zemek and Scott Oestreich. Mr.LeTendre explained that they would like to help citizens in.the Mounds View area to get the program going 1111 and they would appreciate the Mayor and Council members'support. He asked if a small article could be run in the city newsletter to make others aware of the program. Mayor McCarty extended the Council's support,thanking the volunteers for their participation. It was agreed that an article would be prepared by a member of the Fare for All group to be published in the next Mounds View Matters newsletter. In addition,a Crime Watch article will also be prepared for publication. COUNCIL BUSINESS: C. Bel Rae Facility Referendum Options. Mr. Whiting explained that was an update in regard to the Council discussion at the last meeting to hold a referendum regarding the question of the future of the Bel Rae property. He noted that there was some concern as to whether or not the city would be able to accommodate the Children's Home Society who have been negotiating with the city for the past few months for space over at the Bel Rae if a referendum were held. However,it appears that they would have an option which would allow them to be housed in another building for the early part of the summer which would give the city council more time to discuss the status of the Bel Rae. In looking into the City Charter provisions,he asked Mr.Long to address the procedural requirements of an advisory election. Mr.Long,City Attorney,explained that the requirements for an advisory election are governed by the Charter. He briefly went over the charter requirements. In regard to other options other than polling places for handling the election,such as via mail,it appears that the City would have the authority to do so. Several questions were brought up in regard to mail ballots such as whether a deadline date could be placed on • the mail in ballots if the city were to exercise more than one voting option, to eliminate the possibility of a person voting more than once. 11")fJi 1 in 1 11 f Page4 ru il 2 • L L) January 27, 1997 III Mounds View City Council Council member Trude stated she if very concerned about spending money to solicit opinions from perhaps 4% or 5%of the community(based on the turnout of one of the last special elections),when a survey has already been completed,which she feels is a good tool. She feels another survey could be done to solicit opinions that would be a cross representative sampling of the city. She is against holding an advisory election. She noted that other cities do not have advisory elections as they are non-binding. Council member Stigney feels a mail ballot would direct the votes to 100%of the registered voters and give them an opportunity to respond to it,and it would be at a minimal cost A discussion followed as to the estimated cost for a mail ballot Jerry Linke,2319 Knoll Drive, estimated that there are approximately 7,500 registered voters in Mounds View. If this were conducted,at$.32 per mailing it would cost the city$2,400 to mail the ballots,plus an additional$2,400 for a stamped,return envelope. Additionally there would be a cost to print the ballots and informational literature and the administrative costs involved in counting the ballots. He would estimate this to run the city$10,000. He feels the information has already been given to the citizens. To further complicate the situation,many citizens do not even know what Tax Increment Financing is or how much the city has of it Mayor McCarty noted the costs the city has incurred to date on the building. He feels that$10,000 is a minimal cost to the residents in comparison to what the overall costs are expected to be to remodel the property and that residents should be allowed to voice their opinion on the project. Council member Stigney stated he understood from information gathered earlier that a mail ballot would be III roughly$2,000. He feels that in addition to the acquisition and remodeling costs,the city must relay the operational costs to the residents. Steve Larson(no identified address),suggested that the city consider including the ballot with the Mounds View Matters newsletter or have it distributed with the Focus Newspaper to help reduce costs. He feels the city owes it to the residents to have a voice in the matter. He personally does not trust the results of the survey. Susan Do,2274 Oakwood Drive,stated she feels the property needs to be identified by a new name. It is no longer the Bel Rae Ballroom. She stated people need to focus their attention on what great possibilities there are for the building. The city needs a place where people can gather together. It doesn't need to be a fancy place,but there needs to be something to attract families to the community. However,she does not feel that a mail ballot will give the council a true answer from many of the people who will actually use the community center. The council needs to consider the opinions of all of those who will use the center-perhaps opening the vote to students at Edgewood and Irondale schools. She feels confident that she could get 3,000 signatures of people who are in favor of keeping the building and using it as a community center. She would be willing to pay more in taxes to have a place in her own"backyard"to bring her kids. Ed LeTendre,2088 Rustad Lane,stated most of the problems in the Crime Watch program involves kids. They don't have any place to play. He stressed the need to keep the Bel Rae and to provide for the kids in Mounds View. He feels confident also that he could obtain 2,000 signatures himself of people who are in support of the community center. Mayor McCarty stated he must balance those in favor of the Community Center with those who are opposed to the Community Center. He feels the city must give everyone a chance to provide their input. III Actom \ flrn • Page 5 • January 27, 1997 Mounds View City Council Naja Werner,2765 Sherwood Road,believes everyone should have an opportunity to vote on this issue and decide what action should be taken in regards to the property. To assist them in making a decision,they should be provided with information in regard to operational costs and remodeling costs necessary to serve the purpose for which it is intended. If ballots indicate that a majority of people are in support of the community center,she will feel that the people's democratic principles have been exercised and she will be in support of it. To date,she does not feel the democratic principles have been exercised. She is in favor of having a vote on this matter. Leon Burton,2550 Bridge Lane,stated he feels a special election needs to be held on this issue. He feels that costs were not clearly provided to residents. He wondered how much it would have cost to put a simple question on the election,"should Mounds View have purchased the Bel Rae?". He feels it is important and the city should spend the estimated$10,000 to have an election. Jerry Blanchard,8005 Groveland Road,stated he feels it would be nice to have a community center for kids and for seniors. He noted that the five council members are empowered to make decisions for residents and he does not feel that an advisory ballot is needed. It carries no weight and the council is not required to comply with the results. He feels it is a waste of tax dollars. Ruth White,2917 County Road I,stated she has no objection to the community center,however she believes that the taxpayers of Mounds View should be given an opportunity to vote on this issue. As a resident,she • would like to know how much it will cost to remodel the building,to maintain it,to staff it,etc. and whether or not it will be self-sustaining. Phyllis Blanchard,8005 Groveland Road,stated she feels people have spoken both in favor and against the Bel Rae and to have a mail ballot would be a very costly option. She would rather see that money go into the renovation of the Bel Rae. She has nothing against having Public Hearings to provide residents with details, however,if an advisory ballot is decided on,it should be held as a regular election as she feels the mail ballot is too costly. Mayor McCarty reminded residents that costs have not yet been determined for a mail in ballot and that the $10,000 cost that they have used in discussion is merely a rough estimate. Mona Miske,7980 Groveland Road,stated as a recruiter for Girl Scouts at Pinewood Elementary,she has experienced difficulty much of the time in finding space for the troops to meet. She finds that they are often going outside of the community to hold these types of events. She feels the Community Center would be a way to hold these events in the community. Diane Wuori,5613 St. Stephen Street,stated if the city does proceed with an election,she would suggest that it contain many questions,i.e.if the city does keep the Bel Rae property,what should be done with it? Also,when community events are held at various other locations,custodial fees are collected from the various entities to share in the costs. Therefore,it is already costing the city money to run programs that could be run at the community center. If events were held there,custodial time would stay within the city rather than going to another entity. Furthermore,other programs that people wished to hold at the community center could be charged a nominal fee. • Jerry Linke,2319 Knoll Drive,took this opportunity to briefly explain the Tax Increment Financing process. He noted that the city currently has Tax Incrcwent Financing funds available. FJ - E. Page 6 January 27, 1997 • Mounds View City Council Council member Quick asked who would be eligible to vote in the election and if a person would need to be registered to vote. A lengthy discussion followed. Mr.Quick stated this is an advisory election and no one is being elected for office,so he wondered why someone could not vote without registering. A discussion also followed as to whether the calling for an advisory election would be seen as legislative or artministrative,thereby determining whether the election must be set by ordinance or by resolution. Mr.Long stated he felt in this case,the city would follow the wording in the Charter which calls for it to be done by resolution. Mr.Long stated he believes the city would need to follow the standard voting procedures. Otherwise the city would take a chance of people challenging the validity of the vote. Council member Stigney asked if TIF funds could be used to pay for some of the advisory election expenses. Mr.Long stated there are some opportunities for TIF funds to be used for various information gathering,but whether or not it can actually be used for an election such as this,he is unsure. He stated he would be willing to get further clarification on it and report back to staff. DISCUSSION ON ITEM E.OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: E) Approval of Resolution No. 5076,A Resolution Approving the 1997 Insurance Contribution for Non- • PP g Union,Public Works and Park Maintenance. Mayor McCarty asked for some further clarification from staff in regard to full time health insurance coverage for single persons,in particular,whether the$330 cap for insurance for single coverage was specified. Ms. Sheldon explained that the city provides up to$330 to employees to be used only for certain benefits that are allowed to be paid for out of that amount. This includes medical insurance,for either single or family coverage. If an employee has funds remaining after paying for medical coverage,he may choose to use it toward dental coverage or additional life insurance. The city will only pay up to$330.per month. If the money is not put toward additional insurance,they do not have the option of receiving reimbursement for the remainder. Mayor McCarty stated he would recommend that the Council adopt the resolution as amended,but that this discussion should be put on the"front burner"for future deliberations on employee benefits. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Trude to approve Resolution No.5076,A Resolution Approving the 1997 Insurance Contribution for Non-Union,Public Works and Park Maintenance. Council member Stigney stated he is still concerned about whether the City should supplement single employees. In the future,he feels the council should look at what the private sector is doing for its employees when considering these issues. Mayor McCarty asked that the council have some single sessions where they will just deal with personnel issues such as employee benefits so that decisions can be made before the budgeting process. I t d d L WL Page 7 • January 27, 1997 Mounds View City Council Council member Trude noted that an amendment needs to be made to Resolution No.5076,to show that the City's contribution is$330 per month. Council member accepted this amendment. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried PUBLIC HEARINGS: Public Hearing Regarding the Issuance of a 3.2%Malt Liquor License to the Bridges Golf Course. Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 9:46 p.m. There were no comments or questions from the public and the Public Hearing was closed at 9:47 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Quick to Approve the Issuance of a 3.2%Malt Liquor License to the Bridges Golf Course. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried S Public Hearing Regarding the Issuance of a Temporary Liquor Banquet License to Donatelle's for an Event to be held at 5394 Edgewood Drive,February 6,1997. Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 9:47 p.m. There were no questions or comments from the public and the Hearing was closed at 9:48 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Stigney to Approve the Issuance of a Temporary Liquor Banquet License to Donatelle's for an Event to be held at 5394 Edgewood Drive,February 6, 1997. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried COUNCIL BUSINESS: A. Consideration of Resolution No.5083,Setting a Public Hearing for Old Highway 8 Reconstruction and Public Improvements. Mr.Ulrich,Public Works Director,explained that even though this is a county project and is not city-initiated, possible assessments are pending on this project and therefore,the bid awards cannot be awarded this evening as was originally intended in the request for approval of Resolution No.5079. A sixty-day petitioning process must elapse before the bid can be awarded. Therefore,Mr.Ulrich asked that Resolution No. 5079 be tabled and that the Council consider Resolution No.5083,which sets a public hearing for the reconstruction of Old Highway 8. He noted that two changes need to be made to the Resolution,in the final paragraph. The date of the Public Hearing needs to be set for February 24, 1997 at 7:15 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Stigney to Approve Resolution No.5083, Setting a Public Hearing for Old Highway 8 Reconstruction and Public Improvements,AS AMENDED. MrrnJvdJ Page 8 January 27, 1997 Mounds View City Council VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Mr.Ulrich noted that SEH is currently working on a mock assessment and that he hopes to have it for review within the next day or two. Council member Trude asked that staff be sure that property owners are notified that the WILL be assessed and that not all costs will be covered by other government entities,just because it is a county project. She asked that the letter notifying residents be reviewed by Mr.Long to make sure that it complies with Charter requirements. B. Introduction of Ordinance No.588,An Ordinance Amending Chapter 1124 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Relating to the Location and Design of Wireless Communication Faeinties wtt ..n the City of Mounds View. Mr.Jim Ericson,Planning Associate,explained that at the last Council meeting,staff presented a.dry, of Ordinance No.588,after which a number of comments and suggestions were made by the Council and industry representatives. Staff went through the Ordinance and made changes and sent copies to the industry representatives for their review and a copy was sent to SEH for their review and comments. h , briefly went through the changes that were made to the draft ordinance. Gary VanCleve,representing APT was present and noted that he had five points of concern withthe proposed • ordinance which he has also talked with Mr.Ericson about. He proceeded to go through the aFeas of coroeesn. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Trude to Approve the Introduction and Waive the Reading of Onus ee No. 588,An Ordinance Amending Chapter 1124 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Relating to the Location and Design of Wireless Communication Facilities within the City of Mounds View. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried D. Bel Rae Status. Mr.Whiting stated that his discussions with the Children's Home Society have continued in regard to a draft for a lease agreement. They have discussed the general perimeters of what that agreement should contain. As he mentioned previously,the Children's Home Society may be able to lease space through early Summer. He also noted that he has continued discussions with another entity in regard to an agreement with them. He will continue to keep the council posted on this issue. E. National Sports Center Ice Arena Master Agreement. Mr.Whiting noted that this master agreement must be agreed to by the City of Mounds View in order to be a part of the construction of one of four ice rinks being proposed at the National Sports Facility in Blaine. Mounds View has joined with three other communities-Arden Hills,Shoreview and New Brighton in the agreement and will share in the operational costs of one of the rinks at the sports center. The group will commit to provide assurance that 2080 hours of ice time will be purchased each year at a minimum cost of$125/hour. As part of the supplemental agreement,they have been working with two area hockey associations who would basically commit to those ice hours and who would build an escrow fund to • help pay for unused ice hours. In addition,one of the requirements of the group would be that$500,000 be ; A JL1 57) 17 r4t. Page 9 • January 27, 1997 Mounds View City Council put toward the construction of the rink. The cities have worked with Ramsey County and have secured their commitment to put the$500,000 toward the rink. The ground breaking is expected to take place sometime this year. He asked that two separate Resolutions be adopted,one approving the Master Agreement and the other approving the Supplemental Agreement Minor language changes may yet need to be made to the agreements,none of which will substantially change the basic contents. Mayor McCarty stated he would like to see the four cities develop a Joint Powers Agreement under Statutes 471.59. He feels it would be a better way of doing business. Mr.Long stated he would look into this to see if a Joint Powers Agreement should be entered into and report back to staff. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Trude to Approve Resolution No.5080,Approving the National Sports Center Ice Arena Master Agreement. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Trude to Approve Resolution No.5082,Approving the National Sports Center Ice Arena Supplemental Agreement 4110 VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried REPORTS: Report of Council members: Trude: Ms.Trude briefly updated the council on issues discussed at meetings that she has attended with the Northwest Youth and Family Services and with the Ramsey County League. Ms.Trude asked that one item be added to the February Council work session. She would like to know how drug activity in Mounds View is dealt with. Stigney: Mr. Stigney stated he had received a telephone call from a concerned resident who will not be in town to vote on the Bel Rae issue,asking about the process in getting an absentee ballot Quick: No report. Report of Mayor McCarty: Mayor McCarty gave a brief update on the council's goal setting session. He noted that one of the top priorities for the council is fiscal responsibility. Mayor McCarty also noted that some state funds that have been allocated for snow removal. The city staff is in the process of applying for the funding. He asked that residents assist in keeping the fire hydrants free of snow. Report of Clerk Administrator. No report. Report of Staff: No report. Report of Attorney: No report .: , '., f 7 n , 0 D 0 Page 10 January 27, 19970 Mounds View City Council Mayor McCarty noted that the next Council work session would be on February 3, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. The next Regular Council Meeting is scheduled for February 10, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 11:03 p.m. Respectfully� submsubmitted, pi/] CJIL12etVa>> .0 Oai •'17115 Tamara D. Saefke Recording Secretary VOTE: • 0 . • , RESOLUTION NO. 5089 111/1 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS AGAINST CITY FUNDS WHEREAS, the City Council of Mounds View, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 412.241, has full authority over the financial affairs of the City and; WHEREAS, The City Council has reviewed the claims numbers: 54634 through 54698 in the amount of $ 124,450.85 50843 through 50859 in the amount of $ 104,699. 13 through in the amount of $ throughin the amount of $ • TOTAL AMOUNT OF CLAIMS PRESENTED $ 229,149.98 111/1 and has found said claims to be just and correct; (list of any exception) NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council of Mounds View hereby approved the attached lists of claims datedQ2oxs- 97 by the vote ayes nayes ATTEST: Mayor (SEAL) Clerk-Administrator S PAGE 1 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTI . . AP-C10-01 MOUNDS VIEW VENDOR' CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE NO VENDOR NAME ' NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR DATE AMOUNT Iii04 NEJ�LY , ROSE 5463402/25/9702/25/97 �.�VENDOR TOTAL 27.00 A0299 AT&T WIRELESS SERVICE* 54625 02/25/97 9441510 01/25/97 51 .64 VENDOR TOTAL 51 .64 A2700 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR 54636 02/25/97 01/20/97 150.71 54636 02/25/97 02/25/97 102.55 VENDOR TOTAL 253.26 ' A3940 ALL CITY ELEVATOR, IN* 54637 02/25/97 970154 02/03/97 62.00 VENDOR TOTAL 62.00 A5123 AMERICAN OFFICE PRODU* 54638 02/25/97 305371 01/31/97 54.68 54638 02/25/97 CM 11130 01/31/97 19. 19 54638 02/25/97 CM 11120 01/31/97 13.05' 54638 02/25/97 305323 01/31/97 100.92 VENDOR TOTAL 123.36 ' A5260 ANCHOR PAPER CO. 54639 02/25/97 99392101 02y10/97 62.20 54639 02/25/97 99338901 02/04/97 98.74 VENDOR TOTAL 160.94 A5480 ANDREASEN, JOHN 54640 02/25/97 02/25/97 40.00 VENDOR TOTAL 40.00.12 B S N SPORTS 54641 02/25/97 2443755 02/04/97 390.94 ' VENDOR TOTAL 390.94 B2000 BIFFS, INC 54642 02/25/97B1088978 01/31/97 50.24 VENDOR TOTAL 50.26 B2005 BEISSWENGER,S 54643 02/25/97 231549 02/03/97 2.97 54643 02/25/97 229074 01y30y97 1 .59 VENDOR TOTAL 4.56 B2050 BEST BUY CO. , INC. 54644 02/25/97 0110118597 02/11/97 53.24 VENDOR TOTAL 53.24 B3185 BLUMBERG COMMUNICATIO* 54445 02/25/97 BM20624 12/04/96 25.35 VENDOR TOTAL 25.35 B7127 BUDGET HELPER 54646 02/25/97 02/04/97 944.00 VENDOR TOTAL 944.00 B7180 BUMPER TO BUMPER 54447 02/25/97 D48989 02/03/97 4.00 54647 02/25/97 D48467 01/27/97 22.46 54447 02/25/97 D48795 01/31y97 6.43 VENDOR TOTAL 32.89 4111 ' PAGE 2 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGIS1 AP-C10-0i MOUNDS VIEW - VENDOR CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE NO VENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR DATE AMOUNT 0635 CARLSON TRACTOR �& EQU* 54648 02/25/97 196251 01/30/97 4237. 19 � VENDOR TOTAL 4237. 19 ó C5841 COMMUNITY PARTNERS IN* 54649 02/25/97 02/03/97 528.40 VENDOR TOTAL ' 528.40 C5845 COMPUTOSERVICE, INC. 54650 02/25/97 01/31/97 284.56 VENDOR TOTAL 284.56 C6025 COTTENS INC 54651 02/25/97 199791 02/06/97 . 136. 12 VENDOR TOTAL 136. 12 C7()50 CRYSTEEL DIST. , INC 54652 02/25/97 129286 01/30/97 16. 19 VENDOR TOTAL ' 16. 19 D0700 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMEN* 54653 02/25/97 77344 09/11/96 343.38 54653 02/25/97 77909 09/24/96 203.60 VENDOR TOTAL 139.78 D4895 DNR - WATERS 54654 02/25/97 02/25/97 2335.89 VENDOR TOTAL 2335.89 E4437 ELAN FINANCIAL SERVIC* 54655 02/25/97 02/25/97 439.00 VENDOR TOTAL 439.00 ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY C* 54656 02/25/97 1-968853 01/31/97 50.75 VENDOR TOTAL 50.75 4111�,075 EVERGREEN LAND SERVIC* � 54657 02/25y97 6785 02/04/97 172.00 VENDOR TOTAL 172.00 E9095 EXECUTONE 54658 02/25/97 94352 02/03/97 489.00 54658 02/25/97 93580 12/19/96 324.45 VENDOR TOTAL 164.55 F1925 FEDORS MARKET 54659 02. 25/97 02y05y97 21 .71 VENDOR TOTAL 21 .71 F2000 FEED-RITE CONTROLS IN* 54660 02/25y97 5040 02/05/97 1012.40 VENDOR TOTAL 1012.40 05873 GOPHER MECHANICAL CON* 54661 02/25/97 3722 02/06/97 71 .25 VENDOR TOTAL 71 .25 04700 GREAT LAKES WEATHER S* 54662 02/25y97 02/06/97 372.00 VENDOR TOTAL 372.00 H0590 HARMON GLASS COMPANY 54663 02/25/97 210072755 01/30/97 214.96 VENDOR TOTAL 214.96 PAGE 3 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGIST AP-C10-01 MOUNDS VIEW 'VENDOR CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE ` NO VENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR , DATE AMOUNT liii00HUGHES & COSTELLO 54664 02y25y97 O2/06/97 209.00 54664 02/25/97 02/06/97 300O.00 VENDOR TOTAL 3209.00 10023 INTERSTATE BEARING TE* 54665 02/25/97 10166135 02/05/97 104.79 VENDOR TOTAL 104.79 15535 INSTY-PR1NTS 54666 02/25/97 11293 01/21/97 19.60 VENDOR TOTAL 19.60 K1000 KENNEDY & GRAVEN 54667 02y25/97 14240 02/06/97 3392.79 54667 02/25/97 14241 02/06/97 3311 .81 54667 02/25/97 02/06/97 3000.00 VENDOR TOTAL 9704.60 K5000 KLEESPIE TANK & PETRO* 54668 02/25/97 971507 01/28/97 43.48 VENDOR TOTAL 43.48 L6500 LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES 54669 02/25/97 5239340979 02/02/97 ' 42. 18 VENDOR TOTAL 42. 18 MO850 MAYER DISTRIBUTING 54670 02/25/97 6248 02/04/97 202. 14 VENDOR TOTAL 202. 14 M2055 MEDTOX LABORATORIES 54671 02/25/97 019712156 01/31/97 30.00 VENDOR TOTAL 30.00 411170 METRO. COUNCIL ENVIRO* 54672 02/25/97 51320397 02/04/97 60132.00 VENDOR TOfAL 60132.00 M4201 MINNESOTA DEPTOF REV* 54673 02/25y97 02/25/97 50.00 VENDOR TOTAL 50.00 M4290 MINNESOTA GOLF ASSOCI* 54674 02/25/97 01/23/97 100.00 VENDOR TOTAL 100.00 M6000 MOUNDS VIEW, CITY OF 54675 02/25/97 02/25/97 993.38 VENDOR TOTAL 993.38 M7900 MULTICARE ASSOCIATES 54676 02/25/97 01/30/97 30.00 VENDOR TOTAL 30.00 N2210 NEW BRIGHTON, CITY OF 54677 02/25/97 01/22/97 4637.00 VENDOR TOTAL 4637.00 N2400 NEW RESOURCES GROUP, * 54678 02/25/97 00000289 12/16/96 269.40 VENDOR TOTAL 269.40 N3714 NORTHERN ASPHALT CONS* 54679 02/25y97 18114 01/31/97 148.04 VENDOR TOTAL 148.04 PAGE 4 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGIST AP-C10-01 MOUNDS VIEW VENDOR CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE NO VENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR DATE AMOUNT •0O NORTHERN STATES POWER* 54480 0'2/' 5/9'7 02/21/97 40' 0.:It.,. VENDOR TOTAL 4020. 719 N4207 NORTHERN WATER WORKS * 54681 02/25/97 5/97 M155884 02/05/97 177.77 VENDOR TOTAL 177.77 P2100 PERFECT " 10" CAR WASH 54482 02/25/97 02/25/97 S1 .92 VENDOR TOTAL 31 .98 P6=75 F'RINT€MASTER PRINTING 54j.8c:3 O'2/'25/973755 10/10/96 40. 12 VENDOR TOTAL 60. 12 80845 RAMSEY COUNTY 54684 0.2/5/97 C07054 57401 01/13/97 37. 16 VENDOR TOTAL 37. 16 50515 ST. CRO I X SCREENF'R I NT 54655 02/25/97 000 - 706 01/21/97 144.75 VENDOR TOTAL 144.75 82060 SERCO LABS 54686 02/25/97 51194 02/06/97 77.00 VENDOR TOTAL 77.00 S3191 SHELDON, PAMELA 544.-87 02/25/97 02/25/97 .-.7.000 VENDOR TOTAL 27.00 ii 4O5 SNY'DER`S DRUG STORES,* 54688 02/25/97 5044-003 02/13/97 ..7 . 74 IP 54688 02/25/97 5004-000055 02/13/97 12.24 '4 54682 02/29/97 5044-000061 02/14/97 5.53 VENDOR TOTAL 27. 13 86250 SPRING LAKE PAR" FIRE* 54689 02/25/97 01/18/97 2511 ..00 VENDOR TOTAL 25118.00 S6300 SPRING LAF<:E PARE. LUMB* 54690 02/25/97 175741 12/20/96 20.45 54490 02/25/97 17520 12/10/96 29. 19 VENDOR TOTAL 4c'.84 S41'93 STANDARD TRUCK & AUTO 54691 02/25/97 5/97 183375 01/28/97 827.72 VENDOR TOTAL 8-7.7 " 5- .i'_. STAR TRIBUNE 5.4692 02/25/97 183+.=. 07(,01 01/19/97 503.s0 VENDOR TOTAL =',07::.R0 T579TOLL GAS & WELDING SU* 5469- _ 02/25/97 5491.35 01/31/97 5.27 VENDOR TOTAL 5.27 U0400 U 5 WEST 54494 02/25/97 02/2==/Q7 346.42 VENDOR TOTAL 346.4 U0401 U S WEST COMMUNICATTO•- 54495 02/25/Q7 02/25/'7 21 . 12 III ' ' PAGE 5 ACCOUNTS� PAYABLE CHECK REGIST AP-C10-01 ' MOUNDS VIEW VENDOR CHECK CHECK INVOICE - INVOICE NO VENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR DATE AMOUNT VENDOR TOTAL 21 . 1: v.000 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE* 54694 02/25/97 740072015 02/05/97 195.6� VENDOR TOTAL 195.6� U9099 MINNESOTA, UNIVERSITY* 54697 02/25/97 01/29/97 495.00 VENDOR TOTAL 495.00 W1909 WEST WELD 54698O2/25/ 7 82149 02/06/97 152.95 VENDOR TOTAL 152.95 . ' GRAND TOTA124450.85 • PAGE 1 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PRE-PAID CHECK R AP-C10-02 • MOUNDS VIEW , VENDOR CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE NO VENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR DATE AMOUNT WESTERN BANK * 50853 02/13/97 02y13/97 3011 .84 VENDOR TOTAL 3011 .84 ���� �v008 AARP 50843 02/10/97 . 02/10/97 88.00 VENDOR TOTAL 88.00 72201 NEVALA, NATHANIEL 50844 02/11/97 ' 02/11/97 55.00 VENDOR TOTAL 55.00 E1000 EDGEWOOD JR HIGH 50845 02/11/97 02/11/97 20.00 VENDOR TOTAL 20.00 L3580 LINKE, SHARON 50846 02/11/97 02/11/97 29.68 VENDOR TOTAL 29.68 M4300 MINNESOTA GFOA 50847 02/11/97 ' 02/11/97 65.00 VENDOR TOTAL 65.00 72200 ANOKA KITCHEN BAND 50848 02/11/97 02/11/97 50.00 VENDOR TOTAL 50.00 N4200 NORTHERN STATES POWER* 50849 02/11/97 02/11/97 7836.74 VENDOR TOTAL 7836.76 U6500 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE 50850 02/13/97 02/13/97 716.77 VENDOR TOTAL 716.77 HEALTHPARTNERS 50851 02/13/97 � ��' 02/13/97 558.41 .88 VENDOR TOTAL 558.41 I0082 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST* 50852 02/13/97 02 . 13/97 116.54 VENDOR TOTAL 116.54 W1919 WESTERN BANK 50853 02y13y97 02/13/97 61132.98 50853 02/13/97 02/13/97 20170.23 50853 02/13/97 02/13/97 842.62 VENDOR TOTAL 82145.83 P7900 PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREM* 50854 02/13/97 02y13/97 5316.20 50854 02/13/97 02/13y97 101 .47 50855 02/13/97 02/13/97 18.75 VENDOR TOTAL 5436.42 51001 SAM'S CLUB 50856 02/13/97 02/13/97 47.77 VENDOR TOTAL 47.77 U2750 ULRICH, MICHAEL 50857 02/13/97 _, 02/13/97 30.55 VENDOR TOTAL 30.55 60212 THOMAS, RICHARD 50858 02/13/97 02/13/97 2150.56 III PAGE 2 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PRE-PAID CHECK R AP-C10-02 MOUNDS VIEW VENDOR-, CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE 'NO VENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR DATE AMOUNT VENDOR TOTAL '150.5r.` •11' GLISAN, CHESTER L. �085�9 02/13/97 02/13/97 2340.00 VENDOR TOTAL 2340.00 GRAND TOTAL 104A99. 13 1111 S Item No. 10- '7-05 P.rn Staff Report No.00- IC)714 C Meeting Date: 2/24/97 • Type of Business:Public Hearing WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council From: Pamela Sheldon,Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Introduction for first reading of Ordinance No.596 Amending Section 1106.02,Subd.2 and 3 of the Mounds View Zoning Code to Allow Eight Children in Family Foster Homes; Planning Case No.SP-014-97 Date of Report: February 21, 1997 Issue: Minnesota State Law defines a state licensed residential facility providing care of six or fewer persons as a permitted single family residential use, meaning that cities must permit such uses in residential districts without special regulation. The Minnesota Department of Corrections is one of the agencies which issues licenses for group homes and group foster homes for the purpose of treating juveniles who have violated criminal statutes. The rules governing the Department of Corrections define group homes and group foster homes as providing care for not more than eight children. They will only place six children in a group home or group foster home unless the local zoning code allows for the • additional two children. In 1996, the Mounds View Zoning Code was amended to allow a total of eight children in foster family homes. This amendment was initiated in response to a request from Mr.Duane Waldoch, who operates a foster family home for children referred to him by the Department of Corrections. His license was for six children, and he wanted to obtain a license allowing him to have eight children. This license could not be issued without the change in our Zoning Code. Mr. Waldoch applied for the revised license and the Department of Corrections asked us for evidence that our local Zoning Code allowed eight children. When we sent a copy of the amendment,the Department of Corrections responded that the way the amendment was written did not permit them to approve the additional children. Staff is proposing a further amendment which would solve this problem. Discussion: The Zoning Code was amended on July 15, 1996 by Ordinance No. 575. The amendment reads in part: Section 1106.02(R-1 District)is amended to read: 1106.02: Permitted Uses:The following uses are permitted uses are permitted(sic)in an R-1 District: Subd. 1 Single family detached dwellings. 41, Subd. 2. Permitted single family uses allowed under Minnesota Statutes 462.357,Subd. 7 as follows: City of Mounds View Staff Report Ordinance 594: Foster Family Homes February 21, 1997 Page 2 • a. A state licensed residential facility serving six or fewer persons; b. A licensed day care facility serving 12 or fewer persons; c. A group family day care facility licensed under Minnesota Rules,parts 9502.0315 to 9501.0445 to serve 14 or fewer children. d. Residential facilities whose primary purpose is to treat juveniles who have violated criminal statutes relating to sex offenses or have been adjudicated delinquent on the basis of conduct in violation of criminal statutes relating to sex offenses shall not be considered a permitted use. Subd 3. Notwithstanding the provision of Subdivision 2 herein,foster family homes as identified in Chapter 9545,Section 9545.0010,Subp. 7 ofAcumesota Rules shall be allowed as permitted uses to serve not more than eight children per home,not including the foster family's own children. (Emphasis added.) The reference in Subd. 3 (i.e. Chapter 9545, Section 9545.0010, Subp. 7)is to Minnesota Rules related to the Department of Human Services Licensing of Facilities for Children,which has definitions of foster family homes. The problem arises from the fact that the children being placed in Mr. Waldoch's home are not being referred there by the Department of Human Services but, instead, are being referred to him by the Department of Corrections. The Minnesota Rules related to the Department of Corrections have their own definition of group homes,foster homes, or group family homes. The Department of Corrections needs our local ordinance to refer to their rules and their definitions in order to consider the ordinance as allowing them to refer children to foster homes in Mounds View. It appears clear from the information in the file that the City Council's intent in amending the ordinance • was to accommodate Mr. Waldoch's situation. (Please see the attached memorandum from Joyce Pruitt to the File, and the staff reports sent to City Council at the time this ordinance amendment was presented to them. There was even informal permission given to Julie Snyder at Department of Corrections to place an additional child at the Waldoch's prior to formal adoption of the ordinance.) Our City Attorney has advised us that the ordinance needs to be amended to clarify that Subd 3. includes references to the rules for both the Department of Corrections and the Department of Human Services. Ordinance No. 596 has been prepared to correct the earlier oversight, and refer to both departments' rules in allowing up to eight children to be placed in foster homes. Recommendation: The Planning Commission,by a unanimous vote, and the staff recommend approval of Ordinance No. 596. Prior to adoption, the City Council must conduct a public hearing and introduce the ordinance for first reading,both of which have been put on the agenda for your February 24 meeting. Second reading and action on the ordinance will be scheduled for March 10. ,Full • Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\SPECPROJ\SP014.97\FOSTHOME.CC ORDINANCE NO. 596 410 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1106.02, SUBD. 2 AND 3 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE TO ALLOW EIGHT CHILDREN IN FOSTER FAMILY HOMES, GROUP HOMES AND GROUP FOSTER HOMES; PLANNING CASE NO. SP- 014-97 THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1: Section 1106.02, Subd. 2 and Subd. 3 be amended to read as follows: Subd. 2. Permitted single family uses allowed under Minnesota Statutes 462.357, Subd. 7 as follows: a. A state licensed residential facility serving six or fewer persons, except as provided in Subd. 3 of this Section 1106.02; b. A licensed day care facility serving 12 or fewer persons; • c. A group family day care facility licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9501.0445 to serve 14 or fewer children. d. Residential facilities whose primary purpose is to treat juveniles who have violated criminal statutes relating to sex offenses or have been adjudicated delinquent on the basis of conduct in violation of criminal statutes relating to sex offenses shall not be considered a permitted use. Subd. 3. Notwithstanding the provision of Subdivision 2-2.a. herein, foster family homes as identified defined in Minnesota Rules Chapter 9545, Section 9545.0010, Subp. 7 of Minnvbota Rules, which relate to the Department of Human Services, and group homes and group foster homes as defined in Department of Corrections Rules, extracted from Minnesota Rules, Chapter 2925, Section 2925.0100, Subp. 9, shall be allowed as permitted uses to serve not more than eight children per home, not including the foster family's own children. • Ordinance No. 596 March 10, 1997 Page 2 SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance goes into effect upon adoption by the City Council and 30 days after its publication in the official City newspaper. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on 1997. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 1997. Duane McCarty, Mayor ATTEST: Charles Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator 11111 (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert Long, City Attorney N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\SPECPROJ\SP014.9'7\FOSTHOME.ORD • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION IIIRESOLUTION NO.494-97 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO.596 AMENDING SECTION 1106.02, SUED. 2 AND 3 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE TO ALLOW EIGHT CHILDREN IN FOSTER FAMILY HOMES, GROUP HOMES AND GROUP FOSTER HOMES; PLANNING CASE NO. SP-014-97 WHEREAS,the Mounds View Zoning Code was amended on July 15, 1996 by Ordinance No. 575 to allow eight children in foster family homes; and, WHEREAS,the intent of the amendment was to allow group homes and group foster homes operated under the Minnesota Rules applicable to the Department of Corrections, as well as foster family homes operated under the Minnesota Rules applicable to the Department of Human Services to. have eight children; and, WHEREAS, the way in which the amendment was written is unclear as to whether it allows group homes and group foster homes to have eight children; and, WHEREAS, providing for this type of care in a residential setting for up to six children has been established as an allowed use in residential zoning districts by Minnesota State Law; and, • WHEREAS,the number of children may be increased to eight by adoption of a local ordinance; authorizing the two additional children; and, WHEREAS, it is a benefit to children and to the community at large to provide for this type of care in a residential setting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the Mounds View City Council adopt Ordinance No. 596 amending Section 1106.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code which relates to numbers of children permitted in residential care facilities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 5th day of February, 1997. umr5 Jerry Pet ' on, Chairperson Al JEST: PL' LL .. IIIPamela Sheldon, Community Development Director (SEAL) C.,OFFICEIWP WIN\WPDOCS\REGS\FOSTHOMEIFOSTHOME.RES • INTER OFFICEMEMO To: Chuck Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator From: Joyce Pruitt Subject: Foster care facility at 2935 Highway 10 • Date: May 15, 1996 *** FOR FILE*** As you requested, this memorandum has been prepared regarding the status of the foster care facility at 2935 Highway 10. Julie Snyder of the Minnesota DOC Inspection Unit and Juvenile Services contacted the City on May 08, 1996 to request the placement of one additional young . woman at the foster care facility at 2935 Highway 10. Up to this point, the Waldoch's had been operating a foster care facility at the property and only • permitting six foster children at the home. The State of Minnesota permits six or fewer foster children in residential districts without municipal regulation. Ms. Snyder made the request to add another foster child following a City Council worksession discussion to revise the foster care ordinance. The City Council expressed support for changing the Mounds View foster care ordinance to allow up to eight foster children in residential districts. Although this new ordinance has not been formally adopted as of yet, I believe it is the Council's intention to allow up to eight children at a foster care facility. The additional child is a female under eighteen years of age who still requires education on family living skills, which Ms. Snyder feels the Waldoch's can provide. On May 08, 1996, Ms. Snyder was notified that it would be acceptable to allow this one additional child into the foster care for the 8265 Spring Lake Road facility, prior to the formal adoption of the amended foster care code. III • C REQUEST FOR COUNC L CONSIDERATION Agenda Sealai 9. { STAFF REPORT Report Number: 96-16 9 2WS ET& CTS Report Date: 5/1/96 WORKSESSION MEETING DATE Mav 06, 1996 oippz,.1.2 fs/i4. Item Description: Discussion relating to a proposed ordinance amendment for amending Chapter 1006, Entitled "R-1 Single Family DistricC (Foster Care). Administrator's Review/Recommendation: -No Comments to supplement this report a(.,.) -Comments attached • ExpIanation/Sumrnary(attach supplement sheets as necessary) S ummary: Former City Clerk-Administrator Harrington was working with Duane and Donna Waldoch of 2935 ghway 10, regarding the City's foster care ordinance. The 2935 Iitghway 10 property is currently zoned R-3 Medium Density Residential, which allows foster care as a permitted use. The Mounds View Municipal Code currently states: "Boarding III (house) home; foster children:Restricted to a family dwelling in which children out of their - , . own homes, ages sixteen(16) years or under, or in the case of mental retardation, age twenty one (21) or under, are cared for twenty four(24) hours a day for a period of thirty (30) days. The number to be cared for in one foster child boarding(house) home shall not exceed twelve (12), including the foster family's own children." Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statute allows for a state licensed residential facility, such as a group foster care home, serving six or fewer persons as a permitted singie family use. Thus, the State says to cities, if a person is providing foster care to six or fewer persons in a residential disuict, a city cannot place restriction on the age nor time period the individuals can stay at the premises. However, a city may place additional restric ons on a foster care facility which has more than six individuals. The Waldoch's have found the Mounds View Code restricting the ages of the children they can provide foster care for and how Iong they can provide foster care to each child difficult to work with during"over lap79 periods. This overlap period occurs when.the Waidoch's are about to have some children in the process of leaving and are tying to schedule new children to enter their home for foster care. Joyce Y PruittActing Community 1'5eveiopmezt Director RECOMMENDATION: III • Staff seeks City Council direction for drafting an amendment pertaining to foster care facilities in residential districts. • "—.....__--i STAFF REPORT FOR PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAP ltit 1006 (FOSS CARE) AGE TWO OF TWO Attorney Long has drafted an ordinance for the City of Mounds View reflecting the statute requirements (pertaining to six or fewer children for foster care) for your review and consideration. This ordinance was presented to the Planning Commission for review at the April 17, 1996 Agenda meeting, but based on the . Waldoch's request for more than six children, was forwarded to the City Council for direction in drafting the ordinance. The Waidoch's would like the City Council to consider allowing more than six children for foster care at their premises. Attorney Long has stated that if the City would consider allowing more than six children for foster care a process, through a conditional use permit, should be established. If the Council is to establish a. conditional use permit process to allow seven or more children for foster care, the Council may wish to set limits for the total number of children which can be at a foster care facility. Attorney Long has also suggested the City Council create definitions for foster care families and different types of care facilities (ie. mentally ill, delinquency rehab, drug rehab, etc.). Attorney Long will be present at the worksession for discussion on this item. Mr. Waldoch has expressed an interest in attending this work session to provide further information on his request. I I 40 I _. I art C-,7 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agcuda. Sem€io 4 /T •,....... 017GUt � % STAFF REPORT Report Number. %r4J Report Date: 6/18/96 CSpotOArgd�erdaofEus.CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE' Rii Tune 24, 1996 •'-''l-P7ttaatsky X Public Hearings Council Business Item Description: Consideration of Introduction of Ordinance No. 575, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106, Section 1106.02, Entitled"R-1, Single Family Residential Disc,"pexg to foster care facilities. • Administrator's Review/Recommendation: -No Comments to supplement this report • _ -Comments attached. Explanation/Summary(attach supplement sheets as necessary) Summary: MEMORANDUM TO: Chuck Whiting, City CIerk-Administrator FROM: Joyce Pruitt, Acting Community Development Director RE: Public hearing for 7:35 p.m. Monday, June 24, 1996, to consider amending Chapter 1106, Section 1106.02, pertaining to foster care f egg .c s DATE: June 17, 1996 • ' s you may recall, Former Acting City-Clerk Administrator Paul Harrington was worldng•with Duane and III onna Waldoch of 2935 Highway 10, regarding revising Mounds View's foster care ordinance. The 2935 Highway 10 property is currently zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential, which allows foster care as a permitted use. The Waldoch's have found that the current Ianguage in the Mounds View Zoning Code is difficult to work with since the ordinance currently restricts the ages of the foster children they can provide care to and for how long they can provide foster care to each child. Discussion of a proposed amendment to the foster care ordin I ance Nas discussed at the May 06, 1996 City Council work session. City Council directed Staff to work with Attorney Long to draft a code amendment allowing up to eight foster care children per home, not including the foster family's own children. The Planning Commission has reviewed this amendment and has recommended approval to the City Council in Resolution No. 452-96, which is attached for your review. Introducing this ordinance will require a roll call vote. .'7 Joyce Pruitt, Acting Community Development Director - S .COMYEYIFNDATION: Motion to waive the actual reading and consideration.of ApprovaUDenial of the ormai Introduction of Ordinance No. 575. an Ordinance amending Chapter 1006, Section 1006.02, Entitled "R-1 Single Family Residential District," pertaining to foster care facilities. a Item No. I 0 - 7:JO pin, Staff Report No. 97-197.SC Meeting Date: 2/24/97 IIIType of Business: PH WK• Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council From: James Ericson, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Linder's Greenhouses at Mounds View Square Shopping Center, 2535-2585 Highway 10; Planning Case No. 470-96 Date of Report: February 20, 1997 Summary: Mr. Peter Linder, representing Linder's Greenhouses, has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow for the operation of an outdoor flower-mart in the parking lot of Mounds View Square. Linder's was previously issued CUPs for the 1995 and 1996 growing season. No changes are proposed in the location, layout and operation from previous years. 0 In his letter of application, Mr. Linder requests that the City consider allowing the operation to hook up to a fire hydrant on the property in order to get water for the flora. This was done last year without incident. The charges for permitting such water usage include a $100 hydrant deposit, a$20 wrench deposit and a$20 adapter valve deposit. These deposits are refundable. The applicant's request to connect to the fire hydrant has been approved by the Department of Public Works, subject to receiving the appropriate deposits. In addition, the applicant will be billed $1.00 per day for water service, which should equal or exceed the cost of the water used. Analysis: Mr. Linder is expecting to operate the Flower Mart from April 15 to June 30, 1997, but would like the CUP to be effective from March 15 to July 15, 1996, to accommodate for seasonal fluctuations and assembly/disassembly. Linder's Flower Mart is a perennial Mounds View business, having been at the same location for the past four years. Staff is not aware of any problems associated with this operation. The flower mart will be located at the edge of the Mounds View Square parking lot, alongside of Highway 10. The closest residential neighbors at this point are the homes behind the shopping center and the Wildwood Manor senior apartments across Highway 10 to the south. The residences, separated from the flower mart by the shopping center and the highway, should bear no discernable impact from the use. • The flower mart is related to the needs of the residents of Mounds View in that there are no greenhouses within the City. The zoning for the shopping center is B-4 (Regional Business City of Mounds View Staff Report Planning Case No. 470-96 February 19, 1997 Paget • District) which allows outdoor sales as a conditional use. The area of Mounds View Square is identified as Highway Commercial within the City's Comprehensive Plan, a designation not inconsistent with the shopping center and proposed flower mart. Traffic in the area should not noticeably increase as a result of this use as it will draw much of its customer base from the Mounds View Square shoppers and commuters traveling east and west on Highway 10. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 5, 1997, voted unanimously to approve Resolution No. 492-97 recommending to the City Council approval of the conditional use permit for Linder's Greenhouses. Recommendation: The Planning Commission, by a unanimous vote, and the Staff recommend City Council adoption of Resolution 5090 approving the conditional use permit for Linder's Greenhouses Flower Mart at Mounds View Square with conditions regarding effective dates, hours of operation, signage and lighting. CvA;'‘- James Ericson, Planning Associate N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\DEVCASESW70-96\LINDERS.CC • RESOLUTION NO. 5090 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LINDER'S GREENHOUSES TO OPERATE AN OUTDOOR FLOWER MART AT MOUNDS VIEW SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER; PLANNING CASE NO. 470-96 WHEREAS, Peter Linder, representing Linder's Greenhouses, has applied for a conditional use permit to conduct open and outdoor sales at Mounds View Square Shopping Center; property zoned B-4, legally described as follows: That Part Lying Northeasterly of the Centerline of State Trunk Highway 10 of NE I/ ofNE'/. (Subject to Roads and Highways) in Section 7, Township 30, Range 23 WHEREAS, the Mound View Zoning Code allows open and outdoor sales in the B-4 Regional Business District with the approval of a conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: • a) Planning Application b) Zoning Map c) Site Plan dated December 12, 1996 d) Greenhouse Design e) Interior Specifications f) Letter from Applicant g) Letter from Property Owner h) Planning Commission Resolution No. 492-97 WHEREAS, The Mounds View City Council makes the following findings that the criteria for approval in Section 1115.04, Subd. 2 have been met: a. Outdoor service, sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is limited to thirty percent (30%) of the gross floor area of the principal use. The shopping center contains 102,035 square feet of building area. The applicant proposes to occupy 2,200 square feet in the parking lot, which is 2.2% of the building square footage on the site. This criterion has been met. b. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or an abutting residential district in compliance with Subdivisions 1103.08(1) 4110 through(5) of this Title. City Council Resolution No. 5090 February 5, 1997 • Page 2 The parking lot fronting Highway 10 does not abut any residential properties. The nearest residential property is Wildwood Manor, an apartment building for senior citizens, which would be well screened from the proposed use by a stand of trees and the intervening Highway 10. This criterion has been met. c. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. The applicant is proposing to use an existing parking lot which is surfaced with asphalt. This criterion is met. d. The provisions of Section 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. Adverse Effects: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment or conditional use. Its judgement shall be based upon(but not limited to) the following factors: (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. (2) The geographical area involved. (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is • proposed. (4) The character of the surrounding area. (5) The demonstrated need for such use. The proposal is for a temporary greenhouse in the parking lot of an existing shopping center. The shopping center is surrounded by roadways and the area where the use is to be located is 1,000 feet from the nearest residential property. The short duration of the use will result in little, if any, effect upon the surrounding area. The sale of flowers and plants is a typical seasonal business in a community such as Mounds View and it serves a community need. This criterion is met. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that this conditional use permit for an outdoor flower-mart operation at Mounds View Square Shopping Center be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View City Council does hereby approve the conditional use permit for the Linder's Greenhouse Flower Mart at Mounds View Square Shopping Center with the following conditions: 1. The facility shall be allowed to operate from March 15, 1997, to July 15, 1997. 2. The hours of operation of the facility shall not exceed 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 3. Only the signage shown on the Greenhouse Design Plan shall be allowed. 4. All lighting for the use shall be supplied by existing parking lot lighting and supplemental interior lighting, if needed. City Council Resolution No. 5090 February 5, 1997 • Page 3 Adopted this 24th day of February, 1997. Duane McCarty, Mayor Attest: Chuck Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator (Seal) N:\data\users\pams\share\devcases\470-96\linderce.res RESOLUTION NO. 492-97 IIICITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY LINDER'S GREENHOUSES, MOUNDS VIEW SQUARE,PLANNING CASE NO. 470-96 WHEREAS, Peter Linder, representing Linder's Greenhouses, has applied for a conditional use permit to conduct open and outdoor sales at Mounds View Square Shopping Center; property zoned B-4, legally described as follows: That Part Lying Northeasterly of the Centerline of State Trunk Highway 10 ofNE'/ ofNE'4 (Subject to Roads and Highways) in Section 7, Township 30, Range 23 WHEREAS, the Mound View Zoning Code allows open and outdoor sales in the B-4 Regional Business District with the approval of a conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regardin this proposal: a) Planning Application III b) Zoning Map c) Site Plan dated December 12, 1996 d) Greenhouse Design e) Interior Specifications f) Letter from Applicant g) Letter from Property Owner WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings that the criteria for approval in Section 1115.04, Subd. 2 have been met: a. Outdoor service, sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is limited to thirty percent (30%) of the gross floor area of the principal use. The shopping center contains 102,035 square feet of building area. The applicant proposes to occupy 2,200 square feet in the parking lot, which is 2.2% of the building square footage on the site. This criterion has been met. b. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or an abutting residential district in compliance with Subdivisions 1103.08(1) through (5) of this Title. The parking lot fronting Highway 10 does not abut any residential properties. The nearest III Planning Commission Resolution 492-97 February 5, 1997 Page 2 residential property is Wildwood Manor, an apartment building for senior citizens, which would be well screened from the proposed use by a stand of trees and the intervening Highway 10. This criterion has been met. c. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. The applicant is proposing to use an existing parking lot which is surfaced with asphalt. This criterion is met. d. The provisions of Section 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. Adverse Effects: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment or conditional use. Its judgement shall be based upon(but not limited to) the following factors: (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. (2) The geographical area involved. • (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. (4) The character of the surrounding area. (5) The demonstrated need for such use. The proposal is for a temporary greenhouse in the parking lot of an existing shopping center. The shopping center is surrounded by roadways and the area where the use is to be located is 1,000 feet from the nearest residential property. The short duration of the use will result in little, if any, effect upon the surrounding area. The sale of flowers and plants is a typical seasonal business in a community such as Mounds View and it serves a community need. This criterion is met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: 1. The facility shall be allowed to operate from March 15, 1997, to July 15, 1997. 2. The hours of operation of the facility shall not exceed 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 3. Only the signage shown on the Greenhouse Design Plan shall be allowed. • 4. All lighting for the use shall be supplied by existing parking lot lighting and supplemental interior lighting, if needed. Planning Commission Resolution 492-97 February 5, 1997 ._ •. Page 3 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 5th day of February, 1997. Jerry Pet on, ' hairperson Attest: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director (Seal) N:\DATA\USERSUIME\sHARE\470-961LINDERPC.RES . . • • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW • f PLANNING APPLICATION APPLICANT: .A.t.I(A2S CeQ,E44460`,"4n. \AQ, Phone ^(di III ADDRESS:21c 4u \t.a-V iii t_rx Y_ Pt Ste.QRu. NikkiNikkiSS1 n Street Address, City, State, and Zip Code ' Interest in Property (check appropriate box): ❑ Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner Z Lessee, Operator, Manager Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other (explain) Documentary evidence of applicant's interest in the property may be required before final City action of this request PROPERTY INVOLVED: Address/General Location MOUtjj t 1/4)q ty9' ac, 2_ U to q LoKik, t_p,., QD . Legal Description or Property Identification Number Legal Owner: Name/Address QAST Q.. E.O'-tr2.4Eic 22271 v►aluc.Qc.rN aV S—.9Ate_ Present Use (check appropriate box): ❑ UndevelopedNacant III 0 Single Family Dwelling • ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-Family (No. of Units ) ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) Property Classification: 0 Abstract 0 Torrens REQUEST: CCOLIo -riod AL, LSF)__ Q 'Arr- 'TO R A. LAQ.Zi,`?:_ ''L.Dv-,EY_. MAQ-' – tvlOuNIS:MN/t E-vJ QVc `4 S int t O 4-r.j `rEAi.. r INALI. .IC 1V. .! . VS .E.Ac'rtO0 %rrt. PL.Av.1 'V l _c I eP J Lg.— V.; Lg.—CZ t. . 1 *Please note: Applicant may be responsible for additional f associated wi the revie f •f tr est. I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT ARE TR . , Lt ' Signature ******************************************************************************************** Rezoning $200/acre,minimum$200,maximum$1,000 Park Fund Dedication Fee Variance R-1 to R-2-$75,all others$200 Date Paid Conditional Use Permit R-1 to R-2-$75,all others$200 Receipt Number Code Appeal $75 Develop./Site Plan Review $100/acre,minimum 100,maximum $500 Total Fees Paid Minor Subdivision $150 Date Paid Major Subdivision $250 plus$250 deposit Receipt Number Comp. Plan Amendment $200 Wetland Alteration Permit $50 plus deposit determined by Staff40 Additional Fee Paid Wetland Buffer Permit $10 Date Paid Planning Sign $50 Receipt Number PUD $350 PUD Amendment $150 Date of final action APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ TABLED 0 Date Planning Case No. Admin.Account No. i 8040 8042 8045 8052 8051 8044 8045 8046 O"'t OU40 u. 8042 8039 8028 Y 8032 8033 8040 8035 8032 8031 8038— 8035 8024 8027 801 OQ 8023 8018 8011 8000 8022 8019 8030 8021 8016 8009 8006 8000 8001 8010 8011 8000 8005 8 8004 7981 7990 007981 7990 CZ 7989 7996 7993 7990 7977 7984 7989 7 7970 7979 7980 7969 7980 7979 7980 O 7985 7970 , 7960 p 7959 7970 7965 7960 7961 7964 7975 7980 7971 7968 7966 7969 7956 L 7949 7954 7959 7950 7951 7954 7940 7945 7946 7927 HILLVIEW 7955 7944 7953 7948 7950 7940 7930 7935 7930 7917 PARK 7945 7934 7931 m ,q ,c) a) n 7901 O, 47 a) r 7930 n n 7900 m co 7900 7901 7900 -'901 7) 7) ''• S 7900 ( v1 v I 1:01 N N 7900 7901 N N N N N PF N N N N N N N N HILLVIEW ROAD _ ' co to tD N to O m N 7 t0 C 04 N 1°j p 7891 to 7880 7895 I N N 7890 7885 'Ti) N 7864 786 N A:. N ui'� 886 7889 7888 v I v 1 v r } 7867 7870 7858 N N N 7876 Z 7885 7866 7869 7878_ 7875 7888 7869 7880 7852 7853 B -Zs 2 7870 O 7877 7854 7851 7860 7865 w 7870 7861 7854 p 7857 7850 4: > N 7863 7842 7841 7850 7855 7846 7841 7836 3 cc 7845 7840 AO 7830 C 7840 7835 7840 7829 g 784-7 7840 444, . 7851 7820 p 7837 7830 w y1 -4r–3 ., 7820 7815 • 7800 7817 O 7833 7832 – > ,'r,, ,gyp 7815 7790 p 7809 7814 3 7815 7827 7824 n ,d4:14..c. t. 7810 0 7805 7780 7801 7806 7814 7817 7800 7809 7770 3 7801 7760 7797 7800 7801 780d B-2 R-4011Ni 7801 w 7751 7750 7787 7778 7749 7750 7807i L 7777 � �1 7767 77so 3 7741 7740 7767 7768 7739 7740 775 /� L 7761 7750 7731 7730 7753 7748 7729 7730 7741 7740 i 8-2 E 7755 7730 7721 7720 7728 7719 7720< 773 30 .. 1 7745 7710 7711 7710 7709 771 C p 7721 7720 ti co 7715 N N °°v°°i N 7700 N 7701 7700 m 770 ,j. YV N O N h@ .:.:......:............................. R-2 R-2 CO PUD ^ •�M� G.8_3 , • NN in 74 04 - Z i" N N N N N n G 7695 N N N N N N N N 254 7687 7660 31766• 2545 R-4 R-4 mt. 0 8-3 'O B-4 2541 66 n 2539lent `� 2537 4' 7 76r ,:p 11111:1111r.: h 4 655 . O `y rd. 76453 iLWJF{JC1��,8� SILVER VIEW .� ifit n N.. n• ��� B L4 �/ 4, N N N N w PARK ,:-.2<4 Y . � i — N n O t0., . — N .. N r 52 t7 t0 O2I/' V B-3 N tco 0 0 N N 0004 (...„.0.(...„.0. CO0C13 N•_ MI .1, N .. N N N PF N N N N NigOf t0 00l0 • .-r O y N N"N m C,N.O.n NN_N� N p�N 44. N Oto•10 Of � N .0. -"4 r N i' PF 0 t0 2. iii ;s2 N CITY HALL ..... ......._..... N°770 P N N 1.. C4 N 0 \111111 N010 � . O AI • mN ti 4= .6v - - - - zapoli ..... NN 1a1 Qr pR PF ... _ - 1o'tO 740 B-1333 .. .t • Zoning Map Planning Case No. 470-96 Location: Mounds View Square Shopping Center N4 Applicant: Peter Linder, Linder's Greenhouses, Inc. I : COUNTY R�14D I uwi iia 11111111111171R ii ! 1--Er, - ot 1 11 i ! ! i 1 ! 1 . 1 1 . , `/ 44 S• 2.12.........j • ' . . -4!'"%'''1"4,' . i- ....' • ! -.i-i.'.7'.:1 .,....': L 1 (� U I ! 11u ti » iir. —7 ' • { s { { .- 1- — {UOiT LIQUORS a . 1 it : :i „: = _ 4Q1in 31iY1 / ' ; _ 1 / �I I I 1 ' 11, • yis �91a t> >e 1a 14 13 11 10,...'"'""1..._11 4 • _ 1 t,700 iA a \.... ......[.../ s .•. Lace tur.1 L := IT:, It ! i ! im l 1111 , �► 11 [( I t 1 * ' l IT.I I �.1 ... •..► N Ilk . I1ii !H ! ' lI1IiII:� _ • b, 4 -_. :, 1 \ , 1 .4,14„ ! I Or i llOr, , •1 45.. , CM - ,.„.: I I I i ,,,SY! i :. % 14• .y �•��'�1 I 0 111 111 1 111J 1J 1 LU-L 1_n';c h °IS4WW`! NIAN A4S-W sty. . ;i.,,:7_0t'X la 1 \ a . • 4 . . - , H_Fil_l___I . , 1 - ,.. ; :, , • ,, / ...., 3 :.,.._ . , • '. .. 2: � i , . _ :. ,,,, PLONUL Ml r : .. ..: 7-1 X eO ' . N.\\\N • SCALE IN FEET } li TFir . \ 0 25 60 100 200 Site PlanIII Planning Case No. 470-96 Location: Mounds View Square Shopping Center Applicant: Peter Linder, Linder's Greenhouses, Inc. -AT i 4 • Z • 0 .. .. CZ 0 Id 1 Alt • ? Q V) 3 QAir Q , pi �r • q .1 * (n. • .•: jr. . .g •. V) . Cr ; �.. i il - i " J4 $c*.i '41} 4•r''. . ,. dr• I f•�J ti�i lid �� t •• wn, .,. iOr '\' IVA\i 10r • I . • ' 0...,1;41 :',„..'/Ial" // . 1a g\lilt ti a LL 1 Q-� - r— _•1 • d 07 1 ,r! • 1% . 1` y ;fl1 • -• ,7. .•a e • . . • • • . . I LT.' • • Greenhouse Design L Planning Case No.470-96 • Linder' Greenhouses,Inc. $ 0 VtJ ^ 5 tr): tn \ t `.9 5 `.- w 1U _Z . IIWii tF- cy II III II IL <Ic. 72-: - II - MI II cY W En CO 1.„ 1.i J II ✓ - r-�r'� '. `f . 11 a IIZ I i1 b . c„, • -- Interior Specifications • L...„ _ (�1 Planning Case No.470,95 • Linder's Greenhouses,Inc. WHOLESALE GREENHOUSES RETAIL GARDEN CENTER ' CORPORATE OFFICE 275 W. Wheelock Pkwy. • 270 W. Larpenteur Ave. , St. Paul, Minn. 55117 St. Paul, Minn. 55117 612-488-1927 • QVSEs 612-488-6717 FAX 488- Gpeetminm...... .mmmoimmnimm=immommmoimosuimmmm., City Planner December 12, 1996 City of Moundsview 2401 NE Hwy. 10 Moundsview, MN 55112 • Dear Sir/Ms, Attached to this letter is my application for a Conditional Use permit for our Flower Mart at the Moundsview Square Shopping Center. I would like to state that the Flower Mart at this location last spring was very successful and we had many customers comment that they were happy to have us here. As far as I know there were no problems with our being here and we feel we were good neighbors for the shopping center and the community. We are eager to return for our Fourth successful year in Moundsview. . You will note that nothing has changed from last year and we will operate in 1996 the same as in 1997. Our electricity will come from the pylon in the lot near the Flower Mart. The water for our use will come from the hydrant to the south of the Flower Mart. This is also the same as last year. It worked out very well for us and your public works department. . Our 1997 business season is planned for April 15 thru June 30. We need the same allowances for assembly and take down as in 1996. I have enclosed a check for$200.00 (the same as in the past years) as the fee for this permit. I hope this information satisfies all your needs. If you have any questions please call me at 865-5358. ----Sincere" , Alk P- er A. Under- ice President Linder's Greenhouses Inc. • 02, Printed on Recycled Paper g. = Zj = 612 646 1384 P.02/03 giatet 3493titetaek DEVELOPM ENT AND MANAGEMENT OP SHOPPING CENTERS MN University Ave.•St.Paul, N SS114-]677.6i 2-646-7901•Fax 672-646-1389 ember 12, 1996 • CEN IR.2AL PLAZA • Mayor Jerry Linke 45th c C.aitra1 Ave.N.E. Mounds View City Council Minneapolis,Minnesota City of Mounds View 2401 West Hwy 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 CRYSTAL SHOPPING CENTER Bass Lake Road&West Broadway RE: Special Use Permit Crystal,Minnesota Dear Mayor Linke and Council Members: DollawAY SHOPPING C TER Once again, Linder's Greenhouse is seeking a Special Use Permit to set Smith&Dodd Road up a temporary structure in the MoundsView Square Shopping Center West St Paul,Minnesota parking lot from approximately the middle of April 1997 through late June 1997, to sell plants, shrubs, flowers, etc. I trust that the residents in Mounds View have found Linder's products LEXINGTON PLAZA SEOPPBS to be of excellent 1. ington&Larpcntetu q ual'ity, and guaranteed by Linder's in the event that Roseville,Miancsota they should fail to survive. We trust that you will agree that this Special Use Permit should be issued in order that your constituents can avail themselves of the WENDOTA PLAZA excellent selection inuali merchandise offered byLinder's. State Hwy. 410&Dodd Road • Mendota Helghtss,Minacsota We thank you in advance far your consideration to grant the above- mentioned Special Use Permit. MOLNT)sVIEW SQUARE Sincerely, Hwy. 10&Lotig Lake Road Mounds Viuw,M innrsots MOUNDSVIEW SQUARE ASSOCIATES CX‘iittAZt- NORfl4WAY SHOPPING CENTER W.R. Banet State Hwy.23&Woodland Vice President Circle Pincs,Minnesota Real Estate WRB/kl SIBLEY PLAZA West 7th Street&Dave= • SL Paul,Minnesota SOUTHVIEw SHOPPING CENTER Southview Blvd.&13th Ave.S • South St.Paul.Minnesota Item No. 10- 7:15 pm Staff Report No. 97-po/ c.. III Meeting Date: February 24, 1997 Type of Business: PH WK:Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:ConsentAgenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council From: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing Considering Old Hwy 8 Reconstruction Date of Report: February 20, 1997 On Wednesday, February 19, Staff met with the property owners proposed to be assessed for the reconstruction of Old Highway 8 to discuss the project and concerns from the owners. The two corner property owners strongly disagreed with the assessment formula for commercially zoned corner lots. This formula states that the adjustable front footage for an assessment shall be the entire frontage measured along the setback line comprising the building envelope. This in essence means the property will be assessed for both sides of the frontage regardless of which side is being improved. The justification for this method is because of the higher inherent property value associated with improved traffic frontage and greater visibility along business district and • industrial park intersections. While the City Attorney did review the original assessment policy, in recent conversations regarding this formula, as it applies to commercial property it could invite litigation challenging the assessment method. Mr. Long suggested the City Council may wish to consider possible modifications to the assessment policies for commercial properties. Staff concurs with this recommendation. The storm sewer assessment method utilized on the Bronson Drive project was to formulate the total expenses for the storm sewer construction and divide that amount by the acres within the drainage districts served by the project. For Bronson Drive the assessable amount was 112 acres at $1,198.15 /acre. For the Old 8 project that amount is 12.66 acres at$4,871.39/acre. This obviously was an enormous concern on the affected property owners. In conversations with other City staff, engineers and the City attorney about this subject, two methods were discussed. One being that the property owners in a drainage district that would receive benefit from a trunk storm sewer, only be assessed an amount(by lot or acre) determined and adjusted annually by Council. Should a project be initiated on a particular street that requires storm sewer laterals which would be connected to the trunk lines, the Surface Water Utility would fund these expenses. The other method would reverse the process whereby, the property owner would only pay for a storm sewer that is required on their street, with the Utility funding the trunk sewer line. The first option is the one that staff would recommend because water may be carried 0 in the curb line to a trunk storm sewer, thereby not requiring lateral pipes. This method would still provide the City to fund projects and provide a seemingly more equitable means of assessing City of Mounds View Staff Report • February 20, 1997 Page 2 storm sewer projects. The Assessment Policy has only been in existence since 1995 and only utilized once for a project of nearly 100% residential property in nature, while the Old 8 project is all commercial property with considerably larger parcels. It is inconceivable that any assessment policy will address every possible situation presented, this type of revision would sustain more longevity and provide equality to future assessments. Staff is recommending Council consider these issues regarding the assessment policy and any others that might be of concern at the April Council Work Session. This would allow for any possible revisions to be in place prior to the Assessment Hearing for Old Highway 8. Staff has prepared Resolution No. 5091 Considering the Old Highway 8 Reconstruction Project for Council's consideration. If Council has any questions or concerns regarding this report, please feel free to call me. "chael Ulrich, irector of Public Works • RECOMMENDATION: Council adopt Resolution No. 5091, Resolution Considering Old Highway 8 Reconstruction. 4111 RESOLUTION NO. 5091 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION CONSIDERING OLD HIGHWAY 8 RECONSTRUCTION WHEREAS, the reconstruction of Ramsey County Old Highway 8 from the New Brighton / Mounds View city limits is identified in the County's capital improvement program; and WHEREAS, the City's engineer has concurred with Ramsey County's feasibility report; and WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has entered into a cooperative agreement with Ramsey County to reconstruct Old Highway 8 within the City of Mounds View; and WHEREAS, Resolution Numbers 5033 Approving Construction Plans, 5034 Approving Cooperative Agreement, and 5035 Approving Parking Restrictions were approved by the City Council on November 12, 1996; and • WHEREAS, Ramsey County is the contracting agent and has developed plans, specifications and advertised the project; and WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View is proposing to pay' for the public improvements in part with special assessments against the benefitted properties; and WHEREAS, a copy of the resolution setting the public hearing and public hearing notices were mailed to affected properties and were published in the official City newspaper according to Section 8 . 04 of the City Charter and Chapter 202 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on February 24, 1997 to consider public input regarding the proposed project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds View Minnesota, concurs with Ramsey County's feasibility study and finds that the reconstruction of Old Highway 8 is feasible, necessary and cost-effective. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Ramsey County is the • contracting agent for the project and has developed plans, specifications and was advertised for the project. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that if after sixty (60) days has elapsed following the date of this public hearing no petition has been filed against the proposed public improvement to be assessed in accordance with Sec.8.04 of the City Charter, the City Council will act to concur in the awarding of a contract for the project as recommended by Ramsey County. Adopted this 24h day of February, 1997. ATTEST: MAYOR (SEAL) CITY ADMINISTRATOR • Item No. 10 - 7:020 p rn. Staff Report No.q7-1977 C.... Meeting Date: 2/245/97 110 Type of Business: PH WK Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council From: James Ericson, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Introduction for First Reading of Ordinance No. 594, An Ordinance Amending Chapters 606, 607 and 1005 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Related to the Requirement to Mow Tall Grasses and Creating an Exemption for Wetland and Native Vegetation; Planning Case No. SP-012-97 Date of Report: February 20, 1997 Summary: This Code amendment was prompted by a situation that developed last year when the City asked Keith King, property owner of 8380 Greenwood Drive, to mow an area in his rear yard that had 110 been left to grow natural. Staff learned that this area is boggy, and at times, wet, resulting in wetland type vegetation to grow if left undisturbed. Our Code, however, makes no exception for such land uses or landscape treatments. Analysis: The Mounds View Nuisance Code enumerates as a nuisance All noxious weeds, "tall grasses" defined as anything over 8 inches (8'9 in height, and other rank growths. Property owners are responsible for the mowing and/or removal of such noxious weeds and tall grasses. The area in the rear yard of 8380 Greenwood exceeded the eight-inch height limitation. Staff had the opportunity to inspect Mr. King's backyard to view the area unmown and did not find it objectionable. Mr. King keeps the natural area well-managed and separate from any adjacent property lines. This Code amendment would allow for the following areas and types of vegetation to be exempted from this provision if managed in a manner so as not to become infested with noxious weeds or to create a stagnant, foul smelling condition: • Native wetland vegetation found in floodplains, drainage ponds or ditches which store and convey stormwater. • Native vegetation found in natural areas which are part of public open space, parks and nature centers. City of Mounds View Staff Report February 20, 1997 Page 2 • Natural plantings, wetland and meadow vegetation indigenous to Minnesota, grown on any occupied lot or parcel of land and maintained as part of a landscape treatment or garden area approved by the Director of Community Development. • An area where the land and vegetation appear not to have been graded, landscaped, mowed or otherwise disturbed by human or mechanical means at any time. • An area of at least five (5) acres used by an educational institution or public agency for prairie land restoration, if the prior vegetation is eliminated and the prairie vegetation is planted through transplanting or seed. There are a number of areas within the City where tall grasses grow as wetland and native vegetation. Recognizing that certain undisturbed or natural areas are an aesthetic and ecological benefit to our environment, the Planning Commission voted unanimously in favor of this Code amendment by approving Resolution No. 493-97. Recommendation: The Planning Commission, by a unanimous vote, and Staff recommend City Council adoption of Ordinance 594, which relates to exemptions from the noxious weed and tall grass provisions of the Municipal Code. • James Ericson, Planning Associate cc: Keith King, 8380 Greenwood Drive ORDINANCE NO. 594 0 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 606, 607 AND 1005 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO THE REQUIREMENT TO MOW TALL GRASSES AND CREATING AN EXEMPTION FOR WETLAND AND NATIVE VEGETATION THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1: Chapter 606 of the Mounds View Public Health and Safety Code is amended by adding new language and subdivisions exempting certain land uses and landscape treatments from Section 606.02, entitled"DESTRUCTION OF WEEDS BY OWNER": 606.02: DESTRUCTION OF WEEDS BY OWNER: All such grass and weeds shall be cut, pulled or destroyed whenever they shall exceed a height of eight (8)inches. The following • areas and types of vegetation are exempted from this provision if managed in a manner so as not to become infested with noxious weeds or to create a stagnant, foul smelling condition: Subd. 1. Native wetland vegetation found in floodplains, drainage ponds or ditches which store and convey stormwater. Subd. 2. Native vegetation found in natural areas which are part of public open space, parks and nature centers. Subd. 3. Natural plantings, wetland and meadow vegetation indigenous to Minnesota, grown on any occupied lot or parcel of land and maintained as part of a landscape treatment or garden area approved by the Director of Community Development. Subd. 4. An area where the land and vegetation appear not to have been graded, landscaped, mowed or otherwise disturbed by human or mechanical means at any time. The Director of Community Development shall use reasonable judgement in determining what constitutes this type of area based on the present appearance of the area and research as to the history of the area, if such information is available. Subd. 5. An area of at least five(5) acres used by an educational institution or public agency for • prairie land restoration, if the prior vegetation is eliminated and the prairie vegetation is Ordinance No. 594 February 5, 1997 Page 2 planted through transplanting or seed. The area shall be cut at least once per year to a height of no more than eight(8) inches if weeds cover more than 25 percent of the area. If such mowing is necessary and the area is likely to be seen by the public, a sign shall be posted advising that a meadow or prairie is being established. The size of the sign shall be one (1) square-foot and it shall be no higher than three (3) feet. SECTION 2: Chapter 607 of the Mounds View Public Health and Safety Code is amended by adding new language to Subdivision lg of Section 607.03, entitled"NUISANCES ENUMERATED": g. All noxious weeds, "tall grasses" defined as anything over eight (8) inches in height, and other rank growths', except as exempted in Section 606.02 of this Code. SECTION 3: Chapter 1005 of the Mounds View Building Code is amended by adding new language to a footnote within Subdivision 3 of Section 1005.05, entitled"HEALTH AND SANITATION STANDARDS": • Subd. 3. Noxious weeds: All exterior property areas shall be kept free from species of weeds or plant growth which are noxious or detrimental to the public health2. 2 See also subd. 604.03(1)(h) Section 607.03. Subd. 1(g) and Section 606.02 of this Code. 4110 Ordinance No. 594 • February 5, 1997 Page 3 SECTION 4: EF'F'ECTIVE DATE: This ordinance goes into effect upon adoption by the City Council and 30 days after its publication in the official City newspaper. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on , 1997. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 1997. Duane McCarty, Mayor ATTEST: Chuck Whiting, City Clerk—Administrator • (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert Long, City Attorney N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\SPECPROJ\SP012.97\WEEDS.ORD Last Revised:January 30,1997 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.493-97 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF CHAPTERS 606,607 AND 1005 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO THE REQUIREMENT TO MOW TALL GRASSES AND CREATING AN EXEMPTION FOR WETLAND AND NATIVE VEGETATION WHEREAS, the purpose of the Weed Code is to prevent the growth,germination and spread of noxious weeds within the City; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Nuisance Code is to protect the health, safety, comfort and repose of the residents of the City; and WHEREAS, the existing requirement for mowing noxious weeds and tall grasses as stated in the Municipal Code does not allow any exceptions; and WHEREAS, there are a number of locations within the City where tall grasses gig , as wetland and native vegetation; and 4110 WHEREAS, the City recognizes that certain undisturbed or natural areas are F y y hr is and ecological benefit to the environment; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Mounds View recommends approval of Ordinance 594, an ordinance relating to exemptions from the noxious weed/tall grass provisions and amending Chapters 606, 607 and 1005. BE IT FURTHER 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 5th day Of February, 1997. Q /L, Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: lillyrkAkk Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director (Seal) WDATA\USERSUIMOS HARELSP-0I2971GRASS-PC.RES r Item No. ID- 7- is p.n'7 Staff Report No.97-/q 7 g C Meeting Date: 2/24/97 III Type of Business: Public Hearing WK:Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Introduction for first reading of Ordinance No. 595,An Ordinance adding day care centers and group nurseries as a conditional use in the B-1,B-2,B-3,B-4, and I-1 zoning districts; Planning Case No. SP-013-97 Date of Report: February 21, 1997 Issue: At present, the Mounds View Zoning Code allows for day care and group nurseries as conditional uses in the R-2, R-3, R-4, and R-5 residential districts. Staff is proposing that these uses be added as conditional uses in the business and industrial districts. Background/Discussion: The Children's Home Society has approached the City asking whether they could lease space in • the Bel Rae. The Children's Home Society would provide day care for approximately 100 children. The property where the Bel Rae is located is zoned B-3. A review of the Zoning Code revealed that day care is not listed as a permitted or conditional use in any of the business or industrial districts in Mounds View. Whether or not the Children's Home Society proposal goes forward, staff feels this is an opportune time to consider adding day care and group nurseries to the business and industrial districts as a conditional use. According to the Mounds View Zoning Code, day care and group nurseries are defined as"a service provided to the public in which children of school or preschool age are cared for during established business hours." Home day care is defined as"a family dwelling in which foster care, supervision and training of children of school or preschool age is provided for during established business hours. The Zoning Code does not use numbers of children in defining these two uses. According to Minnesota State Statutes, however, care of 12 children or less is to be regarded as a permitted single family residential use. Care of 13 to 16 children is to be regarded as a permitted multifamily residential use, for which a conditional use permit may be required by the local zoning authority. Staff is proposing an ordinance amendment to do the following: • Revise the definitions of home day care and day care and group nurseries need to use the numerical limits stated in Minnesota Law • City of Mounds View Staff Report Ordinance 595: Day Care Centers February 21, 1997 Page 2 • • Add day care and group nurseries as conditional uses to the R-0,B-1 through B-4 districts, and the I-1 district, subject to the same criteria as is stated in the residential districts. These criteria are as follows: a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered and removed daily. b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). c. Not less than forty(40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and that such space be suitably fences and/or screened in accordance with conditions as specified by the City Council. d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this Title. e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with Chapter 1122 of this Title. f. The site and related parking and service shall be served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. g. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code. Our existing Zoning Code regards both home day care and day care and group nurseries as being • either residential uses or compatible with residential districts. Day care centers become a hybrid between a residential and a commercial uses, with some characteristics associated with family activities and some associated with a business. Large day care centers do not blend very well into residential neighborhoods because of the number of children. Placing them in a business district could work better. Staff feels that this option should be available, and then the marketplace would have more options as to where day care centers are located. The conditional use permit process will assure that the specific location and site layout will work, and be compatible with adjacent uses. The Planning Commission was especially favorable toward this amendment because it would allow businesses to offer on-site day care for their employees. Recommendation: The Planning Commission, by a unanimous vote, and the staff recommend approval of Ordinance No. 595. Prior to adoption, the City Council must conduct a public hearing and introduce the ordinance for first reading, both of which have been put on the agenda for your February 24 meeting. Second reading an action on the ordinance will be scheduled for March 10. uuCcL . . Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\SPECPROJ\SP013.97\DAYCARE.CC • 1 • ORDINANCE NO. 595 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE ADDING DAY CARE CENTERS AND GROUP NURSERIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN'1'kLI B-1,B-2,B-3,B-4,AND I-1 ZONING DISTRICTS; PLANNING CASE NO. SP-013-97 THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1: Section 1102.02, Subd. 23 and 24 are amended to read as follows: Subd. 23. Day Care Center; Group Nursery: A . . • . .• • I •• I I. . • •. • . •• •: . • . . . _ . 14 . .. . .. . facility for the care and supervision of more than ten(10) preschool and school age children during established business hours for periods of less than 24 hours per day, and which is licensed and approved by the State of Minnesota. Also includes preschools and nursery schools. Subd. 24. Day Care,Home: - .• .. • • •• .;. - '. •• I I • •• , • IP •• •• •• . ••. 1. - . children of school and preschool age is provided dining established business lrourr. The use of a . residence for the care of ten(10) or fewer preschool and school age children during established business hours for less than 24 hours per day, and which is licensed and approved by the State of Minnesota. SECTION 2: Section 1102.02 is amended to add the following definition as a subdivision, placed in alphabetical order, and the remaining subdivisions in Section 1102.02 being renumbered accordingly. Subd. XX. Day Care, Group Family: The use of residence for the care of fourteen(14) or fewer preschool and school age children during established business hours for less than 24 hours per day, and which is licensed and approved by the State of Minnesota. SECTION 3. Section 1107.05 Subd. 2. is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 2. Day care center, group nursery; provided;that: a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered and removed daily. b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). c. Not less than forty (40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and that such space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions Ordinance No. 595 March 10, 1997 Page 2 as specified by the City Council. d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this Title. e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with Chapter 1122 of this Title. f. The site and related parking and service shall be served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. g. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code. SECTION 4. Section 1110.04 Subd. 7. is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 7. Day care center, group nursery; provided;that: a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered and removed daily. b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). c. Not less than forty(40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and that such space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions • as specified by the City Council. d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this Title. e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with Chapter 1122 of this Title. f. The site and related parking and service shall be served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. g. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code. SECTION 5. Section 1112.04 (conditional uses in the B-1 District) is hereby amended to add Subd. 5 as follows: Subd. 5: Day care center, group nursery: provided that: a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered and removed daily. b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). c. Not less than forty(40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and that such space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions as specified by the City Council. d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter • 1121 of this Title. • Ordinance No. 595 March 10, 1997 Page 3 e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with Chapter 1122 of this Title. f. The site and related parking and service shall be served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code. SECTION 6. Section 1113.04 (conditional uses in the B-2 District) is hereby amended to add Subd. 6 as follows: Subd. 6: Day care center, group nursery: provided that: a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered and removed daily. b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). c. Not less than forty(40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and that such space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions as specified by the City Council. 1110 d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this Title. e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with Chapter 1122 of this Title. The site and related parking and service shall be served by an arterial or collector . street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code. SECTION 7. Section 1114.04 (conditional uses in the B-3 District) is hereby amended to add Subd. 9 as follows: Subd. 9: Day care center, group nursery: provided that: a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered and removed daily. b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). c. Not less than forty(40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and that such space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions as specified by the City Council. d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this Title. • e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with Chapter 1122 of this Title. Ordinance No. 595 March 10, 1997 • Page 4 f. The site and related parking and service shall be served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code. SECTION 8. Section 1115.04 (conditional uses in the B-4 District) is hereby amended to add Subd. 6 as follows: Subd. 6: Day care center, group nursery: provided that: a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered and removed daily. b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). c. Not less than forty(40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and that such space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions as specified by the City Council. d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this Title. e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with • Chapter 1122 of this Title. f. The site and related parking and service shall be served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code. SECTION 9. Section 1116.04 (conditional uses in the I-1 District) is hereby amended to add Subd. 21 as follows: Subd. 21: Day care center, group nursery: provided that: a. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered and removed daily_ b. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). c. Not less than forty(40) square feet of outside play space per child be provided and that such space be suitably fenced and/or screened in accordance with conditions as specified by the City Council. d. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this Title. e. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with Chapter 1122 of this Title. f. The site and related parking and service shall be served by an arterial or collector • street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. Ordinance No. 595 March 10, 1997 Page 5 g_ All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code. SECTION 10. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance goes into effect upon adoption of the City Council and 30 days after its publication in the official City newspaper. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 1997. Duane McCarty, Mayor ATTEST: • Charles Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert Long, City Attorney N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHAREVSPECPROJ\SP013.97\DAYCARE.ORD 410 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.495-97 • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO.595 ADDING DAY CARE CENTERS AND GROUP NURSERIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE B-1,B-2, B-3,B-4 and I-1 ZONING DISTRICTS; PLANNING CASE NO.SP-013-97. WHEREAS,the Mounds View Zoning Code allows for day care centers and group nurseries as a conditional use in the residential districts; and, WHEREAS, day care centers and group nurseries are often larger sized facilities which some . characteristics of businesses; and, WHEREAS, it is desirable to encourage the provision of daytime care of children in both residential areas and business areas of Mounds View; and, WHEREAS, allowing for day care centers and group nurseries in business districts will allow companies to include on-site child care facilities at their business sites, if they so desire; and, WHEREAS, the criteria established to govern the issuance of conditional use permits for day care centers and group nurseries will insure that impacts and compatibility with adjacent uses are • addressed. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the Mounds View City Council adopt Ordinance No. 495 adding day care centers and group nurseries as a conditional use in the B-1,B-2,B-3,B-4, and I-1 zoning districts. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 5th day of February, 1997. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: PixA^ Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director (SEAL) C 1OFFICEIWPWINNWPDOCS\REGS\DAYCAREIDAYCARE.RES • City of Mounds View Staff Report al Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge -Appendices February 21, 1997 Page 5 APPENDIX B: SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR LOCAL SHARE OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE This appendix provides a catalog of funding sources which could be used for the local share needed to construct the pedestrian bridge, including the ones which have been identified in the project budget and alternatives. Previous City Council action established that the local share would be covered using the following funds: • $81,642 from Franchise Fee Account#295-3850 • $41,558 from Special Projects Fund#590-3850 • $31,000 from General Fund 100-3850 • $25,000 from Street Light Fund 770-3850 • $10,800 from(Recreation)Activity Fund 250-3850 • $36,900 from Storm Water Management Fund $226,900 ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES 0 1. MSA Source:State of Minnesota The City of Mounds View receives an annual allotment of funds from the State of Minnesota for street and highway projects. Staff has confirmed that these funds may be used for the pedestrian bridge for construction, design and inspection costs. The two most recent allotments were: 1996 $220,750 1997 1 $240,944 At present, the City's MSA Account has a balance of$390,860 which includes the 1996 allotment. With both 1996 and 1997, the amount available is $631,804. The City is allowed to borrow against future allotments as long as the outstanding advance is no more than twice our annual allotment or$500,000 whichever is less. The City has been using MSA funds for reconstruction of streets. Two projects are in the pipeline which will use MSA funds: Local MSA Funds(1) • reconstruction of Old Highway 8 $322,000 1997 • • Spring Lake Road $880,000 1998 City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge-Appendices February 21, 1997 Page 6 Additional projects which are under consideration include: • County Road H2 $800,000 2000 • Red Oak $750,000 2003 • La Porte $105,000 1998 or 2003 (1) This is not the total project cost but the amount anticipated to be paid from local MSA funds. These funds could be used to fund the City's share of the bridge construction costs ($120,000) and the design and inspection costs ($65,000)for a total of$185,000. Adding the pedestrian bridge to the list of projects to be funded from MSA funds would affect the priority assigned to the road projects listed above, and could delay Spring Lake Road and subsequent projects by one year. 2. Tax Increment Financing Source:Property tax collected in three tax increment districts Mounds View Business Park;Business Park north of new Highway 10;Area 9 in the existing Highway 10 corridor The City has three tax increment financing districts which generated approximately $2,272,000 in captured tax increment and $300,000 in interest earnings in 1996. The annual cost for debt service on the bonded debt is approximately$1,300,000, payments on developer notes are $190,000, and payments of administrative costs are $120,000, for a total of$1,610,000. We have estimated that approximately $1,000,000 is available each year for eligible projects. The City has a cash balance of$6,111,000 accumulated from previous years. A proposed plan for the use of these funds from 1995 through the year 2004 has been established which identifies five types of projects. These are: Approximate Amount Assigned Per Year • Housing Replacement Program(single family units) $100,000-120,000 • Multiple Family Housing Programs $150,000-200,000 • Business Loan Program $50,000-80,000 • Highway 10 Redevelopment $235,000-290,000 • School/Community Facility $800,000 in 1996 only According to the plan, as of 1997, the Highway 10 Redevelopment category will have $680,775 available. This appears to be the category most related to the pedestrian bridge • City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge-Appendices February 21, 1997 Page 7 project. On July 21, 1995, the City received a legal opinion from James O'Meara of Briggs and Morgan stating that TIF funds could be used for the pedestrian bridge. Using $185,000 from tax increment financing for the City's share of construction costs, design and inspection, would leave $495,775 in the Highway 10 Redevelopment category. No specific projects have been identified for the use of these funds, although it is expected that the Highway 10 Study now underway will include recommendations for projects. The Economic Development Commission passed a motion endorsing this project, by a vote of 3-1, on February 20, 1997 (See memorandum from Cathy Bennett in Appendix F.) 3. Interest Earnings The funds transferred in December 1995 to create the pedestrian bridge account have earned approximately $9,900 in interest since the account was created. FUNDING SOURCES INCLUDED IN CURRENT BRIDGE BUDGET I. 4. Special Projects Fund Current Source:Interest Earnings Original Source: Closeout of Improvement Bond Redemption Fund Code Reference: Section 203.08 This fund was created in 1985 with an original balance of approximately $853,500. The balance in this fund as of 1995 was $1,607,420, including a loan of$500,000 to the water utility operating fund for the meter replacement project. Therefore, the actual cash in the account is approximately$1.1 million. This fund may be used, in part, to: • make interest bearing loans to finance public improvements or to make interest-bearing loans to finance equipment purchases and/or capital improvement projects which have been included in the long-term financial plan • make permanent transfers for the purchase of equipment and/or to finance capital improvement projects,which have been included in the long-term financial plan Capital improvement projects are defined as"projects which are intended to acquire, construct, permanently modify or purchase assets of a long term character which are intended to continue to be held or used, such as land, buildings and machinery. The past practice has been to use the interest in this fund for capital projects, rather than the principal. Typical projects have been sealcoating of streets and the City Hall expansion. The fund does not have an ongoing source of income other than interest, and IIItherefore, if the principal is spent, money would need to be transferred into this fund from City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge- Appendices February 21, 1997 Page 8 elsewhere to replenish it if the City wanted to maintain a certain balance. The amount of interest earned in 1996 was $88,000. City Council Resolution No. 4843 allocated $41,558 from Special Projects to the pedestrian bridge. (The balance reflects the fact that the appropriated funds have been moved to the pedestrian bridge account.) 5. Storm Water Mgmt Fund Current Source: Storm Water Charges on Building Permits; Charge on Utility Bill Code Reference: Section 203.07 The purpose of this fund is"to provide for the preservation and improvement of storm water drainage facilities within the City." This fund was intended to be used to fund ongoing maintenance on the storm sewer system and to accumulate money until there was a sufficient balance to do major drainage projects such as the Ardan Avenue and Sherwood Road storm sewer trunk lines. In recent years, the funds have been used in conjunction with road reconstruction projects to install, upgrade or repair storm sewer lines in these roads. Bronson Drive is an example. The balance in this fund as of 1995 was $310,499. The next projects in line for use of this fund are reconstruction of Old Highway 8, Spring Lake Road, Ardan Avenue, Sherwood Road, Edgewood Drive, and County Road H2. Money has been appropriated from this fund for the pedestrian bridge project, to address the drainage pond located at the northwest corner of Highway 10 and Long Lake Road as follows: • $6,900 on 6/10/96 for SEH to complete engineering analysis for relocating surface water pond • $30,000 on 9/9/96 for design using Option 2 of alternatives developed by SEH 6. Street Light Fund Current Source: Charge on Utility Bill Code Reference: Section 904 According to Chapter 904, "the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to operate, maintain and improve upon the street lighting system throughout the City. It is the Council's intent to encourage this program throughout the City to promote the general health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Mounds View. The balance in this fund as of 1996 was $54,141. City Council Resolution 4843 appropriated $25,000 from this fund for the pedestrian bridge project for the lighting which will be installed on or in the vicinity of the bridge. (The balance reflects the fact that the appropriated funds have been moved to the pedestrian bridge account.) City of Mounds View Staff Report • Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge -Appendices February 21, 1997 Page 9 7. Recreation Activity Fund Current Source: General Fund; Charges for Activities Code Reference: Section 203.06 These funds"shall be used for the direct operating expense of City-authorized recreation activities. These expenses shall include, but shall not be limited to, compensation of instructors, rents or the purchase of equipment or supplies for recreational activities." The balance in this fund as of 1995 was $98,672. City Council Resolution 4843 appropriated $10,800 from this fund for the pedestrian bridge project. (The balance reflects the fact that the appropriated funds have been moved to the pedestrian bridge account.) 8. Franchise Fee Current Source: Surcharge on Utility Bills Code Reference: Section 1401.01,1402.01 The Municipal Code does not state a specific use for these funds. The practice has been to transfer money from this fund into the general fund in order to reduce the amount which must be levied through property taxes. The fee generates approximately $240,000 per year. The balance in this fund as of 1995 was $55,642. City Council Resolution 4843 • appropriated $81,642 from this fund for the pedestrian bridge project. (The balance reflects the fact that the appropriated funds have been moved to the pedestrian bridge account.) City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge- Appendices \ 11111 February 21, 1997 Page 10 APPENDIX C . UPDATED LIST OF COSTS INCURRED TO DATE BRW - Design Consultants • City Council identified funding sources for local share in Resolution 4843 on 11/13/95 and established the 680 account for bridge expenditures. • City Council selected BRW as design consultants on November 13, 1995 by Resolution 4842; Contract was signed November 21, 1995. Contract was for$62,680. • City Council selected the spiral ramp design for bridge ramps on (getting date) 1/31/96 $ 1,138.82 3/31/96 $12,539.62 4/30/96 $ 1,427.33 5/17/96 $ 344.11 6/30/96 $ 1,082.88 7/31/96 $ 6,301.63 8/31/96 $ 952.47 9/30/96 $ 2,611.80 10/31/96 $ 3,143.98 1/14/97 $ 2,216.87 Invoiced 12/31/96 $11,969.67 $43,729.18 Easement on north side of highway • City Council authorized undertaking eminent domain proceedings by Resolution No. 5009 on September 23, 1996. Not all of the bills have been coded to 680 Account; this is reason for discrepancy between total below and total in earlier report. I have left note for accountant to correct coding. Also the Peter Patchin bill was too recent to show up on computer printout for 680 account.) Kennedy & Graven (City Attorney)- eminent domain proceedings 9/24/96 $ 144.96 (date of check) 10/7/96 $ 531.26 11/20/96 $ 2,259.04 (date of check) 11/20/96 $ 579.30 (date of check) 12/5/96 $ 1,445.22 2/28/97 $ 867.72 $ 5,827.50 • City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge- Appendices February 21, 1997 Page 11 Peter Patchin - appraisal for easement on north side of highway 2/11/97 $1225.00 (date check mailed) SEH (City Engineer)- development of alternatives for dealing with drainage pond • City Council authorized investigation into moving drainage pond on 11/13/95 in Resolution No. 4844. • City Council authorized staff by motion to sign agreement with SEH to complete engineering analysis for relocating surface water pond in the amount of$6,900, to be funded from Surface Water Management Fund on 6/10/96 • City Council passed motion at City Council meeting on September 9, 1996 to approve Option #2 and to authorize staff to negotiate with the two engineering firms to determine who will do what work and to authorize the expenditure from Surface Water Management Funds up to$30,000. Invoiced 2/19/96 $ 37.51 1111 Invoiced 7/31/96 $ 1,333.11 Invoiced 8/29/96 $ 1,427.96 Invoiced 9/30/96 $ 2,533.04 Invoiced 10/31/96 $ 422.28 Invoiced 11/29/96 $ 1,802.06 $ 7,555.96 Grand Total to Date $58,337.64 111 City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge-Appendices • February 21, 1997 Page 12 APPENDIX D: GRANT APPLICATION (distributed to City Council only; copy available for review at City Hall please contact Pam Sheldon at 784-3055 for information) • 4110 ' ' f • City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge-Appendices February 21, 1997 Page 13 APPENDIX E STAFF REPORTS, RESOLUTIONS &MINUTES (distributed to City Council only; copy available for review at City Hall please contact Pain Sheldon at 784-3055 for information) This appendix includes documents noted above for each time the pedestrian bridge was an item at a City Council worksession or regular meeting between 1994 and 1997. They are in date order from earliest to latest, after this cover page. You will not find any minutes for the worksessions since no minutes are kept for these meetings. There are also a set of minutes for a Council meeting when there was extensive discussion of the pedestrian bridge during citizen comments, and the minutes for the citizen task force charged with selecting a design for the pedestrian bridge. An index follows: Resolution 4227 establishing comprehensive trailways system policy 5/11/92 Minutes of 5/11/92 Council meeting S Staff Report for 3/14/94 Council meeting includes diagram of proposed bridge location, switchback design Minutes for 3/14/94 Council meeting Staff Report for 3/28/94 Council meeting - request for approval of grant submittal Resolution 4530 approving grant submittal 3/28/94 Resolution 4531 approving grant submittal 3/28/94 Minutes for 3/28/94 Council meeting Staff Report for 5/1/95 worksession(no minutes) - recommendation for selection of design consultant (BRW) - surface water issues - formation of pedestrian bridge task force Staff Report for 7/10/95 worksession(no minutes) - letter from Park&Recreation Commission request for citizen support of bridge as part of City budget process; 11 letters in response; 41 signatures Staff Report for 9/5/95 worksession(no minutes) - three funding options (TIF, partial TIF, no TIF) - letter from attorney indicating pedestrian bridge legal use of TIF funds - memo from Mike Ulrich, Public Works Director, on maintenance issues with bridge - letter from Planning Commission in support of bridge - additional letters in support Excerpt from minutes for 10/23/96 Council meeting with extensive discussion of pedestrian • bridge under discussion of 1996 City budget City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge - Appendices February 21, 1997 Page 14 Staff Report for 11/13/95 Council meeting Resolution 4842 awarding design contract to BRW 11/13/95 Resolution 4843 amending 1995 general fund to pay local share 11/13/95 Resolution 4844 directing staff to coordinate removal of storm water detention pond 11/13/95 Minutes for 11/13/95 Council meeting Minutes for 11/17/95 Council meeting with extensive discussion of pedestrian bridge during citizen comments Agenda for January 22, 1996 meeting showing Item 11.B. on pedestrian bridge Memorandum from Councilperson Trude regarding formation of pedestrian bridge citizen task force (Item 11.B.) Resolution 4889 appointing a citizen task force to select a design for the pedestrian bridge Minutes for 1/22/96 Council meeting Minutes for 2/6/96 meeting of pedestrian bridge citizen task force Staff Report for 3/4/96 worksession on abandonment of drainage pond includes diagram of bridge with spiral ramps Staff Report for 3/25/96 Council meeting on abandonment of drainage pond Minutes for 3/25/96 Council meeting Staff Report for 4/1/96 worksession on abandonment of drainage pond • Staff Report for 6/10/96 on proposals to relocate drainage pond Minutes for 6/10/96 Council meeting Staff Report for 9/3/96 worksession on alternatives for dealing with drainage pond report from SEH on eight options Staff Report for 9/3/96 worksession on options for obtaining easements on north side of Hwy 10 Staff Report for 9/9/96 Council meeting on surface water pond; appropriation of funds for design Minutes for 9/9/96 Council meeting Staff Report for 9/23/96 Council meeting on eminent domain proceedings to acquire easement Minutes for 9/23/96 Council meeting Staff Report for 2/3/97 worksession; status report on pedestrian bridge project Staff Report for 2/10/97 Council meeting; status report on pedestrian bridge project S City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge -Appendices February 21, 1997 Page 15 APPENDIX F: LETTERS RECEIVED (distributed to City Council only; copy available for review at City Hall please contact Pam Sheldon at 7843055 for information) Please Note: Letters which were transmitted to City Council as part of packets are in Appendix E. • • City of Mounds View Staff Report • Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge-Appendices February 21, 1997 Page 16 APPENDIX G: NEWSPAPER ARTICLES ON PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE (distributed to City Council only; copy available for review at City Hall please contact Pam Sheldon at 784-3055 for information) • • • Item No. I I Pk Staff Report No. T(7- l q 7g L' Meeting Date: February 24, 1997 . Type of Business: Council Business WK:Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Status Report on Pedestrian Bridge Date of Report: February 22, 1997 Issue: At the City Council meeting on February 10, 1997, staff provided a status report on the pedestrian bridge proposed to cross Highway 10 at the Long Lake Road intersection. A number of issues were raised with respect to this project, which are noted in the discussion section of this report, and the discussion was continued to this meeting on February 24. It is our understanding that City Council intends to reach a conclusion at the February 24 meeting on how to proceed with this project. Discussion: The issues mentioned at the February 10 meeting are noted below. In addition,Mayor McCarty has provided a memorandum to the City Council and the Clerk Administrator with a series of • questions (see Attachment 1). The issues raised by these questions are included in the list below as well. The questions have been grouped by topic. Public Notice and Participation • What was extent of written record for and scope of meetings held on the pedestrian bridge, in particular before Resolution 4843 passed which established sources of funding for local share? • Were there any other special purpose committees in addition to Trailways Advocacy Group involved in project? • Were there any"pre-decision" pedestrian bridge meetings noticed as broad based public hearings, in keeping with the spirit and intent of Section 8.04 Subd. 2 of the City Charter? Written Record and Scope of Meetings: Staff has assembled a chronology of the events associated with the pedestrian bridge, beginning with the adoption of Resolution No. 4227 establishing a Comprehensive Trailways System Policy on May 11, 1992 and continuing to now. Most of the events occur in 1994-1996. This chronology is listed in Appendix A. Every effort was made to make sure it was complete, but we did have time constraints in doing the research. The chronology lists worksession and meetings, with the topics discussed, resolutions and motions passed, and news articles which appeared in the local and metropolitan newspapers. Appendix E includes copies of all the staff reports, resolutions and minutes from the meetings referred to in the chronology. No minutes are kept for worksessions. We were not able to do an extensive analysis of what this list represents in terms of public notice and participation. We II) assume that all regular meetings of the City Council were noticed in accordance with the Open 111111111111111111111111111111111111 City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge February 22, 1997 • Page 2 Meeting Law, and that they were televised. Agendas were prepared for both regular meetings and worksessions. We do not know if a specific newspaper advertisement was done for any of the meetings. In March, 1994 when the grant application was submitted, the City received nine letters endorsing supporting the project. Supporters included the Park&Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, Wildwood Manor, Scotland Green, Edgewood Middle School, Minnesota State Patrol, Mounds View Police Chief,Dick Wedell(Ramsey County Commissioner), and the Ramsey County Public Works Department. Between March 14, 1994, when expenditures were authorized for preparing the grant request, and November 13, 1995, when a decision was made on how to fund the local share, there were: • five regular City Council meetings and two worksessions where the pedestrian bridge or related matters were on the agenda • seven news articles in either the New Brighton Bulletin, the Focus or St. Paul Pioneer Press • thirteen letters received, signed by 46 people, favorable to the pedestrian bridge. Of these, 23 were seniors at Wildwood Manor, 10 were other citizens, six were Parks&Recreation commissioners, five were Planning Commissioners, and there was one letter each from Edgewood Middle School and Mounds View Square Shopping Center. • • • one letter received in opposition to the bridge and one letter requesting more information five citizens who spoke opposed to the bridge, one person in favor, and one person offering information at the City Council meeting on 10/23/95 when the pedestrian bridge was discussed as part of budget discussions Between November 13, 1995 and now, there were: • eight regular City Council meetings and three worksession were the pedestrian bridge or related matters were on the agenda • five news articles and a letter to the editor • twenty three letters received, signed by 29 people, favorable to the pedestrian bridge. Of these, 2 were citizens, 5 were Planning Commissioners, 3 were Economic Development Commissioners, 18 were students at Pinewood Elementary, and one was from the Ramsey County Library • two people who spoke in favor of the bridge, one who spoke against, one who wanted information on costs, and one who was opposed to the process being used to decide funding at the City Council meeting on 11/27/95 when the pedestrian bridge was discussed under citizen comments • We hope to have the count of how many citizens spoke for and against the bridge at the recent meeting on 2/10/97 for your meeting on 2/24/97. • two phone calls have been received in Community Development from citizens favorable to the bridge, and one unfavorable, since this issue has been on the agenda in 2/97. • City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge February 22, 1997 S Page 3 Copies of the letters in our files have been included in Appendix F; copies of the news articles are in Appendix G. The grant application included a number of letters of endorsement. A copy of the application has been provided to Council members as part of this packet(see Appendix D). The question of whether Section 8.04 Subd. 2 of the City Charter applies to the pedestrian bridge was raised at the February 10 meeting, and we have discussed this issue with the City Attorney. He has indicated that it would not apply since no portion of this project is being assessed. Projected Costs/Funding • Is the current estimate of the cost for the pedestrian bridge considered a cost overrun in keeping with the spirit and intent of Section 8.04 Subd. 3 of the City Charter? • Is there an argument that TIF funds could be used for utility modifications and undergrounding and traffic signal modifications, with or without bridge? • Is the allocation of money for the bridge from the Street Lighting Fund consistent with Section 904 of Municipal Code? • Is the allocation of money for the bridge from the Franchise Fee consistent with Section 1402 of Municipal Code? • What were costs of preliminary engineering to determine pedestrian bridge effectiveness? • Were any alternatives to pedestrian bridge considered? • Are there alternative funding sources available to pay the local share from those chosen in • Resolution 4843? Section 8.04 Subd. 3:In talking with the City Attorney about this issue,he indicated that Section 8.04 Subd. 3 would not apply to this project because no part of it is being assessed under the procedure outlined in the City Charter. Use of TIF for utility modifications, undergrounding and signal modifications: TIF funds can be used for these types of improvements,and making such improvements in the Highway 10 corridor would be consistent with the priorities which have been established by City Council for use of TIF funds i.e. spending money on redevelopment of Highway 10. These utility and signal modifications will not be needed, however, if the pedestrian bridge is not built. We did obtain information from MnDOT on February 21 that the utility companies will be required to pay the cost of utility modifications and undergrounding under the permit they have to be in MnDOT right-of-way. The cost of signal modifications are expected to be much less and may be paid in part from grant funds (see discussion under cost issues.) We are now estimating the projected cost at$30,000 to $35,000 less with this new information. Street Lighting Fund: Section 904.01 states that the purpose of the street lighting fund is"to operate,maintain and improve upon the street lighting system throughout the City. It is the Council's intent to encourage this program throughout the City to promote the general health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Mounds View." From this, staff concludes it is possible to use money from this fund for lighting associated with bridge since it is located in Mounds View and it • would promote health, safety and welfare for citizens using the bridge or walking or riding City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge February 24, 1997 iPage 4 bicycles in the vicinity. Whether the City Council chooses to do so, as opposed t®placing lighting elsewhere with the same funds, is a policy decision. Franchise Fee: Section 1402.01 Subd. 12 explains how the franchise fee will be levied, but does not state a specific or limited purpose for the revenue generated. It is staff's understanding that the franchise fee was established to provide a source of revenue for City expenses other than property tax. We would conclude that the funds generated by the Franchise Fee may be used for a cap i :.1 project such as the pedestrian bridge, but it would be a policy decision to allocate the funds to this project as opposed to another project. Costs ofpreliminary engineering: On March 14, 1994,the City Council authorized$1,900 to be used to prepare a very preliminary, initial design for the bridge to be used as part of the grant submittal. Alternatives to bridge: On March 23, 1994, SEH who serves as the City Engineer provided an analysis of using a tunnel versus the pedestrian bridge to cross Highway 10 (see memo included with staff report dated 3/24/94 in Appendix E). They strongly recommended that a bridge be used rather than a tunnel, from both a cost and a lighting, security and drainage standpoint. It is our understanding that tunnels are viewed as presenting more safety problems to users than bridges because the users are not visible to passersby. We did not find information on whether modifying • signal timing has been explored, but common wisdom would suggest it is difficult to gain precedence for pedestrians against a four-lane highway, whether it is part of the State highway system or not. The sheer width of the highway works against signal timing which would allow pedestrians to cross in one signal cycle unless they are fleet of foot. Alternative funding sources: The short answer to this question is yes. A listing of the funding sources available is detailed in Appendix B. In summary,funds available from sources®...er than those already used in budgeting for the bridge would be as follows: MSA(State Highway Funds) as of 1997,balance in fund is $631,804(1) Tax Increment Financing as of 1997,balance in Highway 10 fund is $680,775 Interest Earnings $9,900(2) (1) It should be noted that the MSA Account is usually used for street reconstruction projects,and there are projects which are in the pipeline which may be affected by adding the pedestrian bridge to the list. Please see Appendix B for more discussion on this point.) The funds from this source could be used for bridge construction,design and inspection. They probably cannot be used for the drainage pond improvements,landscaping or lighting. (2) The 680 Account established to pay the local share for the pedestrian bridge,after transfers were made following Resolution 4843,has earned about$9,900 in interest. Additional Information of Project Budget: As is noted earlier, since the City Council meeting on 410 February 10, we have met with MnDOT to discuss whether any of the project costs could be reduced. We also learned that the cost of utility modifications and undergrounding will be paid City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge February 24, 1997 0 Page 5 by the utility companies as is required by the permit they have to be in MnDOT right-of-way. The cost of signal modifications are expected to be much less and may be paid in part from grant funds. We are now estimating the projected cost at$30,000 to $35,000 less with this new information as follows: Amount/Responsible Agency Costs Cy Others Bridge Construction $120,000 $480,000 Design&Inspection $65,000 Easements $ 10,000(1) Landscaping $ ? Design work on drainage pond alternatives $ 7,600 Improvements to drainage pond $ 33,900 Utility modifications,undergrounding $ 30,000 Traffic signal modifications $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Contingency $ 5,000 $246,500 $515,000 (1) This is an estimate of what the final amount might be. Expenditures to date have been$5827.50. The primary reason for the project budget being greater than the $190,000 anticipated has been • the drainage pond; $51,500 of the additional $56,500 is attributable to dealing with this item. Without that expense, the City is within $5,000 of the original obligation of$190,000 and $5,000 of that budget was contingency. The landscaping costs could be covered by directing, to this project, a portion of the money spent on landscaping throughout the city each year. We also learned from MnDOT that if there are unanticipated additional expenses which occur in the field which occur during construction,they will be covered by the grant and the local share at the same split as is in the contract award. So if the bridge bids come in below or at$600,000,then the split on any additions will be 80% federal and 20% local. The City does not have total exposure for these additional costs. Impact of Bridge • What will be the effect of"funneling" children into the shopping centers along Highway 10 north of Long Lake Road? • Will the bridge present a false sense of security and safety for people using it? • Was a professional engineer's opinion obtained as to the advisability of placing a pedestrian bridge over an uncontrolled highway? • What do we know about the demographics of the community, and how they relate to expected usage of the bridge? • Will maintenance costs go up with the addition of the bridge? • What has been the history of vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian accidents on Highway 10 0 Funneling children: Staff feels that bridge would not funnel children to the shopping centers any more or less than the road and sidewalk systems do from the residential neighborhoods surrounding these shopping centers. If children are now going to the shopping centers on their City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge February 24, 1997 0 Page 6 respective sides of the highway, and the bridge will make it more likely that they will also go to the shopping center on the opposite side of the highway, the result may be the same number but different children. Mounds View Square Shopping Center has written a letter supporting the bridge. They have not indicated that they see the bridge as a problem in terms of bringing more children to the shopping center. False sense of security: Staff feels that if people choose to use the bridge rather than cross at grade, more safety will be provided rather than a false sense of safety. Whether people crossing the bridge will be safe from other people using the bridge has more to do with the Mounds View community than the bridge itself. Advisability of Placing Bridge over Uncontrolled Highway: We have not had an opportunity to consult with the City Engineer, but will attempt to do that before Monday. We do have letters from both the Mounds View Police Chief and the Minnesota State Patrol supporting the bridge. According to the State Patrol, "there is no doubt that a walkway would be a life saving investment." Staffis of the opinion that any time you can separate pedestrians and bicyclists from vehicles, you increase safety. A bridge may be more effective, in terms of getting people to use it, when it is across a controlled highway than an uncontrolled highway. But when you compare having a bridge versus not having a bridge, regardless of the type of highway, you gain greater safety for pedestrians and bicyclists when they use the bridge. IllDemographics of Community/Usage: We were unable to locate Census information in the time available. Based on staff observation, there are a sizeable number children and seniors living in Mounds View. It is both of these population groups which would have most need of a pedestrian bridge. Both of the senior citizen housing developments are on the south side of Highway 10. Neighborhood shopping is on the north side. Staff has asked Greg Felt and Robb Urquhart, both engineers at MnDOT, what MnDOT's experience has been with the success of pedestrian bridges. They indicated the community into which the bridge is placed and the width of the highway are indicators of whether or not the bridge will be used. There is no generic answer. Bridges over highways which are wide and require pedestrians and bicyclists to wait at long signals are more likely to be used. Bridges where there is strong community commitment to using them, get used. City Council will have to assess the strength of Mounds View's residents' desire to have and use a pedestrian bridge. Maintenance: Public Works Director Mike Ulrich prepared a memorandum in August, 1995 stating that the bridge itself would only require minimal maintenance. Maintenance activities would include clearing of snow and using chemicals for deicing. The department did not expect maintenance of this structure to add a burden to existing maintenance activities performed by current staff. This same viewpoint was noted in the City Council worksession on February 3, 1997. A copy of the memorandum is with the staff report for the 9/5/95 worksession in Attachment 2. • Accidents: Police Chief Tim Ramacher has provided a memorandum on the accident history for Highway 10 between 1/1/91 and 12/31/96, or 6 years (see Attachment 3). It shows a total of 195 accidents of which three involved pedestrians and five involved bicycles. City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge February 24, 1997 411) Page 7 In talking with Greg Felt and Robb Urquhart at MnDOT, they indicated that the federal and state highway agencies use as a gauge, in doing cost/benefit analysis, that an individual life is worth$1 million. So, according to this method, if the pedestrian bridge saves at least 1-2 lives in the entire time it is in place, it will have been a worthwhile investment. Conclusion The City has received a$480,000 grant for construction of the pedestrian bridge. The tttal cost of the project is estimated to be $761,500 of which$5,000 is contingency and $41,500 is the drainage pond. The City is responsible for $246,500 of these costs. Funds to cover these costs have been budgeted as follows: Construction $120,000 Franchise Fee/General Fund Design&Inspections $ 65,000 Special Projects/Street Light Contingency $ 5,000 Fund/Recreation Activity Fund Easements $ 10,000 Amount not budgeted;being paid from 680 account Design work on drainage pond alternatives $ 7,600 Surface Water Fund Improvements to drainage pond $33,900 Traffic signal modifications $ 5,000 Not budgeted It appears there are three options at this point: • Proceed with the pedestrian bridge under the current approach for funding and identify the source of funding for the easements and the traffic signal modifications. • Proceed with the pedestrian bridge using different sources of funding or a combination of current sources and alternative sources. The approximate amount of funding needed is $246,500. Alternative sources of funding are discussed in this report and in Appendix B. • Halt the project. Costs which have been incurred to date include approximately$58,337 plus the initial $1,900 spent on the original bridge design for the grant application, and staff and committee members' time. Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\SPECPROJ\S P009.96\2-2497.S R MEMO c„A„, 1110: City Council,Clerk Administrator D/.1.4" From: Duane McCarty, Mayor Dild4IAAL Subject: Pedestrian Bridge Process Date: February 10, 1997 Concerns,regarding the pedestrian bridge project at Long Lake Road and Highway 10, have been identified by Staff via a memorandum (report) dated February 6, 1997. This report is helpful in identifying key issues regarding process and cost of the project. I am submitting the following thoughts on the bridge for discussion purposes. Public Notice and Participation. 1. Please provide me with written records of pedestrian bridge hearings, including recorded public testimony, held prior to the adoption of Resolution 4843. 2. Describe the "scope" of meetings on this project before the Council decision to build was made. 3. Were there any other meetings held by special purpose committees in addition to the Trailways Advocacy Group ( established under Resolution No. 4227) under open meeting notices posted at city hall? 4. Were any of the "pre-decision" pedestrian bridge meetings noticed as broad based public hearings, in keeping with the spirit and intent of Charter Section 8.04 Subd. 2,including substantial notification in 40 ublications such as the official newspaper or city newsletter? rojected Costs. L On page 3 of the report, ..."total costs are now approximately$750,000 based on the information known at this time." This amount represents an increase of 25% over the original$600,000 estimate for the project. Is this considered a reasonable cost over-run, in keeping with the spirit and intent of Charter Section 8.04 Subd. 3? 2. Support an argument that recently discovered additional costs, for utility modifications and undergrounding and traffic signal modifications, would benefit the Highway 10 corridor as well as the bridge: Can it be established that such improvements are in demand for the corridor without the pedestrian. bridge project? (But For Test to use Uk' funds) 3. $25,000 was transferred from the Street Light Fund to the pedestrian bridge project. Is this transfer in accordance with the intent of Municipal Code Section 904 and the reasons given to adopt a street light fund with related charges assessed to resident's utility bills? 4. $82,642.000 was transferred from the Franchise Fee Fund to the pedestrian bridge project. Is this transfer in accordance with the intent of Municipal Code Sections 1402 and the reasons given to adopt a Franchise Fee Fund with related charges assessed to resident's NSP bills? 5. The report lists construction cost estimates only. What were the costs for preliminary engineering studies to determine pedestrian bridge effectiveness on open access highways, needs assessments, demographics etc. ? lkDescribe any alternatives to a pedestrian bridge that were considered eg intersection traffic control iprovements. ATTACHMENT 1 • 1111 MEMORANDUM • MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works1(4' DATE: August 31, l99 5 (/ SUBJECT: Pedestrian Bridge Park and Recreation Commissioner Dave Long spoke with me yesterday about any maintenance concerns I might have regarding the Pedestrian Bridge that is proposed for TH 10 . I explained that maintenance of the bridge is a concern and was addressed by the interview team with the consultants that replied to the RFP. During each interview questions were asked about snow removal, graffiti, and painting. Each consultant responded that the bridge would be designed to require minimal maintenance. Concrete could be colored to eliminate painting. Snow removal equipment would have adequate access and clearance for operation. If this bridge were constructed, .additi onal labor would be required to completely clear snow from the edges of the bridge following a snow storm. This would occur after the bridge has been cleaned initially, and would prevent snow on the edges from melting and freezing on the bridge deck. If chemicals are necessary for deicing, and noncorrosive materials would be a relatively small additional expense. Staff does not expect that the maintenance of this structure will add a burden to the existing maintenance activities performed by the current staff . If Council has any questions concerning maintenance of the proposed bridge, please feel free to call me. 4111 ATTACHMENT 2 MEMO To: Pam Shelton From: Chief Ramacher Subject: Traffic Accident Information Date: February 18, 1997 Chuck requested"traffic accident information along Hwy. 10". This information was to be provided to City Council prior to the February 24th meeting. Since Chuck did not establish specifics, I used the following: All accidents between 1-1-91 and 12-31-96, and all accidents on Hwy. 10, between Co Rd. H2 and Silver Lake Rd. inclusive. The following is a synopsis of the above parameters: TOTAL ACCIDENTS 195 Property Damage 122 Personal Injury 71 Fatal 2 Pedestrian Accidents 3 * one of the pedestrians was killed--the accident occurred at 0130hrs. A man was walking w/b hwy. 10, near Silver Lk. Rd. * the two other pedestrians accidents did not involve serious injury, one occurred at Co. Rd. H2, the other at Silver Lk. Rd. Bicyclist Accidents 5 * all five accidents did not involve serious injury * one accident occurred at Co Rd. H2 * the other four occurred at Co Rd. I Please include this memo in the information packet to the City Council . Thank-you. • ATTACHMENT 3 imimmimimmmiiimimsmmmimiiiimimimimimimmmmmiimimi APPENDIX A • CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS RE: PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE Date Event 1992 5/11/92 Adoption of Resolution No. 4227 establishing a Comprehensive Trailways System Policy for the City of Mounds View(regular meeting) 1994 3/14/94 Motion passed to approve expenditure of$1,900 for engineering services from SEH for information regarding a pedestrian bridge across Highway 10 to be used in an ISTEA grant proposal, funded from the franchise fees for special projects, Fund#295 (regular meeting) 3/22/94 "Hwy 10 pedestrian bridge grant sought" (Focus) 3/23/94 Letter from SEH: Evaluation of tunnel versus bridge showed costs higher for tunnel; recommended pursuing bridge option; preliminary design for bridge using switchback ramps attached (transmitted to City Council for 3/28/94 meeting) 3/28/94 regular meeting • • Adoption of Resolution No. 4530 approving the STP ISTEA Grant for a pedestrian bridge across Highway 10 • Adoption of Resolution No. 4531 approving the TEP ISTEA Grant for a pedestrian bridge across Highway 10 Both resolutions include a statement that the City of Mounds View is committed to 20% of the cost of the bridge and continued maintenance of the facility. 3/30/94 Grant application submitted to Transportation Advisory Board. A copy of the grant application is included in this packet. Letters of support included from: • Chief of Police Tim Ramacher • Parks&Recreation Commission • Planning Commission • Minnesota State Patrol Division • Regional Transit Board • Wildwood Manor • Edgewood Middle School • Ramsey County Public Works 7/7/94 Letter from Transportation Advisory Board stating pedestrian bridge had preliminary approval for funding for FY 1996 12/30/94 Letter from Transportation Advisory Board stating federal funds had now been obligated for pedestrian bridge for FY 1996 12/94 Pedestrian bridge listed in Long Term Financial Plan which was part of 1995 budget as 1996 project. III N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\SPECPROASP009.96\2-2497.APP City of Mounds View Staff Report 40 Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge-Appendices February 21, 1997 Page 2 1995 5/1/95 Consideration of selecting BRW to provide pedestrian bridge services; opportunity to remove storm water pond in coordination with bridge project; appointment of citizen review committee to offer input on design of pedestrian bridge; reference made to using special projects funding for bridge (worksession) 7/10/95 Continued discussion of pedestrian bridge...Letters signed by 33 individuals endorsing the construction of the pedestrian bridge included in packet (regular meeting) 7/18/95 "Funding debate ties up bridge project" (Focus) 7/21/95 Received opinion stating pedestrian bridge is eligible for use of TIF funds from Attorney James O'Meara of Briggs and Morgan 7/24/95 Copy of legal opinion from O'Meara on use of TIF funds for pedestrian bridge provided to City Council 8/1/95 "Support proposed pedestrian bridge in MV" (letter to editor;Focus) 8/16/95 Letter from Planning Commission stating continued support for pedestrian bridge and urging City Council to approve matching funds • 8/30/95 "Mounds View seeks money for bridge" (St. Paul Pioneer Press) 9/5/95 Continued discussion of pedestrian bridge over Highway 10; funding options using TIF, partial TIF, no TIF (worksession) 9/7/95 "Mounds View gets a deal on bridge, with one catch" (St. Paul Pioneer Press) 9/14/95 "Tax hike considered to fund bridge construction over Highway 10" (Focus) 9/26/95 "Fate of tax hike rides on bridge support" (Focus) 10/23/95 Discussion of 1996 budget; extensive section on pedestrian bridge (regular meeting) 11/13/95 regular meeting • Resolution No.4843 adopted amending the 1995 general fund budget to pay for the City's portion of the construction of the pedestrian bridge over Highway 10. • Resolution No.4842 adopted awarding the contract to BRW,Inc for the engineering,design and inspection services related to the construction of the pedestrian bridge over Highway 10 • Resolution No.4844 adopted which directed staff to coordinate in conjunction with the pedestrian bridge project the removal of the storm water detention pond at the northwest corner of Highway 10 and Long Lake Road 11/16/95 "Bridging the city; Highway 10 pedestrian walkway funds approved" (Focus) 11/21/95 Contract between BRW and Mounds View for professional engineering services for pedestrian bridge in amount of$62,680 11/22/95 "Highway 10 pedestrian bridge gets go-ahead" (New Brighton Bulletin) 11/27/95 Citizen Comments re: pedestrian bridge; City Council requested legal opinion on • whether 4/5 vote needed to for use of interest from special projects fund (regular meeting) City of Mounds View Staff Report 40 Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge- Appendices February 21, 1997 Page 3 11/30/95 "Thanks for Hwy 10 bridge vote" (Letter to editor; Focus) 12/6/95 "Former mayor questions pedestrian bridge decision" (New Brighton Bulletin) 1996 1/22/96 Adoption of Resolution No. 4889 appointing a citizen task force to select a design for the Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge (regular meeting) 2/6/96 Meeting of Pedestrian Bridge Citizen Task Force; spiral ramp design selected pending discussions with landowners about easements 3/4/96 Consideration of engineering proposal for abandonment of surface water pond (TH 10 and Long Lake Road) (worksession); diagram showing spiral ramps included in packet. 3/25/96 Consideration of surface water pond abandonment at Long Lake Road& THIO; two bids presented for preliminary engineering work (regular meeting; staff requested it be tabled to April 1 worksession) 4/1/96 Staff report sent to worksession; outcome unknown since no minutes kept of III worksession discussions. (worksession) 4/11/96 "Bridge project meets new roadblock; MV Square owner says view of center is impaired" (Focus) 6/10/96 Motion passed to authorize staff to sign agreement with SEH to complete engineering analysis to relocate surface water pond adjacent to Bridgeman's, for construction of the pedestrian bridge, for the amount of$6,900 to be funded from the Surface Water Management Fund, System Maintenance 420-4122-303, Professional Services (regular meeting) 6/19/96 "Pond near bridge site may be relocated" (New Brighton Bulletin) 9/3/96 worksession • Discussion of options for obtaining easements for Highway 10 pedestrian bridge • Review of surface water abandonment for pedestrian bridge construction 9/9/96 Motion passed to approve option#2 (re: surface water pond) and to authorize the staff to negotiate with the two engineering firms to determine who will do the work and to authorize the expenditure from Surface Water Management Funds up to $30,000 (regular meeting) 9/23/96 Adoption of Resolution No. 5009 initiating eminent domain proceedings and the use of the quick take process under Chapter 117 of the Minnesota State Statutes for an easement on a portion of the property located at 2535-2585 Highway 10 and identified by PIN#08-30-23-11-0079 for construction of a pedestrian bridge over Highway 10 (regular meeting) 0 11/21/96 Permit submitted to Rice Creek Watershed District by BRW City of Mounds View Staff Report • Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge-Appendices February 21, 1997 Page 4 1997 2/3/97 Pedestrian Bridge over Highway 10 (worksession) 2/10/97 Status Report on Pedestrian Bridge (regular meeting) 2/11/97 "Footbridge plan disputed" (St. Paul Pioneer Press) 2/19/97 "City council delays Highway 10 crossing" (New Brighton Bulletin) 2/24/97 Status Report on Pedestrian Bridge (regular meeting) • • City of Mounds View Staff Report • Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge-Appendices February 21, 1997 Page 5 APPENDIX B: SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR LOCAL SHARE OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE This appendix provides a catalog of funding sources which could be used for the local share needed to construct the pedestrian bridge, including the ones which have been identified in the project budget and alternatives. Previous City Council action established that the local share would be covered using the following funds: • $81,642 from Franchise Fee Account#295-3850 • $41,558 from Special Projects Fund#590-3850 • $31,000 from General Fund 100-3850 • $25,000 from Street Light Fund 770-3850 • $10,800 from(Recreation)Activity Fund 250-3850 • $36,900 from Storm Water Management Fund $226,900 ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES • 1. MSA Source: State of Minnesota The City of Mounds View receives an annual allotment of funds from the State of Minnesota for street and highway projects. Staff has confirmed that these funds may be used for the pedestrian bridge for construction, design and inspection costs. The two most recent allotments were: 1996 $220,750 1997 $240,944 At present, the City's MSA Account has a balance of$390,860 which includes the 1996 allotment. With both 1996 and 1997, the amount available is $631,804. The City is allowed to borrow against future allotments as long as the outstanding advance is no more than twice our annual allotment or$500,000 whichever is less. The City has been using MSA funds for reconstruction of streets. Two projects are in the pipeline which will use MSA funds: Local MSA Funds (1) • reconstruction of Old Highway 8 $322,000 1997 • Spring Lake Road $880,000 1998 • City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge-Appendices February 21, 1997 Page 6 Additional projects which are under consideration include: • County Road 112 $800,000 2000 • Red Oak $750,000 2003 • La Porte $105,000 1998 or 2003 (1) This is not the total project cost but the amount anticipated to be paid from local MSA funds. These funds could be used to fund the City's share of the bridge construction costs ($120,000) and the design and inspection costs($65,000)for a total of$185,000. Adding the pedestrian bridge to the list of projects to be funded from MSA funds would affect the priority assigned to the road projects listed above, and could delay Spring Lake Road and subsequent projects by one year. 2. Tax Increment Financing Source:Property tax collected in three tax increment districts Mounds View Business Park;Business Park north of new Highway 10;Area 9 in the existing Highway 10 corridor • The City has three tax increment financing districts which generated approximately $2,272,000 in captured tax increment and $300,000 in interest earnings in 1996. The annual cost for debt service on the bonded debt is approximately$1,300,000, payments on developer notes are $190,000, and payments of administrative costs are$120,000, for a total of$1,610,000. We have estimated that approximately$1,000,000 is available each year for eligible projects. The City has a cash balance of$6,111,000 accumulated from previous years. A proposed plan for the use of these funds from 1995 through the year 2004 has been established which identifies five types of projects. These are: Approximate Amount Assigned Per Year • Housing Replacement Program(single family units) $100,000-120,000 • Multiple Family Housing Programs $150,000-200,000 • Business Loan Program $50,000-80,000 • Highway 10 Redevelopment $235,000-290,000 • School/Community Facility $800,000 in 1996 only • According to the plan, as of 1997, the Highway 10 Redevelopment category will have $680,775 available. This appears to be the category most related to the pedestrian bridge 41110City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge- Appendices February 21, 1997 Page 7 project. On July 21, 1995, the City received a legal opinion from James O'Meara of Briggs and Morgan stating that TIF funds could be used for the pedestrian bridge. Using $185,000 from tax increment financing for the City's share of construction costs, design and inspection, would leave$495,775 in the Highway 10 Redevelopment category. No specific projects have been identified for the use of these funds, although it is expected that the Highway 10 Study now underway will include recommendations for projects. The Economic Development Commission passed a motion endorsing this project, by a vote of 3-1, on February 20, 1997 (See memorandum from Cathy Bennett in Appendix F.) 3. Interest Earnings The funds transferred in December 1995 to create the pedestrian bridge account have earned approximately $9,900 in interest since the account was created. FUNDING SOURCES INCLUDED IN CURRENT BRIDGE BUDGET • 4. Special Projects Fund Current Source:Interest Earnings Original Source:Closeout of Improvement Bond Redemption Fund Code Reference: Section 203.08 • This fund was created in 1985 with an original balance of approximately$853,500. The balance in this fund as of 1995 was $1,607,420, including a loan of$500,000 to the water utility operating fund for the meter replacement project. Therefore, the actual cash in the account is approximately $1.1 million. This fund may be used, in part, to: • make interest bearing loans to finance public improvements or to make interest-bearing loans to finance equipment purchases and/or capital improvement projects which have been included in the long-term financial plan • make permanent transfers for the purchase of equipment and/or to finance capital improvement projects,which have been included in the long-term financial plan Capital improvement projects are defined as"projects which are intended to acquire, construct, permanently modify or purchase assets of a long term character which are intended to continue to be held or used, such as land, buildings and machinery. The past practice has been to use the interest in this fund for capital projects, rather than the principal. Typical projects have been sealcoating of streets and the City Hall expansion. The fund does not have an ongoing source of income other than interest, and therefore, if the principal is spent, money would need to be transferred into this fund from • City of Mounds View Staff Report • Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge- Appendices February 21, 1997. Page 8 elsewhere to replenish it if the City wanted to maintain a certain balance. The amount of interest earned in 1996 was$88,000. City Council Resolution No. 4843 allocated $41,558 from Special Projects to the pedestrian bridge. (The balance reflects the fact that the appropriated funds have been moved to the pedestrian bridge account.) 5. Storm Water Mgmt Fund Current Source:Storm Water Charges on Building Pe-ri:s; Charge on Utility Bill Code Reference: Section 203.07 The purpose of this fund is"to provide for the preservation and improvement of storm water drainage facilities within the City." This fund was intended to be used to fund ongoing maintenance on the storm sewer system and to accumulate money until there was a sufficient balance to do major drainage projects such as the Ardan Avenue and Sherwood Road storm sewer trunk lines. In recent years, the funds have been used in conjunction with road reconstruction projects to install, upgrade or repair storm sewer lines in these roads. Bronson Drive is an example. The balance in this fund as of 1995 • was $310,499. The next projects in line for use of this fund are reconstruction of Old Highway 8, Spring Lake Road, Ardan Avenue, Sherwood Road, Edgewood Drive, and County Road H2. Money has been appropriated from this fund for the pedestrian bridge project, to address the drainage pond located at the northwest corner of Highway 10 and Long Lake Road as follows: • $6,900 on 6/10/96 for SEH to complete engineering analysis for relocating surface water pond • $30,000 on 9/9/96 for design using Option 2 of alternatives developed by SEH 6. Street Light Fund Current Source: Charge on Utility Bill Code Reference: Section 904 According to Chapter 904, "the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to operate, maintain and improve upon the street lighting system throughout the City. It is the Council's intent to encourage this program throughout the City to promote the general health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Mounds View. The balance in this fund as of 1996 was $54,141. City Council Resolution 4843 appropriated $25,000 from this fund for the pedestrian bridge project for the lighting which will be installed on or in the vicinity of the bridge. (The balance reflects the fact 111 that the appropriated funds have been moved to the pedestrian bridge account.) City of Mounds View Staff Report 4110 Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge-Appendices February 21, 1997 Page 9 7. Recreation Activity Fund Current Source: General Fund; Charges for Activities Code Reference: Section 203.06 These funds"shall be used for the direct operating expense of City-authorized recreation activities. These expenses shall include, but shall not be limited to, compensation of instructors, rents or the purchase of equipment or supplies for recreational activities." The balance in this fund as of 1995 was $98,672. City Council Resolution 4843 appropriated $10,800 from this fund for the pedestrian bridge project. (The balance reflects the fact that the appropriated funds have been moved to the pedestrian bridge account.) 8. Franchise Fee Current Source:Surcharge on Ui.°.?ty Bills Code Reference: Section 1401.0191. 12.01 The Municipal Code does not state a specific use for these funds. The practice has been to transfer money from this fund into the general fund in order to reduce the amount which must be levied through property taxes. The fee generates approximately V40,000 per year. The balance in this fund as of 1995 was $55,642. City Council Resolution 4843 11, appropriated $81,642 from this fund for the pedestrian bridge project. (The balance reflects the fact that the appropriated funds have been moved to the pedestrian bridge account.) City of Mounds View StaffReport • Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge-Appendices February 21, 1997 Page 10 APPENDIX C UPDATED LIST OF COSTS INCURRED TO DATE BRW- Design Consultants • City Council identified funding sources for local share in Resolution 4843 on 11/13/95 and established the 680 account for bridge expenditures. • City Council selected BRW as design consultants on November 13, 1995 by Resolution 4842; Contract was signed November 21, 1995. Contract was for$62,680. • City Council selected the spiral ramp design for bridge ramps on (getting date) 1/31/96 $ 1,138.82 3/31/96 $12,539.62 4/30/96 $ 1,427.33 5/17/96 $ 344.11 6/30/96 $ 1,082.88 7/31/96 $ 6,301.63 8/31/96 $ 952.47 1111 9/30/96 10/31/96 $ 2,611.80 $ 3,143.98 1/14/97 $ 2,216.87 Invoiced 12/31/96 $11.969.67 $43,729.18 Easement on north side of highway • City Council authorized undertaking eminent domain proceedings by Resolution No. 5009 on September 23, 1996. Not all of the bills have been coded to 680 Account; this is reason for discrepancy between total below and total in earlier report. I have left note for accountant to correct coding. Also the Peter Patchin bill was too recent to show up on computer printout for 680 account.) Kennedy& Graven (City Attorney)- eminent domain proceedings 9/24/96 $ 144.96 (date of check) 10/7/96 $ 531.26 11/20/96 $ 2,259.04 (date of check) 11/20/96 $ 579.30 (date of check) 12/5/96 $ 1,445.22 2/28/97 $ 867.72 $ 5,827.50 • City of Mounds View StaffReport • Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge- Appendices February 21, 1997 Page 11 Peter Patchin- appraisal for easement on north side of highway 2/11/97 $1225.00 (date check mailed) SEH(City Engineer)- development of alternatives for dealing with drainage pond • City Council authorized investigation into moving drainage pond on 11/13/95 in Resolution No. 4844. • City Council authorized staff by motion to sign agreement with SEH to complete engineering analysis for relocating surface water pond in the amount of$6,900, to be funded from Surface Water Management Fund on 6/10/96. • City Council passed motion at City Council meeting on September 9, 1996 to approve Option #2 and to authorize staff to negotiate with the two engineering firms to determine who will do what work and to authorize the expenditure from Surface Water Management Funds up to$30,000. Invoiced 2/19/96 $ 37.51 • Invoiced 7/31/96 $ 1,333.11 Invoiced 8/29/96 $ 1,427.96 Invoiced 9/30/96 $ 2,533.04 Invoiced 10/31/96 $ 422.28 Invoiced 11/29/96 $ 1,802.06 $ 7,555.96 Grand Total to Date $58,337.64 S City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge-Appendices February 21, 1997 Page 12 APPENDIX D: GRANT APPLICATION (distributed to City Council only; copy available for review at City H, please contact Pam Sheldon at 784-3055 for information) . City of Mounds View Staff Report illHighway 10 Pedestrian Bridge-Appendices February 21, 1997 Page 13 APPENDIX E STAFF REPORTS, RESOLUTIONS &MINUTES (distributed to City Council only; copy available for review at City Hall please contact Pam Sheldon at 784-3055 for information) This appendix includes documents noted above for each time the pedestrian bridge was an item at a City Council worksession or regular meeting between 1994 and 1997. They are in date order from earliest to latest, after this cover page. You will not find any minutes for the worksession since no minutes are kept for these meetings. There are also a set of minutes for a Council meeting when there was extensive discussion of the pedestrian bridge during citizen comments, and the minutes for the citizen task force charged with selecting a design for the pedestrian bridge. An index follows: Resolution 4227 establishing comprehensive trailways system policy 5/11192 Minutes of 5/11/92 Council meeting • Staff Report for 3/14/94 Council meeting includes diagram of proposed bridge location, switchback design Minutes for 3/14/94 Council meeting Staff Report for 3/28/94 Council meeting - request for approval of grant submittal Resolution 4530 approving grant submittal 3/28/94 Resolution 4531 approving grant submittal 3/28/94 Minutes for 3/28/94 Council meeting Staff Report for 5/1/95 worksession(no minutes) - recommendation for selection of design consultant (BRW) - surface water issues - formation of pedestrian bridge task force Staff Report for 7/10/95 worksession(no minutes) - letter from Park&Recreation Commission request for citizen support of bridge as part of City budget process; 11 letters in response; 41 signatures Staff Report for 9/5/95 worksession(no minutes) - three funding options (TIF, partial TIF, no TIF) - letter from attorney indicating pedestrian bridge legal use of TIF funds - memo from Mike Ulrich, Public Works Director, on maintenance issues with bridge - letter from Planning Commission in support of bridge - additional letters in support Excerpt from minutes for 10/23/96 Council meeting with extensive discussion of pedestrian 411 bridge under discussion of 1996 City budget City of Mounds View Staff Report • Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge-Appendices February 21, 1997 Page 14 Staff Report for 11/13/95 Council meeting Resolution 4842 awarding design contract to BRW 11/13/95 Resolution 4843 amending 1995 general fund to pay local share 11/13/95 Resolution 4844 directing staff to coordinate removal of storm water detention pond 11/13/95 Minutes for 11/13/95 Council meeting Minutes for 11/17/95 Council meeting with extensive discussion of pedestrian bridge during citizen comments Agenda for January 22, 1996 meeting showing Item 11.B. on pedestrian bridge Memorandum from Councilperson Trude regarding formation of pedestrian bridge citizen task force(Item 11.B.) Resolution 4889 appointing a citizen task force to select a design for the pedestrian bridge Minutes for 1/22/96 Council meeting Minutes for 2/6/96 meeting of pedestrian bridge citizen task force Staff Report for 3/4/96 worksession on abandonment of drainage pond - includes diagram of bridge with spiral ramps Staff Report for 3/25/96 Council meeting on abandonment of drainage pond Minutes for 3/25/96 Council meeting • Staff Report for 4/1/96 worksession on abandonment of drainage pond Staff Report for 6/10/96 on proposals to relocate drainage pond Minutes for 6/10/96 Council meeting Staff Report for 9/3/96 worksession on alternatives for dealing with drainage pond - report from SEH on eight options Staff Report for 9/3/96 worksession on options for obtaining easements on north side of Hwy 10 Staff Report for 9/9/96 Council meeting on surface water pond; appropriation of funds for design Minutes for 9/9/96 Council meeting Staff Report for 9/23/96 Council meeting on eminent domain proceedings to acquire easement Minutes for 9/23/96 Council meeting Staff Report for 2/3/97 worksession; status report on pedestrian bridge project Staff Report for 2/10/97 Council meeting; status report on pedestrian bridge project 110 RESOLUTION NO. 4227 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY IIISTATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A COMPREHENSIVE TRAILWAYS SYSTEM POLICY FOR THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW WHEREAS, multi-use trailways is a very popular recreational activity for many residents of the City of Mounds View; and WHEREAS, adequate numbers of properly designed trailways increases the safety of bicyclists, pedestrians and motorists; and WHEREAS, there is a need to provide trailways on or off of streets to make use as safe as possible; and WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View is a connector city between trailway systems of Anoka and Ramsey Counties, and linkages of neighboring communities of Shoreview, New Brighton, Fridley, Spring Lake Park and Blaine. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View City Council hereby adopts the following policies as part of a trailways system policy for the City for the City of Mounds View to help promote safe bicycling: 0 1. A Trailways Advocacy Group (TAG) be commissioned torovide ongoing advice to P g g ensure the development and safe use of trailways in the City. 2. The TAG shall be made up of trailway users of the City of Mounds View plus representation from the Parks and Recreation Commission and Planning Commission. 3. The TAG shall work with the City Staff and other commissions in consideration of street and other capital projects as they affect the trailway system map in the short term. In the long term, the TAG shall help continue to advocate the safe use, development and maintenance of trailways as per the TAG Goals and Objectives. 4. The City shall coordinate planning, construction and maintenance of a city-wide system of trailways, combining on and off-road trails, with the purpose of developing a networking route of trailways in the City which provide a linkage to other neighboring trailways. 5. All new road construction, major street repair and striping on arterial and connector streets of the City of Mounds View include, wherever feasible and safe, the provision for appropriately marked trail lanes on one or both sides of the road • or, where appropriate, off road trails. 6. Acquisition of land should be considered for the development of trailway corridors when opportunities arise. Resolution No. 4227 Page two BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Mounds View continues to work with Ramsey County, Anoka County, and MnDOT in advocating for off-street or on- street trails to be included in the development, upgrading or repair of roadways in the City of Mounds View. Adopted this 11th day of May, 1992. (SEAL) �,.. �-- Jerome W. Linke, Mayo A FIEST: I f ,✓�� amantha Orduno, Clerk-Administrator • Mounds View City Council Page Seven gular Meeting May 11, 1992 MOTION/SECOND: Wuori/Quick to approve the expenditure of $1, 611 for the City of Mounds View's percentage share of requested architectural services for the multi-jurisdictional Regional Senior Community Center 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 4. Mary Saarion, Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry reviewed Staff Report No. 92-2730 considering the adoption of Resolution No. 4227 establishing a comprehensive trailways system policy for the City of Mounds View. Saarion stated that with the adoption of the above referenced resolution it is hoped that all departments, commissions and present and future Councils of the City of Mounds View will acknowledge this policy in the future development of a Trailways System in the City of Mounds View. The Trailways Advocacy Group is a group of volunteers that worked on the establishment of the proposal since November of 1991. NOTION/SECOND: Blanchard/Wuori to adopt Resolution No. 4227 Establishing a Comprehensive Trailways System Policy for the City of 4111 Mounds View and to Accept the Trailways Proposal as a Working Document Councilmember Rickaby emphasized the fact that this document would be a working document. Rickaby commended this group of volunteers for the fine job they did on the Trailways Proposal, however, she stated that she has a major concern about the trailway design that would cross 10 at Groveland. It would be unsafe for persons to cross Highway 10 with a bike. The trailway should be at an intersection with a semaphore. Mayor Linke stated that the safety of the residents crossing at Highway 10 would be discussed when the group studied that particular trailway. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 5 > Ric Minetor, Director of Public Works/City Engineer, reviewed Staff Report No. 92-274C regarding city-wide parking restrictions. Minetor stated that restricting the parking would aid the Public Works Department in snow removal and street sweeping and would help the Police Department with the enforcement of parking problems and public safety when patrolling at night. Minetor stated that staff would draft an ordinance for the next regular council meeting. 4111 Councilmember Rickaby stated having a public hearing regarding this item would be an appropriate time to give citizens an opportunity to come in and ask questions and state their opinions. Rickaby stated Agenda Section: 9.E Inir -- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Report Number:94-1102C STAFF REPORT Report Date: 3-10-94 Council Action: 0 Special Order of Busi CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE March 14, 1994 0 Public Hearings 0 Consent Agenda tri Council Business Item Description: Consideration of Approval of Engineering Services to Short-Elliot- Hendrickson for Pedestrian Bridge Grant Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report - Comments attached. • Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) SUMMARY: Staff is pursuing a grant through ISTEA funding for the installation of a pedestrian bridge across Highway 10 to be submitted by the April 1 deadline. Preliminary engineering drawings, plans and cost estimates must accompany the proposal. Attached is a proposal for services provided by SEH. Staff requests the City Council to approve this expenditure for plans. Even if the grant is not approved, the plans can be used for future grant applications. Administrator Orduno has indicated that monies from the Franchise Fee for special projects could be used for these initial pedestrian bridge engineering drawing which are required for the grant. III ,„,,,,__________ Mary Saa ior - or of Parks, Recreation and Forestry • II RECOMMENDATION, Staff requests the City Council to approve the expenditure of$1,900 for engineering services from SEH for information regarding a pedestrian bridge across Highway 10 to be used in an ISTEA grant proposal, funding from the Franchise Fees for special projects, fund #295. 03/28/94 09:52 FAX SEH ST. PAUL 0002/002 • ,504 MEMORANDUM x ST.PAUL.MN a MINNEAPOLIS.MN 0 ST,CLOUD.MN C CHIPPEWA FALLS. WI 0 MADISON,WI TO: Mary Saarion Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry City of Mounds View FROM: Steve Campbell DATE: March 23, 1994 RE: Mounds View, Minnesota STH 10 Pedestrian Crossing at Long Lake Road SEH No. A-MOUND9406.00 In accordance with our recent conversation,we have reviewed the cost of an elevated (bridge) pedestrian crossing versus the cost of an underground (tunnel) crossing for the subject project. The estimated cost of a standard pedestrian bridge is in the range of$700 to$800 per linear foot. • The material cost of an 8'x10' box culvert which would be required for a pedestrian tunnel is estimated to be$650 per linear foot. The additional cost of tunneling associated with the culvert installation is estimated to be $400 to $500 per lineal foot, resulting in a total installed cost of $1,050 to $1,150 per lineal foot for the pedestrian tunnel. In addition to the higher construction cost, the tunnel crossing would require additional costs for lighting,security and drainage systems. With the additional cost of these systems,the.tunnel cost would likely approach twice the cost of the bridge crossing. We would, therefore,strongly recommend that the City continue to pursue the bridge option for the proposed crossing. If you have any questions, please call me at 490-2067. do BLAINE r • 1 \ N 5 q '� n 0 \\ N. - ='(--:2 4 . Y 1i 110 =ors 0: w • a. ? "� � , _ _ (_.:- 1 BLAINS IAA . 1 1mip,. r • i HT .• E.M a CC 3 NN vJuII nI�[ 1,81fink \./.71 ___ETI , • ___.,.. � (12 'i WIXOM � f.'.wc -1 r+ *TWO 9 � r g4 V g 1 - Ere, Tr4 [ 1 i[r]. ‘') : illkNi2k Spring Lak PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE LOCATION L"--el ir)_Li________ c, , 1 .t. 7; Sa.v01 Y.Cw 2 i `tio . , .1.141,40,6 I 1 4:1 np . ,. .s . , ,...1nsa+ -1 Y cm IOU. enorKeM - - 1111 lihhkFh [11 .1 7 'r,.nEtrr Ei__11 1 "a1 Ca I1 ..,._a „_Ili i f1LJ 1 i I ,IP,..,. .' 1 n . ; i - ••••••!••• • -1:4 i ---4.•). - .#.7.---,r„, r o .•; lie, • - . r f'«.•ii• . .- --• ../ .i,•,..-- 1 :1 ' *% a. •/• ..,,- •-- ... . 't 1 , •f"fdilibbN• I # '-±. •A c ....4,r P•• -... iller.....7 ....• .0 1."';" . I 7. ,•‘. ....: .ti ;4,4.1.4‘... s 41,.. . .. ' -. -. N ‘i• rt1 C I V) (II fl.., . .., 1....,0,11 .• / .. ! ‘ . ... . 1•..:.A. . 1:::.74. 1. 1:.i:••.:. : ...,. .:• .' '4,I. ,.• . .-•,...././-)111z, .%1.. -141- • 11131P, t4...r.-('i • .... IN. -, - 11110> ;-7 ''. Fr- ':•:74: • • .. •••A,' : - 111. • • ,,,,:....., . ... -' P • f, ,44,_ ...3..f.:10./. ..cm. . ,.. /AA_ ), • ;.kf....:,:......!. ..f. .4 „....?ey:,/,/ : ...., i7,.4 :,-0/./;.://, ,.. ,/:../../:... •=2:c-...r-- 0 .. ii , ‘.'',,‘ \ 7441r4(. -).11.1i-1.'..,•t-;7:.?.._ ... - ••• . ,‘,-.. ) . . , 4 tsir_ i . . .., ti. ..-...-(-__- itiir".--„,,yz--,- ,-- • ..* .-4 ,... -...... . , ;.41 =. .,. -, . ,._ _ - . .."-.A..... • el • .:4.-:-.,.. ›, • , . • , ... ...sdi.,.- ci, --- ;,,..4,6 1* 7;44 lir ) g! • Pr 7 • • . •' . •A .....t ‘ :: A....i.N` ;-x. r ca • t , y.. . . .. ... . - i „, t • • . e ii!' •771:. _•_•.• " ., • .11. ••••°...•••. • ..1,'„,.....* '4,..-.-^ i i ...ii.... .. .....• ,.•• j::•• .. ..r'S.I.r.l, --..-•'T. I > .- , .., .. It 03, . • I e+ .. 4 irej •••••• -.1.- • r' ";• 111.°4 3142kIttli... i . • ,. • -• ..--:• : 1.• 7 • ...** ,;„--,'";:., Ilk .- •'' • - - , M • s. .. s . ,..ar ,_ • a . -, i if F. f•.41. ts ,•••• 0 '-'1el..--". ..-_,,gks• . ,:. .,, 700 .ALre.• 4 .1;•rs-•r.,k7...-.:•'•'•.,,•.4-'.'-'•''. i• /...,t•• C /V) 0 :...r1cr4,14id .iW __ Adidligi . 0Mmz •-•'1-1.1-1 • 1 7 i ' ca .• • •-•,: -- :Lf_1;,.. r , M ._ .,... i . .1S'iv z -L... ..1 PI 7)r•-----, M Cm rli 11,2/ 1 C 71 ....:*,-.. ----.42, .=......• ,„..... .•-•%"-- .. ..2t...,• ..17„7„.--.13••••••• ..._'.. •••'-: ..-.....:...----gibt., •.•:- . AlCs••• ••%•-• iil IV. :---- --t'•.•t' 4• CA. • AA ' • 1 1;i1' - . • '.- " ' ldrA _a •i,.,..„:"."..AITIA1`..,,`!.1.\NI....... .. ... • • --- 41 ". ./.1., * f. .) • - le ,. ..... i • / , /2. -' .,•• ; 1 . .. ..• • . . r._. ,. • ., 1 0 ..• , .."./. ._.. _ ,.(___. .., c,...._)4 it ....-a. -- -..%:•:::',' lc to.-....- ...' 1 ! = . , N.. / . • •-• • -, M '.4. # ';'. .. 1'.. .:4tr / . i. il * / • „t g.. I .. sh %mar..-1 . - i .;......2 :::::::.?.1.-;;F...:...F',41..:Sf.it.• :: ' '..*•-,:...::,_•'.:::_:s1_•1-. .--- ..1........:_,A...4.•..-..-.1-:-....,-• • • • I I C 1 . • if / / ..' -. ::* r- , . ._ • 6 ..;4 . - • --..,..- ' - .' •-- 4- -1.-Z,P .3...3*--- / : '.'.'.. ••."':...-- , - „,...s. .2 . _,....-,3tit.-„,:- ........;,__ ....... . '-'-'`im-4,f V • 1.-v_ ''''.••••)* .. A 1 • ! .--,-, , ...... -. • -,eoe-',.---- •' • '-••' ! :i' -...,S- ....*.f- • .,-..• -,-::-. ;_;... ik....1• Li zceNt- -_ •,.. .-L... ,, -4-- „.• ..,m1...,.:ii -. ,.-... . --4) ' 1 %.7...;.,/.• . AP:.-• ,,.7:::--,..z....-- -Cb-.441 •• : 14. -."-..,, k.. .--106,-,,e.-- '44-'!.'• '-:iiir i. - At. -,et.-...•11-011(.., uhoeskaiebeL4 . II ./•./.-3' "" ...;',•; ''' iir.?;....,.. ..--./I Cn _ . • t-- -... • -...4 - __: .-,--a--...--* _..., iy.:_,, ....... -_,..._. 4 ,74......._ .. ...,.. „........ . • •.. . - i - - - :-• .4 •- ' - •71. it 's LILet • ! , ././e.:,..t . • . •'4-A 114 •i•--: -Cr ' • •a...i •.- . ifr k V7' . ' • ' ..‘3'1.•',/C . .: . ' --- •- ••,D,-7-1.,. ,. •-••••FX . ...- 11:1 1 -; ga, • r-1 1. 11* ! :=• 1: 4't•Ii!" ,A 4,.., 1„.1,..._re it..• - --17,,..- , - .---•.• :-. . - •4.1.. '"4-.. •- '; CR. r •••• •...Rea* R.'-.-....,-.:7• ..-:, - :•?it'.11, - ; I . ,j.,.• •''''. .r.. •1-.. .-- '--• -in ..„,.., .... . .1 :se..Alk w, .......1-71 -ti, 'fp. A... - - .::i...-.... t-.;. • . 1 , . :,.,:s.Av. :$0..."11c.k..".... -::......•.1.. -.7...'.; AfT•t: 'ft' ' .- -... - - - •: w -- _ 1 • -1---•-,1••77.:tr.-- ,.-',, 7 -, , . ,-,A .vit - • = - " .: ' Co, .5"` ' --,`---.•i", & ... ...s • .t.. ...„ •i,74. ,,..- !".- :.•-,,411114 1 •x.:-pc. - _l_.•_•-•:-.. gi•.:#4 'Alt,0:1 ii 0 -\ - ,•.' -........•.,-14,, .• 2.412V-gi• . r•. ..... A- -;., -74//rr7.0.--:,'.. s• ,,,,,,,,k, .,., ., . i. el, . i. , -: , . .7.4 4- . 4.:. • '••. -..1 : - ..--.•••r • • . .3 I aTtr•-..•••:.:, --- ..,, - 1 - .• --Vr--•:''!',...,_. - -`/W_iz.' ,$• 7 • •;•,1r 11010 - •-. "• '- w*,e/ - •. :40. -.. .........•. ..,.., - I .... - - - •. . .o.... 5,!• , • ! .4 ! ''1••• 1 i,- •-;lit,..,•i,;• •.. . ._ _sr . 7. . _ ,,..i A •:,., r• % - _ . i -..`• • ,-,,'• . r- , • e - - a ...,, •••. • .„! • •. . 4111!Irrl . .-.,. • .....*r ..-c** .., . ., .. ........ - , • ...„ .,._,....„.„. _ -.. - ,o-_: - - .,:•. • : - --,zz___. __-.1 • •- - .-- -......... - - . i. , . -.., e„.,. ••. : • •__-..,, •....._ ., ...---. ...... . - .-..........- - ...-.• •• r.! ••••.-':.*".. .-Viti 7. - ,.;!•- . ••!.:,-....--‘40...41e.-7.-:!- '..... . -,. :-- -' • - ' •-•------- -- ' 'I. •-- I ca;;L. • ' .. -::..;•:;b.,1-7',... :-.11gOrzi. . .2 . -...,....ki 1 . F-. ' - kr , - ' .6:„.7 •. - .'74:- fit. . 4 - it.......7, • / : •;. .. -.......... , - . . . 4 .,1 ...- . ...•-•;• • ..c-,:... • ,1 E 'WM s., 1 • m- i o I .— 1 "2 Z 1 rn C \.rn rn:‹ ;rn r- M rn I.I 5 (.. ,.c c •O 0 1\ m 1 \ I I• I ,I.r• r. ,.--• I ..]. • . , 1 I I t'••• . 1 I i 1 N‘ I I 1 i I 1 \N ! 1 fr, , • 0 ; I ; •4 ; 1 I ; I II H- 6 I --0 \ 1 I C. 0 I Ii I 7 I I\ \o cn I 1 cr, 1 1 I I I i rri 1 I i A i UI \ 17.-4 N I . !i4 I <1. ii 1 CLR. 0 - i ii y I m , I I . . 1 D m1 I ' 1 cn ICi) 1 i Z (I) (-•"' I l',14 I ' (/) 1 I I ,-, • _ ., ____ _ _______\____ _ .i ! ), I • I N , , C) 1 1-7 0 I rl , CO ZI! cm 1 I Z 77 , n ,..„. i (.,•: i . >.(--) 11.1 > K I !I , 77.3K 1 - .• ,....- , • . I• . 1 :• i I — • • , .1 I i • . 1 I I i f (7) :0 • 1 .1 i I • 1 ,•, HI 1 11 1 , I . ; H (-: --Z I I .1 . ... . . . 1 • I , . ! ' L / I .- II ; ; •1 . . , • I . - 1 L...----: . ! I • . . • 'ii . - _ . .•__::— , * • - rT1 , ii , • . . • I 150' ; M C I 2 ,-,Z CE) rri •-• I 0 0 CM • p > r— — E T 1 > y * ! 1_ I 1 ,..-.,..- * - ; I-< ;- i ; , 0 0 _ i 1-1.: ;a • 1 I ' i ,..., , , P,_ 1 . • 1 V , — I '1/ ; .I , , I I I , ,s'•-:. , I—1 X I r- 1 I ±-.I 1 I r71 I 1 1 • I 1 I 7-5 i 1 I — ''') i — I , 1 1 I H.8. . , — I I 1 ; c.n I • - ,/ i / I fli 7 80.-1.- 1+; 1 i ir ,—— I 1 H li H Irrt ,== 0 ..... -- —I _. ' 1 _1 I \ 1 ... , , 1 I ' ' }-i:1 , r n I ---:: 1 i1 CO I il 1 • 1 / //, / z • , /0•••. I ! -N 1------ 1 • /-• -Ny I — ; 1 H, 1 , .., • . _ • ' i I . -. . - ; I . . ! ; 1 ' I . .--.,./... .- .. r: — — . I I. ! .. .., .1 • 1 - ' ' ::!: > — ' i 1 . i..,'• • 7':-4.; . ; i , • , . 1 , . . ,.-: • : . i 1 I c I 1 1 • , ,--_ , , i • , . . ..- 1 p-,l ,c--) 1 . ,.._ • . — _ : ,-- c.,•' i _ ,i . ,L._..) •-= .-- r y — - 1 Li \ 1 I i---• ,.." 1 C. 1 f :I nsi i i Li ,..., , . Mounds View City Council Page - Regular Meeting March 14 , Cruikshank commented that many of the candidates for the positions indicated that they were very impressed with the business park. C. Consideration of Hiring of Housing Intern Tim Cruikshank, Assistant to the City Administrator, reported that as identified by Focus 2000, the 1994 Budget was approved which provided funding for a Housing Intern position to create a housing stock inventory for analysis. Cruikshank reported that seven applicants were interviewed and Jennifer Bergman was the interview panel's recommendation. Cruikshank stated that Bergman met the requirements of the position and demonstrated that she has the ability to perform the job duties and responsibilities of the position. MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Quick to Approve the Hiring of Jennifer Bergman as Housing Intern for the City of Mounds View VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays . Motion Carried D. Consideration of Approval of Construction Documents for Golf Course Buildings and Authorization to Advertise for Bids for the Buildin Mary Saarion, Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry, introduced John Kohler from Runyon and Vogel was in attendance at the meeting. Mr. Kohler briefly went through the plans for the buildings. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Trude to Approve the Construction Documents for the Golf Course Clubhouse and Maintenance Buildings and Approve the Advertisement of Bids Beginning March 25 VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried E. Consideration of Approval of Engineering Services to Short-Elliott Hendrickson for Pedestrian Bridge Grant Mary Saarion, Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry stated that staff was pursuing a grant through ISTEA for the installation of a pedestrian bridge. across Highway 10 to be submitted by April 1. Saarion stated that preliminary engineering drawings, plans and cost estimates must accompany the proposal. Saarion further stated that SEH would provide these services for a cost of $1, 900. Saarion further stated that Ramsey County and MnDOT thought it was a good project and offered letters of support. Councilmember Quick asked if an underpass could be constructed. Saarion stated that underpasses could be a safety concern - a place Mounds View City Council Page Five 111111 Regular Meeting March 14, 1994 people could lurk easily. Saarion stated that SEH could be asked to give opinion on both an underpass and pedestrian bridge. MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Quick to Approve the Expenditure of $1, 900 for Engineering Services from SEH for Information Regarding a Pedestrian Bridge Across Highway 10 to be Used in an ISTEA Grant Proposal, Funded from the Franchise Fees for Special Projects, Fund #295 VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried F. Consideration of Bid Award to PSI Concrete Surfacing. Inc. for a Cost of $2 , 318 and to be Funded from Account No. 100-4190-511 Paul Harrington, City Planner, reported that as part of the City Hall expansion project, staff solicited a bid from PSI Concrete Surfacing, Inc. for surface of remaining areas of City hall. Harrington stated that the areas to be surfaced would be the new entryway, the entrances to the main floor bathrooms and the hallway area outside of the new Park and Recreation offices. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Wuori to Approve the Expenditure of $2 , 318 Out of Account Number 100-4190-511 for Floor Improvements in City 4111 Hall • VOTE:. 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried REPORTS • 1. Report of Councilmembers: a. Councilmember Trude: No report b. Councilmember Wuori: No report c. Councilmember Quick: No report d. Councilmember Blanchard: No report as Councilmember. Report of Acting Mayor Blanchard: a. Encouraged everyone to attend the Appreciation Event on Friday, March 18 , 1994 . b. Encouraged residents to return postcard regarding compost area IIIIthat could be found in the City Newsletter. .... _illorRFQL rST FOB. COL�+C.11. CO?V�s EP A "s "" OR _—q I r:s.r.y: � 01'f ?-2�Or Vti:r e:e a G-1 1 n c STA TT RPORT ?..epor-Dara: 1//4/o4 Cat=ci Ar-'or.: c Sce=ai c^e- 11107. C.= COL'�IC .. J'7:TLYG DATE MARCH 28, 1994 7.: :�iic=ear..® tE Corse..-_4 mi, C Council 3us6e ess Item Descr:rr.or.: Resolution Nos. 4530 and 4531 for the ISTEA Grant Aa=ih s-z:or's 3.evtewi ecor,:=endaron: r- / 1,,,./ - No cone en:s to suppieWen: this repos / i t`n - Can-..-:-.en= attached. / 3:cpia:.ahoriSu::,:.arl (attach. suppie.:.ent aneem��ec ary.) 57711/17.4f A 1:ty Staff requests the City Council to review the attached portions of the ISTEA grants and to adopt the resolutions provided as requirements to the grants. The grant is for the construction of a pedestrian bridge. over HWY 10 connecting the Long Lake Road sidewalk. Staff believes that this new facility would provide a focal point to the "downtown" of Mounds View, would provide enhanced mobility for the use of facilities and services of the community which at present is divided as north ax-, south of Hwy 10 . It is believed that the bridge would provide a safe passage for pedestrians and bicyclists and would link many trailways • planned by the TAG. The engineering plan of the bridge would provide for a ramp leading from the bridge connecting to Long Lake Road on the south side of Hwy 10 and a spiral ramp located. on the north side of Hwy 10, with a trail leading to the Long Lake Road sidewalk. The Parks, Recreation & Forestry Department would be responsible for the maintenance of the bridge and would landscape the entrances and exit ramps as a park area offering benches, flowers and landscaping and perhaps in time a drinking fountain - to make it "park-like" in aesthetics. It would be attractive, a focal point, and most importantly would offer safe passage across Hwy 10 for our community. residents. We could easily alter any trailway systems to lead to the bridge to make every effort to encourage efficient passage across Hwy 10. This project is a good match for grant criteria. There is much competition for these grants, but since we are submitting two different grant options for this project, there is a better chance to be awarded. /74 .L...„— -",.-- ; %4 "7 Mar Saar/ , Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry 1111 RECOMMENDATION: To adopt Resolutions # 4530 and # 4531 stating the City Council's commitment to 20% of the cost of a pedestrian bridge across Hwy 10 with Fund Balance and the committment of maintenance of the bridge through annual parks operating costs. RESOLUTION # 4530 1111 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE STP ISTEA GRANT FOR A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE ACROSS HIGHWAY 10 WHEREAS, Highway 10 inhibits the safe and easy passage by pedestrians and bicyclists because of the high volume of traffic, the high speed of traffic, as well as the wide and numver of lanes to cross; and, WHEREAS, Highway 10 dissects the City of Mounds View in half, discouraging pedestrian and bicycling mobility even though the distances between facilities and services is short; and, WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has a system of trailways planned by the Trailways Advocacy Group which will provide for good pedestrian and bicycling transportation with the only problem area being the safe passage across Highway 10; and, WHEREAS, the accident rate on Highway 10 is significant as documented by the Police Department and Highway Patrol, providing good reason for means by which safe passage for pedestrian and bicyclists can be accommodated; and, 4111 WHEREAS, there are already sidewalks and trailways in place leading to the services and facilities of the City located on Highway 10, however, there is no means of safe passage across Highway 10 to connect these sidewalks and trailways across Highway 10; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mounds View is interested in providing for the safety and welfare of it's citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby approve the submission of a grant through ISTEA, in the STP classification for the installation of a pedestrian bridge across Highway 10. NOW BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City of Mounds View is committed to 20% of the cost of the bridge and continued maintenance of the facility. Adopted this 28th day of March, 1994 . ATTEST: �.. M-s�1•�'' (SEAL) • Clerk- •minis -tor RESOLUTION # 4531 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 1111 COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TEP ISTEA GRANT FOR A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE ACROSS HIGHWAY 10 WHEREAS, Highway 10 and Long Lake Road is the center of the City, the location of the "downtown" are of the City offering many services and facilities; and, WHEREAS, Highway 10 discourages passage and integrated mobility to the many facilities and services of the City because of the hazards due to high traffic volumes, fast speeds and wide and complicated traffic lanes; and, WHEREAS, Highway 10 also serves as an excellent promotional tool for the community, providing a thoroughfare of many vehicles each day through the City of Mounds View; and, WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View wishes to encourage pedestrian and bicycling transportation and visitation of City services and facilities and therefore wishes to encourage mobility and ease of access to businesses, restaurants, library, churches, schools, parks and city center with the installation of a pedestrian bridge across Highway 10; and, • WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View offers many trailway opportunities for recreational endeavors and pedestrian and bicycle transportation modes, with the only problem being the safe passage across Highway 10; and, WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View sees the potential for a pedestrian bridge to provide a focal point to the "downtown" area building community identity and community spirit while offering newfound pedestrian and bicycling opportunities. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby approve the submission of a grant through ISTEA, in the TEP classification for the installation of a pedestrian bridge across Highway 10. NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City of Mounds View is committed to 20% of the cost of the bridge and continued maintenance of the facility. Adopt&th ' 28th d M rch, 1994 ATTEST: 110-PW Ma (SEAL) C\3)erk-A inistra or • l Mounds View City Council Page Four 1111 Regular Meeting March 28, 1994 MOTION/SECOND: Wuori/Quick to Adopt Resolution No. 4533 Transferring to the Mounds View EDA the Control, Authority and Operation of the City's Development Districts and Programs and the Tax Increment Financing Districts Therein VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Consideration of Award of Golf Course Construction Bid Mary Saarion, Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry introduced Paul Miller, Design Associate with William, Gill and Associates to present the information on the bid award for the contractor of the Mounds View Golf Links and Practice Center. Mr. -Miller reported that seven bids had been received and that Veit Companies was the low bidder. Veit is ready to begin as soon as the bid is awarded. Miller further reported that Veit has a good reputation and good references and experience. MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Quick to Award the Low Bid to Veit Companies, IIIInc. for the Construction of the Golf Course and to Authorize Staff to Execute a Contract with Veit Companies, Inc. for the Construction of the Golf Course Bid VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Councilmember Trude stated that in reviewing the golf course documents she found one item that she wanted to bring to the attention of the other Councilmembers and the public for disclosure reasons. Trude stated that she interpreted a portion of the Prospectus to mean that the City could end up paying salaries and maintenance of the golf course. Trude stated that she did not want it overstated to the taxpayers that the golf course presented no risks to them. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried B. Consideration of Adoption of Resolution Nos. 4530 and 4531 for the ISTEA Grant Mary Saarion, Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry, explained that she had completed dual grant applications for 80a federal funding of a pedestrian bridge over Highway 10 connecting the Long Lake Road sidewalk. Saarion further explained that the engineering plan of the bridge would provide for a switchback ramp leading from • the bridge connecting to Long Lake Road on the south side of Highway 10 and a spiral ramp located on the north side of Highway 10 with a trail leading to the Long Lake Road sidewalk. Mounds View City Council Page Five Regular Meeting March 28, 1 Steve Campbell from SEH reviewed the design proposal and answered the Council's questions about the proposed bridge's construction and location. Councilmember Trude noted that she had been contacting other government representatives and several had written letters to the grant committee recommending support of this project. MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Quick to Adopt Resolution Nos. 4530 and 4531 Stating the City Council's Commitment to 20% of the Cost of a Pedestrian Bridge Across Highway 10 with Fund Balance and the Commitment of Maintenance of the Bridge through Annual Parks Operating Costs VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried C. Consideration of Approval of Contingency Funding for Ridding of Penta Carcenic Chemical Mary Saarion, Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry reported that the City has been storing a hazardous waste called Penta and that it is a carcinogen. Saarion further reported that the law requires that it be kept in a special outer container and thc.L stored in a secluded area and inspected weekly for leakage. Staff has learned that the University of Minnesota, Department of • Agriculture could properly and legally dispose of the carcinogen Penta currently stored by the City for a cost of $3 , 000. The Council asked several questions about the disposal procedure and use of Penta in Mounds View. MOTION/SECOND: Blanchard/Wuori to Approve the Use of Contingency Funds for the Removal of the Penta Hazardous Material at a Cost of $3 , 000 VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried D. Consideration of Resolution No. 4535 Approving/Denying libber Midwest Golden Gloves to Conduct Boxing Event at the Bel-Rae Ballroom Michele Severson, Deputy Clerk, reported that the Upper Midwest Golden Gloves had scheduled to hold a boxing competition at the Bel- Rae Ballroom on March 30 and March 31, 1994 . Staff had first became aware of the event because of an advertisement in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune. Staff contacted the necessary persons to fill out the paperwork needed to conduct such an event. Staff informed the City Council that this was the second time that the Upper Midwest Golden Gloves had failed to fill out paperwork with the City prior to conducting a boxing event. Councilmembers discussed their frustration with Golden Gloves management who overlooked state law requiredments for the second • time this year. c" REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: STAFF REPORT . Report Number: - 45-1416w"e Efi 411 AGENDA SESSION DATE May 1 . 1995 Report Date: 4—'27-9:3 DLSPOSITION Item Description: Consideration of Pedestrian Bridge Services; Storm Water Ponding Alternative; Citizen Review Committee Administrator's Review/Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report ./714-4 --ft-A-L Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as a asary.) FTMMARY; City Councilmember Julie Trude will present to the City Council three issues pertaining to the construction of the pedestrian bridge across Highway 10. One is the recommendation for contracting engineering, design and inspection services with BRW. The second pertains to the opportunity to coordinate the pedestrian bridge project with ridding the storm water runoff pond that exists at the corner of Long Lake Road and Hwy 10. Thirdly is the appointment of a resident committee that can moffer input to the design of the pedestrian bridge. Please review the emorandums provided from Councilmember Trude. Please recall that funding for the engineering, design and inspection services are not eligible in the grant. However, special project money is available for this purpose. Also, the $120, 000 match for pedestrian bridge construction is only 20% of the cost and is stated in the 5-year capital plan. Finance Director Brager has provided a memorandum that outlines the financing mechanism for this project. The funds do not use general funding, but instead special project funding and therefore will not impact the general operating budget for 1996 . Finally, I wish to address concerns that the pedestrian bridge will not be used. Through proper planning and design, the pedestrian bridge will be used because the bikeway/walkway will lead users to the bridge and in fact hinder the crossing of Hwy 10 and Long Lake Road intersection with the use of barriers such as landscaping, decorative fencing, berming, etc. The key is in the design. Making the bridge an attraction with special features such as kiosks, benches, flowers, art displays, etc. is important for establishing a pattern of use. Ease of use is also a necessity. Fortunately, we have a very reputable and capable design firm in BRW that understands the needs for ease and elective use of the pedestrian bridge. It is anticipated that a representative from BRW will be present at the May 1 Work Session to respond to your concerns. ///w . , ,,o,......,..,:,..to 0 :- Forestry Sa=ri.. , ctor of Parks, Recreation & Fores ry I REOOM_NIENDATION; r i STAFF REPORT (Subject: Pedestrian Bridge Grant) PAGE TWO • The Pedestrian Bridge grant is provided through Federal funding at a 20% match with 80% funding . . . which is excellent funding! The Technical Advisory Committee (those recommending projects for award) gave this project more points, based on need factors, than any other project they reviewed. This bridge has been a project that has been talked about for many years, but because of the high cost it seemed impossible. This may be a once in a lifetime opportunity for the City of Mounds View to have the bridge funded 80% with Federal monies - an opportunity that the City of Mounds View will probably not have in the future. •• • • • • • S From:Julio Trude To:f7fy of Mounds Move 1112!95 of 20:45:15 Memorandum To: City Council Fm: Julie Trude Date: April 12, 1995 Re: Interview Panel Decision on Ped. Bridge Engineering The interview panel (Mary Saarion, Jim Hess, Joyce Pruitt, Mike Ulrich and myself) has completed interviewing the 6 engineering/desizn firms who submitted proposals. We eliminated two firms after interviews and then conducted reference checks on the remaining four firms. The panel then consulted with our MN/DOT representative regarding the remaining candidates. We recommend the City Council authorize staff to enter into a contract with BRW, Inc. BRW will provide us with high quality architectural, design and project management services at a cost significantly below all other qualified candidates. Reference checks were done on many of their projects and they have a fine reputation. Some of their recent work includes the access ramps at the Mall of America, Victoria St. bridge over 694 and Centennial Lakes bridge in Edina. Mary and I met with Sabri Ayaz;bridge engineer and a principal with BRW, on April 10 to fine tune their cost proposal. Mr. Ayaz explained that because his firm would really like to have a project like this in their portfolio their proposal does not recover all of their actual costs. In discussing potential add-ons, Mr. Ayaz stated that mileage, photocopies, a public rendering of the final design, architectural services in working with our public task force, landscape plans, preparation of the federal paperwork, etc. are included in their proposal. This was not the case with some of the other firms. With the addition of preparation of the project memoranda to the RFP, their proposal for design& construction inspection is $62,780. (The second ranked firm was OSM at $63,093. SEH's proposal was $83,000 and did not include soil borings or a drawing for public display, etc.) Mr. Ayaz is a former Mounds View resident and would like to personally stay involved in all public aspects of this project which occur during evening hours, (he would be here on his own time). • From:Julie Truoe To:Gay of Mounds View 4/12f95 u 17:46:38 Memorandum To: City Council Fm: Interview Panel/ Mary Saarion & Julie Trude Re: Ped. Bridge Surface Water Issues Date: April 12, 1995 During our interviews of engineering firms we repeatedly addressed the issue of the fenced ditch ("retention pond") in front of Bridgeman's. Several firms suggested we incorporate removal or enhancement of that eyesore with this project. Mike Ulrich thinks that the enhanced storm water system on Long Lake Road may allow for complete drainage. I've learned that John Streeter of Paster Enterprises actually began the process of working with the county to drain off the retention pond when Long Lake Road was reconstructed. Then he learned about Rice Creek Watershed and their pile of paperwork was a daunting task that was set aside. Mr. Streeter said Paster Enterprises would be very grateful if we could follow-through on this before the ped. bridge is built so the entire area is enhanced. Perhaps Paster Enterprises would be so grateful that some or all of the costs could be assessed if we are able to 1111 walk them through all that paperwork with Rice Creek Watershed. The possibility of including this additional project as an add-on was dicussed with BRW. Their firm has the capability and could give us a separate proposal for this project to be done in tandem with the ped. bridge construction. Of course, SEH could also be asked to provide a proposal on this project. Any documentation SEH has on the drainage in this area could be utilized by any engineer to resolve the problem. Samantha has assured us that such documentation is owned by our city and is not the sole property of SEH. Three Q's for the counsel: 1. Should staff begin discussions with Rice Creek about eliminating this retention pond? 2. Should staff meet with Paster Enterprises to discuss this project? i.e. will they pick up the costs, it's their parking lot creating the problem. 3. Should proposals be sought from BRW & SEH on eliminating this retention pond as part of the ped. bridge project? 410 From:Jules Trude To:Gy of Mounds V%w 4J26195 sl 15:1420 . Memorandum To: City Council. Fm: Julie Trude representing the Ped. Bridge Interview Panel Date: April26, 1995 Re: Pedestrian Bridge Task Force All of the engineering/design firms recommended the city appoint a citizen task force to help determine the needs & desires of potential users of the bridge. The engineering proposal provides for three task force meetings to accomplish this goal and one city council presentation. The interview committee discussed the potential diversity that would help create a functional design that encourages use and serves as a focal point in our city's center. With these factors in mind, Cathy Bennett, Mary Saarion and I have met and discussed groups and users that should be represented on this task force. We propose the following persons be appointed to the Pedestrian Bridge Task Force as representatives of the listed groups or users: Paster Enterprises - John H. Streeter, Construction Mgr. Hwy. 10 Task Force; Parks & Rec. Comm. - Gary Stevenson Marketing Task Force (& family biker) -Debbie Oman Daycare provider (stroller user/mother Edgewood student) -Kathy Schwalbe Sr.Citizens from Wildwood Manor/future users - George & Florence Johnson Irondale student who bikes, roller blades, playground leader -Angie Winkel Trailwav Advocacy Group -Linka Holey Planning Comm. (& MNDOT employee) -Marshal Johnston Staff Representative -Mary Saarion Council Liaison -Julie Trude • • 110 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 7• STAFF REPORT Report Number. AGENDA SESSION DATE JULY 10. 1995 Report Date:nil( ' 06 DISPOSITION Item Description: Continued Discussion Regarding Pedestrian Bridge (per Councilmember Trude) Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) SUMMARY; This item has been placed on the Agenda at the request of Councilmember Trude. Attached please find letters received from residents in response to a letter drafted by the Parks and Recreation Commission (also attached) . __ dr dZ161444411- .. 1111 ' amantha 0 •uno, Cit , Administrator • • ' RECOMMENDATION; . . . June 23 , 1905 IIII Dear Mounds View Residents: I wish to inform you of an issue that may be of interest to You. The City applied for a federal transportation• grant that would encourage bicycling and. pedestrian modes of transportation. Since Highway 10 has been such a problem for safe passage to • access parks, schools, library, churches, Lakeside Park beach, stores and other places, it was thought that a pedestrian bridge across Highway 10 would be a great project for a grant application. The grant was prepared and submitted. The grant was awarded! ! ! The cost of a pedestrian bridge is approximately $600, 000 . The grant is a 20% / 80o match which means that the City must only provide the 20% match or $120, 000 . There are engineering costs and construction inspection costs also which add up to about $65, 000 over a 2 year period. The city' s share of funding was suggested to be Tax Increment revenues which the city has for economic development and enhancement of the city. The be=nefit is that the City receives a new pedestrian bridge at a fraction of the cost. Using TIF or special projects funds for funding the 20% City share of this pedestrian bridge would not alter your property tax bill. The benefit of the_ pedestrian bridge is that daycare providers would have access across Highway 10 to the library. Children would be able to ride their bikes to parks for athletic games and Tact cos. The pedestrian bridge connects to Long Lake Road sidewalk and also connects to County Road I sidewalks . It is a perfect location for easy and safe access across Highway 10 . Youth will be able to access Edgewood School for activities and - swimming pool, Irondale High School, Sunnyside School, churches and other places. Children can also access Silver View Park, and Lakesid8 Beach. On the other side of Highway' 10, children can access City Hall, Pinewood School, churches, Bridgemans , and Ha=fees. The distances between places C f interest ar_ not far,a", i is just difficult and unsafe to access because of Highway 10 . A pedestrian bridge would provide safe and easy access . As you have noticed, traffic signals do not allow more than a few seconds for cross traffic and never stop t-=,'f4c in all directions . There is no safe way to cross Highway 10 on foot or by bike. This bridge would provide the missing link between the north and south halves of major t=ail systems . Xanv pedestrian bridge architects were interviewed regarding this project. All extiressed the need to make the entries to the pedestrian bridge very easy and A*=='; ,-; int with ramping for bikes and wheelchairs . In addition, the entries would provide a park hike atmosphere with sitting benches, drinking fountains , IIIrloweos, bushes and a nice atmosphere. The annual maintenance costs c;v this metal and poured concrete material bridge would be minimal. New innovations for decorative fencing, color coordination, and landscaping have proven to be an attraction 'to sers ; making pedestrian bridges a well used facility. The issue is that the City Council is funding thinking about not S the 20% match. This would mean that the grant would be awarded to a different city. If you think the pedestrian bridge would be a benefit to the youth of the community it is imperative that you show up at a City Council budget session, Monday, July 10 at 7:00 p.m. In addition it would is imperative that you send or fax a letter to the City Council voicing Your support of the pedestrian bridge. - - Please address your letter to: Mounds View City Council, 2401 Highway 10 , Mounds View, MI 55112. Fax #: 734-3462 . This is a one time chance for funding the pedestrian bridge. If the grant award is not accepted it will go to another city. It is unlikely that another funding grant for pedestrian bridges would be available. If you want a pedestrian bridge across Highway 10 you need to let your: City Council members know, otherwise it will not be considered in the budget and the deadline will pass, along with the $430, 000 cf federal grant funding for this project. If you have any questions, please call City Council member Julie Trude at 730-1354 who lobbied several State and Federal 1110 = Congressman for the award of this project. Sincerely, Mounds View Parks and Recreation Commissioners Wayne Burmeister, Chairperson Gary Stevenson Frank Silvis Pam Starr David Long Scott Dentz • 1111 • July 5 , 1995 To : Mounds View City Council Subject : Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge I am writing this is regards to the issue surfaced at the June Parkand Rec Commission regarding the proposed Pedestrian Bridge over Highway 10 . I understand that the City Council is seriously considering not using the $480 , 000 grant the city has received because they do not feel they should contribute the $120, 00 which would be the cities portion. I feel that this would be a serious mistake and misuse of a well deserved grant which would benefit many citizen ' s , which of course many of them are too young to vote . A safe crossing over Highway 10 would help connect our community and enable not only youth, but citizens of all ages the safety to enjoy all parts of the City on either bike or foot . I understand that the Cities portion of $120 , 000 would come from 41/1 the TIF money which the city currently has several hundred thousand in reserve for just such an opportunity . I see no reason that this should not be used for this purpose and lase_ idea of turning down $480 , 000 in grant monies shows to me that some members of the City Council do not understand the true idea of getting a good return on an investment . To get a $600 , 000 bridge for $120 , 000 is better than any interest rate anybody will ever see . I also understand that the council was quoted on maintenance of $30 , 000 per year per my conver- sation with Gary Quick. I have talked to Mary Saarion and she has done some research and found this to certainly be drastically overstated . I hope you will use your best judgement and decide to accept the grant monies and build this bridge for the future of Moundsview. Sincerely , • 3.),,..„6,"„1/4.A... T-t,.A. -. Jn1 6LA.,u Pam and Bryan Starr 7778 Woodlawn Drive Mc Inds View 4111 780-2409 Date: June 24, 1995 111/1 TO: City Council of Mounds View and Mayor of Mounds View We the undersigned residents have received notice of the City Council hearing regarding the renewal of Robert's Off 10 Liquor license. We wish to address the following concerns and problems, which we feel are related to the issuance of such license. 1. Increased noise levels causing public nuisance and disruption of the peace. A. Loud yelling screams and roudy behavior from persons entering and leaving the Robert's establishment. B. Loud vehicle noise. "gunning" of engines, prolonged and loud idling of autos, trucks and motorcycles. C. Decibel level of live entertainment too high for residents directly adjacent to Robert's 2. Increased traffic, hazardous and driving while intoxicated on residential streets surrounding Robert's We do not wish to deny Robert's of a primary source of revenue which a liquor license generates, however, we feel the issuance of such a 111/1 license is a priviledge that requires owner responsibility to it's surrounding neighbors. Therefore we are asking the owners of Robert's to work with us in taking the necessary action to rectify these concerns, and ensure our rights as your neighbors, are not violated SIGNED: 11 7 ! lig i ZW �o ��1 7/ Z„(Yn, fo? 701 ,L/ 5 A; 4 /lic.a . - may? /glft u•-e---7--yC_ cit!I(Lat , i5L:L‘77/- `572-9:,-;= A714 .,e,reQ, • July 3,1995 III2559 Mounds View DP. 111 Dear Mounds View Gity Council,_ It has been brought to my attention that a grant has been awarded for the construction of a bridge crossing high— way 10.WOW:' It would facilitate the crossing for a lot of us Senior citizens.The drug store ,fabric store,church getting our hair cut would be easier too. The lights are not long enough for us to feel very safe ._ about doing business in omr own area.Please consider us in the review of this cpnver_ience.Thank you,. _ ii, <-0_2 .,-(r;)4-,&-c-P--- ' k )1 &-1. .. s ' U Ij/< V v . • �1 .,,,_., . J2r ` /;r/i/C111/ y/`--- `J�y v.. 2A.61/-2 ,6 sa day/ / z c, .x., tjA.,,Z,i,e---37') C)1,6_,C.,c_r/t— OL-z-e71- ,fi.ilt ,1,,I, 1lAs. /4,/,..__i.,(L.,y, , i cp jez/e / . , (3. 7 7 iv I ( �e0. 2Th2� p01il H 1 Z"...1 '? S 04,601-/ ,..).."74.4 \� C)\;)JL41- / N. IV r'firijL ' 1. ..--,\ 4114.") 1 , -) -; 0 /LI, . 10_ _ _, 4'....:7; • To The Mounds View City Council, • I have just heard that the City Council is thinking about not funding the pedestrian bridge across Highway 10 and I must say that I, as a resident of Mounds View, am deeply disappointed. When I heard about the grant the city obtained to have this bridge built I was really excited. Finally, a safe way of crossing Highway 10 with my kids. We could ride our bikes to the Iibrary instead of always taking our car. We could get to Silver View Park safely without taking the car. We could walk from one shopping spot to the other. But if you are serious about not putting up Mounds View's share of the money for this bridge, then I guess things will stay just as they are. Take a good look at Mounds View. Look at how many children are out riding bikes through the streets. And if you take a really good look you will notice that the number of children in Mounds View is growing. That's why Pinewood had to add a whole 1st grade class last year. You all talk about making Mounds View a better and safer place to live. We have ordinances for noise, for unsightly yards, means to help make homes look more presentable, events to make this more of a community, etc. Well, doesn't the pedestrian bridge help to make Mounds View a safer place to live. I also think that the bridge would benefit the whole community, not just the children. Why remain a community divided by Highway 10. Use the bridge as a link to bringing us altogether as one • community. It's not just kids who would use the bridge to cross the highway. Use it as a drawing point to the two shopping malls, better access to the food places on both sides of the highway. Use it as a selling point when trying to attract people-and businesses to our community. Don't turn this opportunity away. I understand that we need to pay for our roads to be repaired, and that money must be spent on the maintenance of Mounds View, but this bridge could be a very good way of showing the people of Mounds View that you really are thinking of them. Don't let this grant slip away. Have the bridge built. Don't wait until somebody, kid or adult, gets killed trying to cross Highway 10. There is just too much traffic on Highway 10 to make any of the intersections with lights a safe place to cross at. Try it sometime. It's hard enough for an adult to cross before the light changes, for kids it's even harder. Build the bridge. Bring the community together. Really do something to make it safer. Make it a more attractive place. Show the people that travel Highway 10 Mounds View cares. Do something that would benefit everyone, especially the kids. Sherry Gunn /i • '' l =-.'f :. stir ,/�-�" Faxed 7/10/95 (This letter has been retyped because the original in the file was faxed and was very difficult to read from • having been copied so many times. There are phrases which we had to omit because they were indecipherable,but the basic content of the letter is intact.) Dear Mounds View City Council, Yes,the City of Mounds View needs the pedestrian bridge across Highway 10 at Long Lake Road. We are residents of Shoreview,we live on the other side of 35W,we are always riding bikes or rollerblading in Mounds View to different business along Highway 10. I never allow my Children to cross Highway 10, they are 15 & 13 years of age unless they are with me. I hate crossing on bikes,walking or rollerblading, makes me nervous even though we always cross at the lights. They have to stay on the east side of Highway 10. Even at the cross lights the left turners don't always watch for pedestrians,I've been cut off by cars turning when I am with the children on our bikes. It's just not safe crossing Highway 10. The cars are traveling at too high a speed,I've seen cars pushing the speed to make a late yellow light and often end up going on a red. My daughter and I came upon an accident of a boy on a bike that was hit by a car further north on 10. You wonder if we had safer crossings if that accident could have.been avoided. My son goes to Irondale and my daughter goes to Edgewood,I just cringe when they ask if they can walk home because they have to cross Highway 10. They have to call me at work as soon as they get home so I know they crossed Highway 10 okay. They can only walk if there is a group of children walking so they are more visible to traffic,one/two children are not as visible as a group. I will not let my daughter cross Highway 10 to go to the Library by herself. I usually drive her there or bike • with here in the evenings,and the library is not always open in the evenings so we end up going to the Anoka Library instead. If we had a crossing bridge my daughter could go to the Moundsduringthe day. View Library Several months ago we had decided to move,we were looking in the Mounds View area on the west side of Highway 10. We found several houses we considered but both of my children did not want to move there because they would have to cross Highway 10 to visit most of their friends who live around our neighborhood now and also go to their favorite eating places. We decided we did not want our children crossing such a dangerous highway and decided to stay in Shoreview and add an addition on our home instead. I also want to thank all those involved in the pathway linking Shoreview and Mounds View. I was overjoyed when they completed that path. We use it all the time. They are able to ride to the business/fast food places and their friends by using the path. My son works at Hardees and rides his bike or rollerblades back and forth, its a great comfort knowing he can do this without being on a busy County Road I-I think this pedestrian bridge would complete this wonderful idea of linking Communities together. Both of my children were able to walk/bike to Pinewood School in safety on those paths,the only problem now of course is they go to Edgewood&Irondale and when they want to ride their bikes the path will only lead them safely to Highway 10. Please consider the building of this pedestrian bridge,we all can benefit from it and the future of our Communities depend on a safe way our citizens can cross Highway 10. Thank you, Shirley Klein 1748 Lois Drive 0 Shoreview,MN 55126 784-9162 • • July 5 , 1995 To : Mounds View City Council Subject : Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge I am writing this is regards to the issue surfaced at the June Parkand Rec Commission regarding the proposed Pedestrian Bridge over Highway 10 . I understand that the City Council is seriously considering not using the $480 , 000 grant the city has received because they do not feel they should contribute the $120 , 00 which would be the cities portion. I feel that this would be a serious mistake and misuse of a well deserved grant which would benefit many citizen ' s , which of course many of them are too young to vote . A safe crossing over Highway 10 would help connect our community and enable not only youth, but citizens of all ages the safety to enjoy all parts of the City on either bike or foot . I understand that the Cities portion of $120 , 000 would come from the TIF money which the city currently has several hundred thousand in reserve for just such an opportunity . I see no reason that this should not be used for this purpose and the idea of turning down $480 ,000 in grant monies shows to me that some members of the City Council do not understand the true idea of getting a good return on an investment. To get a $600 , 000 bridge for $120 , 000 is better than any interest rate anybody will ever see . I also understand that the council was quoted on maintenance of $30 , 000 per year per my conver- sation with Gary Quick. I have talked to Mary Saarion and she has done some research and found this to certainly be drastically overstated . I hope you will use your best judgement and decide to accept the grant monies and build this bridge for the future of Moundsview. Sincerely, j\i-r- \j"?7,Y7) &OA,/ Pam and Bryan Starr 7773 Woodlawn Drive Mounds View 780-2409 1111 07/10/55 14:29 MN 1Jsa ii CF AMER I GN ART 512 764 3452 NC.837 get • July 10, 1995 Mounds View City Council 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, Mei 55112 Dear Members of the Mounds View City Council: I am a concerned resident of Mounds View and I would ver much to see a pedestrian bridge built acoss Highway 10. I urge you to consider this when you review the budget today, and be sure to include the City's portion of construction costs in your financial plans. PIease do not pass up this opportunity to make Mounds View safer and friendlier for its residents. I am. a caretaker at Wildwood Manor, a HUD senior housing complex located at the corner of Highway 10 and Long Lake Road. Many of the residents of my building are over 80 and severely limited in what they cart do physically. At this point, there is no way that any resident could even dreamof crossing Highway 10 on foot. The • danger of Highway 10's traffic presents a problem even for a short, simple tri to Snyder's to fill a prescription. This leaves a Wildwood resident with one choices ask favor of a. friend or family member and have her/ him make the trip acoss the highway. This is an acceptable option, however many seniors spend their days having to ask others for favors - a ride to church, a ride to the grocery store. It would be nice if the residents were able to run errands on their own because it gives them a sense of accomplishment and self respect In addition to facilitating occasional trips to Snyder's, I think Wildwood residents would benefit from a pedestrian bridge because it would provide an additional access to sidewalks and neighborhoods acoss the highway. These areas serve as a pleasant place to walk for the Tuesday Morning Walking Club, an important activity for Seniors who might otherwise sit in their apartments alone. Thank you for your consideration for this project, I look forward to seeing the ground breaking for the new pedestrian bridge soon! Sincerely, • Alisa Hacker 2559 Mo ands view Drive ;1102 Mounds View, tiLN 55112 JUL-10-1995 17:12 FROM Sr. MARY'S ,'''F'.S. CENTER TO 7843462 P.01 FAX to Clty of Mounds View - L2 FROM - Linka Holey, Director of Institutional Research, Saint Mary's University - 874-9877 Ext. 112 July 9, 1995 TO: Members of the Moundsy� 1 ew City Council FR: Linka e , Resrdertt an member of the Trailways AdvisoryGroup 9�7w��t'ast y and the Focus 2000 - Housing and Neighborhood Task Force RE: Funding far Pedestrian Bririg a across Highway 10 The cnncern over the division of our community by Highway 10 has been expressed since i moved into Mounds View in 1976. Both the social and safety implications have been widely discussed in many public forums. The construction of a pedestrian bridge is a vital response to this long-standing problem. I was delighted to hear that theicity had received a federal transportation grant with an unbelieveable match of20/80 percent As a former grant writer, i am well aware of theup front and background work required to obtain such a deal. My respect for the city staff conuinues to rise as I hear of this type of action on community-generated concerns`. I was totally shocked to hear that the Council maynot fund the 20% to secure the grant. I cannot comprchcnd why any Council member would vote against a highly public supported project_with such a positive return on investment. This project has support of all ages ' iithin the pcpuiaticn. is this support not understood by the Council? Are there particular costs that make this project not as cost beneficial as one would expect? Even a 50150 match would be good. I feel strongly that the Council should support thisj roect. You can use this P project to publicize your commitment to addressing big prebems like the division of a city by a major highway. Your attention to cost by successfully competing for the 20/80 grant is also an example cf your fiscally conservative management approach. You saw the positive energy of a city brought together for the Festival in the Park today. The parade, the activities, and the fireworks were grand! The investment irk the symbolic and functional pedestrian bridge will bring you the same, if not more, public support as the annual festival has1110 brought you today. JUL-19-199S 16:39 PASTER ER ENTtTcFRISES 612 646 1369 P.132432 (As4 3-7,,,,,,,,,a,„,,,.,,,,,s, DEVa.OP:IENTAND MANAGE VmNT OF SHOPPZIG CENTER.. 2227 University Avg-St.N341.2411 551141677.612-646-7901 • Pax 61",-646-I389 Lily 10, 1995 III TAI.PLAZA 45th&Central Ave.N.E. The Honorable Mayor Jerry Linke Minneapolis.Minnesota City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 CRYSTAL.SHOPPING CENTER RE: Mounds View Pedestrian Bridge Across Bass Lake Roadoad&8c Wcot Broadway Crystal,Mirmesota Highway 10 to Library Dear Mayor Linke: DODDWAY SHOPPING CENTER Moundsview Square Associates believe the pedestrian bridge Smith&Dodd Road West St.Paul.Minnesota would be a plus for the City of Mounds View for the following reasons. The bridge would be an enhancement to the business L INGTor A SHOPPES community as public safety would be greatly improved. Le:cington&Lroenccur Roseville.Minnesota This bridge would encourage pedestrian, bicycle and rollerblade III traffic to local businesses while protecting our community's children. MENDOTA PLAZA State Hwy. 110&Dodd Road The pedestrian bridge would eliminate the barrier of separating Mendota Heights.Minnesota p g the community from one side of Highway 10 from the other. Pedestrian traffic could easily move from Moundsview Square MOUNDSV W SQUAREShopping Center to the Library and other businesses on the Hwy. 10&Long La=Road south side of Highway 10. This would promote local shopping • Mounds View,Yiinnesota within the community. As always, please contact the writer if you have any NCRTHWAY S74OPPTNG CENTER questions. State Hwy.23&Woodland Chit:?Inca.Minnesota Very truly yours, PASTER ENTERPRISES • SIDLEY PLAZA (440,L0, .4-)l.. ct ^J�Wcst'th Sirewn n&Da ► ,. St.Paul,Mincota John H. Streeter Director of Engineering 410HVIE SHOPPING CEN TER JiiS/lah Southvtew Blvd.& 13th Ave.S South St.Paul,Minnesonz 40 Member of 4404 International Council • • • 1111 July 6, 1995 To: Mounds View City Council Members From: Beth and Lee Trotta Re: Funding of the Pedestrian Bridge Across Hwy 10 We are definately in favor of connecting the north and south side of Mounds View with a bridge across Hwy 10. Not mentioned in the information is the possibility of a tunnel. under the highway. If the cross-over bridge is not esthetically pleasing to enough people, a peditrian tunnel is another solution. This is would also make it possible for wildlife to follow a corridor from one side to the other. We have experienced several pleasant biking and walking trails that have a tunnel under a highway. • Thank you. • 1111 A S75-9 7/ .) / e•L - --- i `tae , l� . pge - • '47° . - _ 7 tif dj ,,z a4-e‹-e w �> a1J �.�v , ,fie / - , . ntruic._ _ . s NI e i T FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 1. STAFF REPORT Report Number: 95-1434ws E AGENDA SESSION DATE September 5. 1995port Date: � 8-_1-95 DISPOSITION III Item Description: Continued Discussion of Pedestrian Bridge Over Highway 10 Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this repo 71. 4...,) - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supple nt sheets as necessary.) This item is presented at Councilmember Julie Trude's .request. At a prior work session, the City Council requested funding options for the $120, 000 match and funding for design and inspection services of approximately $65, 000 for a total City contribution of $185, 000 . The federal grant is $480,000. The estimated cost of the bridge construction project is $600, 000 . Construction inspection services are estimated at $35, 000 and design costs are estimated at $30, 000. Enclosed are letters of support written by members of the community. I Members of the' Planning Commission prepared a letter of support which also included in this packet. Construction of the pedestrian bridge i a goal of the Parks and Recreation Commission. 'Members of the Parks and Recreation Commission have written letters informing and encouraging residents to voice their desire for the pedestrian bridge. ** Also enclosed is a memorandum from Public Works Director Michael Ulrich stating annual estimated maintenance requirements for the pedestrian bridge once it has been constructed. This memorandum will address the concern of annual maintenance costs of the pedestrian bridge. Three funding options have been formulated for your review. One offers no use of TIF funding. The second offers partial use of TIF funding. The third option is total TIF funding. 4/1,,...-_,-) ;: 007 Mary S a on, r of Parks; Recreation and Forestry **Please Note: Letters which were included with the 7/10/95 staff report were not recopied with this report to save copying costs (2/20/97) You can find these letters by looking at the 7/10/95 report. RECOMMENDATION: COUNCILMEMBER'S III REPORT Submitted by: Councilmember Julie Trude Topic of Report: Pedestrian Bridge Date of Report: August 31 , 1995 SUMMARY: Additional information has been pulled together by staff to answer your questions about the potential financing, maintenance and use of the proposed pedestrian bridge for which we kava been awarded a federal grant of $480, 000. As you have noticed, residents have attended several work sessions this summer anticipating possible action by the Council on this item. In addition, we have received several letters from resident , even a letter from a Shoreview resident who has children empioyc, ,< 5a attending school in Mounds View. I've been contacted byaxxy members of our commissions, FOCUS 2000 issue study groups, and III people who want this bridge built that have never come to city Hall for any other issue. The issue is whether the City Council approves the 20% matching portion of this grant ($120, 000) and agrees to enter into 3 F ped price contrac.. with BRW for the engineering, design and construction management and inspection costs (about $63, 000) . All of the architectural/design firms believed that an attractive, creative and functional design, requiring virtually no maintenance, would come in under the $600, 000 allowed for this project. Some of the options available include using colored concrete, arching the walkway to reduce the amount of ramping required to enter the walkway, ornamental railing and lighting, a roof design that ties in with the architecture of the shopping centers and library, circular ramps as opposed to the switchback ramp, identifying our city on the side of the bridge, etc. The grant was awarded to our city under the "Enhancement" category and the engineering experts have informed us that rules about approved construction materials will allow more creativity in 1996 than has been the case in the past. PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FUNDING OPTIONS y S OPTION 41 - USING NO TIF 1996 Franchise Fees $50, 000 1997 Franchise Fees 50, 000 *1995, 96 & 97 Park Dedication Fees 61, 371 Street Light Utility Fund 10, 000 Recreation Activity Fund 13 , 629 • $185, 000 *This is the total amount of Park Dedicated Funds and would deplete the entire fund. Last Everest Park Dedication is 1997. OPTION #2 - USING PARTIAL TIF FUNDING 1996 Franchise Fees $30, 000 1997 Franchise Fees 35, 000 1995, 96, 97 Park Dedication Fees 61, 371 Street Light Utility 10, 000 TIF 48, 629 • ________ $185, 000 *This is the total amount of Park Dedication Funds and would deplete the entire fund. Last Everest Park Dedication is 1997. OPTION 43 - USING ALL TIF FUNDING Tax Increment Funding $185, 000 • 1110 allf 7/4i LAW OFFICES1) BRIGGS AND MORGAN /� PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 2200 FIRST NATIONAL SAN BUILDING SAINT PAUL,MINNESOTA 55101 TELEPHONE (612) 223-6600 FACSIMILE (612) 223-6450 NUMJulMINNEAPOIDSLISCENTER OFFICE 2400 wEITE$•S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER July 21, 1995 MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 66402 TELEPHONE 1012)334-8400 (612) 223-6420 FACSIMILE 1612)334-8660 VIA FACSIMILE Samantha Orduno City Administrator City of Mounds View Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 Cathy Bennett Economic Development Coordinator City of Mounds View Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, Minnesota 55112-1499 Re: Highway 10/Long Lake Road Pedestrian Bridge Dear Samantha and Cathy: You've asked whether the City could use tax increments from its Development District Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (and the tax increment districts therein), which as you may recall we consolidated and modified as of May 9, 1994, into something that was redesignated as the "Mounds View Economic Development Project". I understand that the City expects to receive a federal grant for a sizeable portion of the cost of this bridge but that perhaps$185,000 would have to be funded from City sources, and that's where the tax increment question arises. For the reasons outlined below, I think the answer is yes, assuming that the Council believes that such an expenditure and the completion of that project would indeed be in furtherance of one or more of the goals and objectives of the "Project Plan" for these districts. BRIGGS avn MORGAN - Samantha Orduno Cathy Bennett • July 21, 1995 Page 2 • On May 9, 1994, the Mounds View Economic Development Authority and the City Council approved a document which is entitled in part "Mounds View Economic Development Project". This consolidated all of the City's pre-existing three Development Districts and their Tax Increment Financing Districts and expanded the development area to include the entire City of Mounds View. In addition, there were significant amendments made to the old Development Programs, now known collectively as the "Project Plan" for this entire development/tax increment structure. Included within those goals and objectives were public utilities, infrastructures and transportation systems, together with facilities deemed desirable for the integration of the community and the development overtures. This provided a very broad and ample framework within which to proceed with any number of improvements, as and when approved by the Board of Commissioners of the Mounds View Economic Development Authority. The underlying statute here includes the Minnesota Municipal Development District Act, which is now found in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.124 through 469.134. Although I don't think this is crucial, that statute is particularly well-suited to this type of improvement because it includes among its goals and public purposes the protection of"pedestrians from vehicle traffic" and the provision of"necessary linkage between peripheral parking facilities • and places of employment and shopping". This statute also refers to "pedestrian skyway systems" as systems for"providing for pedestrian traffic circulation,mechanical or otherwise, elevated aboveground, within and without the public right-of-way, and through or above private property and buildings, and includes overpasses, bridges, passageways, walkways, concourses, hallways, corridors, arcades, courts, plazas, malls, elevators, escalators, heated canopies and accesses and all fixtures, furniture, signs, equipment, facilities, services and appurtenances which in the judgment of the governing body of the city will enhance the movement, safety, security, convenience, and enjoyment of pedestrians and benefit the city and adjoining properties." I understand that this bridge would probably provide an important linkage between shopping and other facilities, would now or in the future possibly integrate with connection paths or other pedestrian parkways, and would provide other, perhaps more aesthetic and "community image" benefits. Assuming that the EDA Board believes that these or perhaps other such "public purposes" within the meaning of the adopted Project Plan and underlying statute would be served by this project and the expenditure of some tax increment financing dollars to complete it, I think this would be very defensible as an appropriate use of tax increment. If the Board wishes to go ahead with this, I do think it is advisable to do so by written resolution which would provide the authorization and findings of the type discussed above, IP and I would be happy to work with you on preparing that should you so desire. BRIGGS axD MORGAN Samantha Orduno • Cathy Bennett July 21, 1995 Page 3 Please let me know if I can be of assistance to you in responding to any questions or comments on this. Ivery t , ames P. O'Meara JO:lbh 111 0 • MEMORANDUM • . MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works �/ - DATE: August 31, 1995 U SUBJECT: Pedestrian Bridge Park and Recreation Commissioner Dave Long spoke with me yesterday about any maintenance concerns I might have regarding the Pedestrian Bridge that is proposed for TH 10 . I explained that maintenance of the bridge is a concern and was addressed by the interview team with the consultants that replied to the RFP. During each interview questions were asked about snow removal, graffiti, and painting. Each consultant responded that the bridge would be designed to require minimal maintenance . Concrete could be colored to eliminate painting. Snow removal equipment would- have adequate access and clearance for operation. 1 -- If this bridge were constructed, additional labor would be required to completely clear snow from the edges of the bridge following a snow storm. This would occur after the bridge has been cleaned initially, and would prevent snow on the edges from melting and freezing on the bridge deck. If chemicals are necessary for deicing, and noncorrosive materials would be a relatively small additional expense. Staff does not' expect that the maintenance of this structure will add a burden to the existing maintenance activities performed by the current staff . If Council has any questions concerning maintenance of the proposed bridge, please feel free to call me. • S 1,d U lel 11111iNDS ��pPhone: (612) 784-3055 • vv Fax: (612) 784-3462 'Quite Simply the Best' August 16, 1995 • Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 Dear Mayor Linke and City Council Members: We, the Mounds View Planning Commission, continue to support City Council Resolution#4531, approving the TEP ISTEA grant for a pedestrian bridge which would encourage pedestrian bicycling transportation and visitation of City services and facilities. The Planning Commission believes that construction of a pedestrian bridge across Highway 10 would encourage mobility and ease of access to businesses, restaurants, the library, churches, schools, parks as well as the city center. The P.'mning Commissions also urges the City Council to approve the matching funds required for the project. "realizing there has been extended discussions regarding the use of Tax Increment Financing funds, the Planning Commission requests the City Council review the attache `-;? ;aa- publictions. These publications show that Tax Increment Financing revenues may be used for. (1) • Public improvements, (2) Social, recreational and cultural facilities, (3) Land acquisition and site preparation (private), (4) Soils correction, and (5)Administration (up to 10%). In addition, the City of Mounds View's Bond Attorney, Jim O'Meara, Briggs and Morgan, has provided his legal opinion in the Establishment of the Mounds View Economic Development Pro's Adoption of it's Prtject Plan and Amendment of Tax Increment Financing Plan, Section 1.4 "Amendment 2,nd Consolidation of the Development Programs; Designation as Project Plan"that permitted uses include: (1) the attraction, retention, rehabilitation and preservation of commercial, industrial, retail, residential, recreational and public service facilities, including necessary or desirable park and recreational facilities, both active and passive; (2)new and rehabilitated public infrastructures; (3) comrmturi3ty And other public service centers; (4) senior/mature adult and/or other housing development partnerships or other multi-use housing projects and facilities; (5) other public utilities (including telecommunications); (6) business incubator loan and other business programs; (7) transportation systems; (8) and all related activities or undertakings that may be desirable or necessary in connection with the completion and integration of such community development. respectfully, - ?yy„,,,„„ t....... . ,.....„....... ,.,....,, , T.,,.,,,,.._. P.if: III Mounds View Planning Commission J NSt I�soviniio_ 2401 Highway 10 • Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 + ; Equal Opportunity Eroloyer 100% eo mow • `� .1 r ill* Ut. K :c.J CH FAX NO. 612 831 4813 P. 02 July 10, 1605 • City of Mounds View Members of theCity Council Dear Members of the City Council: Unfortunately, I am unable to be present for your deliberations with regard to the resolution to move forward with the construction of a pedestrian walkway across Highway 10. With this letter, however, I want to express my support for this pedestrian walkway. It is my understanding that the city has already secured grants which will fund eighty percent of the costs. In today's economic climate, it is unlikely that this kind of funding will be readily available to the city in the foreseeable Ma. ncl in the event that we turn down this funding now, we may hurt our chances for grants in the future if there is any question about our sincere interest in a prof c at the time that we apply for such a grant. • In the many years that I have lived in Mounds View, it has been apparent that the city is severely divided by the traffic which travels an Highway 10. It also seemed that many citizens were concerned about linking the two p:-rt of The city during the Focus 2000 discussions for the future of the city. The pedestrian bridge would be a visible and practical sign of a sincere attempt to link the citizens of the city. It would provide a visible sign of our sincere interest in providing safety and security for our youth and elderly, who fear the traffic levels on Highway 10. While it may be argued that some people will not go out of their way to make use of the bridge, there are many who will put it to good use and deserve the safety it provides. In conclusion, 1 want the members of the council to know that they have the support of many citizens, Including myself, in building this bridge as a practical symbol of the many bridges in the community which are needed to bind this community together. Sincere Susan K Fisher • 8360 Fairchild Avenue Mounds View Excerpt from minutes for 10/23/96 City Council meeting Item B: Presentation of Proposed 1996 City Budget In regard to the proposed pedestrian bridge, Ms. Olson asked if the remaining • 20% that is not covered by the grant will all be assumed by the residents. Mayor Linke responded no, the 3% which was added into the budget will only raise approximately $46,000. The other funds will come out of the street light utility fund and the franchise fees. Ms. Olson asked what it will take in order for the council to decide against the pedestrian bridge. Mayor Linke stated he has received only a few calls and one letter in opposition to the bridge. The work sessions that the council has had have been very positive. He noted however, that the council needs to hear from the residents in regard to their feelings about the proposal. Ms. Hankner stated she has had heard many people talk in opposition of the bridge. She has had only one call in favor of it. She is not sure where the people live who support the proposal. She stated she is still inclined to support a zero percent tax increase and if the residents show an overwhelming • support of the bridge, she would like to see something dropped from the budget to allow for it. 111 Ms. Trude stated the main purpose of the bridge is to allow safe transportation for the children across the highway as well as provide a link for the bike trail system. There are people in the senior center without vehicles who would like to patronize the businesses on the other side of the highway. This would provide them with a safe alternative to crossing a busy roadway. She stated the people that she has talked to not only feel it is a safety issue but also an enhancement to the city. Ms. Olson asked if a study has been done to determine how far from the area the kids who will use the bridge actually are. Ms. Trude stated this is part of the proposal that the engineers offered. Ms. Olson pointed out that the residents could end up with a 3% levy on the property taxes prior to any feasibility studies even being done. The decision would be made prior to the studies. Mayor Linke stated yes, the money will be used to do the engineering studies. Ms. Trude stated before the Council's last work session 500 letters went out to inform some of the area residents what was being proposed. She stated that letters were signed by about 20 people in favor of the bridge. These letters only resulted in one phone call against the bridge. Ms. Hankner stated she is still inclined to say that she wants to vote for a 0% levy increase. If there is a lot of support for the bridge, she would vote to have it replace another line item on the budget as she feels there are a lot of people in the city who cannot afford to have a tax increase. Mayor Linke took this opportunity to read a letter he had received from Mr. Gene Wagner, representing the Silver Take Woods Homeowners Association, dated October 19, 1995. This letter which was signed by the residents stated that the homeowners in the Silver Lake Woods Association would like to see the pedestrian bridge stopped. Gene Wagner, 2647 Lake Court Circle, asked where the pressure came from to pursue the bridge. It sounds as though there was perhaps a lot of pressure from the trailways people and it has expanded from that to include safety • issues, etc. Mayor Linke stated it was put in the budget because the council looked at various ways to finance it and it was decided that a 3% levy increase was probably the most feasible way to finance it. Mr. Wagner stated there are a lot of residents who do not feel the need to increase taxes for something that they do not feel is necessary. There are lots of other things an increase could be used for before a pedestrian bridge. He has not heard one person stand up at the council meeting in support of the • bridge, and in comparison he has heard a lot of opposition. • Mayor Linke noted that the budget was based on a 0% increase. If residents want the pedestrian bridge they will let the council know, likewise if they do not want it they will also make it known. Cliff Ash, 2664 I akr. Court Drive, stated he is opposed to the bridge. Based upon his calculations, taxes in his area (based on a $110,000-$120,000 value) will go up between $60 - $85 per year. A lot of the people in the development are "empty nesters" and are on a limited income. To him it looks like it is a "want", not a "must". There are many other things in the city that the money could be used for. Furthermore, let Fridley build a pedestrian bridge on Highway 65, as they have a bigger problem there than Mounds View. Henry Ruggles, 2629 Jake Court Drive, stated the letter from the Mounds View Planning Commission dated August 16, 1995 which states the commission's support of the bridge does not include two of the commissioners. One name missing is his as he is not in support of the bridge. He asked what the total dollar amount is for the project. Ms. Trude stated the grant amount is $480,000. The City must come up with S 20% which is $120,000. Additionally, the engineering fees and the preliminary studies are $63,000. The total amount of the city's portion is approximately $185,000. Mr. Ruggles stated he understands that the bridge will be designed to allow for wheelchair access. He asked if it is a spiral design. If not, to grade it to a point to make it wheelchair accessible will require a very lengthy ramp. If this is done, will the ramp end up encroaching on other properties? Mayor Linke stated as he understands it, all of it will fit within the Highway 10 Right of Way however all of this will be a part of the feasibility studies. Ms. Trude noted that snow removal will be the only ongoing maintenance expense that is anticipated. It will be constructed with a similar material to sidewalks and will be enclosed as state law mandates. Mr. Ruggles asked if the bridge would be open 24 hours per day. He would think there would be concerns about liability if it were. He also asked if anyone has been contacted from the state highway department to see if the lights could be tied in for pedestrian crossing with appropriate signage. • Mayor Linke stated yes, they were contacted several years ago and at that time they would not agree to do this. The last time they were in to the council's work session they said they would revisit the issue, but they have not responded. Mr. Ruggles stated he has not seen many people going across that intersection. He goes by the area all the time. He feels that if the bridge is made wheelchair accessible, it will bring in skateboards and in-line skaters who will use the area. He just cannot see how a project of this type should be "allowed to fly". Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated the estimated market value of properties is based upon sales comparisons in the area. There are other givens also as people can contest their estimated market value administratively, and then can appeal it after that. Arden Wahlberg, 2642 Lake Court Drive, stated he is against the bridge concept. He hopes that the Council does not think that because no one is stating their opposition, that they are for it. That is simply not the case. The school attendance areas are laid out in accordance to having to cross highway 10. If coming across the roadway is a serious problem they should get on the bus and ride it rather than walking. He thinks the Central Avenue pedestrian • bridge is an eyesore and finds that many of the pedestrians don't cross it, but rather wait and cross with the light. With the many requirements for wheelchair accessibility, it even becomes a greater eyesore. 11111 Mayor Linke stated according to his calculations, for every foot in height, the ramp must go out twelve feet for wheelchair accessibility. Mr. Wahlberg stated this would involve a tremendous distance and he cannot see that wheelchair bound residents will even use it. It will attract nuisance, with graffiti, etc. He feels the proposal should be put on a vote for residents showing what it will cost them in taxes. Ms. Trude explained that kids who use the bus service often are involved in other school activities before and after school hours. Also there are kids involved in summer swimming that need to cross the highway during the summer months. She talked with members of the PTA who stated they would tell their kids that it is the only way they will be allowed to cross the highway. As far as designing the structure, there should be sufficient funds available to do something that would be appealing. A public committee of residents could " be arranged to come up with suggestions to the engineer. Ms. Hankner reminded residents that on November 29, 1995 there vAll Public Hearing on the budget. On December 6, 1995, the council vrkik aaually vote on the budget. 1110 Ms. Blanchard stated she has been asked how the pedestrian bridge can be stopped or promoted. Regardless of whether a resident is in favor or in opposition to the bridge, they must discuss the issue with neighbors, write letters to the editor, and attend the public hearings. She stated she personally does not feel that Mounds View can afford the bridge but if the majority of the people want it to be put on their taxes, they must let the council know. Carol Golden, 2749 Lakepoint Drive, stated she understands that this has become a safety issue. However, 25 years ago Highway 10 did not even have traffic signals. The traffic lights were put in for safety. Mr. Brager noted that in mid-November a Truth in Taxation will be mailed out to the residents. C. Consideration of Resolution No. 4830, Approving the Affirmative Action Plan. Ms. Orduno stated that the Affirmative Action Plan has been updated, and upon approval will be submitted to the Department of Human Rights for recertification. MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Blanchard to approve Resolution No. 4830, • Approving the Affirmative Action Plan. I ~ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATIONAgendaeortNumber: Section: 1 1 _4 In _.'� ;:7 Report g —1 525.0 c:.'"" a �, �, D���, Report Date: 1 1-9—Q 5 - — r Courcii ctic,,. C. Special Order of Business • CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE November 13, 1995 0 Public Hearings • 0 Consent Agenda x7 Council Business --, harp r'escription: Consideration of the Construction of a Pedestrian Bridge Over Highway 10 In a Joint City/U.S. Department of Transportation Project Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report - Comments attached. I Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necssary.) FIT FYI-MARY; During the later months of 1993 and beginning months of 1994, two ISTEA grant proposals were prepared. The assumption was that by submitting two grant applications for the same project, under two grant divisions, chances that the project would be awarded would increase. With the approval of the City Council, both grant applications were submitted in 1994 for construction of a pedestrian bridge over Highway 10. Part ► of the grant proposals included the commitment of the City of Mounds View to fund • the 20 percent match of project costs. In addition, the City of Mounds View would be • required to provide funding for design and inspection services. Upon adoption of Resolution #4530 and #4531, the grant proposals were submitted. In February of 1995, the City of Mounds View ew was notified that the TEP • (Transportation Enhancement) ISTEA grant for the construction of a pedestrian bridge across Highway 10 was awarded, with Federal funding of $480,000 of the estimated $600,000 pedestrian bridge cost. The award stipulated that the project begin in 1996 and be completed by the end of 1997. Along with Federal funding comes scores of paperwork compliance regulations. Required in this ISTEA process is a memorandum which outlines the design and materials used for the construction of the bridge. Other details such as the timeline for required procedures, measurements, outline of compliance to federal and state regulations, and other details are also required in this memorandum. The memorandum follows the design phase of the project and can take 3-4 months including community input and meetings. Once the design is determined, the memorandum can be completed. The State reviews it and then sends it to Washington D. C. for additional review. Federal review takes up to 4-5 months or longer. Construction specifications must be prepared, as well as letting of construction bids. i III R'''COM�ll�'NDATTON� / �j,^ja_lX Cc . : �i � Mary Saarion, Director Parks, Recreation and Forestry Pedestrian Bridge Memo Page two 4110 The construction award is determined by the State. Once a construction company has been confirmed, the process of construction can begin. Although construction may take less than three months, one must always anticipate the possibility that material delays or other causes for delay. For these reasons, the process allows two years for project completion. It is not unusual for the entire process to take 1-1/2 years. In addition, final paperwork must be completed outlining full compliance to the stipulations of the Federal grant. In March of 1995, proposals were requested for design/inspection services for the• pedestrian bridge. Six reputable firms presented proposals. All six firms were evaluated by the committee. The four top firms were given reference checks. The committee agreed to BRW as the best firm with a very reasonable fee. It was at this time that staff requested approval to contract the design and inspection services from BRW and at that same time, the momentum of the project diminished. There became concern regarding the funding source for the $185,000 -- the City of Mounds View's 20 percent project match and costs for design and inspection services. Since that time, there has been a search for a funding package for the City's share of the cost of this project. Whereas special funds had been identified as the funding source for the City's share, the specific designation of special funds has delayed the project. If the City Council wishes to construct the pedestrian bridge, the project needs to move forward. Staff has been requested to submit memorandum information to MNDOT. Although it is not too late, we need to begin the design process as soon as possible. Final consideration of the pedestrian bridge project is requested. Three resolutions have been prepared for your consideration. The first resolution provides for the construction of the pedestrian bridge specifying proposed funding sources. The second resolution provides for contractual services of BRW for design and inspection of the project. The third resolution provides for the improvement of the storm water retention pond located on the corner of Long Lake Road and Highway 10. RESOLUTION NO. 4842 IIIII CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AWARDING THE CONTRACT TO BRW, INC. FOR THE ENGINEERING, DESIGN AND INSPECTION SERVICES RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER HIGHWAY 10 WHEREAS, the interview panel of Mary Saarion, Jim Hess, Joyce Pruitt, Mike Ulrich and Julie Trude has completed interviews and reference checks on the 6 engineering and design firms who submitted proposals to the City for services required related to the construction of the pedestrian bridge; and WHEREAS, the interview panel found BRW, Inc. to offer high quality services at the lowest price of all the proposals; and • WHEREAS, the interview panel unanimously recommends the City enter into a • contract with BRW, Inc. to provide the necessary design, engineering and other services required for the construction of the pedestrian bridge over Highway 10; and WHEREAS, Mary Saarion and Julie Trude have met with the principal of BRW, Inc., Sabri Ayaz, to review the proposal and Mr. Ayaz is willing to offer the City a fixed price contract with BRW, Inc., which includes expenses, in the amount of $62,780. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Mounds View authorizes the Mayor and City Administrator to enter into a contract with BRW, Inc. to provide the design, engineering and other services required of them for the construction of the pedestrian bridge over Highway 10 in an amount not to exceed $62,780 with funding to come from account #680 established for the pedestrian bridge construction. Adopted this 13th day of November, 1995. ATTEST: — _ ,. , ` Mayor • (SEAL) (-5,-L-e-6,41,L) C. City Administrator RESOLUTION NO. 4843 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW • COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1995 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PAY FOR THE CITY'S PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER HIGHWAY 10 WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View approved in Resolution No. 4531, the . submission of a grant application for TEP ISTEA funds for a pedestrian bridge across Highway 10 because of the many benefits such a project would offer to the City; and WHEREAS, the City further resolved in Resolution No. 4531 to commit to 20% of the cost of the bridge if the grant were awarded; and WHEREAS, the City was awarded the 80% grant by the Transportation advisory Board of the Metropolitan Council in August 1994; and WHEREAS, the time parameters for construction of the pedestrian bridge :wire staff to prepare a project memorandum and design which must be submitted • for review to the Department of Transportation and then be forwarded to Washington, D.C. for review by the federal government; and WHEREAS, the construction of a pedestrian bridge over Highway 10 at Long Lake Road would offer residents a place to safely cross over the highway on bike, foot, in wheelchair or on rollerblades; and WHEREAS, the construction of a pedestrian bridge over Highway 10 would encourage residents to access local businesses, the library, schools, parks and churches as pedestrians or bikers; and WHEREAS, the pedestrian bridge would complete the missing link in the City's trailway system for those who enjoy recreational walking and biking; and WHEREAS, the pedestrian bridge would provide an attractive focal point for the City, in it's downtown area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby approve amending the 1995 budget to allow for the following transfers of funds to Account No. 680: • RESOLUTION NO. 4843 PAGE TWO OF TWO - Transfer of $81,642 from Franchise Fee Account #295-3850 - Transfer of $41,558 from Special Projects Fund #590-3850 - Transfer of $31,000 from General Fund 100-3850 - Transfer of $25,000 from Street Light Fund 770-3850 - Transfer of $10,800 from the Activity Fund 250-3850 Adopted this 13th day of November, 1995. ATTEST: C;2 May OEM.) iv City Administrator RESOLUTION NO. 4844 • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO COORDINATE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PROJECT THE REMOVAL OF THE STORM WATER DETENTION POND AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 10 AND LONG LAKE ROAD WHEREAS, the engineering and design firms who presented proposals to the City of Mounds View suggested that the City would benefit from removal of the storm water detention pond at the Northwest corner of Long Lake Road and Highway 10; and WHEREAS, removal of the pond, in conjunction with the bridge project would improve the accessibility of the bridge and the general appearance of the area; and • WHEREAS, City staff considers the project feasible but needs to retain engineering services to coordinate this project with the pedestrian bridge construction; and WHEREAS, BRW, Inc. has the staff available to coordinate the project with the pedestrian bridge project. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council directs staff to further n-�vestigate with BRW, Inc., the coordination of the pedestrian bridge project with the removal of the storm water detention pond at the Northwest corner of Long Lake Road and Highw=.y 10 and report back to the City Council with proposals and cost estimates. Adopted this 13th day of November, 1995. ATTEST: Ma (SEAL) Ci Adminis for 1110 Page 4 • November 13, 1995 Mounds View City Council Mayor Linke explained that this portion of the meeting was designated for anyone who wished to speak to the Council on items that were not on the Agenda. Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated he wanted to bring something to the council and resident's attention that he noticed in the Star Tribune on November 2, 1995. This article was in regard to airport noise around the main airport and the substantial amount of complaints issued in regard to such noise. He stated the large number of complaints undoubtedly has an impact on the Metro Airport Commission. He stated he is aware that the noise has increased around the Anoka County Airport with the increase in construction and the use of the airport by higher than Class D &E aircraft. He asked that residents who are bothered by aircraft noise call#726-9411. He would like the City council to raise the issue one more time with residents of Mounds View and get an update on the airport and the construction phases. Ms. Orduno explained that Sue Webber who sits on the Airport Task Force came in and asked that a meeting be called of the Airport Task Force and she would like as many people at that meeting as possible. As soon as a date is set, the notice will be posted and Mr. McCarty will be contacted. Ms. Webber was present and stated she had tried contacting all of the members of the Airport Task Force and is waiting for a response. She anticipates that the meeting will be held late in the week of November 20th or early the following week. She will notify Ms. Orduno of the meeting date. PUBLIC HEARINGS: There were no Public Hearings scheduled for this meeting. COUNCIL BUSINESS: A. Consideration of the Construction of a Pedestrian Bridge Over Highway 10 in a Joint City/U.S. Department of Transportation Project. 3. Consideration of Resolution 4843, Amending the 1995 General Fund Budget to Pay for the City's Portion of the Construction of the Pedestrian Bridge over Highway 10. Mayor Linke explained that he had requested that this item be placed on the Agenda. The problems with the bridge have basically been in the area of financing of the bridge. The Council has looked at various financing options and until recently felt it may be necessary to look at a new tax levy to cover the cost. He explained that after hearing concerns expressed by residents, he went back and spoke with staff in the finance department. After reviewing all the information, he was able to come up with a list of potential finance sources that he is comfortable with. It has been his opinion that money for the bridge should be money that the city has now, not something from future funds. He just recently • found out that between 1994 and 1995 the city did not use all of the interest from the Special Projects Fund and this amount could make up the difference that was needed instead of increasing taxes. He Page 5 November 13, 1995 • Mounds View City Council came up with a list of proposed funding, however the council has not had a great deal of time to discuss this proposal in detail. He stated he has spoken with the auditor who has indicated that he does not see a problem in using these funds for this particular project. Mayor Linke stated he is aware that the council was not going to take action on this item until the November budget meeting, if they went through the budget process using tax money to fund the project. The new proposal does not have new tax funds involved in it. The proposal would involve amending the 1995 budget to allow for the transfers of funds to the project account as follows: - transfer of approximately$82,000 from the Franchise Fee Account from 1994-95; - transfer of approximately$41,000 from Special Projects Fund (interest); - transfer of$31,000 from the Undesignated General Fund (coming from the end of the 1994 budgetary year); - transfer of$25,000 from the Street Light Utility Fund; and - transfer of$10,800 from the Recreation Activity Fund. Mayor Linke stated this is his proposal. He does not know the feelings of the other council members. He felt this item should be brought up as there will not be a council work session between this meeting and the next. Ms. Blanchard stated she has a big problem with the proposal. She does not have a problem with the bridge itself, but rather with the presentation tonight. Residents were told at the last two meetings that a decision on this would not be made until November 29th. The residents who attended previous meetings are under the understanding that they have another week to prepare their positions and present • them to the council. She does not feel that going ahead with this is being open to the people. Also, one of the council members is not present and she feels she also should be present and give input on this item. She would therefore, like to recommend that this item be tabled for two weeks. MOTION by Ms. Blanchard to table Item 11 (A) until the November 27 1995 council meeting. MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Council member Quick stated the council was talking about the budget and the discussion went around the fact that the budget they were dealing with included a 3% tax levy, therefore the increase in the tax levy is what the council was referring to. Council member Trude stated this is also the way she recalls it. If people wanted to have their taxes raised for the bridge or not raised because of the bridge, then the council would need to make a decision at a tax payer hearing or that appropriate time. Since that time, the council has been able to work with the auditors and come up with funds that replace those tax funds so that it is not necessary to raise the levy. At that point, she does not think there will be any taxpayers complaining. The people who have contacted her as a council member includes a list of 72 names for the bridge and six against it. The six residents were against it because they were concerned it would impact them personally in their taxes next year. She believes that a lot of the people at the council meeting would be happy to see the council take action at an open forum. It is a public meeting, it is cable-televised and the Page 6 November 13, 1995 • Mounds View City Council agenda has been published on the scrolling mechanism for about 5 - 6 days. She believes people are waiting for the progress to finally begin. Council member Blanchard stated her concern is that they as a council told people action would be taken on this at the November 29th meeting. That is her whole objection to this. Mayor Linke stated this was added to the agenda as per his request. The November 29th date that the council was talking about refers to putting it on the taxes and on November 29th (when there will actually be the budget hearing), he will present the reasons for the council action prior to the November 29th date. The council is proposing a 0% levy increase to the budget for 1996. MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Quick to approve Resolution 4843, Amending the 1995 General Fund Budget to Pay for the City's Portion of the Construction of the Pedestrian Bridge over Highway 10. Mayor Linke proceeded to read Resolution 4843. He stated he understands Council member Blanchard's concerns but hopes she can support this resolution. Council member Trude explained that this proposal does not impact the taxpayers. VOTE: 3 ayes 1 nay (Blanchard) Motion Carried Ms. Blanchard explained that she voted against this for the same reasons voiced earlier. She feels there may be people who would have wanted to be present at this meeting to voice their comments. Also council member Hanker is not present and she feels all of the council members should be present to hear the new proposal. 1. Consideration of the Construction of a Pedestrian Bridge Over Highway 10 in a Joint City/U.S. Department of Transportation Project. Ms. Mary Saarion, Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry was present and explained that BRW Engineering was one of six firms who came and presented a proposal to the city for services related to the construction of the pedestrian bridge over Highway 10. The panel recommended that the City enter into a contract with BRW to provide the necessary services and the city requested that they be present at the meeting to give a brief presentation. Two representatives of BRW Engineering were present to discuss the proposed project. They explained that there are two key elements that need to be addressed. One is functional- meaning it must work well, and the second element is aesthetic or visual appeal. They presented a number of slides showing examples of similar projects. Theresa Lexcen, 5229 Jeffrey Dr., asked if a Task Force will be put together to help with the • architectural design of the bridge. • Page 7 November 13, 1995 Mounds View City Council Mayor Linke stated at this time it has not been discussed. Due to limited funding, he was assuming the council would serve as the task force. The other members may have different feelings. Ms. Trude stated all of the proposals that the city received did recommend public support as there are a lot of different potential users. Every user has a different perspective and a different way of looking at something. The city will need to work with the business community also as it will be out in front of the storefronts. The council has not had an opportunity to really discuss this, but it will be put on a future agenda. 2. Consideration of Resolution No. 4842, Awarding the Contract to BRW, Inc. for the Engineering, Design and Inspection Services Related to the Construction of the Pedestrian Bridge Over Highway 10. Mayor Linke explained that he recently changed employers and he currently works for BRW Elness Architects. This is a completely separate company, with their own Board of Directors. There is no conflict of interest with this contract. Ms. Trude noted that the panel recommended that the award be contracted to BRW, Inc. in April, prior to Mayor Linke's employment with BRW Elness Architects. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Trude to approve Resolution 4842, Awarding the Contract to BRW, Inc. for the Engineering, Design and Inspection Services Related tot he Construction of the Pedestrian Bridge Over Highway 10. VOTE: 3 ayes 1 nay Motion Carried (Blanchard) 4. Consideration of Resolution 4844, Directing Staff to Coordinate in Conjunction with the Pedestrian Bridge Project the Removal of the Storm Water Detention Pond at the Northwest Corner of Highway 10 and Long Lake Road. Ms. Trude explained that the architects who came out to the site felt a better proposal could be put together if the fenced pond in front of Bridgemans could be eliminated. The council has directed staff to investigate this. MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Quick to approve Resolution No. 4844, Directing Staff to Coordinate in Conjunction with the Pedestrian Bridge Project the Removal of the Storm Water Detention Pond at the Northwest Corner of Highway 10 and Long Lake Road. VOTE: 3 ayes 1 nay (Blanchard) Motion Carried • • Page 3 November 27, 1995 Mounds View City Council Mayor Linke asked if there were any councilmembers who would like any items removed from the Consent Agenda. There were none. MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Quick to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR: Mayor Linke explained that this portion of the meeting was designated for anyone who wished to speak to the Council on items that were not on the Agenda. Bill Siercks, 2210 Pinewood Drive, asked what the total cost of the pedestrian bridge is estimated to be. Mayor Linke explained that the city will be receiving a $480,000 grant and the city's matching share will be $185,000. S Mr. Siercks said the architectural/engineering fees of approximately $65,000 were not disclosed as part of the city's portion when he inquired as to the project costs over the telephone. He also asked various questions in regard to snow removal, whether or not the costs for removing the drainage ponds and the moving of the traffic signals, if necessary, were included in the estimates, etc. He stated these were all questions that needed to be answered and it was his understanding that the residents would be allowed to give their input in regard to the proposed pedestrian bridge on November 29, 1995. He understood that no decision would be made on this issue before then. Mayor Linke explained that this would have been the case if the project were included as a part of the 1996 budget. However, the city was able to fund their portion from other sources, and therefore it was not necessary to present the residents with an increase in their tax levy for 1996. Locating a funding source for the project was the main concern. He felt very strongly that the funds should not be used from future sources. The proposal he presented to the rest of the council on November 13th was money that the city has in-hand now. Ms. Hankner stated she was not present at the November 13th meeting. She feels this is a fundamental issue of trust. She was in attendance at the last council work session and there was no discussion about putting this item on the • agenda for consideration at the following Council meeting. She was disappointed to hear after returning from a business trip that action had been Page 4 November 27, 1995 Mounds View City Council taken on this issue. She also understood that it would be discussed further at the November 29th meeting. She did not have any idea that money would be taken out of the 1995 budget to fund this project. This further raises questions about the city's budget process. She is particularly concerned that a decision was made on this issue without any notice to her. Ms. Trude explained that at the council's last work session, they had agreed that there would be a 0% tax levy increase for 1996. Since that decision was made, she felt it would be inappropriate to discuss the pedestrian bridge issue at the Truth in Taxation Meeting if it was not a part of the 1996 budget. Mayor Linke explained that it was put on the agenda upon his request. He was not comfortable with the four different funding proposals which were put before him so he met with the City's Finance Department and was able to come up with an alternate funding source, that being interest earned off of the 1994 and 1995 Special Project Funds. He contacted Samantha Orduno and asked that this item be added to the agenda. He also spoke with the Auditors who informed him that it was acceptable to use the funds toward this project. Ms. Hankner stated at the last council work session the council members agreed • to a 0% levy increase. This was what she wanted all along. However, her position on the issue was that if the pedestrian bridge were to be approved, something would need to be taken out of the 1996 budget to allow it in order to assure the 0% levy increase. Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated he is very dismayed at the attitude that anything other than the proposed tax levy for next year is not the money of the citizens of the city. There is no excuse for going outside of the proper process in making expenditures. There has never been a question about the value of a pedestrian bridge, however he feels the public was cut out of the entire process. Mayor Linke stated he did not know what Mr. McCarty was referring to when he said the public was cut out of the process. The public has been involved in the decision since approximately April when the city first started talking about it. There were many residents present at council meetings since then in support of the bridge. The only time they opposed it was when the city was considering putting it on the taxes. Mr. McCarty asked if people really expect that pedestrians directly across the highway from their destination will walk a considerable distance just to use the • bridge. He wondered where the plan or specific study that was required to Page 5 • November 27, 1995 Mounds View City Council determine whether or not this bridge was a good, usable amenity to the entire community. The residents did not have an opportunity to ask the questions they planned to on November 29th. He does not believe that the November 29th discussion date was only in the event that a tax levy would be required. Furthermore, it his understanding that per Code 203.8, Subdivision 5, a 4/5 vote of approval is required to spend any money out of the Special Projects fund which the city does not have at this time as it was passed on a 3/1 vote. Mayor Linke explained that he asked the Auditors about the proposed expenditure of the funds for the pedestrian bridge and they assured him that the interest portion could be used for this project. Mr. McCarty suggested that the City Attorney be contacted about this issue, as he believes the funds were committed without a 415 vote. Pam Starr, 7778 Woodlawn Drive stated she would like to applaud the City Council for finally making a decision that is looking at the safety of the efrren in Mounds View. She does not know how anyone can be so short-sighted that they can say Mounds View cannot afford the bridge when there are children who • need to cross the highway. Jim Schmitt, 5446 Erickson Road, stated there has been public input on this issue since April. At the meetings he has attended there has been a greater number of residents in favor of the bridge than opposed to it. Furthermore, at the Public Hearing on the issue of whether the city would use tax increment financing , he heard four out of the five council members state two different times that they were in favor of the bridge, they just had a disagreement on taxes. He stated the city must find funding for a project such as this. He has three children and is active in youth activities in the community. They use the community as a whole and he feels access is a problem in the community. T he bridge will greatly improve this problem. He is happy that the decision was made. Ms. Hankner stated the council decided they would not increase the taxes for purposes of funding the pedestrian bridge, but that they would still go ahead with the grant and directed staff to go into the budget and try to determine where funds could come from. At that time it was still in the context of the 1996 budget. For public purposes, the council let them know that it would be discussed as a part of the 1996 budget on November 29th when they were to hold the Public • Hearing. It was still in the 1996 budget. Page 6 - November 27, 1995 Mounds View City Council The residents did not have any notice that the council was going to take action on this issue on November 13th. She feels the action was out of line with the process. Mayor Linke stated at the budget work session there was not any discussion about keeping it in the 1996 budget and removing another item to allow for it. Ms. Hankner stated this has been her position from the beginning. No one mentioned at the work session that it would be taken out of the 1995 budget or that it would be discussed at the November 13th meeting. Jim Schmitt, 5446 Erickson Road, stated he does not feel the council acted inappropriately. They found resources that were not known beforehand to fund the project. Henry Ruggles, 2629 Lake Court Drive, stated he understood that the pedestrian bridge was a "dead issue". This was a comment he heard made by Mayor Linke after the last meeting on the bridge. Mayor Linke stated he was only referring to the tax increase to help fund the • project. If he were unable to find another funding source, it would have been a dead issue because he was not going to support putting it on the 1996 budget. Mr. Ruggles stated theoretically, if the project funding had not been approved, the residents may have been able to have a 3% decrease in their taxes for 1996. MOTION/SECOND: Hankner/Blanchard to direct staff to get a get an opinion from the City Attorney on the 4/5 approval requirement for the use of the interest of the Special Project Funds. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Ms. Hankner stated she would like this information available at the November 29th hearing if possible. An unidentified resident asked if there are cost overruns on the bridge, will the State increase their share or will the city be responsible for the additional costs. Mayor Linke stated the Engineers are provided with a maximum amount and it must not exceed that amount. • • Page 7 November 27, 1995 Mounds View City Council Ms. Trude stated if necessary, other items will need to be cut in order to bring it back into the approved project cost. Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated he also would like to obtain the City Attorney's opinion on whether or not the interest earnings come under the requirements of the Ordinance. He would also like the City Attorney inform the council on the legal requirements of the Long Term Financial Plan and how it intertwines with the budget through the Charter Requirements, and therefore be subject to the Truth in Taxation hearing laws. The bridge was originally set up in the 1997 budget in the Long Term Financial Plans, and therefore the council will also need to amend the ATLP. He would like to obtain this information by the November 29th hearing. He stated he feels everyone at the meeting wants to unite Mounds View and make it safe for their children and citizens but they want to be part of the process. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. To Consider Request for Conditional Use Permit - North Star Laii 5 . • Mayor Linke opened the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Paul Harrington, Interim City Administrator, explained that North Star Land Services, who represent U S West, has made an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the construction of an enclosure to house fiber fed telecommunication services. This request is for property located at 2280 Highway 10. The actual location of the structure would be a 20 X 20 easement, fronting on Wooddale Drive. The enclosure would be approximately 6 X 9 feet. Mr. Harrington noted that in the Spring of 1995, a similar request was granted on the Multi-Tech property at 2205 Wooddale for the business park north. This one would service the buildings on the south side of the business park. , 5220 McConnell, stated he purchased his property about two years ago and he was not aware of this. Mr. Harrington stated the building will be located on a 20 X 20 foot easement. U S West has approached the property owner themselves and requested the easement for the building which has been drawn up and will be signed based upon the city council's approval. • Mayor Linke closed the Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m. ( AGENDA PAGE FIVE • JANUARY 22, 1996 COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: • 11. COUNCIL BUSINESS: A. Presentation by Ron Langness, Springsted on Refunding of Municipal Bonds, Staff Report No. 96-1584C COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: B. Consideration of Resolution No. 4889 Appointing Pedestrian Bridge Citizen Task Force, (Councilmember Trude) COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: 12. REPORTS: 1. Report of Councilmembers: Quick: S Blanchard: From:Julies Trudy To:Gy of Mounds View 1118196 at 13:16:09 ITEM 11.B • MEMORANDUM To: Mayor& City Council Fm: Julie Trude Date: 1/18/96 Re: Pedestrian Bridge Citizen Task Force The following names would compose the citizen task force as provided for in our contract with BRW. The task force would meet three times. One meeting would be an introductory meeting without the architect. There would be a site visit and discussion of the role of the task force. The second meeting would be a working session with the architect and the final meeting would result in a recommendation of design to the council. Boards would then be drawn up for presentation to the Council and for use at City Hall. Councilmembers who have thoughts or concerns about the bridge design should discuss them with one of the staff representatives. Pedestrian Bridge Design Task Force: Susan Fisher (Marketing Task Force) Sue Weber Pam Starr (Parks &Rec.) Delayne Welsch. (Hwy. 10 Task Force) Florence Johnson (wheelchair user/resident of Wildwood Manor) Ed Hanson, Manager of Snyder's Gary Quick Julie Trude Staff members: Mary Saarion, Mike Ulrich, Joyce Pruitt and Rick Jarson. RESOLUTION NO. 4889 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW • COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPOINTING A CITIZEN TASK FORCE TO SELECT A DESIGN FOR THE HIGHWAY 10 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View was awarded a grant by the Transportation Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Council in 1994 to construct a pedestrian bridge over Highway 10; and WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has awarded a contract to BRW, Inc. to perform the engineering and design work for the pedestrian bridge; and WHEREAS, the contract with BRW, Inc. allows for meetings with a citizen task force to select a community-supported design for the pedestrian bridge; and • WHEREAS, the following individuals have shown an interest in serving their community by serving on the Pedestrian Bridge Citizen Task Force. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council in and for the City of Mounds View does hereby appoint the following persons to serve on the Pedestrian Bridge Citizen Task Force: Susan Fisher, Sue Weber, Pam Starr, Delayne Welsch, Florence Johnson, Ed Hanson, Sue Hankner and Julie Trude.. Adopted this,22nd day of January, 1996. - Mayor L_- (• Interim City 'ministrator Page 11 • January 22, 1996 Mounds View City Council provide a report of the official statements,the annual audit and material events,which his company would be able to complete on behalf of the city for a fee. The sale of the bonds would take place on February 12, 1996. MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Hankner to authorize staff to begin preparing necessary documents for the refunding of the municipal bonds. Mayor Linke called for a Special Meeting to be held at 6:00 p.m.on Monday,February 5, 1996 to further discuss this item. A resolution will be presented to the City Council for their consideration at this meeting. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried B. Consideration of Resolution No.4889,Appointing Pedestrian Bridge Citizen Task Force. Ms. Trude explained that the time has come in which to appoint a Citizen Task Force for the Pedestrian Bridge. As per the contract with BRW,it allows for a Task Force to meet three times with the architect to come up with recommendations in regard to the bridge design to be presented to the City Council. The following 1111 recommendations have been made to the Task Force Committee: Sue Fisher(Marketing Task Force), Sue Weber,Pam Starr(Parks&Rec.),Delayne Welsch(Hwy. 10 Task Force),Florence Johnson(wheelchair user/resident of Wildwood Manor),Ed Hanson(Manager of Snyder's),Sue Hankner,Julie Trude and staff members Mary Saarion,Mike Ulrich,Joyce Pruitt,and Rick Jarson who would serve an advisory role. MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Quick to approve Resolution 4889,Appointing a Task Force to Select a Design for the Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried C. Use of Contingency Funds for Brush Removal. Mr. Paul Harrington explained that City Forester Rick Wriskey went through the city to assess the damage from the ice storm. He has recommended that a City Clean Up be funded. His concern is that damaged limbs,if not removed,could cause further damage and the potential of disease. He has estimated that the total clean up will cost between$5,000 and$10,000. The City would be divided into quadrants and certain days would be established to have residents put their brush on the right of way and a contractor would pick it up. Mr. Harrington explained that a flyer could be printed,it would be run on Cable TV,and it would be run in the Bulletin and the Focus Newspaper. MOTION/SECOND: Hankner/Trude to authorize the use of Contingency.Funds not to exceed$10,000 for brush removal. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Ms. Trude noted that seniors who need assistance getting their brush to the curb can contact the Northwest • Youth and Family Services. REPORTS: MINUTES OF THE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CITIZEN TASK FORCE • Mounds View City Hall Tuesday, February 6, 1996 7:00 p.m. . PRESENT: Susan Fisher Sue Webber Pam Starr Ed Hanson Julie Trude, Council Liaison Joyce Pruitt, Staff Member Mary Saarion, Staff Member Marshall Johnston, Resident and MNDOT Representative Sabri Ayaz, BRW Principal Engineer Arjis Pakalns, Architect INTRODUCTIONS: Persons introduced themselves. Sabri Ayaz and Arjis Pakalns provided an overview of what they wished to accomplish during this meeting. The major task was to identify the location for the bridge, destinations of users and best form of access. 1111 CONCEPTS: Arjis presented several conceptual designs of pedestrian bridge ramps and accesses. The group discussed the pros and cons of each. LOCATION: It was decided that ,,the location of the bridge should be to access `Long Lake sidewalk trail. RAMPING: It was decided to look at combining two different ramping concepts, with a spiral ramp on the north side and a combination of ramp along Long Lake Road sidewalk leading to a one spiral on the south side. This will require additional land easements from the library, Pastor Enterprises and Wildwood. Staff will schedule a meeting with these three agencies to discuss the possibilities. NEXT MTG. Because of the short time line, a meeting will be scheduled as soon as possible with the three property owners so that location can be confirmed for inclusion in the memorandum. Because this needs to be completed before the next meeting with the citizen task force, a meeting date was not set. 1111 ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 9 : 00 p.m. PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CITIZEN TASK FORCE III Susan Fisher 8360 Fairchild Ave. Mounds View, MN 55112 786-6349 (w) 540-3597 Sue Weber 2565 Ardan Ave. Mounds View, MN 55112 784-3805 • Pam Starr 7778 Woodlawn Dr. Mounds View, MN 55112 780-2409 Delayne Welsch 2558 Moundsview Dr. Mounds View, MN 55112 (w) 625-3713 Florence Johnson 1111 Wildwood Manor 2559 Moundsview Dr. Mounds View, MN 55112 Ed Hanson Snyder' s Drug Store 2553 Hwy 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 786-5080 Julie Trude 8391 Knollwood Dr. Mounds View, MN 55112 780-1354 Sue Hankner 8046 Woodlawn Dr. Mounds View, MN 55112 780-2635 City Staff, Mike Ulrich Joyce Pruitt Jim Hess Mary Saarion • Consultants BRW, Sabri Ayaz Arijs Pakalns '4 4,41. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section 5. STAFF REPORT Report Number: 96-t 626WS 111 ` 1 ;;tip: Report Date: 2/29/96 WORKSESSION MEETING DATE ry'A,� March 4. 1996 `'"err•Partpet-PQ Item Description: Consideration of Engineering Proposal for Abandonment of Surface Water Pond (TH 10 and Long Lake Road) Administrator's Review/Recommendation: -No Comments to supplement this report X l -Comments attached. Explanation/Summary(attach supplement sheets as necessary) Summary: Staff received a request from Parks and Recreation Director Saarion to present the proposals for engineering services related to the abandonment of the surface water pond located at the intersection of Trunk Highway 10 and Long Lake Road. Resolution No. 4844 adopted by the City Council on November 13, 1996 authorized staff to procure engineering proposals. The removal of the pond at this location is necessary for the proposed bridge location. Proposals for the services rendered are as follows: BRW Inc. $7,620.00 • SEH $6,900.00 The resolution adopted, did not specify a source of funding for these services or construction engineering, and construction expenses. The Surface Water Management Fund, Account No. 420-4122-303, does have funds available ($10,000) for engineering services in the 1996 budget. Staff seeks Council direction in this matter. - /�' -.i Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works • RESOLUTION NO. 4844 • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO COORDINATE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE . PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PROJECT THE REMOVAL OF THE STORM WATER DETENTION POND AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 10 AND LONG LAKE ROAD WHEREAS, the engineering and design firms who presented proposals to the City of Mounds View suggested that the City would benefit from removal of the storm water detention pond at the Northwest corner of Long Lake Road and Highway 10; and WHEREAS, removal of the pond, in conjunction with the bridge project would improve the accessibility of the bridge and the general appearance of the area; and WHEREAS, City staff considers the project feasible but needs to retain engineering services to coordinate this project with the pedestrian bridge construction; and WHEREAS, BRW, Inc. has the staff available to coordinate the project with the .edestijan bridge project NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council direct staff to further investigate with BRW, Inc., the coordination of the pedestrian bridge project with the removal of the storm water detention pond at the Northwest corner of Long Lake Road and Highway 10 and report back to the City Council with proposals and cost estimates. Adopted this 13th day of November, 1995. ATTEST: CST: Mayor (SEAL) �-,.� : , - (7, _ ... , mac: Cay Adminisfator • • \ N '.1 MOUNDW S VIVd N SCAU"RS. II Z • I a � � u :ova: (-----19. elk. - ------.N.II, a T + i `QCT �\ \ ,c, artor,sou ` �+i 4 • cc.5 \ , ,. \s, .. .. 7 � 7 `>;. /P.� Etaln CITY HALL comfriolirrr N <, ) , f\N ":. / ,1______\ /,/ fay- .. . \ ) \, •a•- ' ''-. '- -tik,ankr..* . \ bP-40-z--",,rrer:/// ..440110. , ,,, . / N 0 \ / / .__.\ / \ \ 1 I 4. i \ T/ .., z„; \\ / \ . 1 z , 1 I , `\( W :.lt_ 1oOD� \ r.i.$04,0g./ I/ 1 - 7 . -,. 1 / „ ,, . ..., , , . , , ,1 . . 1 L, , , , ,, 1 - 1 \o I 5 i , \\N ,, 1 , i c, l o0 too \,N t--.- .- 1'tet 4 I\ 1 -! -.Lt _ I ... ---4 _....... � . it o y'/ f?_ow 77vr'1Y / lr FEBR LRY 6, X995 gm,(zit!): 211 t 19Co AN REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section 5_ I4:1; i;h 4!..; `' STAFF REPORT Report Number: 96-16512r Report Date: 3/28/96 WORKSESSIQN MEETING DATE 410 -pSifiP�ti��4S April 1. 1996 Item Description:Continued discussion of Surface Water Pond Abandonment, Long Lake Road and TH 10 Administrator's Review/Recommendation: -No Comments to supplement this report (f/ -Comments attadhed. X Explanation/Summary(attach supplement sheets as necessary) Summary: Staff met with Pasture Enterprises two weeks ago to discuss concerns that Mr. Pasture had regarding the construction of the proposed pedestrian bridge. This information was provide last week. Staff has attempted to contact Mr. Pasture regarding the information and any possible decision he may have made regarding abandoning the surface water pond and constructing the approach ramp at that location. Mr. Pasture has been unavailable to respond. He will return to the office on Monday, April 1, 1996, and at that time it is hopeful that staff can contact him. Any information received at that time will be presented at the work session. Pasture Enterprises is aware that this item is on the agenda on April 1st. Staff has included the report presented at the March 25, 1996 Council meeting for Council's review. O vchael Ulrich, Director of Public Works RECONEMENDATION: • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section 11 r t'iii l^ STAFF REPORT Report Number (IA-1 ;61 C �; 1 . Report Date: 3/21/96 iA -- CITY COU"vCILTLNG DATE 'P i' '" March 25 1996 E Special Order of B °zit."-Pantos""° Consent Agenda PubIic Hearings • X Council Business Item Description: Consideration of Surface Water Pond Abandonment, Long Lake Road & TH10 Administrator's Review/Recommendation: -No Comments to supplement this report X_ -Comments attached Explanation/Summary(attach supplement sheets as necessary) Summary: Staff presented a proposal to Council at the March 4, 1996 work session explaining the possibility of abandoning the surface water pond at the inter section of Long Lake Road and TH 10 for the purpose of constructing the pedestrian bridge. Staff was directed to consult with the City's engineer for an estimate of the cost pertaining to the filling of the pond and subsequent storm sewer pipe construction. Staff - spoke with Steve Campbell regarding this matter. Steve explained that any estimates given at this time, prior to surveying, computer modeling, and negotiations with the agencies involved, would be extremely conservative. Cost estimates for the construction portion of the projectare as follows: Storm Sewer Revisions(A) $5,000 - $10,000 Fill Existing Pond $5.000 = $ 7.500 _.. • Subtotal $10,000 - $17,500 Construct Mitigation Pond(B) $10.000 - $15.000 Total Est $20,000 - $32,500 (A) Assumes that the existing storm sewer along the west boulevard of Long Lake Road is high enough to be relieved by the existing system under long Lake Road and parallel to STH 10. This will be verified by the field surveys. (B) I required by re=ulatory agencies. To be located on City property south of Public Works Facility. The two proposals received for this study were from BRW Inc. for$7,620 and SEH for $6.900. Staff met with Paster Enterprises on Tuesday, March 19, 1996 to discuss issues regarding the preferred bridge design. Mr. Paster requested-seve:al items of information from staff regarding traffic counts on Hwy 10 and any pedestrian patterns in the area. Staff would request that this item be tabled until the April 1 Council work session for further discussion. Accompaning this report is the Pedestrian Bridge Work Plan requested at the March 4, 1996 work session. - COMMENDATION: Michael UL_ch, Di_eccor of Public Works fable this issue until the April 1 Council work session, at which time more information will be available. 110 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE WORK PLAN PROJECT COMPONENT RESPONSIBLE STAFF TIMELINE Task Force Mtg. #1 - to Saarion/BRW Feb.6, 1996 discuss use patterns and design components. Gain Paster's position Cathy Bennett March 20 -29 Discuss negiotions options for Paster Enterprise easement Cathy Bennett April Worksession Storm Water Drainage SEE/Ulrich By April , 1996 Pond Engineering/Permits/Info Pedestrian Bridge Design Review Task Force Mtg T2 May, 1996 SaarioniBRW 0 Obtain Easements BRW, Pruitt/Whiting./ By July, 1996 Bennett _ _ - _ . .--- ... Apt rove BRW's Design Plans SEH July, 1996 Approve Bridge Design City Council " JuIy, 1996 Specifications/Bid Award IMNDOTiBRW September, 1996 Construction Bid Award Co./BRW Spring, 1997 Tandom the Storm Pond work Bid Award Co./Liric:JSEH Spring, 1997 Construction Completion BRW/Const.Co. . August, 1997 nun Paperwork ---~,. Saarion November, 1997 • It is our aim to complete the pedestrian bridge project as soon as possible. Because of outside unknown factors including Federal.plan review., obtaining easements and negotiations with Paster ioEnterprises, NLvJDOT timelines for specifications, bidding and award, and construction company workloads, the timeline may change. Page 8 March 25, 1996 Mounds View City Council • D. Consideration of Resolution No.4911,Establishing Municipal State Aid Street. Approval of this Resolution would add the State Aid designation to Ardan Avenue from Red Oak Drive to Long Lake Road. E. Consideration of Resolution No.4912,Establishing a Municipal State Aid Street. This Resolution would establish a State Aid road on a County Road Turn back(County Road H2 from Pleasant View Drive to Highway 10). This would be an additional State Aid road above the city's 20%allotment for the remainder of the city streets. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Hankner to Approve Resolutions 4910,4911,and 4912 as presented. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried F. Consideration of Surface Water Pond Abandonment,Long Lake Road and TH10. Mayor LiDkP noted that staff has requested that item be postponed until the April I, 1996 Work Session. G. Consideration of Policy Regarding Council Direction to Mounds View City Staff. Ms. Bennett noted that she had one revision to the Policy,at the advise of the City Attorney. He advised that Section II,Item 1. be changed to read as follows: 1. Council direction is defined as the consensus or majority vote of the council to take an action. Council direction occurs at council meetings and is communicated to the clerk-administrator. When time is of _ the essence,because of an emergency or unforeseen circumstance,the clerk-administrator may individually discuss an issue with each council member to determine each council member's direction. In all cases,the requirements of the Open Meeting Law shall be met. Ms.Hankner stated she had one other revision that should be considered. After some discussion,it was recommended that changes be made to Section II,Item 2.,to be read as follows: . . .This policy does not prevent staff members from considering a council member's suggestions or viewpoints. MOTION/SECOND: Hankner/Quick to approve the Policy for Council Direction to Mounds View City Staff, AS AMENDED. Ms. Hankner stated she wanted to clarify that no staff member needs to feel intimidated by a Council member who might try to come in and give them direction. The policy is merely to help clarify how the City Council should operate. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried • "�r7: "" REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section 1 1 r .. I�� �:..hyo STAFF REPORT Report Number. o -1 Loi. Report Date: 3/21/96 0 .:3.. CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE March 25. 1996 Special Order of Bus. ` Consent Agenda IIIIIIIIIMI Public Hearings • X Council Business Item Description: Consideration of Surface Water Pond Abandonment, Long Lake Road & TH10 Administrator's Review/Recommendation: -No Comments to supplement this report X (;(,AS- -Comments attached • Explanation/Summary(attach supplement sheets as necessary) Summary: Staff presented a proposal to Council at the March 4, 1996 work session explaining the possibility of abandoning the surface water pond at the intersection of Long Lake Road and TH 10 for the purpose of constructing the pedestrian bridge. Staff was directed to consult with the City's engineer for an estimate of the cost pertaining to the filling of the pond and subsequent storm sewer pipe construction. Staff spoke with Steve Campbell regarding this matter. Steve explained that any estimates given at this time, prior to surveying, computer modeling, and negotiations with the agencies involved, would be extremely conservative. Cost estimates for the construction portion of the project are as follows: Storm Sewer Revisions(A) $5,000 - $10,000 1111Fill Existing Pond $5.000 $ 7.500 _._. • Subtotal $10,000 - $17,500 Construct Mitigation Pond(B) Si 0.000 - $15.000 Total Est $20,000 - $32,500 (A) Assumes that the existing storm sewer along the west boulevard of Long Lake Road is high enough to be relieved by the existing system under long Lake Road and parallel to STH 10. This will be verified by the field surveys. (B) I required by regulatory agencies. To be located on City property south of Public Works Facility. The two proposals received for this study were from BRW Inc. for $7,620 and SEH for $6,900. Staff met with Paster Enterprises on Tuesday, March 19, 1996 to discuss issues regarding the preferred bridge design. Mr. Paster requested several items of information from staff regarding traffic counts on Hwy 10 and any pedestrian patterns in the area. Staff would request that this item be tabled until the April 1 Council work session for further discussion. Accompaning this report is the Pedestrian Bridge Work Elan requested at the March 4, 1996 work session. •COMNIENDATION: `�ichael Ulrich, Director of Public Works f able this issue until the April I Council work session, at which time more information will be available. • PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE WORK PLAN 110 PROTECT COM oir NT RESPONSIBLE STAFF TTM.EL1NE Task Force Mtg. #1 - to Saarion/BRW Feb.6, 1996 discuss use patterns and design components. Gain Paster's position Cathy Bennett March 20 -29 Discuss negiotions options for Paster Enterprise easement Cathy Bennett April Worksession Storm Water Drainage SE-I/Lcn By April, 1996 Pond Engineering/Permits/Info Pedestrian Bridge Design Review Task Force MtgT2 May, 1996 SaarioniBRW Obtain Easements BRW, Pruitt/Whiting/ By July, 1996 Bennett • Approve BRW's Design Plans SES July, 1996 Approve Bridge Design City Council July , 1996 Specifications/Bid Award v1NDOTBRW September, 1996 Construction Bid Award ColBRW Spring, 1997 Tandom the Storm Pond work Bid Award Co./Drip/SL1 Spring, 1997 Construction Completion BRW/Cons.Co. August, 1997 Final Paperwork Saarion November, 1997 It is our aim to complete the pedestrian bridge project as soon as possible. Because of outside unknown factors including F ederai pian review, obtaining easements and negotiations with Paste: Enterprises, tiUDOT timelines for specifications. bidding and award, and construction comp.anv w.vorkioads, the timeiine may change. ate` REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section 11.F ix.0 _ moi' II _ +— STAFF REPORT Report Number: 96-1756C "•J Report Date: 6/4/96 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE Special Order of Bus. • 4 June 10, 1996 p ° '`'_-P,=tne=S'"° _ Consent Agenda Public Hearings X Council Business Item Description: Consideration of Engineering Proposals to Relocated Surface Water Pond Administrator's Review/Recommendation: O-✓ -No Comments to supplement this report -Comments attached. X Explanation/Summary(attach supplement sheets as necessary) Summary: At the June 3, 1996 work session, staff informed Council of the expense and related long term maintenance issues related to construction of the pedestrian bridge within the surface water pond adjacent to the Bridgeman's building. The additional expense of reconstructing the pond is estimated to be at least$40.000, The estimated cost to relocate the pond to City property are approximately $10,000 to 32,500. Staff has received two quotes for engineering services to move the pond and proceed through the permitting • process. The quotes accompany this report and the expenses are as follows: • BRW $7,620.00 SEH $6,900.00 - Both of these quotes cover the same scope of project. Neither proposal includes design and construction services, these would be additional, as would the construction of the pond and related work. Staff recommends Council award the engineering study to SEH for the amount of$6,900 to relocate the surface water pond to City property, in conjunction with the pedestrian bridge project. Funds for this expenditure would be utilized from the Surface Water Management Fund 420-4122-303, Professional Services. iii /- //' Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works RECOMMENDATION: • Council authorize staff to sign the agreement letter with SEH to complete an engineering analysis to relocate the surface water pond adjacent to Bridgeman's, for the construction of the pedestrian bridge for the amount $6,900, to be funded from the Surface Water Management Fund, System Maintenance 420-4122-303, fessional Services. Page 6 June 10, 1996 11) Mounds View City Council MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Blanchard to Approve the Introduction of Ordinance No.586,An O;-dixiance • Relating to Automatic Fire Suppression,By Amending Title 1001.01, Subdivision 1 of the Mounds View Building Code,and to waive the reading thereof. VOTE: 5,ayes 0 nays Motion Carried F. Consideration of Engineering Proposals to Relocate Surface Water Pond. Mike Ulrich explained that at the June 3, 1996 work session,staff informed the council of the expense and long term maintenance issues relating to the construction of the pedestrian bridge within the surface water pond adjacent to the Bridgeman's property. Approximately two months ago,the city received two proposals for engineering services to move the pond and proceed through the permitting process. After reviewing the two bids,staff recommended that the engineering study be awarded to SEH in the amount of$6,900 to relocate the surface water pond to City property, in conjunction with the pedestrian bridge project. The funds for this would be utilized from the Surface Water Management fund. MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Blanchard to authorize staff to sign the agreement letter with SEH to complete an engineering analysis to relocate the surface water pond adjacent to Bridgeman's,for the--; tKi:ctiGn of the pedestrian bridge for the amount of$6,900,to be funded from the Surface Water Manages en:FtLaci, System Maintenance 420-4122-303,Professional Services. VOTE: 4 ayes 1 nay(Quick) • Y Motion Carried G. Authorization to Offer the Community Development Director position to Pamela Mr. Whiting explained that he would like to offer the Community Development Director position to Pamela Sheldon of Colorado. Ms. Sheldon has considerable experience and is very qualified. He is in the process of completing the background check and would like to obtain approval pending its satisfactory completion. MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Hankner to authorize staff to offer the Community Developmer:::Director position to Pamela Sheldon pending completion of the background check. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried REPORTS: Report of Council members: Quick: No report. Blanchard: No report. Hankner: Ms. Hankner stated she received a telephone call from Gordy Voss, former State Representative who is doing some volunteer work for the hockey arena at the Blaine Sports facility. She suggested the both Paul Erickson and himself come and give some information to the council as well as the general • public. `r°"`' REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section 1 • STAFF REPORT Report Number:4'— i251 jC.5 OUNIMReport Date: 8/27/96 ;. 111 WORKSESSION MEETING DATE v 'rt"' September 3, 1996 '3.0f'"z•Partn.00ti Item Description: Review of Surface Water Abandonment for Pedestrian Bridge Construction Administrator's Review/Recommendation: -No Comments to supplement this report X -Comments attached. Explanation/Summary(attach supplement sheets as necessary) Summary: Staff met with Steve Campbell and Rocky Keene on August 22, 1996 to review the proposals to abandon'the surface water pond adjacent to Bridgemans. Steve and Rocky will consult with Rice Creek during the week of August 26, to address any concern the Watershed District might have. They will both be in attendance at the work session to present the numerous alternatives for the pond. Zrj/Z.,4--*- .e..eY6e-/7‘...;er--,Zj (5:71/ *chael Ulrich, Director of Public Works RECOMMENDATION: III areas drain to the ditch located next to Highway 10. There is a small depression in the east end of 0 the park which will detain some of the runoff prior to discharging into the ditch and the gas station has a small detention pond which drains to the ditch. Hydrologic Model Based on Figure 1,the existing hydrologic system was modeled. The method used was HydroCAD which reproduces results of the SCS TR-20 hydrologic model. A SCS Type II storm distribution with Antecedent Moisture Condition(AMC)2 was used for all storm events. A summary of the results for key areas is shown in Table 1. Detailed computer results are in Appendix A. Proposed Systems Options Studied. • A preliminary investigations of eight options were reviewed. Below is a detailed description of each options. Table 2 compares the cost of the eight options. After the city determines which option(s) are feasible or desirable, additional review of utility conflicts and soil borings may need to be undertaken. The purpose of this report is to outline the alternatives available to the city. Option 1 - Sump Manhole-No Surge Manhole. 410 ti ' WA'VWr 414 W ,114y 410 LI Create sump catch basins at each inlet to the pond which drain to the pond. IMArL4 1,0 1.114 1-0 Excavate the existing pond to native material. 144‘ (&Vv(,(, . • Fill the pond with granular material to elevation 904.6(elevation of the outlet in the highway ditch) Connect a 12-CMP standpipe to the highway storm sewer to discharge the pond into the existing system. a This eliminates standing water. However, it does not eliminate the detention function of the area; therefore,the existing"hole" would remain. A sump inlet would be provided at the current discharge point of the two storm sewer system to remove larger sediment particles. The detention pond would be modified to treat the runoff by use of a CMP standpipe which should compensate for lost water quality treatment of the site. The pond bottom would be set at elevation 904.6 which is the invert of the outlet pipe in the highway ditch. Project Cost. $20,000 - Benefits: Cheapest option Easiest to construct Non-Benefits Bottom of pond is lower than existing normal water elevation Higher maintenance since sump manholes would need to be cleaned annually. Does not get rid of the existing hole for the pond. Will have short term ponding during rainfall events. 0 Option 2. Sump Manhole- With Surge Manhole Create sump catch basins at each inlet to the pond which drain to the pond. Excavate the existing pond to native material. Fill the pond with granular material to elevation 906.0 (elevation of the existing water in the110 pond) Connect sump manholes to surge and rate control manhole next to highway ditch This eliminates standing water. However, it does not eliminate the detention function of the area; therefore, the existing"hole"would remain. A sump inlet would be provided at the current discharge point of the two storm sewer system to remove larger sediment particles. This option allows the pond to be filled an additional 1.5 to 2 feet. This puts the bottom of the pond around elevation 906.0 which is near existing normal water elevations. The surcharge manhole would control the water that gets into the highway drainage system. If water cannot flow through the small 6-inch orifice opening,it would surge out of the manhole and into the detention area. For the most part the water quality function of the pond would be lost. However, with proper maintenance of the sump catch basins, an additional water quality pond should not be required. Project Cost. $27,000 Benefits: Cheap option Easy to construct Pond Bottom is near existing normal water elevation. Non-Benefits Higher maintenance since sump manholes would need to be cleaned annually. Does not get rid of the existing hole for the pond. Will have short term ponding during rainfall events. • Option 3. New Pipes -No Surge Manhole Remove existing storm sewer and raise the storm sewer which eliminates the need for sump manholes. Excavate the existing pond to native material. Fill the pond with granular material to elevation 904.6(elevation of the outlet in the highway ditch) Connect a 12-CMP standpipe to the highway storm sewer to discharge the pond into the existing system. This eliminates standing water by raising the storm sewers so the discharge elevation is above the invert of the outlet pipe in the highway ditch(904.58). However,it does not eliminate the detention function of the area; therefore, the existing"hole" would remain. The detention pond would be modified to treat the runoff by use of a CMP standpipe which should compensate for lost water quality treatment of the site. The pond bottom would be set at elevation 904.6 which is the invert of the outlet pipe in the highway ditch. Only difference between this option and option 1 is the maintenance of the sump inlets is eliminated. Project Cost. $88,500 47q } 4 01) : 1 1 Benefit(s): No annual sump maintenance 1111 3 Non-Benefits Does not get rid of the existing hole for the pond. • Will have short term ponding during rainfall events Option 4. New Pipes - Surge Manhole Remove existing storm sewer and raise the storm sewer which eliminates the need for sump manholes. Excavate the existing pond to native material. Fill the pond with granular material to elevation 906.0 (elevation of the existing water in the pond) Connect sump manholes to surge and rate control manhole next to highway ditch This eliminates standing water by raising the storm sewers so the discharge elevation is above the invert of the outlet pipe in the highway ditch(904.58). However,it does not eliminate the detention function of the area;therefore,the existing"hole" would remain. This option allows the pond to be filled an additional 1.5 to 2 feet. This puts the bottom of the pond around elevation 906.0 which is near existing normal water elevations. The sump manhole would control the water that gets into the highway drainage system. If water cannot flow through the small 6-inch orifice opening, it would surge out of the manhole and into the detention area. For the most part the water quality function of the pond would be lost which may require a new pond offsite. Only difference between this option and option 2 is the sump manholes are eliminated. • Project Cost. $95,500 Benefit(s): No annual sump maintenance Pond Bottom is near existing normal water elevation. Non-Benefits Does not get rid of the existing hole for the pond. Will have short term ponding during rainfall events Option 5. Bury storage including retention storage. Create sump catch basins at each inlet to the pond which drain to the pond. Excavate the existing pond to native material. Replace the lost pond volume using large CMP culverts which allows the pond to be - completely filled. - With this option the existing ponding is eliminated by using Corrugated Metal Culverts (CMP). Enough CMP's are buried in the pond location to compensate for the lost storage. This will allow the site to be filled to near the elevation of the existing land. Sump catch basins are installed prior to discharging into the underground CMP system to collect a portion of the sediment. Some of the CMP should be perforated to take advantage of the natural infiltration of the soils. For the most part the water quality function of the pond would be lost. However, with proper maintenance of the sump catch basins, an additional water quality pond should not be required. • Project Cost. $165,000 Benefits: Eliminates the Pond i( Lost storage volume remains on site Non-Benefits Expensive Higher maintenance since sump manholes would need to be cleaned annually. Hard to clean system in the future if it fills with sediment. Option 6. Bury storage including no retention storage with sumps Remove existing storm sewer and raise the storm sewer which eliminates the need for sump manholes. Excavate the existing pond to native material. Replace the lost pond volume using large CMP culverts which allows the pond to be completely filled. With this option the existing ponding is eliminated by using Corrugated Metal Culverts (CMP). Enough CMP's are buried in the pond location to compensate for the lost storage. This will allow the site to be filled to near the elevation of the existing land. Some of the CMP should be perforated to take advantage of the natural infiltration of the soils. This eliminates the need for sump manholes by raising the storm sewers so the discharge elevation is above the invert of the outlet pipe in the highway ditch(904:58). For the most part the water quality function of the pond would be lost which may require a new pond offsite. Project Cost. $233,000 • Benefits: Eliminates the Pond Lost storage volume remains on site No sump manhole maintenance Non-Benefits Expensive Hard to clean system in the future if it fills with sediment. Option 7. New storm sewer Remove existing storm sewer and raise the storm sewer which allows the storm sewer to be jacked under Long Lake Road without disturbing existing utilities. Extend the existing south storm sewer to near the east entrance to the shopping center. Fill the existing pond l With this option the entire storm sewer is replaced and rerouted to a pond located in the northeast corner of Bronson Drive and Long Lake Road(Area EW-5 in the Local Water Management Plan). Due to utility conflicts in Long Lake Road, the existing storm sewer system would need to be raised. The option will eliminate the existing pond. This option does require offsite pond excavation to mitigate for the increase in water volume sent to the pond on the east side of Long Lake Road. The pond currently has a home which has little or no freeboard next to it. Lost water quality benefits would be mitigated in the pond. • 4 Project Cost. $139,000 Benefits: • Eliminates the Pond No underground storage No sump manhole maintenance Non-Benefits Requires work outside the Mounds View Square site Easement acquisition may be required in the ponding area Possibility for increased flooding in the ponding area Pipe need to be jacked under Long Lake Road Option 8 Leave the pond as is. Project Cost. $40,000 Benefits: Existing system is left unchanged Non-Benefits Requires extra screening as part of the bridge project Poor access once bridge is built Creates aesthetic problems Table 2 - Cost comparison of options Options Cost 1 - Sump Manhole- No Surge Manhole $ 20,000 2 - Sump Manhole-With Surge Manhole $ 27,000 3 -New Pipes -No Surge Manhole $ 88,500 4 -New Pipes - Surge Manhole $ 95,500 5 -Bury storage including retention storage $165,000 6 -Bury storage including no retention storage for sumps $233,000 7 -New storm sewer $139,000 8 -Do nothing $40,000 Permits All most all option will require a permit from Rice Creek Watershed District(RCWD). A preliminary meeting was held with RCWD to determine what requirements they would be looking for. The following assumption resulted from the meeting. • 5 . _ AX p�x fDG£it04p SJR . .. +� j. X is z r F o � X 4► m� � . / /- y „.2,.. . „,.. ,.. .„: , ,, _ , ,,,t9:,, 0.,,,,,tr- ._ ..., ..,- .. . , . ,f: , ;. , . - -;(..,. :. ,.... :; • .-,c.' /„ie.. -' . ss : a _a' .. rt� .� 0 .s .4- X k ? < 1 - • � 7j � -�� 't -...:,-tr ,,.,� _ ''....-2., _> f.i:7d f / i '° X006 C € � . * ., • a id 1 t s ti A- , SG.�j l `fj v•' r v. $Sc'>�.�t"'_ � '� • B • ] •� « f�..?fL ° ' i • lit �.. `may„• {p�ar + repi 1 f J __� � # 1:,-, -ri,i''.. - ,:- , . ir71,12,41.71.14.:ii) •6;•,. A,'e!:.•..•71. :‘,,;c.'•.;;:i, 5>-',.-Alzal_lo:4-4.:';34 ,',..,' ,/-: ,'-: ,://4": 4, _ ;;',',44:.:,;,.::'....:.„;,—:-/27.' , ft f' ,„, r.: • t •l•'.a .i,3 t,Ia:. .' ,-X ` y, ,. .111 i • Y4 .1-1. -f ---� t• i;.. 6,-.(11--'i /• iW j o, -i �•r.,•^ -a' -• ms �& t 3 avA. 1 f 0 � � -' .•qui✓-eSl/:t- J� ,. .•� ` %`� h- 41.11111111..ri ' - c. M arX'-. ` ILVER VlE1.pA( t e. . a./ , �� EE �F tt �,�y�'t Vii. • � Yr ..i. /r.J-7--."7-:‘...':!:-;;;- :,•';';'. ,i:- ' A aT �f a C'>"Ll ^ sA.. O ^ A A Os P7 C9 t0 A .<.. ea C! !�f C+7 MCI N O M -.?' .r./ ¢tl;'t1'., N et <O <O P. A N N O r A N N CO CO O O • : r; !, ; 7 JJ ao ro ao fo A m ro v r� to w of ao a� o� to 00 ,� ;; ; #. Z v m a a .Itif 'fes' 2` .� r t. " • i.:..7:7“'-: _ ', '`?, .,,i 4:T /. Sr '? of a! tD CO A CA t0 <O CO M s- a' r N fr. t• 1- CO (O M CI 0 CO CD N CO to A N o N O is N / � Q /A o •� " j € RJ04 al ..01 ce) * ultc1� o0CoOrNCIetCOto 0 zrf cr, REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section STAFF REPORT , Report Number. AT. . p; Report Date: 8/28/96 4110ii WORKSESSION MEETING DATE <, September 3, 1996 Item Description: Discussion of Options for Obtaining Easements for Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge Administrator's Review/Recommendation: -No Comments to supplement this report -Comments attached. Explanation/Summary(attach supplement sheets as necessary) Summary: This report provides a summary of our progress on the project to build a pedestrian bridge over Highway 10 at Long Lake Road, and presents options for how to handle obtaining easements for the bridge abutment on the north side of Highway 10. The City is pursuing construction of a pedestrian bridge over Highway 10 at Long Lake Road. A bridge design has been developed by BRW, a consulting firm, and a citizens committee. Progress on this project depends on obtaining easements from adjacent property owners for the location of bridge abutments and for construction. A time schedule has been developed which anticipates completion of the bridge in July or Illgust, 1997. The time schedule includes: . ■ Submittal of preliminary design for bridge to MnDOT completed ■ Response from MnDOT end of September ■ Preparation of final design by BRW Oct-Nov • Submittal of final design to MnDOT Dec 1 • Response from MnDOT - end of January • Addressing MnDOT questions Feb 1-15 • Preparing bid package, letting bids, awarding contract end of March ■ Construction April-August MnDOT oversees the bidding and construction process, since the bridge will span a State highway. In order to meet this time schedule, it is necessary to complete acquisition of the easements between December 1 and 15. Three easements are involved: a construction easement on the south side of Highway 10 on property owned by Wildwood Manor, and a continuing easement for the bridge abutment on both the'south and north side of Highway 10. The property on the south side is owned by Ramsey County for the Mounds View Library. The property on the north side is part of Mounds View Square, a shopping center owned by Mounds View Square Associates L.L.P and represented by Mr. Ed Paster of Paster Enterprises. IlAtwood Manor: An easement is needed for construction only. After the bridge is built, the bridge ttment will be in the right-of-way. Mr. Russ Klebe, who is the building manager for Wildwood Manor, referred our request for a construction easement to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), since this department holds the mortgage on the property. We have received a copy of a letter from Mayor and City Council Pedestrian Bridge -Highway 10 August 28, 1996 Page 2 Maryann Saraurer to Russ Klebe stating that HUD has no objections to this proposal. Ms. Sarauer has suggested that if new signage or security lighting is necessary, Wildwood Manor negotiate with the City to pay for the cost. She also offers as an alternative that the development's Reserve for Replacement account be used. (A copy of the letter is attached.) (The issue of signage and security lighting was raised by Russ Klebe in his original letter to HUD.) Ramsey County Library: We have sent an easement agreement to the Ramsey County Library Board and to the County Commissioners. The Library Board requested some minor revisions which have been made and returned. Final approval of this item is on the County Commissioners' agenda for September 3. We do not anticipate any problems with obtaining approval for this easement. The Library Board indicated that it was very supportive of the project. Mounds View Square: We have met with Mr. Ed Paster and Mr. John Streeter regarding the easement on the north side of the highway. The bridge abutment would be located in an area now occupied by a detention pond. The City Engineer is evaluating whether this pond can be eliminated, or relocated on the City's park property east of Long Lake Road. We are confident that an alternative is available. The property owners have reviewed the draft easement agreement and have requested certain variances in parking and signage requirements, and a business improvement partnership loan for new parking lot lighting • as a condition of signing the easement. The property owners are concerned about the effect of the bridge placement on the visibility of the shopping center and its sign. They also desire to add retail square footage and at least one dinner style restaurant, to replace Bridgeman's Ice Cream Restaurant. There is also a possibility that they will want to replace Hardee's Restaurant with a second dinner style restaurant at some point in the future. The addition of these uses raises a question about parking requirements. Staff is of the opinion that the addition of the restaurant uses would be beneficial to the community, and would broaden the options available to Mounds View residents and to travelers on Highway 10. They would also encourage more traffic to the retail businesses in the shopping center. We have been advised by the City Attorney that the approval of a variance cannot be guaranteed through an easement agreement, but the variance request must go through the normal process. Several options are available as to how to proceed at this point, keeping in mind the time frame for the bridge project. Option 1. Use the Switchback Design for the Bridge: One of the designs considered for the bridge would not require the use of any private land on the north side of Highway 10, but would fit in existing highway right-of- way. This design uses a switchback rather than a circular ramp. Staff regards this design as undesirable both for the City and for the property owner of Mounds View Square. It will require pedestrians to walk a considerable distance away from the intersection to use the ramp, and it is anticipated that people will avoid the walk and continue to cross at the intersection. The ramp will also block the view of the Mounds View Square shopping center for a much longer distance than will be the case with the circular ramp. Staff does not recommend this option. • • • Mayor and City Council Pedestrian Bridge -Highway 10 August 28, 1996 age 3 • Option 2. Begin Condemnation Proceedings for the Easement: It is possible for the City Council to proceed with condemnation of an easement to allow for construction of the bridge in the area now occupied by the detention pond. The City Attorney has explained that there are two methods for condemning property: conventional and"quick take." We believe that the only one which would work with our time frame is the"quick take" method. The procedure is as follows: ■ City Council passes a resolution authorizing condemnation. a Notice is served on the property owner and the City files a petition with the Ramsey County District Court to commence condemnation. ■ District Court appoints three commissioners to handle the condemnation case. (There is an opportunity for the City and the property owner to attempt to agree on who the commissioners are.) ■ Commissioners are expected to answer two questions: - Is this condemnation for public purposes? - What is the value of the property being condemned? , Once the value is determined, the City has to pay that amount. If improvements or tenants have to be ■ located, we have to pay relocation costs. ■ The City has the option of withdrawing the petition if we do not agree with the price, but we would have to pay all the property owners' costs incurred up to this point. ■ The property is conveyed to the City in 90 days. •ne City Attorney suggested that the City may want to get a preliminary appraisal before we start this process so we have some idea of what the cost will be. The City Attorney's office can supply a list of appraisers who do this type of work, if so desired by City Council. Although this process allows for the City to proceed without the consent of the property owner, it does involve court-appointed commissioners determining the value of the property. The impact of the City's action on Mounds View Square could enter into this determination. How this impact is characterized will depend in part on what other actions the City is taking to address issues raised by the property owner. In order to preserve good relations with the property owners, attention needs to be given to the issues they have raised to see if there are ways to resolve them to the benefit of both the City and the property owners. There may be other options which would avoid a condemnation proceeding. Staff recommends that this option only be pursued in conjunction with either Option 3, or Options -tA and 4B, to demonstrate the City's willingness to address the issues raised by the property owners. Option 3. Deal with the Property Owners'Request Through a PUD: We have suggested to the property owners that they apply for a PUD designation on the property so that the overall development plan for Mounds View Square could be evaluated and parking and signage provisions could be addressed. We have also provided them with a time line for this type of application, given the notice requirements and meeting schedule maintained by the City. This schedule assumed submittal by August 30, and shows an effective date for the PUD ordinance on December 12. The property owners could grant an easement contingent on the o-.utcome of the PUD review, with an agreement that no bridge construction occur until the conclusion of the review. The property owner would know the City Council's action on the PUD review by November , with enough time to execute the easement. We have not received a submittal for a PUD designation as of this date. Staff regards this as the most effective option for addressing the property owners'concerns, but recognizes that the time frame is tight and it depends on the willingness of the property owner to submit a PUD application. • Mayor and City Council Pedestrian Bridge -Highway 10 August 28, 1996 Page 4 III Option 4A. Initiate an Amendment to the Zoning Code to Allow Parking Reductions Based on Off-Setting Uses: The City Council could initiate an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow parking requirements to take into account uses which offset each other because the demand pattern for parking is at different times. This approach has been used successfully in other jurisdictions, and would allow shopping centers such as Mounds View Square and others to apply. It is to the City's advantage to encourage a mix of uses in our retail centers, to expand and enliven our retail base. Having this tool available, subject to approval by the Planning Commission, would be very helpful and may address concerns regarding parking from Mounds View Square. Option 4B. Evaluate a variance request for signage at Mounds View Square based on visual simulation: The property owners are faced with the dilemma of granting an easement for an improvement which they feel may have a detrimental effect on the visibility of Mounds View Square. The property owners are seeking a variance request to increase the signage allowed on the site to address this problem. Under usual circumstances, a variance request could only be evaluated once the bridge is built, thus leaving the owners with no way to resolve the dilemma. The consulting firm which acts as the City Engineer has the technology available to simulate how the bridge will appear, superimposed on existing improvements, in three dimensions as though you were viewing the bridge and the shopping center from the highway (or any other vantage point). Staff is suggesting that a variance application be evaluated based on a visual simulation, and a decision rendered by the Planning Commission which could be made contingent on the bridge being built. Staff is recommending that Option 4A and 4B be pursued This option may be the easiest to accomplish Ill since the City Council can initiate Option 4A, and the applicant has indicated a desire to file a variance application (Option 4B). The question remains who will pay for the visual simulation. Suggested Action: City Council indicate which option or options you want to pursue, as summarized below: • Use the switchback design for the bridge. • Begin condemnation proceedings to obtain the easement for the bridge from Mounds View Square. • Deal with the property owners' request through a PUD. • Initiate an amendment to the zoning code to allow parking reductions based on off-setting uses. • Evaluate a variance request for signage at Mounds View Square based on visual simulation. 0 • . 4111 tom- Russ M Kiebe Manager • Wildwood Manor • 2559 Moundsview Drive Mounds View MN 55112 • Dear Mr. Klebe: • • Subject: 092-E?109 Wildwood Manor Mounds View, Minnesota • HUD has reviewed your August 2, 1996 letter requesting • easement approval to develop and build a pedestrian .bridge at the corner of the Wildwood Manor Apartment property line. • HUD has no objections to the proposal. We recommend, if new signage or security lighting becomes necessary, that Wildwood Manor negotiate with the City of Mounds View to pay the cost. • If this is not possible, the project could request III monies from its Reserve for Replacement account to cover the cost as part of a capital improvement. If you have any questions, please contact Maryann Sarauer at (612) 370-3086/FAX #370-3090/TDD x370-3185 . Very sincerely yours, . MAA.Iro,;( 5 ,2- 477_, Howard Goldman, Director Multifamily Housing Division cc: Pamela Sheldon Community Development Director City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View t'INN ''..5112-1499 III • Edi DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF SHOPPING CENTERS g) 27 University Ave.•St.Paul.MN 55114-1677•612-646-7901 • Fax 612-646-1389 gust 1, 193" III. . CENTRAL PLAZA 45th&Central Ave.N.E. • Ms. Pamela Sheldon . Minneapolis,Minnesota Community Development Director . City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 CRYSTAL SHOPPING CENTER Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 Bass Lake Road&West Broadway Crystal.Minnesota Dear Pamela: When Moundsview Square Shopping Center was constructed, the DODDWAY SHOPPING Com!lhlt City approved a parking variance that allowed 550 parking spaces. Smith&Dodd Road West St.Paul.Minnesota When Hardee's Restaurant and the .dumpster enclosures were constructed, the existing parking was reduced to 494 spaces, which is the present count. LEXINGTON PLAZA SHOPPES • Lexington&Larpenteur If two new restaurants were constructed of 6,000 s.f. each, the Roseville.Minnesota Bridgeman's Restaurant building of 4,000 s.f. would be demolished and replaced with a 6,000 s.f. building. This 2,000 s.f. would theoretically reduce existing parking by 5 parking spaces (2,000 -4- • 400). If the Hardee's Restaurant (3,800 s.f.) was demolished and MENDOTA PLAZA State Hwy. 110&Dodd Road a restaurant of 6,000 s.f. replaced it, this would also theoretically • Mendota Heights.Minnesota reduce existing parking by 5 spaces. Therefore, the total parking variance that Moundsview Square MocrNDsvtEly SQUAREAssociates requests is a net reduction of 10 spaces from existing Hwy. 10&Long Lake Road parking, plus 31 parking spaces that code requires for additional Mounds View,Minnesota restaurant space of 4,200 s.f., for a total of 41 spaces. We would need-a variance to allow existing parking to be reduced from 494 spaces to 434 Qt.JOa,..-J anal. 3 gua;ant`, that restaurant space at NORTHWAY SHOPPING CENTER Moundsview Square Shopping Center can be increased by 4,200 s.f. State Hwv. '_3&Woodland somewhere on the Shopping Center site. Circle Pines.Minnesota Yours truly, MOUNDSVIEW SQUARE ASSOCIATES, LLP. SIBLEY PLAZA West 7th Street&Davem / �/J i7 St.Paul.Minnesota i.-�, /� /��� ) John H. Streeter Construction Manager SOUTH VIEW SHOPPING CENTER • Southview Blvd.& 13th Ave.S JHS/Iah South St.Paul.Minnesota Enclosure cc: Edward J. Paster eakt . e..d ) DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF SHOPPING CENTERS 1 9'2'.27 University Ave.•St.Paul,MN 55114-1677.612-646-7901 • Fax 612-646-1389 gust , III CENTRAL PLAZA 45th&Central Ave.N.E. Ms. Pamela Sheldon • Minneapolis,Minnesota Community Development Director City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 CRYSTAL SHOPPING CENTER Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 Bass Lake Road&West Broadway Crystal,Minnesota RE: Moundsview Square Shopping Center • Dear Pamela: • • DODDWAY SHOPPING CENTER • Smith&Dodd Road At our last meeting at your office on Wednesday, August 7, it was West St.Paul.Minnesota determined that even if we did sign up for a PUD, if Planning and Council did not agree to the request made by Moundsview Square Associates, we would not get the items requested. LEXINGTON PLAZA SHOPPES Lexington&Larpenceur It was also determined that we would forward our requests to Roseville.Minnesota Planning and Council without a PUD and that you would forward us a time line. 111 Please find attached a letter addre NIE.VDOTA PLAZA sled to Ms. Cathy Bennett dated State Hwy. 110&Dodd Road May 31, 1996. This letter has a list of requests which include Mendota Heights.Minnesota variances and a 2 percent loan for a term of 8 years, for a total of $55,000.00 for additional site lighting. Calculation of retail square footage will follow under separate cover. MOUNDSVIEW SQUARE Hwy. 10&Long Lake Road Mounds View.Minnesota Thank you for your time and effort concerning this matter and as always, if you have any questions, please contact the writer. Yours truly, NORTHWAY SHOPPING CENTER State Hwy. 23 &Woodland Circle Pines,Minnesota MOUNDS VIEW SQUARE ASSOCIATES, LLP. N . JoWn H. Streeter ���JJJ SIBLEY PLAZA West 7th Street&Davern Construction Manager Sc.Paul.Minnesota JHS/lah Enclosure IlkTHVIEW SHOPPING CENTER cc: CathyBennett Blvd. & 13th Ave. S South St. Paul.Minnesota Chuck Whiting Edward J. Paster • • ey)tate DEVFI_OPNIF.NTA,\i� MANAGEMENT SIIOFPING C EN:TI:RS 2227 University Ave.•St. MN S;I11.1/.77•tI2d.1/..71)nl • F.tN 612•a•u.•I ;vi enitlevetaa, y 31, 1996 • CENTRAL PLAZA Ms. Cathy Bennett 45th Central Ave. N.E. Minneapolis.Minnesota Economic Development Coordinator City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 CRYSTAL SHOPPING CENTER Bass Lake Road 3c West Broadway Dear Cathy: Crystal.Minnesota Moundsview Square Associates requests_the following: DODDWAY SHOPPING CENTER When the pond is reconstructed to facilitate a pedestrian bridge at the Smith&Dodd Road proposed bridge location at the southeast corner of the Moundsview Nest St.Paul.Minnesota Square Shopping'Center property, the city shall guarantee that the redesign shall be adequate to contain, transport or otherwise address any water run off and the city shall assume sole responsibility for any LEXINGTON PLAZAStiOPPES water run off now or in the future and will hold harmless Moundsview Lexington&Larpenteur Square Associates of any liability that may arise therefrom or from the Roseville.Minnesota . use of the bridge. We request variances on the following items: NIENDOTA PLAZA 1 . A • Stare Hwy. 110&Dodd Road parking variance as necessary to construct a new restaurant at Mendota Heights.Minnesota the existing Bridgeman's location and the existing Hardee's location (see drawing attached). 2. A variance to relocate and increase the size of the pylon sign, necessitated by the installation of the pedestrian bridge. MOUNDSVIEW SQUARE 3. A parking variance for constructingan addition to the shopping Hwy. 10&Long Lake Road p p g Mounds View.Minnesota center (see drawing attached). 4. We request a low interest loan of $55,000.00, at an interest rate of 2%, for a term of 8 years for new parking lot lighting. The additional lighting will be installed to upgrade the shopping center, enhance the NORTHWAY SHOPPING CENTER new look of the bridge and improve the safety of the public. State Hwy. 23 g:Woodland Circle Pines,Minnesota As always, should you have any questions, please contact me. Respectfully yours, SIBLEY PLAZA • West 7th Street&Davern MOUND VIEW SQUARE ASSOCIATES, LLP St.Paul. Minnesota SOUTHVIEW SHOPPING CES Edward J. Paster Southview Blvd.& 13th Ave.S Managing Partner • South Sc.Paul.Minnesota EJP/Ilp ©IN DP REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section I STAFF REPORT Report Number: Q'I�JJ ,SGC, Report Date: 9/9/96 • % CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE �(. 'r'�7 September 9, 1996 Special Order of Bus. oB`°jt'PartneKN'"Qs Consent Agenda Public Hearings X Council Business Item Description: Pedestrian Bridge Surface Water Pond Administrator's Review/Recommendation: -No Comments to supplement this report X -Comments attached. Explanation/Summary(attach supplement sheets as necessary) Summary: Staff spoke with Axis from BRW Inc. to request reviewal of the proposals submitted by SEH for the removal of the surface water pond adjacent to the Bridgeman's property. Of the first two options available, Aris preferred option two as this would allow an additional 1.5 to 2 feet of fill to the pond. Aris further suggested that approximately an additional $3,000 be added to the design to allow for some type of decorative rocks to placed around the stand pipes. This would enhance the aesthetics of the pond. At this point, staff would request authorization to negotiate design and construction engineering and management of the project with either SEH or BRW. Staff is in the process of scheduling a meeting with the wvo firms to discuss the best method of handling this part of the bridge project. Staff will seek Council's SiProof the additional project upon the completion of the discussions with both firms. val r,,, _ Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to negotiate services for design, construction engineering and management to implement option no. 2 for the removal of the surface water pond adjacent to the Bridgeman's property and present the ^ontract to Council for consideration. Page 4 4110 September 9, 1996 Mounds View City Council Mr. Colmark explained that for every dollar that is collected from Tax Increment Financing they apply it to the taxes in the school district and the state reduces the general education revenue for that. He does not know specifically what that revenue would be. C. Consideration of Approval of New Fencing for the Silver View and City Hall Athletic Fields. Mr.Whiting noted that a discussion was held between council and staff at a work session in regard to adding new outfield fencing for Silver View and City Hall Park athletic fields. Three bids were received. The low bidder was Town&Country Fence in the amount of$25,716.00. Staff is requesting Council approval to remove the current fencing and replace them with new 10 foot high fencing at Silver View Park and City Hall Park. The project would be funded with Park Improvement Funds,monies received as Park Dedication fees. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Blanchard to award the bid for fence replacement to Town&Country Fence in the amount of$25,716.00. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried D. Surface Water Abandonment for Pedestrian Bridge Construction. Mr.Ulrich,Director of Public Works,explained that at the last council work session,Rocky Keen and Steve Campbell were present to discuss eight options for the removal of the storm water pond for the proposed pedestrian bridge. The options ranged in cost from$20,000 to$223,000. After some discussion amongst the staff,it was felt either option#1 or#2 would be the most economical and preferable way of removing the storm water pond; this was also felt to be the best options by BRW who indicated that Option#2 would be the preferable option. They indicated,however that they would like approximately $3,000 added to the$27,000 to include some decorative rock and structure around the protruded corrugated metal pipes to provide a more aesthetically pleasing situation. Staff requested Council authorization to proceed with a meeting with the two engineering firms to discuss what type of arrangements can be made in regard to designing,etc. of the project. Ms.Trude asked if Option#2 will reduce the cost of the bridge. Mr.Ulrich explained that if the pond were to stay and was reconstructed to function,it would cost approximately$40,000. (This cost would not be incurred if the council authorized Option#2.) Ms.Hankner asked if this cost would be in addition to the$180,000 which has already been committed for the project. If so,she wondered where the additional money would come from. Mr.Ulrich stated it is proposed to come from the Surface Water Management Fund. Mr.Quick asked if the city had an alternative way of designing the bridge. Mr.Ulrich stated the alternate method would be utilizing a switch back design. If this were approved, • Option#2 would not be necessary. Page 5 September 9, 1996 Mounds View City Council MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Linke to Approve Option#2 and to Authorize Staff to negotiate with the two engineering firms to determine who will do what work and to authorize the expenditure from Surface Water Management Funds up to$30,000. Ms.Hankner noted that this is an over expenditure of the project and perhaps the city should consider calling off the project rather than trying to spend more money to make up for things that were not done previously. Ms. Trude stated she feels this is an enhancement that many people in the community would like to see even if they don't support the bridge. This would enhance the appearance on Highway 10's business district. Mr. Quick noted that he had suggested removing the pond at the time that Long Lake Road was reconstructed but he did not receive support of this at that time. He is not in favor of adding the extra cost to the pedestrian bridge project. Ms.Blanchard stated she would prefer that the city did not have to spend the additional money,however if the city were to approve the switch back design,she is afraid the bridge would not be used and it is not feasible to build the spiral design with the pond below it. VOTE: 3 ayes 2 nays(Quick/Hankner) Motion Carried • E. Consideration of Removing Resolution No.4993,Authorizing the Rental of the Bel Rae Facility for Select Events to Private Users on an Interim Basis From the Table. MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Blanchard to Remove Resolution No.4993,Authorizing the Rental of the Bel Rae Facility for Select Events to Private Users on an Interim Basis From the Table. VOTE: 4 ayes 1 nay(Hankner) Motion Carried • F. Consideration of Resolution No.4993,Authorizing the Rental of the Bel Rae Facility to Private Users on an Interim Basis. Ms. Cathy Bennett,Economic Development Coordinator,explained that when this item was tabled,the Council directed staff to prepare estimated costs and revenues for 1996 for the rental of the Bel Rae to private users and also to review with the City Attorney the option of allowing the consumption of alcohol for private events. Ms.Bennett noted that the City Attorney felt the best way to allow alcohol use at the facility is to issue temporary liquor licenses to private vendors that already hold on-sale liquor licenses in Mounds view and the adjacent communities. In discussing this with Mounds View's insurance provider it was felt this option would remove the liability burden from the City to the license holder. The city would also require proof of dram shop insurance with the temporary license. It was also recommended that the city also have the option of requiring the hiring of a police officer for events that involve liquor 1111 (this would be up to the Police Chief's discretion). CITY CF REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section STAFF REPORT- Report Number. ::ice ...1�� f v'I �` Report Date: 9/19/96 0 ,. CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE — �"�iY% September 23, 1996 — Special Order of Bus. '°8iesr•Parire�tiiQs Consent Agenda Public Hearings X Council Business Item Description: Consideration of Resolution No. 5009 initiating eminent domain proceedings and the use of the quick take process under Chapter 117 of the Minnesota State Statutes for an easement on a portion of the property located at 2535-2585 Highway 10 and identified by PIN#07-30-23-11-0079 for construction of a pedestrian bridge over Highway 10. Administrator's Review/Recommendation: -No Comments to supplement this report -Comments attached. Explanation/Summary(attach supplement sheets as necessary) Summary: The City is pursuing construction of a pedestrian bridge over Highway 10 at Long Lake Road. A bridge design has been developed by BRW, a consulting firm, and a citizens committee. Progress on this project depends on obtaining easements from adjacent property owners for the location of bridge abutments and for construction. One of the easements is for the bridge abutment on the north side of the highway on property which is part of Mounds View Square shopping center. Staff has discussed acquiring an easement with the property owners. The owners are concerned about the effect of the bridge placement on the visibility of the siopping center and its sign. They have asked whether the City could, in exchange, approve a sign variance as 11 as the addition of square footage to the shopping center. We have been advised by the City Attorney that the approval of a variance cannot be guaranteed through an easement agreement, but the variance request must go through the normal process. At your study session on September 3, 1996, staff presented several options for acquiring this easement. Staff is suggesting that the City Council pursue two of these options at the same time, to assure that the easement will be obtained within the necessary time frame. Option 1: The property owners intend to submit an application for a conditional use permit regarding joint use of parking, and variances for a new center identification sign and for revised parking ratios. We have estimated that the variance requests could be before Planning Commission, and the CUP before City Council by the end of November or beginning of December. Our consultant working on the bridge, Sabri Ayaz, has told us that the easements need to be acquired by December 15. This schedule will allow the property owners to know the decision on their requests in time to grant an easement, before the December 15 deadline. Option 2: As insurance at this point, the City Council would initiate eminent domain proceedings for acquiring the easement using the"quick take" process. This process takes 90 days, and once initiated, will result in the City receiving the easement. A resolution has been prepared authorizing the acquisition of this easement. '4AVILL ALLg-in ----, . 'ela Sheldon, Community Developent Director itri COMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the acquisition of property by proceedings in eminent domain. CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 5009 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY PROCEEDINGS IN EMINENT DOMAIN Section 1. Recitals. • WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View(the"City") wishes to construct a pedestrian bridge across Trunk Highway 10 in the City to provide for the safe and efficient movement of pedestrians across that road; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the plans and specifications for construction of the pedestrian bridge. In order to complete construction of the bridge in accordance with those plans, it is necessary for the City to acquire the real estate easements described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Subject Property"); and, WHEREAS, the City has made attempts to negotiate with the owner of the Subject Property and has failed to agree upon terms of the purchase; and, • WHEREAS, the owner of the Subject Property is requesting a substantially larger purchase price than the City believes is reasonable; and, WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that acquisition of the Subject Property through the exercise of eminent domain is necessary for the completion of the pedestrian bridge and that such an exercise of eminent domain would be for a public purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council hereby authorizes the City's staff and the City Attorney, Kennedy& Graven, to take all necessary actions to acquire the Subject Property through eminent domain proceedings and through use of the"quick take" procedures, as described in Minnesota Statutes 117.042. Adopted this 23rd day of September, 1996. AM Je ' e 1 ayor ATTEST: (seal) Chuck Whiting, City Cler Administrator 1111 The undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Mounds 0 View, Minnesota, hereby certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution on file and of record in the offices of the City, which resolution was duly adopted by the Council at a regular meeting of the Council held on September 23, 1996. Said meeting was duly called and regularly held at the place at which meetings of the Council are regularly held and the meeting was open to the public, a quorum of the Council being present and acting throughout the meeting. Council member Trude introduced and moved the adoption of the foregoing resolution, which was presented in writing and was either read in full or the reading thereof was dispensed with by unanimous consent of the Council, which motion was seconded by Councilmember R7 anrharrl . A vote being taken upon the motion, the following members of the Council voted in favor of adopting the resolution: Jerry Linke, Mayor Phyllis Blanchard, Councilmember ` lie Trude Councilmember and the following voted'against the same: Gary Quick, Councilmember Sue Hankner, Councilmember 1.Y ereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was thereafter approved by e: c:.rtiori by the mayor, as attested by the undersigned. The foregoing resolution remains in full force and effect, and no action has bene taken by the Council which would in any way alter, :mend, or repeal the resolution. III . WITNESS MY HAND officially as the CityClerk of the City of Mounds View, &rnesot.. this 23 day of September 1996. 620:4‘).6i-7 Chuck Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator City of Mounds View, Minnesota ( esi) 111 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Subject Property That part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 30, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota, lying northeasterly of the northeasterly right of way line of the 225 foot wide right of way of Trunk Highway 10, as currently established, westerly of the westerly right of way line of the 66 foot wide right of way of Long Lake Road and southerly of the line described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of said northeasterly right of way of Trunk Highway 10 and said westerly right of way of Long Lake Road; thence northerly along said westerly right of way line of Long Lake Road for 121.00 feet; thence deflecting to the left 90 degrees for 87.24 feet; thence southwesterly and perpendicular to said northeasterly right of way line of Trunk Highway 10 to a point on said right of way line of Truck Highway 10 145 feet northeasterly of the point of beginning and there terminating. • • Page 5 • September 23, 1996 Mounds View City Council MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Blanchard to Approve the Introduction of Ordinance No. 96-591, Relating to Licensing,Amending Title 500, Chapter 502 and 503,Sections 502.03,502.06,502.07,503.03,503.06 and 503.07 by Adding New Subdivisions to the Mounds View Municipal Code. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried C. Consideration of Resolution No.5011,Authorizing Acquisition of Real Property. Ms.Bennett explained that currently the Mounds View Economic Development Authority owns the Bel Rae building. The EDA is a separate corporate body, legally and politically,from the City of Mounds View. City Attorney,Bob Long,has recommended that the City legally acquire the property to enable full authority when managing and administering recreation programs and special and private events. By having the same entity own and operate the facility,double liability exposure is not an issue. Mr.Long has prepared a Quit Claim Deed which would transfer ownership to the City of Mounds View,per approval of the resolution. MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Blanchard to Approve Resolution No.5011,Authorizing Acquisition of Real Property. • VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried D. Consideration of Resolution No.5004,Approving a Minor Subdivision to Create Two Lots for Erik Anderson at 8021 Eastwood Road. Ms.Pam Sheldon,Community Development Director, explained that Mr.Anderson is requesting a minor subdivision to create two lots from property located at 8021 Eastwood Road. She noted that property in an R-1 district must be a minimum of 75 feet wide and 11,000 square feet;both properties as proposed would meet these requirements. The applicant has paid the$100.00 Park Dedication Fee and the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the subdivision. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Hankner to Approve Resolution No. 5004,Approving a Minor Subdivision to Create Two Lots for Erik Anderson at 8021 Eastwood Road. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried E. Consideration of Resolution No.5009 Initiating Eminent Domain Proceedings and the Use of Quick Take Process Under Chapter 117 of the Minnesota State Statutes for an Easement on a • Portion of the Property Located at 2535-2585 Highway 10 and Identified by PIN#07-30-23-11-0079 for Construction of a Pedestrian Bridge Over Highway 10. Ms. Sheldon noted that obtaining easements from adjacent property owners is one of the steps necessary to allow for the construction of the pedestrian bridge over Highway 10. One of the easements is for the bridge abutment on the North side of the highway on the Mounds View Square shopping center property. Staff has been working with the owners to obtain this easement. The owners, in exchange,have asked for a sign variance and the addition of square footage to the shopping center. Page 6 September 23, 1996 41110 Mounds View City Council Mr.Long,City Attorney has informed staff that the owners would need to go through the normal process of a variance approval. To assure that the easement will be obtained within the necessary time frame,the City Council will need to initiate eminent domain proceedings for acquiring the easement through a 90-day "quick take"process. MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Blanchard to Approve Resolution No.5009,Initiating Eminent Domain Proceedings and the Use of Quick Take Process Under Chapter 117 of the Minnesota State Statutes for an Easement on a Portion of the Property Located at 2535-2585 Highway 10 and Identified by PIN#07-30- 23-11-0079 for Construction of a Pedestrian Bridge Over Highway 10. VOTE: 3 ayes 2 nays(Hankner/Quick) Motion Carried F. Consideration of Resolution 5010 Electing to Continue Participation in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program Under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. Ms. Sheldon explained that this Resolution will renew Mounds View's commitment to participate in the program and will enable the city to ask for grant funding under a number of different programs. MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Hankner to Approve Resolution No.5010,Electing to Continue Participation in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program Under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. • VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried G. Consideration of Purchase of Two Tax Forfeited Properties. Ms. Sheldon explained that the City has been notified that two contiguous properties are up for tax forfeiture. The city has in the past purchased property in this area and it is staffs feeling that purchasing the additional lots could present a possibility of completing some redevelopment under the housing replacement program. The property could be purchased using tax increment financing that is available to the city. MOTION/SECOND: Hankner/Quick to recommend to the Economic Development Administration approval of purchasing the two tax forfeited properties for the Housing Replacement Program. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried H. Consideration of Resolution Numbers 5016 and 5017 Consenting to the Transfer of Control of and Certain Ownership Interests in a Cable Television Franchise to Continental Cable and U S West. Mr. Whiting explained that he received notification of the pending transfer of Meredith Cable to Continental Cable and U S West. Ms. Trude noted that rates will not be increased as a result of the transfer,nor will programs or customer • service be affected. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Trude to Approve Resolutions 5016 and 5017 Consenting to the Transfer of 4110 Control of and Certain Ownership Interests in a Cable Television Franchise to Continental Cable and U S Item No. _ Staff Report No. '`T (i5810, Meeting Date: 2/3/97 III Type of Business: Work Session W7CC: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing CA:Consent Agenda;CS:Camel!'Primness City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Pedestrian Bridge Over Highway 10 Date of Report: January 30, 1997 Summary: Staff is taking this opportunity to provide a history of and status report on the pedestrian bridge across Highway 10 at the Long Lake Road intersection. Several steps must be completed for the bridge to be constructed this summer, which is the current schedule. These are described under Tasks in Progress later in this report. Background: History of Grant Application: For many years there has been discussion regarding the fact that Highway 10 cuts the City in half. 40 Safe accessibility between the two halves is restricted. Movement to and from destinations such as schools, parks, the library, businesses and restaurants is difficult especially for senior citizens and youth who walk or ride bicycles, as opposed to driving. There have been discussions for some time about building a bridge across Highway 10 to improve access for youth and all walkers and bicyclists. The cost of construction, however, was viewed as way beyond the city's (-4)114 to pay. In 1992, City Council formed the Trailways Advocacy Group (TAG) to design a bicycle trailway system throughout the Mounds View community which would link to neighboring city and county trails, in an effort to create a coordinated system through St. Paul, Minneapolis and the northern suburbs (Resolution No. 4227). In addition, the TAG worked to design a trailway system within Mounds View which would connect various destinations within the community and provide safe access for walkers and bicyclists. Highway 10 continued to be a stumblingblock to creating this system. No matter where the TAG proposed to make a crossing, the dangers of the highway persisted. The TAG discussed building a bridge and suggested that if funding could be found, they would recommend that the City proceed with this project to improve accessibility throughout the community. In 1991, Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)which provided funding for transportation improvements. ISTEA required, however, as a condition of funding, that state and local governments analyze and plan for transportation needs in a more • comprehensive way. Attention was to be given not only to streets and highways, but also to transit and trailways. The types of funding available encouraged alternatives to vehicular travel, City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge January 30, 1997 Page 2 including the construction of trailways and pedestrian bridges. On March 28, 1994, the Mounds View City Council approved the submittal of a grant application under ISTEA for construction of a pedestrian bridge over Highway 10 at Long Lake Road. The grant application was submitted on March 30, 1994 and approved for the 1996-1997 funding cycle. The amount of the grant was $480,000. Selection of Consultant;Bridge Design The City Council authorized a request for proposals being issued, and six firms submitted proposals. The firms were interviewed by a six-person panel of staff members and a City Council representative, and BRW was recommended to City Council for selection. City Council agreed with this recommendation and then appointed a citizen task force to work with BRW to select the location and design of the bridge. The crossing at Long Lake Road was recommended since there is a trailway system and sidewalk along the full length of this road from north to south throush the community and it is approximately at the center between the east and west boundaries of Mounds View. In addition, the Ramsey County library is near this intersection, and Long Lake Road is a primary route for school children going to Edgewood Middle School and Irondale High School. A bridge at this location would give access between Wildwood Manor, a senior citizen housing development, and the Mounds View Square Shopping Center. The citizen task force recommended a spiral design rather than the original switchback design submitted with the grant application(see attached diagram). The switchback design would have • involved long ramps on both sides of the highway. Along the Mounds View Square frontage, they would have blocked views of the shopping center from the highway and interfered with access. It was also questionable whether people would use the bridge if the access points were at the end of long ramps far from the intersection. The spiral design was considered much more graceful, attractive and functional. This design did require, however, getting easements from the property owners on both sides of Highway 10 and dealing with an existing drainage detention pond on the Mounds View Square property. Sabri Ayez, representing BRW, presented the spiral design to City Council which was approved as the preferred design. Funding and Budget: The grant funds 80% of the project construction costs, with the community paying 20% of construction costs plus engineering and inspection costs. Resolution No. 4843 was passed by City Council on November 13, 1995 which identified the following funding sources to pay the City's share of bridge costs: Franchise Fee $ 82,642 Special Projects Fund $ 41,558 General Fund $ 31,000 Street Light Fund $ 25,000 Activity Fund $ 10.800 $190,000 • City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge January 27, 1997 Page 3 • . These funds were to be used as follows. Match Funds for Grant $120,000 Engineering Design and Inspection Costs $ 65,000 Contingency $ 5.000 $190,000 Tasks in Progress Acquisition of Easements:Easements have been obtained from Wildwood Manor and from Ramsey County to allow construction of the bridge abutments on the south side of Highway 10. These easements were obtained at no cost. In September, 1996, it was unclear whether the owners of the Mounds View Square Shopping Center would be willing to grant an easement for the bridge abutments on the north side of the highway. The City and the property owner were in the middle of considering a variance request which would allow Mounds View Square to exceed the usual sign code requirements to compensate for the visual obstruction created by the bridge. The property owner did not feel they could grant the easement until they knew the outcome of the variance xequor , BRW advised us that we needed to get the easements before the end of 1996. Bcc uz c of this deadline, the City Council passed Resolution No. 5009 initiating eminent domain • proceedings to obtain the easement, as insurance to make sure the City could demonstrate to MnDOT we had the easements needed to build the bridge. Since then, the property owner has gotten approval for the variance request and has been cooperative in proposing an agreement which is expected to shorten the eminent domain proceedings and save the City costs. Obtaining the easements is being handled by the "quick take" procedure under Minnesota State Law. The next step is a hearing before the court on January 29. If the judge signs orders approving the taking of the easement, he or she will refer the matter to a panel of three commissioners to determine the value of the easement and how the property owner is to be compensated. Our attorney expects the commissioners to selected by the second week in February. A hearing will be held two weeks later after the property has been viewed by the commissioners, approximately at the end of February. It is possible that the commissioners would make an award at the viewing, but if not, an award could be made at the hearing if there is agreement on the determination of value. Meanwhile, our attorney is working on stipulations which would award the easement for$10.00 by agreement with the property owner. To date, the legal costs to deal with the easement on Mounds View Square property have been approximately $2,850. 2. Preparation and Approval of Bridge Design: The preliminary design for the bridge has been submitted to MnDOT and comments have been provided to BRW. They expect to . submit the formal design by January 31. To date, the design costs incurred by BRW have been approximately$31,750. City of Mounds View StaffReport Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge January 27, 1997 Page 4 • 3. Resolution of Drainage Issues: On September 3, 1996, the City Council discussed several options for dealing with the detention pond with City Engineer Rocky Keehn. The options are listed below: 1 - Sump manhole; no surge manhole $20,000 2 - Sump manhole; with surge manhole $27,000 3 - New pipes; no surge manhole $88,500 4 - New pipes; with surge manhole $95,500 5 - Bury storage including retention storage $165,000 6 - Bury storage including no retention storage for sumps $233000 7 - New storm sewer ' 8 - Do nothing $139,000 $40,000 City Council directed that Option#2 be pursued and authorized a budget of$30,000 for construction plus $3,900 for design. This option would leave the pond in place but replace the material in the bottom of the pond so the water percolates into the ground more quickly. It also involves installing a sump manhole and surge manhole. It was expected that the cost would be paid from the Surface Water fund. To date, approximately $7,600 have been spent on engineering and development of alternatives, also from the Surface Water fund. This amount was not part of the $33,900 authorized by City Council on September 3. • The City Engineer has indicated that they have about 1-2 days worth of work to complete the redesign of the detention pond to incorporate Option#2. 4. Construction Bidding and Award; Completion of Bridge. * * * * * To date, the City has expended approximately$42,000 in engineering design and legal costs. It is unknown what the cost of the easement on the north side of the highway will be until the commissioners handling the eminent domain proceedings determine a value. The final cost on redesigning the detention pond so it remains in place but accommodates the bridge will be available once the final design is completed. AVAkit)A_ . Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director cc: Mary Saarion, Parks&Recreation Director Mike Ulrich, Public Works Director Russ Nordstrom, 2536 W. County Road H2, Mounds View MN 55112 C:`OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\SPECPRO JIHWYBRIDG\CCMEM0.2 7-,5o i- J � 0 �o s • aa)7 0 o T.TN7 X . \ 1 U ,\ '=ce \ ' \, \N_______I i • \ \ • s• Of !` t=3.TJ-I.IO \ \. 5R. NO. 62583 `\, \' , ,yam 0' AIL\ / \... , \, \, </,,__.\\......,4„, lir 41111 0 e Vilith \ '(90 \ \ SFSo { \ , Ta E.o co • IBE Imo- I \ �\ I \ \ ,\ Tr1 ALL QUANTITIES AND 3n_.,2'13414 (( DIMENSIONS ON THIS r r r r t r r e r l y n, PLAN ARE IN METRIC T)•IJ-1.- 60 frit WEST CF LCNC mnne�tn metric UN I TS. RCAD.SOLM4 SIDE OF T14.I. SC DUL= CF G ZANTITlES FOR �tTI SRIDC. NO. 623 :401501 1 240L501 1 2401512 1 2401541 I 2401541 I 2401.543 I 2432501 I 2452508 I 2452519 ..JRAL STRIJC;JRAL BRIDGE RE5FFRC-o REAF0F2=-- SPIRAL C.L . C..' 'E CITE "'Jl' GIP. SLAB tIENT BARS MDR BARS IM.B.FOR - f TE =4=MM ATE (1643) (3743) ATE (EPDXY' TIENT P9.11P9.11.4 PILING(3736) PILING TEST PILF COATED) (0)r DELIVERED DRIVEN rA LGTICt COATED) 310 nu 310 am 310 nn '.1149 1 C1.1-%t tK ! .:.1.i t trt 150.r9E'ER I 4.1LC CTRAII I KILOaR.4.11 j KILCGRAr9 I Mr-rt I rts.TER I EAC•.I I x (Po) i x (P)1 x CP)I x (P) I X ('')I X (P)1 X 1 X I X I I 1 I Item Na Staff Report No., 7 / 7. , C • Meeting Date: 2/10/97 Type of Business: Council Business WK:Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business Ci of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Status Report on Pedestrian Bridge Over Highway 10 Date of Report: February 6, 1997 • Summary: At the City Council work session on February 3, 1997, staff provided a status report on the pedestrian bridge across Highway 10 at the Long Lake Road intersection. City Council directed that this item be placed on your agenda for the February 10 regular meeting. The background information provided at your February 3 meeting is included as an attachment. This report begins with a general overview of points the City Council may want to consider in its discussion of this project, and some additional information on costs. Approach to Discussion of the Project: Allowing for Public Involvement: There was an indication at the Council work session that proceeding with construction of the pedestrian bridge may be under reconsideration,and that a decision relative to the bridge could occur at the February 10 City Council meeting. Staff would • recommend that no action be taken on February 10, and that City Council continue this item to February 24 to provide sufficient time for interested citizens to be informed that the pedestrian bridge is to be a topic of discussion so they can be present and offer input It is staff's understanding that there were a number of meetings on this project before the decision was made to build the pedestrian bridge. We are concerned that a change in the project not be made without giving citizens an opportunity to be a part of the process. • Maintaining Community Enthusiasm: Regardless of whether the project is a pedestrian bridge or community center or a code enforcement program, community projects of this type usually surface because of enthusiasm among a group of residents for an idea which they view as an asset to the community, i.e. a project which will improve the quality of life. There may be different opinions among the larger citizenry about the project. At some point, a decision is made whether to do the project. City Council may want to consider the effect on community expectations and enthusiasm i1 over time, decisions made on these types of projects go back and forth between proceeding and not proceeding. What happens to the credibility between the community and the Council? Perhaps one way to avoid this situation is to put in place a decision-making process which focuses less on individual feelings of liking or not liking a project, and asking such questions as: • What will the project do for the community? • Under what circumstances would the project be acceptable? • What other projects will not be done, if this project goes forward? • What priority should be given to this project in the larger scheme of civic needs? Framing the Issue:A pedestrian bridge offers the opportunity to create a connection over Highway 10 for pedestrians and bicyclists between the north and south halves of the community, City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge February 6, 1997 Page 2 IIIand between various community facilities such as schools, parks,,the Ramsey County library and shopping centers, which does not now exist. It would add to the City's trailway system. It would be a landmark. The pedestrian bridge project offers the City the opportunity to receive grant funding from an outside source(federal transportation funds) to pay for 80% of the cost of the bridge construction($480,000) in exchange for the community contributing 20% of the construction cost($120,000)and an additional amount to cover engineering design and inspections which have been estimated at$70,000. There have been some additional costs identified since the grant application was prepared, and we have obtained more information on costs since our last report. Sources of funds have been identified for most of the costs not covered by the federal grant; sources have been suggested for the remainder. This information is presented under"Costs and Funding Sources"later in this report. There has been demonstrated community interest in having a pedestrian bridge, and it is regarded by those who have supported the project as a community improvement. Steps were taken to acquire grant funding for a specific bridge project, to locate where the bridge should be built,to select a design and retain consultants to prepare plans for the bridge, and to identify local funding sources for the City's share of the project cost. It appeared evident at the work session that there is now some question whether to proceed with the pedestrian bridge project. We assume there are concerns with aspects of the bridge project or it would not now be an issue. We would suggest the questions listed below as a springboard for the discussion on the pedestrian • bridge, and as a way to define the concerns so conclusions may be reached as to the feasibility and desireability of the project. Other questions could be asked. City Council is faced with a situation where a project is already underway, and the construction contract for the project must be let by October in order for the City to remain eligible for the grant funds. The project is on schedule at this time. Questioning and then changing the location or design of the bridge will probably make it impossible to meet the time schedule. Staff would suggest that City Council concentrate first on items which could be changed and still keep the project on track, to see if those changes answer the concerns of the Council and allow the current direction to be continued. These items relate most to cost and sources of funding. The City Council can certainly delve into other aspects of the project in you so choose, but it is necessary to keep in mind that if the time schedule is not maintained, the opportunity presented by the federal grant funds and the financial feasibility of the project may be lost. Is there a concern about: 1. The amount of the local share? How much would be an acceptable amount? 2. The sources of funds being used to pay the local share? If the sources were different, would there still be a concern? What sources would be acceptable? 3. The amount of traffic the bridge will carry? 4. Ongoing maintenance costs? 5. Under what circumstances, would the bridge be an acceptable project? Can these circumstances be achieved? 6. What opportunities are gained and lost if the project is done? not done? 41) Costs and Funding Sources Attached you will find a chart with the latest estimate on the actual bridge construction. It amounts to $589,887 which includes construction cost,grading, landscaping, mobilization and City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge February. 6, 1997 Page 3 temporary traffic control. These costs would be covered bythe t funds and the gran local match 411 (80%federal,20%local). City Council Resolution No. 4843 allocated$190,000 to cover the local match, bridge design and inspection,and contingency as follows: Federal Local Source of Local Funds Bridge Construction $471,910 $117,977 Franchise Fee $82,642 Bridge Design&Inspection $ 65,000 Special Projects Fund $41,558 Contingency $ 7,023 General Fund $31,000 $190,000 Street Light Fund $25,000 Activity Fund $10.800 $190,000 Other costs identified in our earlier report included acquisition of easements and the redesign of the drainage pond at the corner of Long Lake Road and Highway 10. Items which have come to our attention since February 3 include utility modifications and undergrounding and traffic signal modifications, based on a meeting held between the consultant,NSP and MnDOT. An argument could be made that these items benefit the Highway 10 corridor as well as the bridge, and could be paid from the T1F funds which have been allocated to Highway 10. Suggested sources of funds for these items are noted below. Easements $3,849 (1) Contingency or TIF-Hwy 10 funds (?) Design work on drainage pond alternatives $7,600 Surface Water Improvements to drainage pond $33,900 (2) Surface Water Utility Modifications;Undergrounding $30,000 TIF-Highway 10 funds (?) Traffic Signal Modification $10,000 TIF-Highway 10 funds(?) Sidewalk Connections;Additional Landscaping (?), Park Improvement finds $85,349 (1) Total cost of easement is not known at this time. Amount noted is total of legal bills received to date. (2) Of this amount,$30,000 is for construction and$3,900 for design work. The amount of money in the TIF-Highway 10 account for 1995-1997 is$680,775. The suggested amount to be paid from this account is$43,849,based on the above list. Total costs are approximately S750,000 based on the information known at this time. The amount which has been expended to date is approximately$55,168. Recommendation: Continue the discussion of this item to February 24, 1997 and direct staff to publicize that this item will be on the agenda_ Indicate to staff what additional information is needed by City Council for your next discussion of this item. Pame?a Sheldon, Community Development Director cc: Mary Saarion,Parks &Recreation Director Mike Ulrich,Public Works Director Russ Nordstrom, 2536 W. County Road H2,Mounds View MN 55112 • C:.OFFI�1wPGVIIV\WPDOCS�SPEC2ROJ�E3WYBRIDGICC�t£:bf0.3 rc.z) r.lo - r lc,.oct:i tittp4 ilsg...• P.2 . . . ; • : . ' , , • i • 1 : . : ; • ! 1 to . f • • . ; I NI ;i i . 1 . • col . ... ; I i • • • ; . •. • • 1 i i • cna511 .... .. I ; ! • i • ; • Lna2 I WI • • i • - I• ! , ; • , . :1 ii ' ) f I • ! • • . .4I .1.. "....."Zr'. .."--•'''.... 1 • ••:-..........i.'. •• ••...r.-!•••• --1-•• • •i < 1.01010.111'010i01010i0;010,0 0 . 0 0 . 4 1._. :0 0:0•11,:c•cno oic:3•0:01010.0. : i 0 0 I II I cii cil cil cri•itil v.:tni 1111 0!46.CI 0;6;o, ' I ci d CD t It _. , it Lot fo o N.•MI t•-;V11 Is!01•111?01 0.0!0; .0 0 -J: II . 1,-..: 'I.c' a);cn•:c! ar acil,--:mr!a= Loi,hi in]o cal 0• 1'0 0 <I . ?. 1- `;'..; lin.1-- ,:t. In cel,CO;.cl•!1%. NI a),col 0 N;1.61 •0 d 1-I • o k-d IN cki a 44.1 43Irs6•1 V':WI E,e)!Lo!cra.,- ffri--; I N N 0 1 •• Ili () C i Eh} CO 0.1 WY , ;tog); ; ',61,1'#..F1.E/3•! . 1 if37 . ' • . f: i : : ! I I-I • I ' ; ' ji 0 1 CC , • . . • i; i 1 • i I . I I 1 • '• ' : . 1 i 1-- . 1;CD'co of In;inl alc:11 clic;cc:a:a:c (:), • I" CI) l'0. C3I cn.1(CI tC1'c•D•0;0,01 0 0 i 0:0 0. • 0 C3 i . .• 0 1;0 Of 01 c:i cD,ol r--,cn•at Lesko!o:vr :::-...; • . ';0O , C...) 11 in c:31 c 1 iss.. 0,1(3431 7714/34 01 c‘it c cv. .1-0 : ;0 a !I , N•tel•V*; . 1 •telt-;--"*-- 0: •0; . ;0 0 il 1-- :EAI.03::4:03-1 . • , • I • Ct3;EA, • ; • - • 1 ia • 0 ,....3., 1 , 10 0 .. • z .1 • i .... .•••• : 1 I(N.I ('‘J , = III 1 [ i :_ • 11. 11k''''' ' }i ! Ii49 fi . . . .:- • :1 __j jOil Oil 010:0. 1-0-(00-!0:fdP17.C:3-7-0.TO-7-07-01• -. . I. 10 - C 1 < •0101010;0 0!0 0.0JC::0:0!0:0i . : lc 01 .+.! 1--' I..:•1 C*3 I 01 N.•j C:i 01 tri tri:crst ci14.ci ,-.c.,-.1, ,, -,- v- • . :, 0 (I) Iiczi a),,-,to;c cot-,.,,---! 'ot1cra :o. .: • • ;.-- CM a) (0,vz, • .zr,co: 1-....• ., - ., ! • i Lc11 14 ul:N;NI . ; ; : • . . • II 1..... r-- I! • ;cr.l• • ; , ; , • ; .. I: CD I= • . II Lii i 11: ' . E 1 i ; 1 :i 1 • I i I ! I . ! • ! • I I ! ! : : ! . 11 0 D i' ; • . • • .• CC • • • . I ci. a I..., 1 : ; I i • • . : ;I • ! I ; I I . • I . . I . 0 • ' 'ff ; : ; ; : • • I -± I ! I , . I • • I I •• . : • t • II . ; I i 9 1 .1 .• : III. ; 11 }-- 41:2110•010101Clii...:11-..• f;_;!1_.:;21ciI2; II I 1 lz,LL;LLII u..,11.1 I ; I 2 I . .: -2 .1)-i>"!›.3Elni j 10' ' •Icil>"..,i1 != = . t = • i,...,= !cDioloiz. 1•<i .,z1 .. : 7 • I CI) (j) I i 1...., 01 ut a..,a.,ri_ .. r.....21 1_i•_it-.1 C..):-...i! • !....1 _1 I " . • ' 'i . . " I: : • .. • 4 ' ux 1 . , : i II . •• • ! • • • • . • • (.11 11 : • • : r • u.g' c ,, ill I •:. . • . I . • 1 . 01 , . • • . . . • • : 01 5 , . , • . 1 .. : • . , , • . • • E z'; .. , 11 1 ces, • : ; • • •• Cal Ri II I' . I)-I • ,_---i 1 , : 1--_-_,-;,.....- • . , • • z =.• 4 ;Crli 2-, I I,'q.i<C. • . 1 1 H....Xl 1 1 I ! •Cr! Z 1...4 I • ..041 :a• I 1...... ! : .......; ..1••••• • : ' ! • • 1. .! • • .••••••••2..••••••••• •pf.C.... I • • H, LLE -•:1 pt. I cr31011r-lt.u: ; 7 ILI--.IO'r-,ZI : . i I A la .1 :crt is!-1,.... II--US;--; =,-1, •- i • ' •-•1Z a . . IC1: 'II li<1 Ci;010)i z:>, ..1_.4. . ..s'.I...!-.al ' : U10 Z1 0; :;,, w 1.:_-.,-..a..iu.i!:.,-1:-•-_imia.c,.:ci , . : 101_ -a I- lLu II.: •:!. '' -2,< :r1 ii-ul cV•ull Z Z >ft.L: . • ._,1-- :ic..)ial<!c3:.calwiczior.li..711:-.11<•Y'l : .LLI 0 < 7Z ti:.4 .. r:Z:Z.cel__:,___101,ri:,rcip_ti-'....017,ei(J'C • !LLiDi Ct 1 c...1151051ZiLLIZKI_Zi....,Zict;laC.ICC;11ji,'"r': ; iol in( . -r- re!...;...r!,.....f I :-.....--•••.:X I.c:C! . : i<1 CCI 0 I-Lli 0 • I. I CC:1--.1 i"--4 .11Cni a • , .. < < o . a. tTa.< , iiiwujiza"*.ii - i< < c) p •• •, •,z,-,.'...2.:::=i:P; 1•DIDICIcc•=,=10:0 C..) 111;Li, _,,=.‹.. !<I;I , 1 0 <1 F--1 -1110,(Dial •Z;Z:Zi : ;-••11-;r.c.1 11.c c.31 . :.--,-'. !•--; ,. .. 110,°10.u...1u..!<-",°1C),"CiFtl-iiCr:::'-i•---11 !01 zi cnt ca • ., - • ! .',Calz".zt•cc,(-)1C''(-).!z:-Pi= -1,-r-IcT:ii I•cc,=,_,_, ,,ii.,0_;0_,-,..,..,dr•-,cc:-•, •2.=I z, 0 :I10lc;u.tIIi ,. ... .11.11D; <1 • (...1. -0...., ;I . _.,...„...t.:_ =.• ..1. .,%;.i.,1 :•! .. ... ._ l'T)q3Lc..igC4:5/.).1.q.gt,c...)10 0.cr)15/3 ..!.-,: I :1--;CI -II • i ! • , . . . , , 1 , . 1 , • 1 • . • • : 1 • : • . • . •Il 0 i I . ; . 1 • • • • Z 1 • • • : • • • ' • - • I I I, I ! ! '. I . I •• . I . ,; : , . . 1 • , : - , . •il ., . . • , ; ; . : ! : • ! 1 • • • 1 .i. : . - • t 1 i - . • • • . 1 I. II . • February 5, 1997 To: Mounds View City Council, Mayor, and City Administrator I am writing to express my strong support of a pedestrian bridge over Highway 10. I was deeply concerned by the decision to put this to a vote before the council without giving the community time to be adequately notified and to express their opinions. Especially since most of us were under the clear impression that this pedestrian bridge was a "done deal". As a parent, I have crossed Hwy 10 on bicycles with my two children and have been very concerned for my children's, as well as my own safety. There is a blatant disregard for pedestrians and bikers by drivers. For our own safety, we were made to wait for drivers turning right on red while we crossed with a green light and walk signal. As a school district employee, I stand at the corner of County Road I and Quincy each morning and afternoon with the Pinewood Walk Patrol. Every day I see drivers ignore the patrol flags and drive in the path of children crossing the street. This is in a marked school zone with an adult watching them with a clipboard to write down license plate numbers, four students with bright orange vests and patrol flags situated at each corner, and probably a tenth of the traffic that is experienced by Highway 10. There have been children struck by cars at this • intersection, one boy was hit this fall. I cannot be convinced that crossing Highway 10 can be a safe situation for the children, or adults, of Mounds View and neighboring communities. Our community is divided in half by Highway 10. Edgewood and Irondale students are divided by this highway. We have a library that isn't safe for half the community to get to without an adult driver. We may soon have a 16 screen movie theater that children will want to visit. There are gorgeous bike trails that could be accessed much more safely by this bridge. Will everyone use the bridge?? Probably not, but you can be sure that our family will. The safety of my children as well as their friends and the students I work with each day is certainly worth the expense. Thank you for considering this letter. 411V v' Joan Magnuson 2824 Bronson Drive i Mounds View, MN 55112 786-7173 • To: Mounds View City Council 4110 Fax * 784-3462 February 6, 1997 -om: Julie Naylor 5302 Jackson Dr. Mounds View, mil. 55112 780-4050 I am unable to attend the City Council meeting on Feb. 10th, but would like to voice my operon regarding the pedestrian bridge over highway 10. `ES! ! It's really needed! ! I have one child at Ironri3le this year and another that will be attending Edgewood next year. Both schools, and their activities are on tithe other side" of Mounds View. There are also many friends that live across the highway. As it is now, i don' t feel comfortable with them crossing the highway on foot or bike, it's just too dangerous. 4111 Please, Please . .build the Bridge! ! ! ! Summer activities and sport practices are fast approaching, it would be great to feel comfortable sending them on their bike across the highway. Thank you, Naylor ATTACHMENT 1 Background: • History of Grant Application: For many years there has been discussion regarding the fact that Highway 10 cuts the City in half. Safe accessibility between the two halves is restricted. Movement to and from destinations such as schools, parks, the library, businesses and restaurants is difficult especially for senior citizens and youth who walk or ride bicycles, as opposed to driving. There have been discussions for some time about building a bridge across Highway 10 to improve access for youth and all walkers and bicyclists. The cost of construction, however, was viewed as way beyond the city's ability to pay. In 1992, City Council formed the Trailways Advocacy Group (TAG) to design a bicycle trailway system throughout the Mounds View community which would link to neighboring city and county trails, in an effort to create a coordinated system through St. Paul, Minneapolis and the northern suburbs (Resolution No. 4227). In addition, the TAG worked to design a trailway system within Mounds View which would connect various destinations within the community and provide safe access for walkers and bicyclists. Highway 10 continued to be a stumblingblock to creating this system. No matter where the TAG proposed to make a crossing, the dangers of the highway persisted. The TAG discussed building a bridge and suggested that if funding could be found, they would recommend that the City proceed with this project to improve accessibility throughout • the community. In 1991, Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) which provided funding for transportation improvements. ISTEA required, however, as a condition of funding, that state and local governments analyze and plan for transportation needs in a more comprehensive way. Attention was to be given not only to streets and highways, but also to transit and trailways. The types of funding available encouraged alternatives to vehicular travel, including the construction of trailways and pedestrian bridges. On March 28, 1994, the Mounds View City Council approved the submittal of a grant application under ISTEA for construction of a pedestrian bridge over Highway 10 at Long Lake Road. The grant application was submitted on March 30, 1994 and approved for the 1996-1997 funding cycle. The amount of the grant was $480,000. Selection of Consultant Bridge Design The City Council authorized a request for proposals being issued, and six firms submitted proposals. The firms were interviewed by a six-person panel of staff members and a City Council representative, and BRW was recommended to City Council for selection. City Council agreed with this recommendation and then appointed a citizen task force to work with BRW to select the location and design of the bridge. The crossing at Long Lake Road was recommended since there is a trailway system and sidewalk along the full length of this road from north to south through the community and it is approximately at the center between the east and west boundaries of Mounds 1111 View. In addition, the Ramsey County library is near this intersection, and Long Lake Road is a City of Mounds View Staff Report • Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge January 27, 1997 Page 2 primary route for school children going to,Edgewood Middle School and Irondale High School. A bridge at this location would give access between Wildwood Manor, a senior citizen housing development, and the Mounds View Square Shopping Center. The citizen task force recommended a spiral design rather than the original switchback design submitted with the grant application(see attached diagram). The switchback design would have involved long ramps on both sides of the highway. Along the Mounds View Square frontage, they would have blocked views of the shopping center from the highway and interfered with access. It was also questionable whether people would use the bridge if the access points were at the end of long ramps far from the intersection. The spiral design was considered much more graceful, attractive and functional. This design did require, however, getting easements from the property owners on both sides of Highway 10 and dealing with an existing drainage detention pond on the Mounds View Square property. Sabri Ayez, representing BRW, presented the spiral design to City Council which was approved as the preferred design. Funding and Budget: The grant funds 80% of the project construction costs, with the community paying 20% of • construction costs plus engineering and inspection costs. Resolution No. 4343 was passed by City Council on November 13, 1995 which identified the following funding sources to pay the City's share of bridge costs: Franchise Fee $ 82,642 Special Projects Fund $41,558 General Fund $ 31,000 Street Light Fund $ 25,000 Activity Fund $ 10.800 $190,000 These funds were to be used as follows: Match Funds for Grant $120,000 Engineering Design and Inspection Costs $ 65,000 Contingency $ 5.000 $190,000 Tasks in Progress • 1. Acquisition of Easements: Easements have been obtained from Wildwood Manor and from Ramsey County to allow construction of the bridge abutments on the south side of City of Mounds View Staff Report Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge • January 27, 1997 Page 3 Highway 10. These easements were obtained at no cost. In September, 1996, it was unclear whether the owners of the Mounds View Square Shopping Center would be willing to grant an easement for the bridge abutments on the north side of the highway. The City and the property owner were in the middle of considering a variance request which would allow Mounds View Square to exceed the usual sign code requirements to compensate for the visual obstruction created by the bridge. The property owner did not feel they could grant the easement until they knew the outcome of the variance request. BRW advised us that we needed to get the easements before the end of 1996. Because of this deadline, the City Council passed Resolution No. 5009 initiating eminent domain proceedings to obtain the easement, as insurance to make sure the City could demonstrate to MnDOT we had the easements needed to build the bridge. Since then, the property owner has gotten approval for the variance request and has been cooperative in proposing an agreement which is expected to shorten the eminent domain proceedings and save the City costs. Obtaining the easements is being handled by the "quick take" procedure under Minnesota State Law. The next step is a hearing before the court on January 29. If the judge signs orders approving the taking of the easement, he or she will refer the matter to a panel of three commissioners to determine the value of the • easement and how the property owner is to be compensated. Our attorney expects the commissioners to selected by the second week in February. A hearing will be held two weeks Iater after the property has been viewed by the commissioners, approximately at the end of February. It is possible that the commissioners would make an award at the viewing, but if not, an award could be made at the hearing if there is agreement on the determination of value. Meanwhile, our attorney is working on stipulations which would award the easement for$10.00 by agreement with the property owner. To date, the legal costs to deal with the easement on Mounds View Square property have been approximately $2,850. (correction: 53,849; additional bill found) 2. Preparation and Approval of Bridge Design: The preliminary design for the bridge has been submitted to MnDOT and comments have been provided to BRW. They expect to submit the formal design by January 31. To date, the design costs incurred by BRW have been approximately$31,750. (correction: 543,719; bill received since last report) 3. Resolution of Drainage Issues: On September 3, 1996, the City Council discussed several options.for dealing with the detention pond with City Engineer Rocky Keehn. The options are listed below: 1 - Sump manhole; no surge manhole $20,000 2 - Sump manhole; with surge manhole $27,0001111 3 - New pipes; no surge manhole $88,500 City of Mounds View Staff Report IIIHighway 10 Pedestrian Bridge January 27, 1997 Page 4 4 - New pipes; with surge manhole $95,500 5 - Bury storage including retention storage $165,000 6 - Bury storage including no retention storage for sumps $233,000 7 - New storm sewer $139,000 8 - Do nothing $40,000 City Council directed that Option#2 be pursued and authorized a budget of$30,000 for construction plus $3,900 for design. This option would leave the pond in place but replace the material in the bottom of the pond so the water percolates into the ground more quickly. It also involves installing a sump manhole and surge manhole. It was expected that the cost would be paid from the Surface Water fund. To date, approximately$7,600 have been spent on engineering and development of alternatives, also from the Surface Water fund. This amount was not part of the $33,900 authorized by City Council on September 3. The City Engineer has indicated that they have about 1-2 days worth of work to complete the redesign of the detention pond to incorporate Option#2. Ill 4. Construction Bidding and Award; Completion of Bridge. d g * * * * * To date, the City has expended approximately$42,000 in engineering design and legal costs. It is unknown what the cost of the easement on the north side of the highway will be until the commissioners handling the eminent domain proceedings determine a value. The final cost on redesigning the detention pond so it remains in place but accommodates the bridge will be available once the final design is completed. 0 City of Mounds View Staff Report • Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge-Appendices February 21, 1997 Page 15 APPENDIX F: LETTERS RECEIVED (distributed to City Council only; copy available for review at City Hall please contact Pam Sheldon at 784-3055 for information) Please Note: Letters which were transmitted to City Council as part of packets are in Appendix E. • 11 2410 DICK WEDELL BOARD OF RAMSEY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DISTRICT 1 PATRICK HARRIS 220 COURT HOUSE ASSISTANT TO COMMISSIONER ST.PAUL,MINNESOTA 55102 TEL. (612)266-8350 FAX (612)266-8370 March 30, 1994 3 9 Mr. Emil Brandt, Transportation Coordinator Transportation Advisory Board Mears Park Centre 230 East Fith Street 0 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Dear Mr. Brandt: I am writing to offer my support for the City of Mounds View' s ISTEA application for a pedestrian bridge over Highway 10 . As the Ramsey County Board representative for Mounds View, I firmly $ believe the project would be beneficial to both the local community and the region as a whole. As you surely already know, I have been an ardent proponent of ISTEA and alternative transportation projects for many years , and I believe the Mounds View application is certainly no exception. From safety, recreational, and economic perspectives, a pedestrian bridge over Highway 10 is a common sense project for the City. Not only could the project bring together what some believe are two halves of a divided city, but it could also link surrounding communities within a regional framework. Once again, I would like to offer my enthusiastic support for this project. If I can be of assistance with any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience. Thank you very much for your time. Sincerely, 0 Dick Wedell 11 Ramsey County Commissioner District One cc: Mary Saarion, City of Mounds View is Minnesota's First Home Rule County punted on recycled paper with a minimum of 10%post consumer content Sv C CF EDGEwooD STEVE NOVAK, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL • O MIDDLE 5100 NORTH EDGEWOOD DRIVE MOUNDS VIEW, MN 55112 4110>e L E P� (612)784-2010 SCHOOL fax: (612)639-6253 March 30, 1994 Mr. Emil Brandt Transportation Coordinator Mears Park Centre 230 E. 5th St. St. Paul, MN 55101 Dear Mr. Brandt, I am writing to express my support for the Mounds View City Council's proposal to construct an overpass crossing Highway 10 at Long Lake Road in Mounds View. • As principal of Edgewood Middle School, student safety is of utmost importance. Edgewood is located south of Highway 10 and a portion of our attendance area is north of Highway 10. Although bussing is provided for the day and after school program, many of our students choose to walk or ride their bikes to and from school. We also offer optional early morning activities which require students to find their own transportation. Edgewood houses the only pool for public use in the community. It is heavily scheduled for lessons and recreational swim on weekends and evenings which increases the likelihood of students crossing Highway 10 during heavy traffic periods and after dark. The construction of an overpass for pedestrian use would be an excellent means of addressing the safety needs of our youth. I hope the Transportation Advisory Board will give this proposal serious consideration. Sincerely, 44614./�L�L' Penny Yb ward • Principal MOUNDS VIEW PUBLIC SCHOOLS • DISTRICT 621 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT Il Duane McCarty ©.`�`--._ (612)784-6074 7/2/95 12:33 PM 1/1 411 To: Mayor Linke memoCC: Councilmembers From: Duane McCarty Date: July 2, 1995 Subject: Hwy 10 Pedestrian Bridge I recently read a letter distributed by the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding the Hwy 10 pedestrian bridge proposal. The letter requested support from residents favoring the proposed bridge. The Hwy 10 crossing issue has been around for a very long time. The aforementioned letter gave arguments in favor of the project but left other relevant considerations unresolved. • Apparently the Parks & Recreation Commission has given 111/1 this subject extensive and sincere thought. However, I would appreciate an opportunity to explore the Hwy 10 crossing issue in greater detail. I cannot be surx at this time whether the Commission's letter was intended to convey everything that has been considered thus far. I assume the budget process on July 10, 1995 will allow the City Council opportunities to preserve the funding options, without making an unretractable commitment to construction at this time. If so, I would be willing to share my experiences and thoughts on this matter; but I need more time than the few days the Commission letter allowed for response. Please forward to me any information on the pedestrian bridge the City may have from public hearings, or information that was distributed through past city newsletters, council meetings etc. . From the desk of... Duane McCarty ZDi'/� �. 8060 Long Lake Rd. rt 0� Mounds View, Minn.55112-6031 (612)184-6074 Fax: 111/1 October 19, 1995 TO: MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL MAYOR JERRY LINKE COUNCILMEMBERS After receiving and reading the October 1995 "Mounds View Matters" (Special Budget Edition) it appears the "zero percent levy increase" will ONLY result in a 6% increase! ! The purpose of this letter is to voice our objection to the proposal for a pedestrian bridge over Highway 10 at Long Lake Rd. We would like to know if a study was ever done to find out usage/need for such a bridge? Young people will not use it because it is not the short- est distance across the highway, and we doubt that older people will use it because they have cars, etc. This proposal results in a 3% increase to taxpayers to pay for this bridge and once paid for, we don't visualize this increase "going 111/1 away". Sincerely, /122- e. • 3e?"./ Peter & Patricia LaFontaine 2703 Lake Court Circle Mounds View, Mn. 55112 • soCO3 FQ E D G E WO O D PENNY HOWARD, PRINCIPAL STEVE NOVAK, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL • 4 MIDDLE 5100 NORTH EDGEWOOD DRIVE. MOUNDS VIEW, MN 55112 8 (612)784-2010 LEN SCHOOL fax: (612)639-6253 July 24, 1995 Mounds View Mayor and City Council 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, Attached is a letter I sent to the Transportation Advisory Board on March 30, 1994 supporting the construction of a pedestrian overpass for Highway 10. • Now that the grant has been awarded to the city I am hopeful you will fund the remaining portion of the project. A pedestrian bridge would offer a safe alternative for Edgewood students who cross Highway 10 since many of our students bike or walk to and from school and before and after school activities. This project has my full support. If I can provide additional information please call me at 784-2010. Sincerely, / VCW61--LOC Penny Howard • MOUNDS VIEW PUBLIC SCHOOLS • DISTRICT 621 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT ID WILDWOOD MANOR MANAGED BY 02559 Mounds View Drive • Mounds View, MN 55112 e ii• 612/786-1422 EBENEZER 0 March 30 , 1994 10 A 110 Mary Saarion 41 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10 41 Mounds View, MN 55112 • Re : Sidewalk Bridge over Highway 10 4 Dear Ms Saarion: ' 0 We are a housing facility for seniors 62 years or older and physically disabled people . We have 40 units in our 40 building . • 40 This letter is in support of the sidewalk bridge over Highway 10. as it would be very beneficial to the majority of 4 40 our residents . ' It would give them an easier access to the services and shopping on the north side of Highway 10 . This is a very busy highway and it is hard for the seniors 41 to cross it . They have slowed down some , due to their age , and it is not easy for them to "hurry" across the busy street . Therefore , we think it is a good idea for easier crossing of the highway for the residents . The residents think it should be done as well . V At Sincerely, Ail/Z ,... v/Joyoe Flermoen 41 Associate Executive Director /j g f I V V• I 11 • Department of Public Works 11111/ Paul L Kiricwold,P.E.,Director and County Engineer ADMINISTRATIONILAND SDRVEY ENGINEERING/OPERATIONS 3377 N.Rice Street ® 50 West Kellogg Blvd.,Suite 910 Shoreview,MN 55126 aanesEY cotom?' St.Paul,MN 55102• (812) 266-2600•Fax 266-2615 (612)434-9104 •Fax 422-5232 March 30, 1994 1 0 Mary Saarion Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry 0 City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 Dear Ms. Saarion: It is our understanding that the City of Mounds View will submit a walkway project to the Metropolitan Council for Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) Funding. The project consists of the construction of a pedestrian bridge over Highway 10 connecting sidewalks along Long Lake Road north I • and south of Highway 10. The purpose of this letter is to indicate our support for STP funding for this project. While Ramsey County does not have responsibility over the operation of pedestrian facilities, e recognize the benefit to the overall transportation community created by the construction of this project. Please contact me at 266-2609 if we can be of further assistance to you. Sincerely, Paul L. Kirkwold, P.E. irector and County Engineer DES 1111 • Minnesota's First Home Erie County Motetl un seminal paper w,& a auMam,a1 at W poa4.ymumae a e t MOUNDS VIEW POLICE DEPARTMENT �: � '� .j�'= Office: (612) 784-3771 41, FAX: (612) 784-9712 `,,f y = Emergency: (612) 484-9155 411 Timothy Ramacher, Chief 21 March 24, 1994 Good Day: 4 The Mounds View Police Department is in support of efforts to secure the installation of a pedestrian bridge to span across Highway 10 through an ISTEA grant. The availability of a pedestrian bridge would encourage pedestrians and bicyclists to cross Highway 10 in such as way as not to contend with vehicular traffic. It would be the preference of the Police Department to have pedestrians and bicyclists cross Highway 10 via an overpass pedestrian bridge rather than cross Highway 10 proper as a means of providing a safer passage across Highway 10. h As Chief of Police for the City of Mounds View, I endorse the project which would provide for the installation of a pedestrian bridge over Highway 10. III , 1 ) Sincerely, i/c—j -- Timothy Ramacher, Police Chief Mounds View Police Department 3 • ) 2401 Highway 10 PRO"^n+' Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 -6ISOVINK 9 Ramsey County TU,(:9 . �.. From : EDGEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL PHONE No. : 612 784 7734 2551 Mar.30 1994 10:03ri1 P02 cu c ("d EDGEWOODo PENNY HOWAR ,PRINCIPAL ZSTEVE NOVAK.ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL 0 5100 NORTH EDGEWOOD DRIVE MOUNDS VICW 8 ¢� MIDDLE , fMN55112 �E SCHOOL 784-2010 March 30, 1994 1 • Mr. Emil Brandt 3 Transportation Coordinator Mears Park Centre 3 230-E. 5th Si, Si. Paul, MN 55101 Dear Mr. Brandt, I am writing to express my support for the Mounds View City Council's proposal $4110 to construct an overpass crossing Highway 10 at Long Lake Road in Mounds View. As principal of Edgewood Middle School, student safety is of utmost importance. Edgewood is located south of Highway 10 and a portion of our attendance area is north of Highway 10. Although bussing is provided for the day and after school program, many of our students choose to walk or ride their bikes to and from school. We also offer optional early morning activities which require students to find their own. transportation. Edgewood houses the only pool for public use in the community. It is heavily scheduled for lessons and recrealivrud swim on weekends and evenings which increases the likelihood of students crossing Highway 10 during heavy traffic periods and after dark. The construction of an Overpass for pedestrian use would be an excellent means of addressing the safely needs of our youth. I hope the Transportation Advisory Board will give this proposal serious consideration. Sincerely, Akt.(ki • Penny &ward, Principal 1 f :. cot an ..., .a Teen Apartments • ADV t 4 March 30 , 1994 Emil Brandt Transportation Coordinator 0 We support the idea of a pedestrian bridge across Highway 10 at Long Lake Road. We feel that our residents would use it now that 4 the sidewalks are completed on Long Lake Road to get to Moundssview Square, the library or city hall . Sincerely, t ' .../� t_, q.2 0-7.-e-.61------ Eileen Evans Skye Management , Inc. III .J IZ MI_YNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY 10 ` illil September 28, 1994 40 Ms. Mary Saarion 1/ City Hall 2401 Highway 10 40 Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 Dear Ms. Saarion: 1/ Re: Pedestrian Bridge over Highway 10 S7, T30, R23, Mounds View, Ramsey County SHPO Number: 94-4099 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above project. It has been reviewed pursuant to the responsibilities given the State Historic 41 Preservation Officer by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36CFR800) , and to . the responsibilities given the Minnesota Historical Society by the Minnesota Historic Sites Act and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act. I There are no reported historic properties in the project area, and we feel 1 that the probability of any unreported properties is low. Therefore, based on available information, we conclude that no properties eligible for or listed 11111/1 on the National Register of Historic Places are within the project's area of effect. 10 Please contact Dennis Gimmestad at 612-296-5462 if you have any questions 11 regarding our review of this project. Sincerely, 4.—Britta L. Bloomberg Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer a BLB:dmb a a e 345 KELLOGG BOULEVARD WEST/SAINT PAUL.MINNESOTA 55102-1906/TELEPHONE: 612-296-6126 Ramsey lip •County ft. LIBRARY Administrative Offices • 4570 North Victoria Street • Shoreview, Minnesota 55126-5863 • (612) 486-2200 • FAX (612) 486-2220 February 11, 1997 Mr. Duane McCarty, Mayor City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 RE: Mounds View Pedestrian Bridge and Walkway Dear Mr. McCarty: On behalf of the Ramsey County Library Board and the library staff, I want to reiterate our support for the pedestrian bridge and walkway planned for Highway 10 at Long Lake Road. In September 1996, the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners and the Library Board approved an easement for the southern landing of the bridge near the Mounds View Library. • It is the goal of the County and the Library Board to make the County libraries as accessible as possible to all County residents. This pedestrian bridge will provide additional access to the Mounds View Library by providing a safer, more convenient access route to the library for pedestrians on the north side of Highway 10. In addition, this pedestrian bridge will provide safer and more direct access to the homes, schools and businesses on either side of Highway 10. This proposed bridge benefits the community as well as the Library and local businesses. I hope you will reconsider your opposition to the proposed pedestrian bridge. This bridge is a ' much needed addition to this area that will benefit the Library, local business, and the citizens of the City of Mounds View. k. Yours truly, Marianne Roos, Director • Ramsey County Library CC: Commissioner Tony Bennett Commissioner Jan Wiessner III Mary Saarion, Director, Mounds View Parks and Recreation Pamela Sheldon, Director, Mounds View Community Development Minnesota Department of Natural Resources I. Pi° 4o Pikovs4,0 PI .., . iiii10/ 500 Lafayette Road 4� \-# St.Paul,Minnesota 55155-40_ 1110 Op,1717170.\-#PP --_ Post-Itr"brand fax transmittal memo 76 f Pages ► / 4 To / --fa ms4!/r �ei fro 7 CY,zM I May 24, 1996 '� 3 7 D -0 "7 00 Co. PIP Dept. Phone# 7.. ,2.2 7 2 FE,N.7 '7) - /3 2 8 Fax% 11 Mr. Sabri Ayar Alt BRW Thiesler Square 11 700 Third Street South Minneapolis,MN 55415 Dear Mr. Ayar, II have reviewed the documents you sent regarding a pedestrian bridge across Highway 10. A review of our records show that there are no recent reports of state or federally listed rare, 4 4 threatened, or endangered species that would be impacted. There are no peregrine falcons in this vicinity. '. Yours truly, J Galli \--• c -(14-'." Nongame Wildlife Specialist i JG/cd I I 11 I I II S. 1)NR Information: 612-296-6157. 1-X00-766-6000 Ion TTY: 11 An Equal Opportunity Employer A Primed on Recycled Paper Containing a Wltu Values Diversityt O Minimum or 10%Po.t•Con>umcr%min I r14 ,,,, qyo Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Environmental Services JUN 3485 Hadley Avenue North 3 1996 `1 31 `I oF P� Oakdale, MN 55128 (612) 779-5072 FAX (6 i2) 779-5109 110 PIO IMay 29, 1996 i Sarri Ayaz BRW, Incorporated 700 Third Street South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 41 RE: Federal and State Threatened and Endangered Species Proposed Trunk Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge 110 S.P. 146-020-07 City of Mounds View 40 Hennepin County Dear Mr. Ayaz: 10 As you have requested, I have reviewed the effects the above- referenced project will have upon Federal and State Threatened or Endangered Species. Although the project is within the breeding range of the bald eagle and the historic breeding range of the peregrine falcon, I concur that the project will have no effect on these species. I further concur that no other federally listed 0 threatened or endangered plant or animal species occur within the 11) limits of, or will be impacted by the proposed project. However, for a determination on State Endangered, Threatened, and 0 Special Concern species I suggest you contact Ms. Ellen Henneghan at the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) office in St. Paul. She can be reached at (612) 296-8279 . Environmental Services at MN/DOT can only address Federally listed species for these • requests. Ms. Henneghan will provide you with your state listed species determinations. 10 Sincerely, 10 iif2.1,0,17 --‹ 4 Brad R. Kovach MN/DOT Wildlife Biologist 1 cc: Frank Pafko/Larry Foote, OES Gerry Larson Beth Kunkel, BRW AO Sarnia Straumanis, OES j Ellen Henneghan, DNR °1 File --1 1011. 11 i An Equal Opportunity Employer VIVA Friday, February 7, 190-)i • Dear Mayor and City Council members, I am a fourth grade teacher at Pinewood Elementary. We were learning about paragraphs and topic sentences in Language this week, and the next assignment was to write a persuasive paragraph. The topic we chose was the Goosebumps Books controversy in the Anoka-Hennepin School District. The students could write a paragraph stating their views for either side of the issue. They did a remarkable job. The next day we received information about the upcoming discussion of the Highway 10 bridge. I read the information to the class, and they thought it would be interesting and helpful for the City Council to have a perspective from the student point of view for the upcoming. discussion. So here it is--valuable opinions from young members of the community who have input and strong feelings about this issue. Thank you for taking the time to hear them. Marty Wall • M_ t a ) c aucicaiv I JI I1 rn��r1 d_ots_e ZVSt,_22* arla, cacLecoLLaceihee L cAC _"‘" .`ne 07Q_ 1 --a te rare } SLibu }a 4)_ -±c) • a i e— °� hu 1 - 10' S O V6_ • _ 1 c ---- -- ---- .1,0,rdec--,3 _,,___ w_Pe a t_on orrLi_Cd° , g 4y____(,_ an cjI, e 4,0y. Lili__p_e_ , u -o\----a ed cud op. [ "-lane coo_ca_te, - .3 1 1 ct-teil ( kyv i ii „ 1_ ____. 1 / ._) i 11 P 2 \ 0 0 €_, ) C,c:\c--.._/ t-:2C",t7e,c` CAC\CA TCIS Ise-r- Cr, _4., it-, r ,_)( ' , : 1 1(71777--) v I . h _. ,.._, • 0 ica.y_or drIci—C°i-f-y Coueilt _ T hEarcr4d+McW:hover di- -4-r./n, • i eiTatial ii wayt. nvoddth --th_d_ +o appkn -k3 any oty 7r) +h kytoi oil-.__Ae,_anyrbo_yo . 41a ..c.c3u*. pEa•lieled ._ olee rpbody, 1.,Av al< , care, oF +hit vibria hd+.5 kiity _ . 3d+ w&-1.- +Ined- to happ&n, IF • opeac \ \cn ���� T��� h � l�x�n�° m~�/ -[-n�J~����J-�� �^--�� � T__ thw\ct \DQ. bjk- be_caute. and ;-0 hind +he, tuyniwer &c5 '6'14iti+he woold- +he_ )r-T;c4e.„__ _rayQpLc- O v -_ _31.nare, y4._ khiLsinde_i) ���N� - --- - -'-- - -- ------ -- - '--- '---------------- _ ' - •' - -' -_- -- - Dew /\0._y_o_c_cla&_c_41,_ccAcIcit) Vek_c_c___ACHaet _60 beije.;- --\-\,.‘• \RI • \- I VAIg.W_CLO; \r\ jrk6\V" -Nc/A .\ •1%-it\-a4,0 c c- -vv12- `14waYi-c\°n--'r a IVA. It. 111,10 AO A lAb * 15 ��\�� '-^ ��y�� y�� --\� __ --'----'--- ---'--' �� ) c • -- — -— - ______ -- -- i i 4 i _ iT il /i. Lif 47-1/7-7- I/I . . ! 6 / / ___I__ i _ .0 __Id _ 10 ."'.' : . --I- :a -.7.............,.. •, 1 . , s / 11'. / i 7 \*. I/ i ‘2 i .. ;... _....C4:::_- -L : ...) ...)..1?\2 Lif C..._2 ?..,C e .....1_47(Z. .' I / : ? '{7.-.i,o7C7r., ...,r,. ,'••%,..''' '' . ' • i .....' C_LLty_14;:,.. ., ‘ • •• • eop / 1 , ,• - I ? 1 r , : ' ! j I • . r :..•:, 1 / .;, r i \ .'..•_: ,...1 . ; --,i ' r‘• • jsdi r1 -+-71 re ! -,- !v7)„... ,-,_e:rt ._:., Ls 7.- 7— : . r \_ . . --e. , - I a...IN,...,::• :-,s} 7 I I, • C.3 ril . -:- ----__ . _• , .. • . _ . . . . a-- 4t.-----% • 1 , i ill , z 111__ iiitni. 71114,_Ck.__ __._ _ sla.k\.k_4\ bVt‘Lci, _ ___ , , ..... ,, ;-4 I....et ,k,,,v1 on 41ktriritfik;# ' ) 1 i r,r ';'\.' .\.c11,---1, _ s -- -.4 PI . cl t ... -, ! — cc •-+-.'..r't ,., -.. ,A ...st. .s. `r ,...4./V,• • r 1,; Vi'le• : ',44 1 . ....1A f.`4 1 C"": In V 1 4.."74 'se, f .,,,, t,-,. w 1 kt A r, ...-Li . ,. _ . , i ,Q.._ ,„...; 0 $ \c.., _ ) ...,..'.. 2V-4.1_3 1 \ r lit 4 :''.1) CIO - --- __,_ .. -,....,.,,.,..,,,,_ . __,.____.,..3.__ • • , 4 ,..-44 .14' ...1.1 , .:1 _, , N„. k • % (-1 or . • ,..,13, . '•1 1 1a .. •..• IILJ • 1 ,-. ! ,.. f '' 1 1_„ .."1•• .-••• -c , ..e., Y1 j (I fi•- 1. ,,,, :. ---,--,A , -tr`,. 00%‘-'-, '-' I i Ii k \AI 1 , '.....••• :A. -.4 ,I ,,- ---i...A.._„ -.',""k- k 1 ', k.'. .A; Li.,...4)4 lk 1 f•-.A.4 4 1. 'a 'aa, '` s.a - 1 i .•• I f ...., tr.. ri ,..t7,...;,.....-. „A",f'_ i'f't‘ \A - T, ..,1 'J T. '%•asi i.L.)14 , I N111JAs -‘ ‘,..,•Ja..." ii CL _ , :_t,21-2. l.%,, ....-1 e r(N.,: ,•'•-• Vi. f 1 ,_•-.• : • \ -kit!.Illi. t‘ .7.‘11,4"-- rivi":(1 :.r..vc..-41•N) ("ic: 7f-, ' -ft Er're , ..\:1 • I ,‘, :: ' _......:.._.__L-- E..; .4 :1,... t T.,.% - 1 _1 ._.. . I • . — . . • . . d •-, '.-'•4 rt - ,-,-•_.„,-... (v-•,.f. l'-.--, - - : • . .. _',. . %.,...'-A , )1 k 1 . e\-. ci:--P-c- i-\ ‘.. ....) %4 , 1 1 . 1\0.-4 ,,... .,,. , ....0. _ _ ,.:.::.._:.! ,i ;,•• . - -... . ''t,7''.'- S'SZY3 i -0 i i t,I j ;N1 4 k•fil irt ,...:. •,:-.. . ., • ... . ..... --___ , ..._i_.:11. , .... • ______1,_ • d • .......',.."‘,..4.,/„..,„ 1 ., • r., . 1 w:-..1#i ,. 1 l'` t • ,•-••• , - .if i • • • u ..:. ',.." i).-...ar-• r...,,,„ Frc,r, i . \ .,..,.. A.. 44,.. •.:^N;_,, 7, .li 1..."..% Lik.......A.,•,,..'-'‘,A...___:2,-:`,,...j _ C 0 ___L T A k. 1- .. -.L.: 4__ i4 i• ‘ ,:n., -21___--:Lt V`1 C. n ,..:, ,..,..,- , ,_ __ - _.... ,,,,. -, .,.." . . ?--, - • ; _. ... .. p ......i.. ,-•..., . -;-... , t___.....____ • _-, -......_- i-''' 1 — a%l''‘,. -- 'In d VC • a C I-I P, 1.-S ' . ....:., k ,,‘ ', .1, .• ...a 1 yi,.. 44.. ' , i ' 1 s•••• 1/4... ii r.‘ C t2rkl r V) i C I..N r:-5 III 41 Aajor cAdri - dact_IL loc,t_41) 4- h e . ( Lek -L car-4-ke LikAD "Ole .540i-ec cL4,1.1. c-012- / :— ) I ))^, (ok A— i Q c11-5. e r/7 67( . 0 • ~ UiT6tYcj -_-_-_'_ -__- -��~� _- . _-__- _ _Brih_e_____L-_,in 0 r tyi b g..... „,._, ,.., , ;____-_,- , T____, rill n Q „ , i , I ,2_, 1 -1-h Op ., p cur (A.r, becc-sw ,7-, ___),=., , ____ __ _—)-1 a iitadi Lit ,- to : iL--- r_f_11,. i , - -Q tn-e Li b CCU(j ;--.44)*it I 493 Si viji,) 1 0 --1 it,<, ,Si Li (t_jj "bi i / , I I ( ,__,‘, . 1 c_Cti or 6 6-tu_ ,-,1 ini) soTh - -_ '- ' ` �L ' � . � / /�/ � /a ~ -' ' i , ...• J 0 J . Jr.iflacr.- , ,2 ...., y �/ � !z.: ^~ _____ ----------- --� ___' --_ -_ _--_-__---__ __ _ _-_ _--_- __ 0 __ , • e..cr jyt-i \l'IC \i>‘. s 4-c:.) k c\ s- b Lt\ 4-) , r \R t7,\ele. V•\0 o\ec • 5509Q `____ �________________ ___ ___ ��/ �� • itailds \ � '_- -____________ _ _____ _ ___ __ ___________ __ `� ( ew _---__-- --' , ----� - - '----'------�r'-�r- -�-� - -~^ --^-�-� `°��-"~-^-i---� '--- ---- ------- -��, . L / �\�y\ �� <�` �^ -_yov, ���u~^44./cLhaid c cro ss +0 were_ +key ne-e.d_ +2_. go and so trily don±".f 64- /-1:-F by cars as -Aey _ are_ cro:---_:s Ce 4- occ kra ice —,key\ _ c c 0u± g 0(-),H g h ,_.)r) my op; ye\jo y\ 1.1 to 'rrict e, a. Li --- — 5i_nceriy, ----- Topa f'-.-�. C - -- -- - -- -'---- ------' ----- ----' -------- ---- ----- 5500 • __Vguas fig.J4 foL Dq-C\NK _ 0 UAlt s_c:ve._oz_ s_s g, 0 •L, \Nn -- 5Nce,e.TA • it s \LN(T\N_ Itt&O fle,/ 14c5-di „ , csauft2_ 410_ ___,&01 lAttOyoK - L , 1-- - e -f- tw_ed,_5_ _-)0.ivid 8-e bri-d,_ey oh 0,(14a: ,4, 5'0 1\-1 di vv, ,,, -' ( 4 -1--- 1 - u+- L__11' ' ) ,.. . . ' . ' •c,..(' . dt,.,.._ h, •-, {,, /II I _P;e 01 , 1., i I., --,, _( c c v-05) 111 ki) ),,-14-1it -1--t9 h ' ( v - c, 1:o )ito.' /7 • 0 - - - Dear.TAgo_rak*cooca___ _ - - _ naLa ibtuidesJAk `g, J ir d 47_11iot& af4.5_0111g1 War_ W _4_111_1et c617 ) g:#t • \b_ cc cc Azo_mtc__acA-Ni . opDle b _cc\us52— LQQiof 6c\ iv1,3,V; 710\ec\( __ opsceil- ^~ ^~ C/�'���^�/��-��-/ A.;/ \�LI. 1pecieiz Hco-tf_itiZ __,cb-dArt __---_-_- � WY-77,c2i-tehd.Y _-- �� QnoLCL±9rourzJz4 1_\ _ a,ry_e • • e _ae. a . _ 4Qr 1-) GJEJA n • ou,_ Isho_cy • 1, + 9 aQsootso 1 T LAipU_ fr ck_k LeSs -tC h-a:"±-S -3- hi_itak_9_6=us 1 . tke 19 ril• e - • Fro _ m o 0 interoffice MEMORANDUM to: Pam Sheldon, Community Development Dir. from: Cathy Bennett, Dir. of Economic Development subject: EDC Motion on Pedestrian Bridge date: February 20, 1997 For your information, the Economic Development Commission approved on a 3-1 vote to support a pedestrian bridge along Highway 10. The motion included the support of the bridge in anticipation of future mixed use development that would necessitate increased foot traffic across the highway. Comments from EDC members were as follows. Cindy Carlson noted that with the development, now or in the future, of the O'Neil Property and with the possibility of residential senior development in section 9 there is an increased need to have a link between the north and south sides of the highway. She noted that this is both an economic need and a safety need. Bev 0 Tarhark noted that the bridge would help with access to the retail centers and increase safety for both those that are walking and biking across 10. Delane Welsch commented that as a senior it is virtually impossible for him to cross 10 at the signaled intersection and there are many times he would like to access the services and amenities across 10 without getting into his car. Rosemary Goff voted against support of the bridge. City of Mounds View Staff Report 4) Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge- Appendices February 21, 1997 Page 16 APPENDIX G: NEWSPAPER ARTICLES ON PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE (distributed to City Council only; copy available for review at City Hall please contact Pam Sheldon at 784-3055 for information) • • ,+ I - '--;— • March 22, 1994 • �, w _ . _ _ _......_ • , .._'-'1;' 'tc-:-'-'Z:..'..:, 1, •' • . - it. • MOUNDS VIEW •• `��� Hwy. 10 pedestrian bridge grant sought " .:;- ?_, SHELBY NICOLAUS-DUNSKI Constructing the bridge "is something we've always -. dreamt about but was not within reach,"Saarion said. Mounds View officials are hoping to get a let up on The bridge would serve primarily students who now ''' , the construction of a pedestrian bridge across Highway cross the highway on their way home from Edgewood i . 10. Middle School.she said. _ The city is applying for a grant through ISTEA for the The project is proposed to lead to schools, parks, the -•. ,y. installation of a pedestrain bridge near the lOng Lake library and shopping ares. - - :' 2-q'' Road sidewalk. The city could not construct the bridge, estimated to i The City Council agreed last week to spend $1,900 cost $500,000 to construct. without a grant, Saarion - - - ; for engineering services from Short-Elliot-Hendrickson said. �•_'' ,1 . for plans to build such a bridge.The plans will accom- The grant is 80-20 finding, meaning the city would -°_'_=`. Y'?i pany the city's application for the grant, said Mary pick up 20 percent,or$100,000,of the cost.she said. - 7"--4.� Saarion.parks,recreation and forestry director. Grant applimtions are due April 1, with funding deci- .. Funding for the engineer drawings could be paid sions made by the end of the summer for 1995 construe- - l'Z' throughthe city's franchise fees,she said. tion. k _ ill ,:...7 :... - v • ..R, S _ _ - y .,,,5,f. 9 s sy z - v i4aa'! .. s R . _... tt. +21 - .+fi 4 -5.,:.:1":".::.‘":71Z'',-.41-.- 1:: -',:... ,t V}_ - .. ] _. .-Z' •,� - _ -- • 0 s I July 18, 1995 ,f0Z‘ ) ,:,.. .- ':.--,-i' Y • MOUNDS VIEW • Fundingdebate ties ..- _ TIF upbridge project -, While some council members feel From page 3 SHELBY r11COLAUS-DuIVSKI TIF would be a good source of enhancement. `. IF for the sal,others feel "It's a community ;. A$120,000 difference of opinion funding proposal, That's a permitted It's a reue- ogin at the fate of a pedestrian it shouldn't be used for projects use.That's a use.It's a recce- is tugging which do not create jobs. ationaAll staff I've talked to say it's a bridge which would link Mounds Council Member Sue Hankner thed ue.r Somehow,we're not m_ View's east and west sides. Council said the project does not meet the pew The Moundsbo View City for its requirements to be funded with supposed to do what legislators is debating how it will pay don't want us to do for fear of share of the proposed for pedes-00 inion, is legal„ angering them,"she said. ""That, in my op The city has two to wm- projectto cross it easier0 she said. "I've talked to advocates years to before it traneto�o�Highway of tax-increment and legislators, plete the proposed project The council isexpected its Aug. work and they agreed with me that that's loses the state grant the issue during its Au . 7 work -If approved,the project would be an inappropriate use of tax-incre- • session. went financing." constructed next summer. But the ane city was dndapproved0 for a statetf But Council Member Julie Trude project's timeline would necessitate thegr em that would fund council percent members project, saying the the city choosing an architectural project. But y defended ro o d pedestrian bridge is a and engineering firm this fall, 11can are now questioning $120000. legal use of the TIF fund,according Tie said.posed bridge has been pay tee rwnag leadge for yeaen At issue is whether the city should to the city's lawyer. discussed by city use a portion of its $2 million tax- TIF/Page 10 increment financing With Highway 10 slicing through money. the city's center, the bridge has i - been proposed as a way to link the two sides of the community. "It's kind of a missing link for bike transit as well,"Trude said."I wouldn't feel safe crossing that highway except in a vehicle." Hankner said she has supported the project since she was the city's mayor in the 1980s."But it still has the same problems it did then,"she said, referring to the financing issue. "A pedestrian crosswalk would be an abusive use of that (TIF) T_ money,"Hankner said. The city is in the process of sego- tinting the purchase of a few blight _ ed properties along Highway 10— including the Auto Central site and ' . another near County Road I— a project that would be better suited A. for'TIF funding,Hanlmer said. The only other option the city has � 4 to fund the project is through the L property tax levy,Hankner said. 14. Hankner said she would support 7. increasing the tax levy only if resi- dents can'muster enough support . for a tax hike. "You've got to get a lot of people to get me convinced,"she said. • tillgllbt. 19 1-0L7 I _ .---T Il • S i upport proposed . ..__ _ pedestrian bridge United Karate in MV a to open in MV — - To the editor: p Fashion Nails The City Council of Mounds SquareView is currently discussing a to open in MV proposed pedestrian bridge over United Karate is expected toHighway 10 at Long Lake Road. move-into Mounds View Square, Square This would be a community at Long Lake Road and Highway development that would benefit 10. Fashion Nails,a..full-service nail citizens of all ages, from youth to United Karate is opening a salon, is slated to open at Mounds senior citizens, from joggers to 2,220-square-foot karate school View Square. _ bicyclists, anyone who would like that also sells karate equipment The business signed an agree- to cross Highway 10 in any mode and paraphernalia.This is the sec- meat recently to move into a other than an automobile. IIand United Karate location in the 1,000-square-foot space at the This is an enhancement to the Twin Cities. shopping center, at Long Lake community that we cannot afford Road and Highway 10. 1 to let pass by, especially since we ----- —— — — — — -------® have a$480,000 grant to cover the majority of the cost. The City Council is hesitant to use funds set aside for community : - development,because they are not • �. Wednesday,Aug. 12. 1995 THE BULLETIN sure this would help the commu- nity?The city would need to con- tribute $120,000 to fulfill their i; portion of the grant requirements. } t PUBLIC NOTICES The city has a fund set aside for CERTIFICATE OF ASSUMED NAME community development called CERTIFICATE OF ASSUMED NAME TIF.No tax dollars are needed. STATE OF MINNESOTA STATE OF MINNESOTA Please show your support for the Pursuant to Chapter 333, Minnesota • .Pursuant to Chapter 333, Minnesotapedestrian bridge bylettingthe Statutes,the undersigned,who is or will be con- g Statutes,the undersigned,who is or will be con• transacting City Council know that this is a s t, t ductingor a commercial business i ducting or transacting a commercial business in the State of Minnesota under an assumed {� in the State of Minnesota under an assumed community enhancement that is name,hereby certifies: name, hereby certifies: badly needed.Each year,there are .The assumed name under which the The assumed name under which the �' business is or will be conducted is:Fluid Power business is or will be conducted is: FPD. several dangerous mishaps as peo- Design. The street address of the principal place of business is or will be:2718 Lake Court Drive, pie try to cross Highway 10 on The street address of the principal place of foot or bicycle. Talk to council ,,:. f business is or will be:2718 Lake Court Drive, Mounds View,MN 55112. ' The name and street address of all persons members,phone them, write them f Mounds View, MN 55112. conducting business under the above Assum- letters or, even better,come to the The name and street address of all persons ed Name: conducting business under the above Assum- Dwaine 0.Straight.2718 Lake Court Drive, City Council meeting on Aug-7 to ed Name: Mounds View. MN 55112. voice your opinion for the pedes- Dwaine D.Straight,2718 Lake Court Drive. Norma K.Straight,2718 Lake Court Drive, trian bridge. Mounds View, MN 55112. Mounds View,MN 55112. Norma K.Straight,2718 Lake Court Drive, The Standard Industrial Code(SIC)that most Mounds View, MN 55112. Pam Starr The Standard Industrial Code(SIC)that most oaccura perattety describes the nature of the business accurately describes the nature of the business operating under thi • s name is: 87. Mounds View Parks and I certify that I am authorized to sign this cer- operating under this name is: 87. Recreation Committee member tificate and I further certify that I understand that I certify that I am authorized to sign this cer- by signing this certificate,I am subject to the — - --- - tdicateand I further certify that I understand that •penalties of perjury as set forth in Minnesota ti • by signing this certificate, I am subject to the Statutes section 609.48 as if I had signed this • penalties of perjury as set forth in Minnesota certificate under oath. • Statutes section 609.48 as if I had signed this Dated:July 19, 1995 certificate under oath. /s/Dwaine 0.Straight, Owner Dated:July 19, 1995 Contact Person: Dwaine 0.Straight /s/Dwaine D.Straight, Owner 612-783-8748 • Contact Person:Dwaine 0. Straight . (Bulletin:Aug.2.9, 1995) • 612-783-8748 (Bulletin:Aug.2.9, 1995) MV will collect phone books . U.S.West,in coordination with the city of Mounds View,is sponsoring a recycling bin to collect used phone books. 4- . D The bin is located in the parking lot of the Mounds View Public Works building which is at 2466 Bronson rive.Hours are 7 a m:3:30 p.m.Monday through Friday through Aug.31- - 1 a • l i . F i and south, and that intersection is so dan- I Mounds View seeks gerous for kids,"Trude said. Mayor Jerry Linke said the council has money for bridge until November to decide, when it sets the budget for next year. Orduno said that to get the federal The Mounds money, the bridge has to be completed by the end of 1997. She estimated it would • View City Council �. ,U-,,, „-_,,,4, sd - take about three months to build. is coming to a - = :�;„ Irv, bridge it might have to cross soon. 1 r At a work session "'” i 1 ��1 4 that starts at 6 p.m. t-- x 'l Tuesday at City 7v,...,,,,,,.....,,,,.. Hall, the council ... I9-. P MAA, will discuss the fu- BEN CNANCo . ture of a proposed STAFF WRITER �'�l 1 w.t $600,000 pedestrian n bridge over U.S. 10 9)(tirt at Long Lake Road. More specifically,the council will con- • sider how the city can come up with its share of the cost. A.federal grant will 11' pay for 80 percent of the construction if the city comes up with 20 percent,or $120,000. In addition, the city must pick up $65,000 in architectural design and in- spection fees. City Administrator Samantha Orduno said the council has a self-imposed levy freeze for 1996,so the use of property tax dollars is not an option. She said the options could include the franchise fee on gas and electricity, the recreation activity fund. the park im- a provement fund and tax-increment fi- nancing money. "It's probably going to have to be a combination of different funding sourc- es," Orduno said. Council Member Julie Trude.who sup- , ports the bridge project.said rejecting • the 80 percent federal grant wouldn't make sense. "How can you turn it down. particular- ly since the bridge will connect our north III ,.M , ., . . : f Pte/ 0 2f% Mounds Viewgets a deals bridge, . ,• on with one catch -. ,: BEN CHANCO STAFF WRITER• They brought up the question after lis- tening to the council eliminate using tax- : increment financing, or TIF, for the The mayor of Mounds View tried to bridge. Tax-increment financing allows : • make it as convincing as he could. cities to plow property tax money back • He turned to the four other members into a district to pay for municipal im- of the City Council and asked: "Is anyone provements. • here against it?" Council Members Phyllis Blanchard, : No one said a word against the pedes- Sue Hankner and Gary Quick made it: • ' . trian bridge. proposed for construction clear they did not support using TIF to over U.S. 10 at Long Lake Road at a help pay for the city's $185,000 share. bargain price for the city: a $600,000 "TIF should be used to expand the tax ' bridge for only $185,000. base and to create jobs," Hankner said. ` "No one on the council is against it," "It's to rehabilitate our city," Elan-: Mayor Jerry Linke then told the audi- chard said of tax increment financing. : - ence. "But we're looking at how to come "I'd love to use TIF, but I don't think • up with the $185,000." it's appropriate," Quick said. Linke made the point because some Council Member Julie Trude and Linke j residents who showed up for a council supported using TIF. workshop at City Hall Tuesday asked if "This bridge promotes nonvehicular j the council was really going to look for _ — j the money. _- -_. BRIDGE 0 CONTINUED FROM 1B a ' • traffic, it enhances safety and it promotes a sense of communi- i ty," Trude said. Y . "If this bridge keeps a shopping center viable, yeah, it fits in the TIF category," Linke said. But Linke said it was obvious that he and Trude did not have the votes to use the tax financing. v The council then asked City Administrator Samantha Orduno to come back with an option to pay for the city's portion of the .bridge with money from franchise fees, the street light utility t •fund, the recreation activity fund and property taxes. iOrduno said that option will be presented to the council at its • Oct. 2 work session. i `'If people want this bridge, let's put it on property taxes." Hankner said. "Let the taxpayers decide." Blanchard said. The city can get the $600,000 pedestrian bridge for $120,000 i through a federal grant from ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act), which the city received earlier i _ this year. The grant will pay for 80 percent of the construction cost, if -the city comes up with 20 percent. In addition, the city must t pick up $65,000 in architectural design and inspection fees. "If we don't buy that bridge at 20 percent, it's not going to happen." Trude said. Orduno said a property tax portion of payment for the bridge could mean a property tax increase of about 3 percent for one year only. She said that would be a $5.80 increase a year on a $75,000 home: $6.03 on an $85.000 home: $6.39 on a $100,000 home; and $6.77 on a $115,000 home. i ` Orduno said the council will make a decision after listening to people who attend the public meetings. "The people who have showed up so far are overwhelmingly in favor of the bridge and are willing to pay for it," Orduno said. Focus News—Thurs.,September 14, 1995— II • MOUNDS VIEW • --- t .4 11i a; : i .Ii . ... -. f � , .;: . . r, 1 . ., ,. � � ,ten 1 «wIs t � y} .rw,rw� j `! J xit s.:`5 Photo by Brad Stauffer Mounds View City Council members agree a pselealrian bridge over heavily-traveled Highway 10 is needed, but taxpayers need to foot the city's share of construction costs if the project is to move for- ward. Tax hike considered to fund bridge 1. construction over Highway 104,, . SHELBY NICoLAUS-DUNSKI pedestrian bridge. 15 During a work session last week. Council Mem- ounds View residents may have to put ber Julie Trude argued that the city could use tax- their money where their convictions are increment financing(TIF)to fund the project. if they want to walk or bicycle over Trude. an attorney, said the proposal is a legal use Highway 10 traffic. of TIF money since it would enhance the communi- The City Council is expected to discuss a propos- ty and make businesses on both sides of the high- al during an October work session to increase prop- way more accessible to customers. erty taxes to fund a pedestrian bridge over the high- Mayor Jerry Linke agreed. as did the city's bond- . way ing attorney, Jim O'Meara. who was paid by the The funding plan is a compromise from labored city to submit a legal opinion on the use of TIF for debate during a work session last week over how the project. The city's Planning Commission also • the city would pay the $120,000 matching funds of pressed the council to consider using tax-increment a 541.80.000 federal grant to build the bridge. funding. The only thing council members could agree on BRIDGE/PaQe 7 last week was that the highway should have a 0 a.'V 0 T Bridge . From page 2 . budget, a 3 percent tax levy increase was built into it as a ♦ But a majority of council mem- cushion for unforeseen needed ' bers quashed the idea, saying it expenditures. was not an intended use for TIF, Council members suggested that as legislated. the 3 percent could be used to The most outspoken, Council fund the project.The measure will Member Sue Hankner, said other increase taxes by $6 on an projects, including repairs for a $85,000 home. a mobile home park and apartment "I cannot, in any way,see this as i complexes, deserve more TIF a proper use for tax-increment ' attention than the bridge. financing,"Council Member Phyl- "We have lots of other more lis Blanchard said. "Ninety-eight important needs in this communi- percent of the people in Mounds i ty,"she said. View don't know about this She added building bridges was bridge or, if they did know about not the intention of lawmakers it,they don't care." • when the TIF law was drawn up. But Linke disagreed, saying the Some residents who attended the bridge would help boost business session questioned council mem- along the strip. bers' reluctance to use 111-. "If this helps ... keeps those jobs "People who have a lawyer there ... it fits into that category," background and people who were he said. "I have a real hard time . hired as a lawyer say yes. People raising taxes when it fits into a i who read between the lines ... say 111- category. I'm here to repre- no," said David Malrick, 8289 sent the residents of Mounds Spring Lake Road. View,not the Legislature." Council Member Gary Quick Jim Schmidt, 5446 Erickson said he favored using franchise Road,agreed. and park dedication fees, the "If I can access those shops on Street Light Utility, Recreation foot. I will," he said, adding he Activity Fund and property taxes does not patronize businesses on to fund the project. the opposite side of Highway 10 "I think, if we really want this, while bicycling through the city.If as a community, we should be he is driving his car, "it's just willing to pay for it,"he said. another two minutes to Northtown Though the city is proposing no or Rosedale,"he said. spending increases in its 1996 i 0 t .• : . .1 !' - al...........6....„ ;71aez .s , October 26 1995 1 t •-MouNDs ViEw • 11/ Ilt Till Fate of tax hike rides mi ; , , • . . .+ on bridge support ,,,, ,:. SHELBY NICOLAus-DUNSKI ' Supporters have urged the coun- t:; ; cif to approve the proposal,saying How much Mounds View tax- the bridge will provide a safe way : :1 payers will_pay in the:city's por- for pedestrians, mainly children, • tion of their taxes in 1996 rides on to cross the highly trafficked high- !. the fate of a proposed pedestrian ::way to get to retailers. and:.a ! bridge. .:. limey. City Council members are using • But support was waning,mostly . • the proposed bridge, to be built by Lake Court Drive neighbors, over Highway 10 near Long Lake during a budget informational • Road, as their litmus test for a meeting Monday night. property tax increase. "There are a lot of people who The $12 million 1996 budget can't afford a property tax wasinitially drawn up to include increase for something they don't • no property tax levy increase. use and can't understand," said Later, a 3 percent levy increase Gene Wagner, 2647 Lake Court 4' was included as a cushion for any Circle. unforeseen expenditures in the His sentiments were echoed by ! coming year. That amount is Henry Ruggles, 2629 Lake Court . expected to be lessened or elimi- Drive,who said the council would nated as soon as the city receives be"opening up a hornets'nest"by IIIfinal property tax estimates from building the bridge. Ruggles, a Ramsey County. •Planning Commission member, But the council could add anoth said the bridge would be the hub er 3 percentto the increase if of friction between skateboarding enough residents convince it to and in-line skating youths and pay for the bridge's construction. walking seniors. The . proposal received a If the council approved a budget $480,000 federal grant for its con- funded without a tax increase,city struction.The grant will cover 80 taxes on the average-valued home percent of building costs and of$85,302. would decrease by requires the city to chip in the. L26 percent,or S3. iremainder.. A 3 percent tax increase would With;xtrtitional study and archi- increase city taxes on that same ' ' tectural fees, the city estimates its home by about $7, or 2.88 per- share will be$185,000 for the pro- cent. And a 6 percent increase • posal, if approved.About S50,000 would cost that homeowner an chance to their feelings of that.will be tax-generated and additional SI7,or 7.03 percent. will dents a abe the Nov. air9 budget publicg the remaining is proposed to come will hearing. That hearing, atruth-in- from other city funds. But most homeowners are expect= E ed to see some sort of increase in taxation public hearing,will be resi- their taxes payable in 1996 because dents' last chance to voice their houses increased in value by an opinions on the budget prior to its average2_.65 percent this year. Dec. 6 final approval. The budget Council Member Sue Hankner includes a S3.5 million general fund said she would rather approve a budget. representing a 1.9 percent budget with a zero percent increase. increase over the 1995 budget. If residents want the bridge.she said "I'd like to see a ,Ic d number of she would rather cut the bud+get so people. one :Iirecuon or another—a that taxes do not increase. good representation of the cityn She encouraged residents to make just from one area."she said. council members aware of their Mayor Jerry Linke agreed. "We support or opposition to the pro- need to hear from our residents."he posed bridge. said. One avenue that will give resi- • 0 • - U ' R 7 ' p u) u 7 r L 4-.r., - v�.. CO n = V R = G. =Y ,�-=5ay.= u 707- a•v •-y 3 e u1 2,1 u3 R u �'3/ 'tee >� u �� c >� =� Q.) a� c :. E. :_rQ .J -1C. V v V F. - 7 — - y o ^ - U 2 U 0 e' o t i H .=,1,2-. > _ - - 7- m ..--- .r.'. -r_ U ;DC:S. = J O -, oR 7 •7 SE 7 s___ ice.-_y i �E e3 * .O y V W t ••-'F_ at; ?q - 7 u cD O m• - -U_ ��- t- k > 0u .. e � : o Rvv= 3-` . _ U ✓j 3 Oc R u a u; 0 . - - ^ rc -7.1p. . - v '4 .11 G 1 6.. T ; 3 .1 2 L—�• c.,-- 3 U .� __ - g X- E;u o _7 c m O r1.0 Ii GC-vRi ® Q - U .'6 C7 F. C = (nG07 > wvL m R = c, d� �� 0.4^ � 6,'_m _"0 =43:C. = '= 7. C.1.1 3 3 c•E u :..{ c c L ' n 3� G-5 V =L =7 ! -4-; U = >-- 7-=' ; 8_ cip R7274.150: Rv _o U VO 182 - ^ dz'��7 c c r - 3 c E. - C C J o^D U = ci) 0 ^ d-;7,0.. V mv•- 3 2 (-I St y c a w > v O✓ v�2 V =`- G• dC'GCd.Orj'709 Vt•• ?y- G(-T VN u C G V -'--' � O '6 V U e .. == oo 3z `o = = h 67E'� .3 � L - d3 R L -e,, 9D .=2V a :21, 42.-42747,„--41- .. sl yCi3 =� °0S'= 4�c"= c e.,v - f � OF � CV " V C QC8UV I 4_, r.-9,4.- ?• U y ,, ,,,.4 =- 7 V V..i EGT ^ .^. VV E - ^_ ` R T-;77 Z tivDu * >§ e_ u6Rcuu7- K- euv d m = G-c', (1..) 2,:i L,� - Gee G `�C .&:. O trl I) J TO O '� `G.7 i.••1 `7' T37 p-•7 OS WI U GL ON ���4 - 3u V; eo g�'.. gg •.-, °1A a •u=^T� u= a ,i..4 2^D--°� • e-5 Y F,5L 3 �:� 4i r) -= u Ea '-r es ,ime VD CD r.; V 0 it _ =L- a= ihT.y ET N 7 T it �� 7:1 � 1^) . .3� uo o, to � cY.. I� Eo'E--cv �r T� V' .t. 5 =-7.3.3i1 •�-..2 O7•. `. y5 7 `. 7 •[_/ V 7 Gyf u Gm8 c'.., �r = G r e y i.7 0.C- U -0 ^ .5.; b=.. ; N t- tR� •U• 7 `u •Plal CZ HIJIIIHI lr A '1i�`OCvUi G C7C 1.1 O .. , =7 wV U E =�:0 amL2c ^= ESC Y 1._ �_ -e-oDozi E Q` C�- Ems, G�`Co •L� Z `�O. L � 3� � =Tit;y I� 0. � ••u.u7�y N7 Cq 7 cw R'a O ° •S I /1/2 J/9s 278 lf///el 7)4 • C N ii C O ' ` C = 3 ya wt.. c1 00 ,- = . o ooC -., a .. ° > o O' =A C•� O c3 3 C O V O ` - r, O = c7 > _ ,z..: Nv >,= O ctCOJ - C O = _ d._ , U y L. nU to.r 0 _. U _ ;a:: , C tel O = >Y e) C U > v . !�� ^ _ . \i/ -5 y Z.. ... 3 V .n C of C „ C) ca 3 n v 1 �) ►. ^ {Q�j/�� c) � �o� y ... T, C moi/ `. �' C - ea '3 C ^ r+ > C 4.1 J w CA c3 O p eC3 C c.- K =a0 lz y - rJ U .. •,t: •� O U rJ C 7 y rJ C3 L^ /� „74- 0 .cc , _ 0 0cs_ 'i ►� y .+ c* -1- 3 3 .= 3 C G. cC o .4 ~ t,0 y•_U N Imo, i /� a) " - O C ua a >'Ciro O O > L ~ `y G ai ` C. y y a0i 2 _ O • .o T _a . O 3•• =0 3 14 ^ '-s c � ., ? r. L �, 4 �. Co 64 y .... .,:.• C.-. GA C U o y c3 .< (.) i • 7 U O ' G, >, v')ti • ((ZS) 3 C ` _ .:2 "1 oE t.. .0 _ O >' c-) .a. OO O •> C 'S > y '±-* v N remi 0 () = `^)Cj c' ` ay Coo bg O ,�„" icC. M ° csT.c > y ,-•. to U _ U O ,: G3 3 0 0 O ...• —• Q,d '~ 4-4 ,/ = Z = v o ii avo3o ^ •-. > :o^°,o C..) "4 C 3 Z O `) 0 v J , O J � � , 3 -• " — � o •� > •C Cl) > To= C 3 , s r a 2c`)3 3 c : :063 - November 30 1995 - a Thanks for Hwy. 10 bridge vote To the editor: I would just like to thank the mayor and City Council of Mounds View on voting yes for the pedestrian bridge over Highway 10; and for doing it without raisins taxes to finance it. I and several residents of Mounds View are very excited about having a safe path across i Highway 10. Also, a thank you goes to (Parks and Recreation Director) Mary . Saarion and the Parks and Recreation staff of Mounds View for all of their hard work they f have put in on this project. I'm looking forward to being able to take my two children on a bike ride to the library and not have to worry about the traffic on the high- way. Thank you all again. Sherry Gunn Mounds View eliZi 6-f, g/c-lJa-57z � Carpinteria TV sho vv to feature City Manager Samantha Orduno Carpinterians will have a chance to Access TV Channel 18, and will feature a speak to new City Manager Samantha Orduno during an upcoming broadcast of discussion based on questions phoned in by Dec ]995• THE BULLETIN Wedr,es'' ' - • �4ra� 00 .., cC9:5. ° u oa§ = 0 III i - O O ••- > C = [ ) a : '^ 1 V 5. .= ., ^i r NC y • p C , Y' 3 =j G0. �.S ° N '7, T �4,__,'= � ' 40) c. 0 '^ � ? — •cC •-. = . � 0 . = 'B O O = y 4 - G � • -. H' C = •c •--1 on ccs O .�v — 0 —. v O 14 n 4 = .cj r_ _ > 1 .') ti.. ; >, - G O G N y tiU � � e� 3 30s� v ° • 0 v - O � a� U o c >>s E— cC � 'c� es <c c C} c, 3 C at cl v N •—, 0 c. rig •T3 c. .cE j ^ .0 ^B • �"' ca c. J c G V 0 v = O �. p � E ? -* > _ ter' ' • = 18 0 5 = c-. o... 9 c '— 1.., 7 rr .� v C'N0 .5 O u - n _; a4" rn w -- ,..▪ J r.. . ... G O111 3 AO ^ T� = _�= cc 8 r C — _. _ _ .. - - O ? c._ rC _ 3C a aC - Js ?' — O 14 — , a) , _ Z — — r 3 ? 1 = n. Q 7 x = ��:, � `'l'' rig ,int n " •, - = 5 - u 1 › o n >-.:=2 -— :- 0g - > 7 -. •1=•; - - E ' 5.= t .. — car. ? c ,, „ c. • �._ � O _ ._ _ "_' 3 t 1�1 I .n "ris ¢ Z — + J ' y - ° to .. ,J O 04 • �, a - - .... _-z . G � J G '%n .- 7h E ei..)1 -?'t 174 > n : c.r. 0L) t. — O O 2 ..... G CC1.... ,... ... — • •�e i .. 2. �' itIII .4.-1 • 3 L. : ,O — C.; r ? :n G = 7 = C. G C.) 0 �83 — � 3c2 = � = 0 > •= 5 � r :: 'V rB .= E C) c3 .= U CZ C) G0. O C C0 a) c 00 �,/ ct c O >, O "O"'" • �._ — 0 3 h -, a) cc ;� • - c 3 = - ,- o c= koi a >. is 0 3 •v hi�� J' 'a © E — • c, .— ®� r.., O�O � p aUi 0 3 = a.) EL.� O ti C � ?1 > C. > M4 In 'F.; Q 2 g (1 1 jam` •ori C�•.' CJ �l y Cry X = � h � c`�oN � � = � 3 VV// yccd 0°D05. � w . o C3 . I x - • Vs c1 ^ 0 0 =.... v Q .0 cc.p2, 2,x v 9, vs�3 C t2 r-I .Ci W. 8' .8 ti 'Ci C3 i ^ CC o cam ) �X - `° 3'�`^ ;ZT b �3 a U y � � O a) = = 3 U c e:' Cr)36 p v + �. = .'_~ .tea '. _ q C CW •� aci - d ^ „ = 'o . 3 y i-�1 'Zi c ........ c��� ❑ ▪c ce o a3i: c c. = y U h' C, .--. r.7) " 6.8' U T A l y �C c r 1, a �n C) 00•� .G.X L _ C.= h •��,....ac ._.. rn G= ^ .�.a ^ ►�' C G t - G O a) CC)) — 2 O G % C 1.. G .., x C) 1., „'I ..•'1., 0 Q i. 'U C C' a)0 a) c• . .: r a)C� 0. 0 ...4� � ce O0 p. 0 3 � .p 1. � o On0�.2D1 a`) .� , ._0 a>i '_ � a• .)U•-- - C �r O - 'o =;ti O0 30.� 5 _- Q r.•+ l' icy0 a) N = C J o0 = , a)P. y y— 1.. 1 oA ' c. ' G c • y O ,a .. ca J �) �� p C. aci r �_ OO �� °° p C- � � � CO Co) Q � y � � 3 c) Gel ,c c c oa � -; G c) -0 1= G y.•�Ci .�"',:n ^O C ._.. a)••��• al G V GC OCo y C c a) C 1.. C L O r ^ • 1.. = O 0 ..... t. U a _ _ 4:,)Fc) O,V O> G O .2. h y—C,i r =t,,,. .. CT C/4 'Li) vii 0c°', ��) 0 ...g .00 •B a) ^ c�>c00a, ct • v,' a`� `` ;T"J 0 ` 2 mac. 7) c '-• ^ ? - °� v o 3 —'c� o a) a..) > ~ Q ami cj �po co ` c c.?� 0a�^ > e��o aid0 .,•� G y. c v.. en .- �. O C4 = •= U v) cC 9, = cn C ^ v acyl a^3i G0• 5 c m• v ^ •r �� 'v 0 CD T. 0 1"^, c▪ �i�� r:n ^C P"4 ytu • _� ° 3oc.0 � '��. '� al, m �. _ � = ° .o - 0y - cecac3 " ' T^ p cue G- �• = O .G� 0 •mi Lt 2 a .� oLi, Q > t.•. ? 3 c,3 :a.; o a�� ) U Ci .z ! o•o2 c"a c `� � ''' O " ° 0 >� '' •`. G.0 0.) .�: =•cil �v) `� c�:" .a. "Fc cc �� Wig > cu col r. t,,. F•:.,0 7 c • O •` TG, ,- 4r y L) 4] V ct w, .'7 •U 00 O F •0 Ci r. J' 'a .._ = .83W O O = —C `p Tv; = .Crv+PIZ 3 W .N� ..,. OA 5 _____ ___________________._ . . . 1 i ..,.. . .t , ,. Hbu- (( fi n _ j ,he, i r, /7 `'' ' • Mounds View s , Pond near bridge ' II site may be relocated Ti 1•' Study will surface water management fund. railing,"said Ulrich.Also of concern -1 ' If the study finds that relocation is is the extra maintenance needed to determine whether feasible, the cost for the actual remove garbage thrown pond two can co-exist nexpected to with the expected increase in public i I" rangerelocafromonof$the10,000pond tois$32,500 and activity around the new bintoridge.the 1. • 1+ would commence simultaneously Some council members,including , by Greg Schmidt with the bridge construction, which Julie Trude, said they would prefer 1 P - The Mounds View City Council Ulrich expects will begin in the relocation because of the unattractive- q;j June 10 authorized a study to deter- spring of 1997. I mine the feasibility of relocating a The new according Q ries of the current pond. When.the ' I-" drainage pond from the site of a Ulrich, will possibly location,be behindthebe bridge of 1995, Mayor Jerry Liroved inneal o j t ' planned pedestrian bridge over city'spublic works area, •� ' ''I I Highway 10. Y east of the showed support for pond relocation. t Public Works Director Mike Phillips 66 station. "It's an eyesore and very dangerous t ry 1. Ulrich said work on the study will Expensive alternative for children,"said Linke. • j( start immediately. If the SEH stud 11; with thestudy,Ulrich , 1 The city received two estimates pond should stay andpbe redesigned also inforoves that the Alonrmed the Pcoouncil about the lr� for the cost of the study:$7,620 from within the bridge area, that cost is change in the design of the bridge's '• BRW, Inc., the contractor awarded estimated to be at least S40,000. This entrance ramp. Originally the -• the pedestrian bridge project, and scenario would include a change to entrance was designed for a switch- $6,900 from Short-Elliott-Hendrick- the overall appearance of the bridge. back ramp,but has been changed to a i; j son, the city's consulting engineer. "The engineers have stated that spiral ramp. "It would be more user The council awarded the work to we're going to need some inside friendly and take up less room,"said SEH;based on its low bid.The study fencing.onthe inside railing to make Ulrich. The cost of the pedestrian 1 } will be financed through the city's it Y so people,can't jump. off the bridge is estimated at5600,000. i ‘ a 11 ; 4IP 1 I i • _ - .-, -.f --.. •y ate' _, P./. .+'1,T t - 7 1. r 1- %'x/ - . •, ..... _...._ _ . . __ Footeddisputed - , . e lar g p1 — - R -' .. .. . _ . ,..___ MView council to vote on issue Feb. 24 BEN CHANCO STAFF WRITER on the project, originally targeted for completion in October 1997. Mounds View residents will find out McCarty, who was elected in = in two weeks if a pedestrian bride November, said he put the issue back over Highway 10 at Long Lake Road on the agenda because he has a lot of ' will be built as planned. concerns about the source of funding , z The •council, after listening Monday and the previous council's lack of pub- l lic night to residents both for and against einvolvement in the project. the bridge, set a Feb. 24 meetingfor I d just as soon cut my lossesd. ," he making a decision about the projet, said "This will give us the o But Council Member Julie Trude,answer a lot of questions' Mayor who was a member of the council that Duane McCarty said. .' approved the bridge, said public hear- ings were held. A previous council approved con- , • struction of the bridge using480 000 I cant sit here and listen to you -` from a federal grant and $120 000 chastise the last council," she told the from the city. Thcity also agreed to mayor. pay $70,000 for design and engineering When the mayor asked for corn- services; so far, $55,000 has been spent meats from the audience, the council 3 a BRIDGE CONTINUED ON 5B i • i 111VJC W 1144 ♦a•11111•.J •vw•- ., -„ err- — _ ' — invaluable the life you would save." s,_ Julie Olsen presented a petition with about 95 signatures ,. 1 opposed to building the bridge, and those signing included ' :. r parents and seniors. = z I 1 : ....,....t.• Vivian Henningfield, a resident of Wildwood Manor, a rest t. ,, = . 7 -.----; -r----4_-'7,24'---A-.,742,..:"7.: .; , -, dente for seniors located at the proposed bridge site, said she .it:4 s s; ': •„, would like to have the structure built for safetyreasons. ,na ""» =_ ' "Right now, the only way I canget across Highway 10 is to go ..�` - - s g } , , 4 when the light is red, then wait in the middle, then cross agai ' -� •• - "'�+ . she said. "We have a lot of people in wheelchairs who can't go '" ,,,, ; ., _ across." g Russell Nordstrom said he was not in favor of the project `-'14'"''-.--:;-- ` ' :;� because of cost overruns. f=: .�,f-, ,- -�J4 -II - "It's not going to be used that much anyway," he said. "Kids 1,41-'''',:'-•-:,,,,;,;:-.;,‘,•-:r 1L -- `,.' .- .�= will still cross the highway because they won't walk the extra ''K 7= : = mileage." » _K K Tamara McBride, 12, who attends Edgewood Middle School „ ;= j ' i near the site, said she and her friends spent a lot of time t` s r crossing Highway 10 to get to the library. :';� � r �. �; z 1 t I m concerned about other people's safety and my safety, - :' = �v: she said. "I'm concerned about the kids and the elderly." _-,-.,-1-_.--,,,. ..i--'• ' --.-,,,,,,-..,.a. Ardis Noonan, Ramsey County Library Board Member, said �. ?a t{ `r ° i (..,. -.1 r_ her board supported the bridge as an intelligent approach to get ,` --:;-4.-,4,'; ',,' •'� w-.,-„,- f- ,- - : �`l people across Highway 10. ..-,-,,,-,;.4.. » "We are very dismayed that this is even under question," she; 4"` ; ,,,r i4irgt . 1 �r told the council. 1 n ` � ���^ 1 tc' S i - R S � s , f ,u PIONEERPRESCLASSIFIED 222-1111 - s.. _• y '� '-'"""'"`"""`"'"- -""'"."7""-").--t"*"." ms-=Try . •y 3, _`* ",',''.4.1:44. �rf�G. - ,7 ,. .' ,., - 1r ' ,i- '' '. - s --,'6I ,..--,„- s ^^ '...'"-")'-1'r- - a.+•-.r ,r„� '-..........-L.........7. ay ` j rt a.:L T .ru - w. �- , ;.c,,, j .,r . . t L .0, a tt`', :,z yy',.. ' „,..,.s.:,......:,c•' ,,v 1-2,,,.,„z 4- y'r .-J "-'7:i.1.-......4::71.t. za < ts. ter- r: •,"f"�"�`r`�. •�^ r`...r �.- rl �:iio'- . �-�' 32? tae: ILI ea >. 6U U U _>. U G_li _J - :J U r: C J J si) u L�1■V) _ =u _ v C —!frUI 1 ^ 3 _ > :. �_ _ >,,= 1 fie. On 7 > G ,�^. - J r OA . / C.- ti _ • J _ •v ., ._ L _ C N. f - _ r •r. j J A r G 3 .•s V F.0 'JJ 0 0) - _ v = = .) •_ Cj ,� C.L --` :J J -Y '-. 1 '=y" Cr) Clin > Z. � c � 3 L = G3 �r eti.t Q▪ L < 4j -r Cj n •L •r t- J J - = T •�' •;� T•3 00•- T.8 •Cq : - GV + , U� .- - ' -.r Om J •- tGU TC rTL R nC G• • . C "" :4 4;4' v •• . - .. . tj v 4 7 At O cZ• L� UD a.; et .L .� .r2 = � L .... T ONLY:. � '� C LC 3 4 al c c _ _V. L -, L r _{„�-...H..-- ..r. ....." Cj :j •l. CU'LJ';! n C) -.1.1 j - C.L. - C. •- > 7 ^ ^ J `. . > ..en ^ -+t;-♦ `-.1 _ ^.. n ,,-,4• '- a 0 G -. •- :J 0 L. H_ ^ v I, CZ: • s. C ^ J .j C ” = G .41.) V 3 •� �)� � C r L ,. r ^ CA t,YCC n J ' •C 1 > VJ >' ) v. ir U C • LV - ,., 4j U7 O ,, -, ..=.'-'...›,=;7.".. T - ct• • r • , ,• Jr r r �' U j .r CJ O r u..� ^- . 0. = .... ___ = rt - G3 CO^ V. •U ^ 0 - ,'fir• T J `O•., %U L - - :j •U CAj j) O ..if 9. ' ► • ' .. G ••-• n r u o .. ▪ C C-1 .'., G - r - Cj ^ - en j`tc � .-� yL " r C.) ,•.7'.. '=„„ Cr C y -T' C'' � ,, w L r ', • L C W ;j L. • ..... J Uj •= C - j •'6•6 ti r Cl; _ a� L rrO O = u rGJ 7.-' `� C L L"' •-. ua,.. ,,,;......:..... ........1..) ..... ... .... , </B:.. : 7... (a ei... ::".1. ; ::. =... Z 2_ .......:: ?„-5_ ___;:.; ..-:. •--2. 1:22., __....-) 7.72:11•: '116 '-)7..) i 1.1:1 9 r • v • G > 7T7 >VV , • C =JVU _ 7Q ^ ... ,i ., .n.. 9 •G.: •0 cs= V CZ • L• J V 4j CJ t-.. U n C . G T O•rO 7 '� •^ C ,J G r = O CJ tj V. U C OU U L • • 'n > rJ c, ..cL aX+ V Cj c�C et c3 G cC G 3 v G O U .� n CZ C Co.O e1 CZ:t....1 = • v. 3. y ^ r C V. T T C3 C T Vi V) 0 L ^ T V — 0 G C' � , LT • J - = y J= . A r •_ T T ^ Gu G_ v1 Gc....Z e 4) .= o L e ❑ C c.c.) c >, �, T G G c C�• pG ` .�U O • ...h O �ti • , l.r y _ C C C v c3 r n v G . v, u 3 v L Q . - ▪ .i .... L - r C - - �. r., = ^ • V LI ., 1 •'...--,) ^^ ';. 0- .0` CJ L C = 'Q y y - 7 C .` __� •Q'r .�J l '^—'Ty :--vJ�...r-.ftG"_'Y: r� — •v ..�^ CO 7--r 'C_ ���111 Item No. 0 6 Staff Report No. q7- /9$0 C.. III Meeting Date: February 24, 1997 Type of Business: CB WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council From: Bruce Kessel, Finance Director Item Title/Subject: Status of TIF plan for Bel Rae project Date of Report: February 20, 1997 Subsequent to last weeks work session, City Administrator Whiting and myself met with Dave Mahoney from Community Partners, Inc to discuss the procedures necessary to establish a Tax Increment District(TIF) for the Bel Rae project. Over the last several days, I have had further discussions with V.B. Diggs, Bob Long, and Dave Mahoney regarding this issue. In order to establish a TIF District, we would need to hold a public hearing on the proposed district; as part of this procedure, we are required to provide the County and School District 30 days advance notice of the proposed project. To prepare the TIF plan, we need to obtain information relating the proposed project from V.B. Diggs (the estimated cost of constructing their component of the project and then its estimated market value); V.B. Diggs has indicated that they will have this • information by February 24th. Originally, it was contemplated that the City would conduct its public hearing on the proposed TIF plan on March 24th, however, since we do not have the information necessary to complete the documentation necessary to prepare the plan, it has been proposed that we move this date back to April 14th. Based upon discussions with Bob Long who has been in contact with V. B. Diggs, this should not impair Diggs' ability to complete its project in its scheduled time frame. Moving the public hearing back to April 14th may also have some political advantages since it should be after an advisory election has been held. Staff will continue to work with the associated participants and consultants for the project in an effort to have complete and accurate of information available for the Council and the general public as it discusses and resolves the issues associated with the Bel Rae project. 111