Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1997/10/27 'kms • PO4#0tAgggq#SENNERNMENiginigaig MEN CSC. be .:2 .. '99 .`.. 7 0O::: 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. If you 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 Quick ip 4. AGENDA ADDITIONS Item 1: Item 2: Item 3: 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 22, 1997 - City Council Meeting COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: 6. ACCEPTANCE OF ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES 7. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS Mayors Proclamation for Literacy Day 8. CONSENT AGENDA • A. Approve Just and Correct Claims Against City Funds. B. Adopt Resolution No. 5171 Electing to Continue to Participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program. Staff Report No. 97-2252C City Council Agenda Page 2 C. Adopt Resolution No. 5174, A Resolution of Appreciation for Fire Motor • Operator Lawrence M. Myslicki, Retiring November 30, 1997. D. Set a public hearing for 7:10 p.m. on November 10, 1997, for the second reading of Ordinance 605, an Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Electric and Natural Gas Utility Companies for the Operation of the Utility within the City of Mounds View. Staff Report No. 97-2253C E. LICENSES FOR APPROVAL HVAC - expires June 30. 1998 Associated Mechanical, Inc. -New D.A. Distribution dba Condor Fireplace& Stone Co.-New Advanced Energy Services, Inc. -New GENERAL (Commercial) - expires June 30. 1998 C.G. Hill & Sons -New ASPHALT - expires June 30. 1998 Metro Paving, Inc. -New SIGN- expires June 30. 1998 11)Scenic Sign Corp. -New 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 linty a speaker is limited to three(3)minutes. CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:05 PM Public Hearing to Consider the Transfer of the Off-Sale Liquor License for Murzyn Liquors, 2840 Highway 10 to Khahn Van Duong. Staff Report No. 97- 2254C COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: 7:10 PM Consider Ordinance No. 603, An Ordinance Vacating part of a Drainage Easement • over Lots 17 and 18, Edgewood Square for Good Value Homes (lots fronting Pinewood Circle). Staff Report No. 97-2255C City Council Agenda Page 3 1. Public Hearing • 2. Second Reading 3. Consider Motion Adopting ROLL CALL VOTE Mayor McCarty Councilmember Koopmeiners Councilmember Stigney Councilmember Quick COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: 7:15 PM Consideration of Resolution No. 5168, a Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Mounds View Business Park East Second Addition for Everest Group, Ltd. Staff Report No. 97-2256C 1. Public Hearing 2. Consideration COUNCIL ACTION: A T D • Comments: 11 . COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Consideration of Resolution No. 5175, Approving the City of Mounds View's Application for Participation in a Cooperative Agreement with Minnesota Department of Transportation. Staff Report No. 97-2257C (Presented by: Cathy Bennett, Director of Economic Development) COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: B. Consideration of Resolution No. 5173, a Resolution Approving the Wetland Alteration Permit on Lots 17 and 18 of Edgewood Square for Good Value Homes. Staff Report No. 97-2255C (Presented by:Jim Ericson, Community Development) COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: • C. Consideration of Resolution No. 5172, A Resolution Authorizing Abatement of Nuisances at 2349 Laport Drive. Staff Report No. 97-2258C (Presented by:Jim Ericson, Community Development) City Council Agenda Page 4 COUNCIL ACTION: A T D • Comments: D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 605, An Ordinance Implementing a Franchise Fee on Electric and Natural Gas Utility Companies for the Operation of the Utility within the City of Mounds View. Staff Report No. 97-2253C. (Presented by: Bruce Kessel, Finance Director) COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: E. Consideration of Approving the Cooperative Agreement and Initial Agreement by and between the City of Mounds View and Minneapolis Public Housing Authority for Silver Lake Commons. Staff Report No. 97-2260C (Presented by:Bob Long, City Attorney) COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: • F. Consideration of Adopting Ordinance No. 604, Amending Title 1200, Chapter 1204 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Relating to Park Dedication Fees. ROLL CALL VOTE Mayor McCarty Councilmember Koopmeiners Councilmember Stigney Councilmember Quick COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: G. Approval to Authorize Mayor and Clerk-Administrator to Sign Joint Powers Agreement for Northwest Youth and Family Services. Staff Report No. 97-2261C (Presented by: Chuck Whiting, City Administrator) COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: • i City Council Agenda Page 5 H. First Reading of Ordinance No. 606, An Ordinance Amending Cable Franchise Ordinance No. 319, Article II, Section 4, Franchise Term. Staff Report No. 97- 2262C (Presented by: Chuck Whiting, City Administrator) COUNCIL ACTION: A T D Comments: 12. REPORTS 1. Report of Councilmembers: Koopmeiners: Stigney: Quick: 2. Report of Mayor McCarty: • 3. Clerk of Cle k Admuustrator. 4. Report of Staff: 5. Report of Attorney: Next Council Work Session: November 3, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. Next Canvassing Meeting: November 5, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. Next Council Meeting: November 10, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT • MEMO To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Chuck Whiting, City Administrator Re: October 27, 1997 City Council Meeting Here's what's on the agenda for Monday evening: Council Business - Item 11A- MNDOT Agreement Regarding Highway 10 Crossing Light: Cathy's memo better articulates the agreement, but in general this will allow for the City to be considered for a crossing light under the next project cycle with MNDOT. While this is ahead of the ring road discussion, it is critical to the theater development, and due to the timing of MNDOT's commitments, it makes sense to apply now rather than later. Should the City decide not to want a traffic light, our application can be withdrawn similar to how the bridge project happened. Item 11B - Nuisance Abatement at 2349 Laport Drive: This is the Lodmill property which unfortunately has needed this level of City action in order to rectify code violations. Jim Ericson has work diligently on this matter and will present the situation Monday evening and request abatement proceed. Item D-Franchise Fee Extension:From the Council's budget discussions over the past few months and particularly the last month, on the immediate future of the franchise fee. Bruce has put together the necessary ordinance language to extend the fee for one more year at a 2.5%rate, as opposed to the 3% rate of the current ordinance. This should allow the fee to be collected in January and not hurt the City's budget projections for 1998. Item E-Cooperative Agreement with Minneapolis Public Housing Authority on Silver Lake Commons Project: Bob Long will explain the situation with this agreement on Monday evening. Currently, there is a problem with the language of the agreement wherein the City in not held harmless. Bob feels this language should be included and unless it can be figured out by Monday evening,will likely recommend the Council not approve the agreement. He can explain this Monday. Item H- Northwest Youth and Family Services Joint Powers Agreement: Council may recall discussing this agreement several weeks ago when representatives ofNWYFS attended the Council meeting. Over time, some changes developed in membership and services that were covered in the original WA. I believe Roseville felt that with the changes, the agreement should be updated, and this is the end agreement. It does not change our relationship with them and the recommendation to Council is to have a motion to approve the new agreement. If anyone has questions, try to call me on Monday. Item I- Cable Franchise Ordinance Amendment: This short ordinance amends the existing cable • TV franchise agreement extending it until January of 1998. During this time, the cable commission's legal counsel is negotiating a new franchise agreement resulting from expiration and the transfer of the companies owning the franchise rights. This is a difficult negotiation will probably need further explanation later, but for now the important thing is to adopt this ordinance amendment so legally the • cable system can continue past November 8. Realistically I don't see the cable TV being turned off during this time,but upon the advisement of counsel,we should do it just the same. A Council action for Monday to be the first reading of this ordinance is recommended. Here is an update on activities that have happened this week. First, I met with MAC officials on Thursday and Bob Long via the telephone on the City's position regarding the airport plan. As I said to each of you Wednesday, our three points going into the discussion was to be opposed to any runway extensions,be opposed to new hangers for military hobby craft, and to all other facets of the plan that may upgrade the airport to allow for increased intermediary aircraft usage. The other objective of the meeting was to seek some compromise, hopefully regarding these points, to go back to the legislative delegation with that could be agreed to. During the meeting, our points were made. Representing MAC were their attorney Tom Anderson, their legislative affairs lobbyist Dave Dombrowski and airports planner Mark Ryan. A copy of their issues response to questions raised during the September legislative delegation meeting. Their responses to our issues were to consider limiting the north/south runway to 4,800 feet, but that the parallel runways are needed for training and taxiing, but their construction will be subject to funding. Mr.Ryan did not consider them to be alternates to the main runways. As far as hangaring, they felt they are not allowed to discriminate between types of aircraft for hangaring. Our response was to argue that the plan and operations do nothing to limit the use of the airport by intermediate • aircraft (even though these aircraft fit the minor use classification) and that hangar space used to house intermediate planes could in and of itself allow that use to grow at the airport. As far as components of the plan that can be construed as contributing to the intermediate use of the airport, their position is that nothing in the plan will lead to this and that MAC is planning within the appropriate framework allowed to them. This point was contested that no, in fact past legislation places limits on the growth planned for the airport. We agreed to disagree that we could not resolve the nature of this issue ourselves and either a court or legislative action would be needed. This of course places us back where we were, but I think some work with our legislators may assist us in determining how far the City can get with controlling growth issues. It was all worth the time, but the impact remains to be seen. On Tuesday I attended a meeting of representatives of the school district, Arden Hills, Shoreview and New Brighton regarding a study done by the school district on recreation facilities. Their conclusion was that there is a shortage of facilities in the district and that to address this issue would require the cities' input and consideration. By the end of the meeting a district wide bond issue was bandied about. The study is included in your packet. Cathy, Rick and I have met a couple of times regarding the Mermaid project. We are looking a couple of options geared to create more increment in the area so as to make a project more fiscally feasible for the City to participate in. We will keep you informed if we can come up with options that do this, or if you have any questions or ideas, feel free to call. Mike,Bruce and I have also met to assess the assessment policy/street improvements/funding abilities of the City, particularly in regards to Spring Lake Road which will be before the Council in full in November. I have a very hard time looking at these issues without attempting to weigh the cost/benefits of construction options, the design options apparently favored by Spring Lake Road residents and the financing problems faced by the City. I think the Council and staff will need to follow-up with this last work session on this subject and attempt to determine a course of action that does not require the Council and staff to reinvent the wheel every time a street project comes up. This will likely mean injecting more design options available to the residents affected and restructuring the assessment ratios. Doing that however cannot be removed from budgetary considerations, since those options will likely lead to increases in the City's share of project costs. We are attempting to put this into some comprehensive format so the Council and community can understand the impacts of changes to any of the variables involved in these decisions. One aspect of this discussion that I think the Council needs to consider and remember is that the community at large is not represented by anyone other than Council, staff and existing policy during discussions with Spring Lake Road residents. In other words, this is a zero sum equation and changes to the assessment policies, funding mechanisms and design standards are balanced between immediately impacted property owners and indirectly taxed but not directly impacted general community. As stated Monday evening, staff will assist in any changes to any of the policies involved, but remains in a position of appearing to defend the status quo until directed to do otherwise. The overall objective needs to be determined, is it to improve streets, keep costs down and/or meet the desires of the residents directly impacted. Naturally a balance needs to be struck, but right now it is difficult to determine what the desired balance is or whether it is even understood to be a balance between • interests and limited resources. Perhaps some additional discussion after the November 5 canvassing meeting can assist in this. , Page 1 40 October 13, 1997 UNAPPRO1VILI Mounds View City Council 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL 9 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 10 RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA 11 12 Regular Meeting 13 October 13, 1997 14 Mounds View City Hall 15 2401 Hwy. 10,Mounds View,MN 55112 16 ********************************************************************************** 17 18 CALL TO ORDER 19 20 The Mounds View City Council was called to order by Mayor McCarty at 7:00 p.m.on October 13, 1997. • 21 22 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 23 24 ROLL CALL 25 26 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor McCarty,Council members 27 Koopmeiners,Quick and Stigney 28 29 ALSO PRESENT: Chuck Whiting,Clerk Administrator 30 Michael Ulrich,Director of Public Works 31 Cathy Bennett,Economic Development Director 32 Bob Long,City Attorney 33 34 ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: 35 36 There were no additions to the Agenda. 37 38 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 39 40 September 22,1997-City Council Meeting: 41 42 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney to approve the minutes of the September 22, 1997 City Council meeting 43 as presented. 44 45 VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 0 46 47 ACCEPTANCE OF ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES: 48 Page 2 i October 13, 1997 • Mounds View City Council 1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-August 20,1997 2 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-September 3,1997 3 Mounds View Cable Committee Meeting Minutes-September 11,1997 4 5 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to accept the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meetings on 6 August 20, 1997 and September 3, 1997 and of the Mounds View Cable Committee Meeting on September 7 11, 1997. 8 9 VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 10 11 SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: 12 13 There was no Special Order of Business. 14 15 CONSENT AGENDA: 16 17 Mr.Whiting asked that Item 8(K)be removed from the Consent Agenda,which would be considered under 18 Council Business. 19 20 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to approve the Consent Agenda AS AMENDED. 21 22 VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 23 24 RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR: 25 26 Mayor McCarty explained that this is the time for residents to address the council with concerns on items that 27 are not on the Agenda. 28 29 There were no questions or comments from the floor. 30 31 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 32 33 None 34 35 COUNCIL BUSINESS: 36 37 A. Informational Meeting with Rick Packer,Representative from the Met Council. 38 39 Mr.Rick Packer,Met Council Representative introduced himself as well as Guy Peterson who is a Sector 40 Representative for the Metropolitan Council. Mr.Packer briefly summarized some of their priorities as a 41 Council during the next 12-14 months of their term. He noted that they have three major goals to carry out 42 within that time. The first is to become more acquainted with the communities that they represent and have 43 them more acquainted with them individually and as a Council/Agency. The second goal is to get people more 44 acquainted with their growth strategy(information was distributed to the Council members providing greater 45 detail in regard to that strategy). Their third priority is transportation and how to provide for transit and 46 transportation needs of the communities. He noted that they want to enhance the relationships with local 47 officials and that they appreciate any input with regard to their growth strategy and their involvement with • 48 transportation committees and the legislature. 15,,,, i ''' Di \ t r�,'� 1irhiutu � t MPage3 • October 13, 1997 Mounds View City Council 1 Mr.Whiting noted that the City has been working with the legislature on the issues relating to expansion of the 2 Anoka Airport. Mr.Long provided a brief summary of the city's concerns in regard to the proposed 3 expansion and the fact that MAC is not following the procedures set forth in the Airport Guide or Aviation 4 Chapter. 5 6 Mayor McCarty provided Mr.Packer with a copy of the RFP for framework and transportation studies in 7 connection with the I-35W Corridor. Mr.Packer stated he thinks the I-35W Corridor Group is a great idea 8 and noted that they will do anything they can do to encourage and help to finance that. He also noted that Met 9 Council has a limited number of funds left over which are being allocated to cities to revise their 10 Comprehensive Plans. 11 12 B. Presentation and Acceptance of the feasibility study for the reconstruction of Spring Lake Road 13 and County Road L 14 15 Mr.Barry Peters of Short-Elliott-Hendrickson was present to discuss the feasibility study for the reconstruction 16 of Spring Lake Road and County Road I. He noted that there has been some discussion about building a rural 17 or suburban section in the area,and in discussions with State Aid, it was noted that a suburban section could 18 be built(basically a rural section with no curb and gutter),but a 12 foot lane would be required on each side 19 and with the traffic volume it would require an eight foot gravel or bituminous shoulder. This would end up 20 being a 40 foot wide road. As proposed,the new roadway would be 32 feet wide with curb and gutter. • 21 Three alternatives were looked at for treating storm water run-off and Mr.Peters briefly discussed these 22 options. He explained that the city's policy requires the construction of trailways along all state aid routes. 23 If the Council should decide that they do not want to proceed with that policy and cut back on some of it,they 24 would recommend that the Council at least consider continuing the trail along County Road I and also one 25 constructed up to Hillview from County Road I to provide pedestrian access to the Beach area on the North 26 side of the lake. Mr.Peters provided estimated costs of the project based on a 32 foot wide street(with a area 27 of 26 foot wide),a trailway(not based on the minimum), construction of water services,and storm sewer 28 systems for a total base cost of$1,529,979.00(the three alternates would be additional). Mr.Peters also went 29 through the City's Assessment Policy and the estimated schedule of the improvements. 30 31 Mayor McCarty stated he would like Mr.Peters to include the 26 foot roadway feasibility study as a part of the 32 preliminary report for the Public Hearing purposes. 33 34 Barb Haake,3024 County Road I, stated in 1997,the City of Mounds View received$321,259.00 in MSA 35 funds which is approximately$27,000 more than what was received in 1996. In January 1998 it is thought that 36 the city may receive an additional$27,000 to$30,000,bringing the total to approximately$350,000. These 37 funds can be accumulated for up to four years. Approximately$120,000 in MSA funds are owed. The 38 Ramsey County Tumback Funds are$580,000 for Spring Lake Road and$10,000 for County Road I. Some 39 of the area is not MSA roadway,therefore she does not see a need to use MSA standards for the entire area. 40 Without using MSA funding,the residents could have the kind of road that they desire. Taking into 41 consideration estimates that she received,with cost consideration given to additional costs,she feels there 42 should be sufficient Ramsey County tumback funds to finance the project. Ms.Haake discussed some other 43 options that were addressed to provide adequate protection for the storm water run off. 44 45 Until a ten year plan is implemented,she suggests that the city delay any road upgrading/rebuilding or use 046 money available. She also suggested that the City establish a Study Committee to research how other 47 comparable cities are financing their road improvements and explore the possibility of a bond issue for street 48 construction,re-paving and establish a maintenance fund. UNAPPRO'JED Page4 October 13, 1997 Mounds View City Council 1 Ms.Haake asked that the City Council consider repair/resurface Spring Lake Road and County Road I using 2 only the allotted funds available from the Ramsey County Tumback Funds,and built the roadways entirely 3 within that budget,and that Mounds View does not pursue MSA designation for the entire length of Spring 4 Lake Road from County Road J to County Road H2. She noted that if Mounds View insists upon a more 5 sophisticated roadway than what the residents want,they should delay the reconstruction of Spring Lake Road 6 and County Road I until they develop a 10 year roadway capital master plan for the entire city with funding 7 mechanisms to achieve the long term solution for all of the system. She also asked that Mounds View appeal 8 to MNDOT to allow MSA funding to be used for all roadways within the city or to change the MNDOT 9 restrictive MSA suburban/urban design criteria to allow for water quality/quantity standards to be applied. 10 11 Mayor McCarty noted that the city is working on a master capital improvements plan and after they understand 12 the needs city-wide,the costs can be looked at to determine the best funding mechanism for those needs, 13 including the possibility of a bond. 14 15 Council member Stigney noted that the assessment area was reduced approximately 40%from the original 16 proposal and asked why this was so. Mr.Peters explained that originally they were looking at areas that 17 contributed to the lateral system as well but when looking more closely at the city's policy it was noted that 18 lateral improvements are paid for by the city. 19 20 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to accept the feasibility study for the reconstruction of Spring Lake 21 Road and County Road I,with an amendment to include SEH File A-MOUND9706. 22 23 VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 24 25 C. Consideration of Resolution No.5158,Setting a Public Hearing for November 25,1997 at 7:05 p.m., 26 to Consider the Reconstruction of Spring Lake Road and County Road L 27 28 Mr.Ulrich noted a typographical error in the date of the Public Hearing. The date should be changed to 29 November 24,1997. 30 31 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to Approve Resolution No.5158,Setting a Public Hearing for 32 November 24,1997 at 7:05 p.m.,to Consider the Reconstruction of Spring Lake Road and County Road I. 33 34 VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 35 36 D. Consideration of Approval of Final Schematic Design for Phase II of the Mounds View Community 37 Center. 38 39 Cathy Bennett introduced Dean Olson with WAI Continuum who was present to discuss the final schematic 40 plans for Phase II of the Community Center. He noted the changes that have been made to the plan since the 41 September 15th meeting. He noted that additional storage has been provided behind the bleachers in the 42 gymnasium. Diagrams were presented to show the floor plan as well as the exterior which is proposed for the 43 building and Mr. Olson presented a proposed schedule,assuming approval of the final schematic design. 44 45 Council member Quick asked if the gymnasium has adequate storage space. He noted that by moving one 46 wall,an additional 95 foot X 6 foot storage space could be added. He asked how much it would cost to move 47 the wall to provide this additional space. Mr. Olson estimated that this would run approximately$75/square 48 foot. y i , fl 7, 4 q 7 11' ri v Page 5 • October 13, 1997 Mounds View City Council 1 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney to approve a change to the design to include the additional storage as 2 discussed. 3 4 VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 5 6 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to Approve the Final Schematic Design for Phase.II of the Mounds 7 View Community Center. 8 9 VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 10 11 E. Consideration of Approval of Negotiation Agreement by and between the City of Mounds View,the 12 Economic Development Authority and Anthony Properties. 13 14 Mr.Whiting explained that this issue has been discussed by the Council over the past few months,and the idea 15 is simply to have a mutual understanding in writing with a potential developer compensating staff for time 16 during a negotiations period(180 days). The purpose will be to sit down with the developer and discuss 17 certain areas within the city's control to determine whether or not some type of office building/complex could 18 be incorporated into the area. The proposals would come back to the city council for input and final approval. 19 He noted that this is related to the ring road concept and should be looked at as such in terms of proper 20 planning for community input. Information will be distributed to the community in regard to the October 28th 21 Committee Meeting. 22 23 Mr.Long,City Attorney noted that this agreement does not obligate the city to enter into any type of contract or 24 accept any plan. 25 26 Council member Stigney noted that a project has not yet been identified and he would like to get an idea as to 27 what office space is being proposed before he agrees to a 180 day negotiations agreement. 28 29 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to Approve the Negotiation Agreement by and between the City of 30 Mounds View,the Economic Development Authority and Anthony Properties. 31 32 MOTION by Stigney to postpone Consideration of the Agreement until the Council has a better idea of what 33 exactly is being proposed. MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF SECOND. 34 35 VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION: 3 ayes 1 nay(Stigney) Motion Carried 36 37 F. Schedule of Special City Council Meeting Regarding Canvassing of November 4,1997 Election 38 Results for City Council Seat. 39 40 Mr.Whiting suggested that this Special Council Meeting be scheduled for November 5th at 6:00 p.m. 41 42 MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Quick to set a Special City Council Meeting on November 5, 1997 at 6:00 43 p.m., Regarding Canvassing of November 4, 1997 Election Results for City Council Seat. '44 45 VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried O46 47 A discussion followed in regard to when the winning candidate can legally fill the seat. It was Mr.Long's 48 feeling that the candidate could not be sworn in until the first business day in January. Page 6 October 13, 1997 • Mounds View City Council 1 G. First Reading for Ordinance No.604 for Park Dedication Fees. 2 3 Mr.Long explained that this amendment will provide a better clarity and more equitable fees of residential and 4 commercial industrial subdivisions. 5 6 MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Quick to Approve the First Reading of Ordinance No.604 for Park 7 Dedication Fees and to Waive the Reading. 8 9 VOTE: 10 11 Mayor McCarty aye 12 Council member Koopmeiners aye 13 Council member Quick aye 14 Council member Stigney aye 15 16 Motion Carried(4-0) 17 18 H. Request for Funds Regarding Coalition for Healthy Youth. 19 20 Mr.Whiting explained that the mayors of New Brighton,Mounds View,Arden Hills and Shoreview have 21 talked about trying to come up with some minor funding from each community to help facilitate some of the • 22 administrative costs for this effort(mailings,notices,etc.). The Mayor of Arden Hills recommended an amount 23 of$500.00. 24 25 MOTION/SECOND: McCarty/Quick to take$500.00 from the City Council Budget to help defray the cost of 26 the Coalition for Healthy Youth Program. 27 28 VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 29 30 31 REPORTS: 32 33 Report of Council members: 34 35 Koopmeiners: No report. 36 37 Stigney: No report 38 39 Quick: Mr. Quick requested that the Council set up a meeting for the discussion of assessments for Spring 40 Lake Road and County Road I. 41 42 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to set this meeting for October 20th. 43 44 VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 45 46 Council member Stigney stated he felt it would be helpful if Mr.Ulrich had the information in regard to long- • 47 term plans available at this meeting. Mayor McCarty asked that some information also be provided at that 48 meeting in regard to the cost versus benefits of the project. DrevnnA 777.-) 11 Page 7 • October 13, 1997 Mounds View City Council 1 Mayor McCarty: Mayor McCarty noted that he had received a League of MN Cities Bulletin which 2 discussed RF Emissions from Cellular Phone Tower sites. He provided this information to Mr.Long for his 3 review and comment. 4 5 Report of Clerk Administrator Mr.Whiting noted that a meeting will be held in regard to the Ring Road 6 Concept on October 28, 1997 at 7:00 p.m.at the Pinewood Elementary School. The budget will be discussed 7 at the October 20th Work Session and how it relates to assessment projects. 8 9 Report of Attorney: No report 10 11 MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to adjourn the Council meeting at 9:05 p.m. 12 13 VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 14 15 Respectfully submitted, �," 17 : rr!/1(tjay /j 18 Tamara D. Saefke 19 Recording Secretary 20 4110 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 • Page 1 LJ' September 22, 1997 APrr U • Mounds View City Council PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA Regular Meeting September 22, 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 September 22, 1997. 1111 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor McCarty,Council members Koopmeiners,Quick and Stigney ALSO PRESENT: Chuck Whiting,Clerk Administrator Jim Ericson,Planning Associate Bruce Kessel,Finance Director Michael Ulrich,Director of Public Works Bob Long,City Attorney ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: Mayor McCarty asked that one item be added to the Agenda,under Council Business, 11(D) Consideration of Resolutions 5111 and 5112. Council member Stigney asked that one item be added to the Agenda,under Council Business 11(C)(1) Discussion of Interim Ordinance that excludes granting any new residential building permits in the Highway 10 Corridor. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 8,1997-City Council Meeting: • A _ Page 2 .i 'u '� . September 22, 1997 • Mounds View City Council MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Stigney to approve the minutes of the September 22, 1997 City Council meeting as presented. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried ACCEPTANCE OF ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES: None SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: A. Proclamation declaring the week of October 5-11,1997 as"Cities Week". Mr.Whiting noted that the city will recognize the week of October 5- 11, 1997 as"Cities Week". B. Proclamation declaring the week of October 14-18,1997 as Manufacturing Week in the Cities of Mounds View and New Brighton. Mr.Whiting read this proclamation. CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to approve the Consent Agenda as presented in writing. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried RESIDENTS REOUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR: Mayor McCarty explained that this is the time for residents to address the council with concerns on items that are not on the Agenda. Bill Fritz,8072 Long Lake Road,noted that there was nothing on the Agenda in regard to the upcoming budget. Mayor McCarty stated he would be sure to notify Mr.Fritz of the upcoming budget hearings. William Werner,2765 Sherwood Road,asked how many owner-occupied dwelling units are in the City of Mounds View and how many rental dwelling units are in Mounds View? This information was not readily available,however the Mayor and staff stated they would get that information to him. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None COUNCIL BUSINESS: A. Presentation of a Residential Survey for the Reconstruction of Spring Lake Road. Mr.Ulrich gave a brief introduction to the project. He explained that on June 24, 1997,the City of Mounds 4110 View presented a proposed project for the reconstruction of Spring Lake Road and County Road I. At that D Page 3 / 'kJ I 11 • September 22, 1997 Mounds View City Council meeting,approximately 90 residents attended(over 450 flyers were sent out notifying residents of the meeting). Several things were discussed at the informational meeting including the possibility of MSA funding and status on both Spring Lake Road and County Road I and what the standards for the construction were in regard to street width,etc. Other issues discussed were the city's trailways plan,the current assessment policy,funding sources(including turnback funds). The residents were asked at that meeting if there was any street width preference-26 feet wide with no parking on either side,32 feet wide with parking on one side,or 38 feet wide with parking on both sides. A second meeting was held on August 19th,and Barry Peters,Project Manager with SEH,used the existing city policy and an estimated cost on a 32 foot wide street to put together some mock assessments of the project. Many issues were brought up at the meeting and Ms.Haake volunteered to get together with some of the neighborhood residents and present a survey to the affected residents on the various questions. Ms.Haake presented a copy of the survey results to members of the City Council as well as a copy of the questionnaire that was distributed. The majority of residents wanted the repair or resurfacing of the road,and 58%wanted a 26-28 foot wide road. Forty percent desired a 30 foot wide road. Fifty-six percent wanted a curb installed,44%did not want a curb installed. An overwhelming 86%of the residents did not want the sidewalk trailway. If a painted trailway were proposed,they would only want it on one side. Eighty-nine percent of the residents have specifically asked for the turnback money and the MSA funds to be applied to the reconstruction of Spring Lake Road and County Road I. 1111 Ms.Haake explained that she had called some road re-surfacing companies. Residents have been told that they can expect to pay approximately$40.30/running foot for the roadway. For two miles of roadway with a nine ton capacity,no curb and gutter,26 feet wide,asphalt roadway with 25-30 year durability,she was given three estimates. These came in at$200,000,$225,000 and$290,000(to reclaim and resurface). The Ramsey County tumback funds are$580,000. Ms.Haake stated for that amount,everything should be able to be done. She noted that she did talk with a civil engineering firm that specializes in watershed,water quality/quantity issues to ask about curb and gutter. There is some feelings that if water is allowed to run off the road naturally, there is a process in which that water can be cleaned and of good water quality. lithe tumback funds were applied to this type of project,MSA funds would not need to be used at all and the residents would not have to pay for it. Ms.Mary Malrick,8289 Spring Lake Road,was present and talked about the tumback money issues. She explained that when the city calculates the assessments,the tumback money is never entered into that assessment. The assessment policy states that the residents must bear one-half of the total cost of the construction. Because no credit is being given for the tumback money,the residents end up paying for improvements that are already paid for by Ramsey County. She feels this is unfair. She would like to see the tumback funds taken off the top of the construction costs. When one goes back to what Ramsey County is giving for this project,residents are losing$290,000. She feels this issue needs the Council's attention. As the policy is set up now,the residents are not seeing any monetary benefits from the tumback funds. Ms. Malrick noted that she called several other communities to see what there policy is. She found that other communities assess well below the 50%fee. She asked that the Council review the assessment policy to see if changes are appropriate. Mike Hegland,7604 Spring Lake Road,explained that the residents are generally happy with the size of the road as it is now. Smaller roads limit the amount of traffic and keep the neighborhood more desirable. With • regard to the sidewalks/trailways,the residents felt it takes a large amount of the property to add these things in. It adds maintenance issues and very little benefit(except on County Road I where there is already an ;a .^�^= i. �t { Ir :I Page4 9 d . 'lI � rr Li September 22, 1997 • Mounds View City Council established trailway that the city can hook up to). The residents want to know why the tumback money is not applied to the project. David Jahnke,8428 Eastwood Road,wondered if the Resolution establishing the road requirements in Mounds View was still in place. Mayor McCarty stated this is still part of the policy and that the minimum road width in Mounds View is 30 feet. Mr.Jahnke wondered if the policy would need to be changed. Mayor McCarty stated he believes the Council could authorize that project by their majority motion and he does not believe the policy binds the Council in a legal fashion. However,he would encourage the council to review the policy to see if changes need to be made. Brian Kaden,7675 Spring Lake Road,stated he lives on the corner of the Spring Lake Road/County Road I intersection. He stated he has observed that less than 50%of the drivers ever acknowledge the stop signs on the corner. Something needs to be done as this tends to be a confusing intersection. Perhaps the city could paint a cross walk for the kids so that they can cross the road to go to the lake. Cameron Obert,8315 Greenwood Drive,stated he was against the standard road width of 30 feet. The wider the streets are made,the faster the cars travel. He feels the City Council needs to review the standard road width and look at how the assessments are made for road reconstruction or road improvements. All streets in the city age and need repair and he is not sure that it is fair for Ramsey County funds to be applied only to County Roads. • Mayor McCarty stated that County roads do take a lot of collector and bus traffic. It was generally felt that the county should pay for the county roads because they serve a county purpose. While the tumback program is bringing those county roads back into the authority of the city,Mayor McCarty stated he does not see the function changing that greatly. Mayor McCarty suggested that the Council take the assessment policy under advisement at their earliest opportunity. It was suggested that this be done at the October 6th Work Session,along with the feasibility study. Mayor McCarty stated he would like to get more information on the project itself prior to that meeting. B. (1.) Consideration of Resolution No.5165,Resolution Designating Mounds View City Hall as the Temporary Polling Location for the November 4,1997 Special Election. Mr.Kessel noted that the Bel Rae Ballroom is presently undergoing construction and therefore the polling place will need to be changed. A mailing will be sent out to all registered voters notifying them of this change. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to Approve Resolution No.5165,Resolution Designating Mounds View City Hall as the Temporary Polling Location for the November 4, 1997 Special Election. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried B. Consideration of Resolution No.5163,Approving the Refinancing of the 1991 Fire Bonds. Mr.Kessel noted that in 1991 the City of Mounds View,along with the cities of Blaine and Spring Lake Park issued a joint bond issue to pay for improvements at several of the fire hall locations. Over the past several years there has been a change in the bond markets and at this point it would be advantageous for the city to • refinance. Based upon the bids that came in,the estimated savings for the City of Mounds View would be approximately$318,000,which will be recognized in the years 2001 through 2012. ` 7m a .� a � Page 5 � � � � ' L ' • September 22, 1997 Mounds View City Council MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Stigney to approve Resolution No. 5163,Approving the Refinancing of the 1991 Fire Bonds. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried C.(1) Consideration of Interim Ordinance that Excludes Granting Any New Residential Building Permits in the Highway 10 Corridor. Council member Stigney explained that this is a result of many resident's requests to not have any more housing on Highway 10. An initiative is being circulated to put this on the ballot,or a referendum to change some of the residential zoning on Highway 10 to business use. Mr. Stigney stated he feels it would be considerate for the Council to consider adopting an interim ordinance of this type until such time as the council can consider some of the requests of the residents. Attorney Long noted that there is a provision in the statutes in Chapter 462 that allows for an interim ordinance to be adopted by the City Council that would place a moratorium on certain types of uses as long as it is done in conjunction with a valid zoning study. If this were to take place,the Planning Commission would need to consider it,and hold a public hearing. An ordinance would need to be drafted. . Mayor McCarty noted that the City currently has at least one P.U.D.in process on County Road I and Silver Lake Road. He wondered how this may be impacted. Attorney Long noted that it could potentially be affected. The Council could develop an ordinance,however that would only apply prospectively. Mayor McCarty noted that this type of Ordinance would put things on hold for up to one year. He wondered if this would be a positive move as there are a number of residents who are against rezoning the property to business use. MOTION by Stigney to direct staff to prepare an Interim Ordinance that Excludes Granting Any New Residential Building Permits in the Highway 10 Corridor. MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF SECOND. C. Consideration of Resolution No.5154,a Resolution Approving the Development Review Request of MSP Real Estate for the Properties Located at 2637-2665 Highway 10. Mr.Ericson explained that MSP Real Estate is requesting approval of a revised Development Review for the Silver Lake Commons Project. He provided a brief summary of the project. Mr.Ericson noted changes that had made to the Resolution since the last council meeting. It was noted that the applicant has met all ordinance requirements. MOTION by Stigney to postpone Consideration of Resolution No.5154,until the referendum issue is resolved. Mary Amirahmadi,8330 Eastwood Road,stated she believed the petition for an initiative for rezoning and the • petition for the referendum could be completed by the next Council Meeting on October 13, 1997. MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF SECOND. • I 'ta y 71 ;, 'a Page 6 I g '' J September 22, 1997 • Mounds View City Council MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to approve Resolution No.5154,a Resolution Approving the Development Review Request of MSP Real Estate for the Properties Located at 2637-2665 Highway 10. VOTE: 3 ayes 1 nay(Stigney) Motion Carried D. Consideration of Resolution No.5162,a Resolution Approving the Minor Subdivision Request of MSP Real Estate for the Properties Located at 2637-2645 Highway 10. Mr.Ericson explained that MSP Real Estate is requesting approval of a minor subdivision for the properties located at 2637-2645 Highway 10 to combine the two vacant parcels to form one taxable parcel and to eliminate the interior lot line. The applicant will pay a park dedication fee of$7,500,representing 10%of the fair market value of the land. This will be paid prior to building permits being obtained for the development. He explained that staff has requested that an easement be dedicated for drainage and utility purposes on the combined lot along the property lines and recorded with Ramsey County. Additionally a shared access driveway easement will need to be recorded prior to the placement of signatures onto the Certificate of Survey. These easements have been prepared and are in the hands of the City Attorney. Attorney Long noted that the applicant has met all requirements of the codes and State Laws and that the easements are ready to be executed. MOTION by Stigney to postpone consideration of Resolution No.5162 until the October 13, 1997 Council • meeting to allow residents the opportunity to gather signatures for their petitions. Mayor McCarty stated he would like to rule that motion Out of Order as there had already been a vote on that suggestion and it is redundant and not serving these proceedings. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to Approve Resolution No.5162,a Resolution Approving the Minor Subdivision Request of MSP Real Estate for the Properties Located at 2637-2645 Highway 10. VOTE: 3 ayes 1 nay(Stigney) Motion Carried Mayor McCarty explained that there were portions of Resolution No.5111 that no longer applied to the project so staff was requested to make necessary revisions. Attorney Long explained that two conditions in Resolution No.5111 adopted on April 28, 1997 are no longer applicable because the development has changed in scope and scale. The new Resolution deletes Conditions 1 and 2 from the previous resolution. This Resolution will be temporarily identified as Resolution No. 9-22-97. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to Approve Resolution No.9-22-97. VOTE: 3 ayes 1 nay(Stigney) Motion Carried Mayor McCarty asked what Mr.Pinkerton,President of MSP Real Estate,would be expecting of the City of Mounds View,the Economic Development Authority and the Minneapolis Pubic Housing Authority in Resolution No.5111. Mr.Pinkerton explained that this is a cooperation agreement/joint powers agreement. The joint powers • agreement would allow the City of Mounds View varying degrees of involvement. Other cities have agreed to be a part of the Joint Powers Agreement in signature,but have required that all of the work be done by MPHA. Page 7 • September 22, 1997 Mounds View City Council If the city wanted more involvement and to set up a committee they could do so. It would entail the review of documents,however the city could essentially do nothing after signing the agreement. It is simply a formality that MPHA goes through. E. Second Reading and Consideration of Ordinance No.603,an Ordinance Amending Section 1005.12 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Entitled"Housing Code". MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Quick to Approve the Adoption of Ordinance No.603,an Ordinance Amending Section 1005.12 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Entitled"Housing Code"and to waive the reading. Mr.Ericson gave a brief summary of Ordinance No.603. ROLL CALL VOTE: Mayor McCarty aye Council member Koopmeiners aye Council member Stigney aye Council member Quick aye • Ordinance Approved(4-0) REPORTS: Report of Council members: Koopmeiners: No report. Stigney: No report. Quick: No report. Mayor McCarty: Mayor McCarty noted that he had received a copy of a memo in regard to the 118/New County Road J/Long Lake Road/Red Oak intersection. Apparently there was an agreement that if certain traffic levels were exceeded,Mounds View could remove that section between the City of Mounds View and the southern border of the highway even though it was located in Anoka County.However neither Anoka County or the State of Minnesota are a part of that agreement. Also,the west-bound left hand turn lane would need to be re configured for safety as well as many other things need to be considered. He would like to begin the necessary process by contacting other involved agencies. Report of Clerk Administrator. Mr.Whiting noted that a budget workshop meeting would be held on September 29, 1997 at 6 p.m. Report of Staff: No report. 4110 Report of Attorney: Attorney Long noted that a meeting of the Metropolitan Airports Commission Planning Committee will be held to discuss the proposed changes at the Anoka County Airport on October 7th ' • 4 U L Li Page 8 September 22, 1997 Mounds View City Council at 1 p.m. There will also be a meeting on Tuesday,September 30th at 10:00 a.m.with Senator Novak at his office. MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Quick to adjourn the Council meeting at 8:55 p.m. VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Respectfully submitted, Tamara D.D. Saefke Recording Secretary 4110 416 rm-- Proclamation Whereas: A recent United States Census found that approximately 6,000 persons over the age of 18 in communities of the Mounds View School District dothe high school diploma; and not have a Whereas: There is a continuing need for literacy, educaton and English as a second language adult basic courses; and Whereas: It is important for the community to know programs are available through the Adult that such program of the Mounds View School Basic Education District; and Whereas: The Literacy Action Council of the Di 21 Adult Basic Education program will host an osn ht use publicat "Celebration of Literacy" for the on S pen house the Ralph R. Reeder Communiurday, Nov. 1 at Community Education Center in New Brighton; It is therefore proclaimed that Nov. 1 in the City 1, 1997 is "Celebration of Literacy Day" of Mounds View. Proclaimed this day of ems, , 1997 i Duane McCarty, Mayo's City of Mounds View m .„ Ccommunity education • mounds view public schools Ceel l 1 Adult Basic Education (612) 639-6039 X621 Oct. 9, 1997 Dear Mayor McCarty: The Adult Basic Education Literacy Action Council of the Mounds View Public Schools plans to host "A Celebration of Literacy" on Nov. 1 at the Ralph Reeder Education Center in New Brighton. The event gets underway at 9 a.m. and concludes at noon. The members of the Literacy Action Council wish to extend an invitation to you and your family to join us for cookies and coffee, along with what we think will be some interesting programs. These include a book give-away, guest readings by district students, an open computer lab and tips on reading to kids. We would also ask that you, as mayor, consider completing the enclosed proclamation recognizing Saturday,Nov. 1, as Literacy Day in Mounds View. We are making a similar request of all mayors of communities in the Mounds View 41110 School District. If you have any questions about this resolution, or about Literacy Day, contact Mary Hoffman,coordinator of Adult Basic Education for School District 621, at 639-6039. We thank you for your consideration and hope to see you and your family on Saturday, Nov. 2. Sincerely, Barb Papp: fus, �.erson, ABE Literacy Actio !•until III Ralph R. Reeder Center •500 Tenth Street NW• New Brighton, MN 55112 FAX (612)639-6033 Equal Opportunity for Education and Employment • 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 claim numbers: 57182 through 57289 in the amount of$ 121,018.89 55516 through in the amount of$ 56.72 55542 through 55549 in the amount of$ 372,932.31 1111 56435 through 56449 in the amount of$ 15,975.38 TOTAL AMOUNT OF CLAIMS PRESENTED $509,983.30 and has found said claims to be just and correct; It was moved that the City Council of Mounds View hereby approved the attached list of claims dated 10/28/97 by the vote ayes nayes Mayor Clerk-Administrator • PAGE al ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER AP-C10wy1 MOUNDS VIEW VFNOOR CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE / ND VENDOR NAME NUMRER DATE INVOICE NMB',.. DATE AMOUNT 3 TRONOALF HUDDLE CLUB 57182 10/28/97 10/15/97 700.00 ����� VENDOR TOTAL 700.00 �� 51102 RUOFK , CINDY 57183 10/28/97 10/10/97 25.00 VENDOR TOTAL 25.00 7103:D RICHARD DUSH4w 57184 10/28/9/ 0000 10/10/9/ 66.00 VENDOR TOTAL 66.00 7106 HA,WF , BARB 57185 10/28/97 10/09/97 16.62 VENDOR TOTAL 16.62 71037 ^1F1'FR , TMGRTO 57186 10/28/97 09/?6/97 40.00 VENDOR TOTAL 40.00 71038 CiATRMONT , .1Tm 57187 10/28/97 08/?9/97 40.00 VENDOR TOTAL 40.00 71089 ROFHM , CATHY 5.7128 10/28/9/ 10/10/97 12.00 VENDOR TOTAL 12.00 71040 SUNOVAii ' .1UAN 57189 10/28/97 09/26/97 40.00 VENDOR TOTAL 40.00 77109 NFW11.?i00M , BONNIE 57190 10/28/97 10/08/97 20.00 VENDOR TOTAL 20.00 71111 HTY , DAVTD E. 57191 10/28/97 09/09y9/ 77 .50 VENDOR TOTAL 77.50 40006 A-1 1-REE SFRVTCF � HA* 57192 10/28/97 08/06/97 745.50 VENDOR TOTAL 745.50 A0895 ACTION pRFS , INC. 57193 10/28/97 2625 10/16/9/ 9/ .98 VFNDOR | OTAL 97.98 A2700 4TPTOUCH CELLULAR 5/19') 10/28/97 0031178 09/20/97 54.04 57194 10/28/97 0031162 09/20/97 40.55 VENDOR TOTAL 94.59 A5260 ANCHOR PAPER CO. 57195 10/28/97 104620201 10/16/97 273.71 VENDOR TOTAL 273.71 A6904 ARND1T, .)AMES 5/196 10/28/97 10/14/97 4700.00 VENDOR | OTAL 4700.00 A8350 AUGIE'S, INC. 57197 10/28/97 22443 10/08/97 44.46 VENDOR TOTAL 44.46 R0555 RARCO MUNICIPAL PRODU* 57198 10/28/9/ 98431 10/06y97 157. 14 4111 PAGE 2 4CCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER AP-,C10MOUNDS VIEW VENDOR CHFCK CHFC� INVOICE INVOICE NO VENDOR NAME NUMBER DATE INVOICE NMBR DAlE AMOUNT VENDOR 157. 14 R(�9� RATTERIES PLUS 57199 10/28/97 D30016 11-013/06y97 80.72 7199 10/28/97 1J29880 10/03/97 76. 17 VENDOR TOTAL 156.89 R2005 RFT55IAFmGFR'5 57200 10/28/97 39416/ 10/07/97 38.84 57200 10/28y97 386796 09/29/9/ 7.98 57200 10/28/9/ 453228 10/14/97 50. 18 1 57200 10/28/97 452655 10/13y97 2.55 57200 10/28/97 454642 10/16y97 4.55 57200 10/28/9/ 453884 10/15y9/ 4.03 VENDOR TOTAL 108. 13 / R2044 RtRGMAN JENNIFER 5,201 10/28/97 O9y17y97 28.80 ` ` 57201 10/28/97 08/16y9/ 3.61- 57201 10/28/97 09/16/9/ VENDOR TOTAL TOTAL 24.56 R3005 BLAINE, CITY OF 57202 10/28/97 10/27/97 192.02 57202 10/28/97 10/2//97 325.35 VENDOR TOTAL 517.37 R3200 608'S PERSONA!" COFFEE* 57203 10/28/97 104665 10/16y97 59.98 VENDOR TOTAL 59.98 ROYFR TRi}CK PARTS 57204 10/28/97 643719 10/02/97 50.81 57204 10/28/97 643845 10/02y97 243.66 VENDOR TOTAL 294.47 R6880 RRIGGS & MORGAN 57205 10/28/9/ 10/13y9/ 751 .50 57205 10/28/97 10/13/97 2533.00 VENDOR TOTAL 3284.50 C0590 CAP-Y MUFFiFn RReWF 57206 10/28/97 05403 09/09/97 57. 98 57206 10y28y97 05272 08y28/97 59.78 VENDOR | OTAL 11 / .76 C5765 COMMERS CONDI | IONED W* 57207 10/28/97 00061257 06y30/97 75.00 VENDOR TOTAL 75.00 C6000 COPY SALES, INC. 57208 10/28/97 057376 10/16/97 30.39 VENDOR TOTAL 30.39 C6025 C0TTENS INC 5/209 10/28/97 235/80 10/06/9/ 17.62 57209 10/28/97 236599 10/10/97 9.38 VENDOR TOTAL 27.00 00095 0-ROCK. CENTER SmAii* 57210 10/28/97 11635 10/03/97 146.44 VENDOR TOTAL 146.44 -�� PAGE 3 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER AP-C10-01 MOUNDS VIEW VENDOR CHECK CHEM:: INVOICE INVOICE 1 ND VENDOR NAME NUMRER DA | E INVOICE NMRR DATE AMOUNT F�4ST STD� RF»FR�GF 5/211 10/28/97 210974 10/07y97 170.70 VENDOR TOTAL 170.70 F9062 FTC W/CAPFFP TRACK 57212 10/28/97 007595981 10/08/97 99.00 VENDOR TOTAL 99.00 F1925 FFDORS MARKET 57213 10/28/97 73?8 09/16/97 3.92 VENDOR TOTAL 3.92 F6,008 FRAN1-::LIN QUEST CO 57214 10/28/97 19484753 07/23/97 39.83 VENDOR TOTAL 39.83 G0150 G T F DTnFCTORTF5 COR* 57215 10/28/9/ 32.50 VENDOR TOTAL 32.50 G2400 GTiiUND FNTFRPRTSFS 57216 10/78/97 428132 10/10/97 237.79 VENDOR TOTAL 237.79 G5870 GOPHER BEARING CO, 57217 10/28/97 112790380 10/07/97 51 .01 VENDOR TOTAL 51 .01 G5880 GOPHER STATE OW.-CALL* 57218 10/28/97 /090451 09/30/97 180.25 VENDOR TOTAL 180.25 Gliiii GREGG'S AUGO BODY 57219 10/28/97 10/10/97 512. 10 VENDOR TOTAL 512. 10 H3151 HTSDAHi , TmC, 57220 10/28/97 4226 10/04/97 979. 13 VENDOR TOTAL 979. 13 A5825 HOME DEPOT COMMERCIAL* 57221 10/28/97 79015891991 10/08/97 159.53 VENDOR TOTAL 159.53 H6000 HUGHES & COSTFiiO 57222 10/28/97 10/02/97 3000.00 VENDOR TOTAL 3000. 00 T5195 TN TIME 57223 10/28/9/ 0012442 10/10/97 827 .99 VENDOR TOTAL 827.99 T5386 TmFRATFCH 57224 10/28/97 970926 09/22/97 1088.55 VENDOR TOTAL 1088.55 T5535 TN5TY-PR7NTS 5/225 10/28/97 14275 10/13y97 75.02 VENDOR TOTAL 75.02 .17000 .)OX CORPORATION 57226 10/28/97 13 09y17y97 56.32 VENDOR TOTAL 56.32 K0275 �:-MART 3031 57227 10/28/97 8267 09y1 //97 63.64 4110 PAGE 4 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER AP- 10-01 MOUNDS VIEW � VENDOR CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE } mO VFNOOR NAME NUMBER TmVUTCF mmRR DATE AMOUNT 11111 "';7227 10/28y97 2937 09/19/97 38.28 1 VENDOR TOTAL 01 .92 K0675 KARDBJ', GARY 57228 10/28/97 10/22/97 65.00 VENDOR TOTAL 65.00 K1000 KENNFnY & GRAVEN 57229 10/28/9/ MU210-00001 09/12/97 9568.51 57229 10/28/97 MU210-00002 O9/12y97 11 .50 57229 10/28/97 MU210-00003 09/12/97 24. 12 57229 10/28/ 7 M{}210-00005 09/12/97 443.20 57229 10y28/97 MU210-00007 09/12/9, 34.50 57229 10/28/97 MU210-00010 09/12/9/ 226.40 57229 10/28/97 M\j210-00011 09y12/97 750.00 57229 10/28/97 MU210-00012 09/12y97 161 .00 57729 10/28/97 1 /831 09/12/97 188.50 57229 10/28/97 1780 09/12/97 312.02 57229 10/28y97 17828 09/12/9/ 103.59 572?9 10/28/97 17829 09/12y9/ 1815.50 VENDOR TOTAL 13638.84 K4500 KTNNFY , THOMAS 57231 10/28/97 231 .45 VENDOR TOTAL 231 .45 ��5470 KmUX COMMFRCTAi CRFOT* 57232 1 0/28/97 0220- 136,504 09/09/9 / 89.42 57232 10/28/97 (-120-136501 09/09/97 88.36 57232 10/28/97 0220- 138282 10/03/97 65.98 57232 10y28y97 O??»-136501 09/09y97 44.69- 1111 »ENDOR / OTA| 199 07 ^ 0: 10/28/9/ 07/01 /9/ 9415.00 VENDOR TOTAL 9415.00 L1870 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA C* 5723/ 10/28/9/ 09/01 /97 6743.00 VENDOR TOTAL 6743.00 L1920 LEONARD, O'RRIEN WIL* 57238 10/28/97 10/15/97 1071 .60 VENDOR TO / AL 1071 .60 L3773 LOCAL GOVERNMENT INST* 57239 10/28/97 4881 10yO2/9/ �9.00 ' VENDOR TOTAL 49.00 L7001 LUN7 , MASSOPUST` REID* 57240 10y28y97 10/15/97 1254.70 VENDOR TOTAL 1254.70 M0265 M R 57241 10/28/9/ 85359 10/06/97 638.04 uENDOR TOTAL 638.04 M1001 MCI 57242 10/28/97 10/16/97 85. 10 VENDOR TOTAL 85. 10 ��~~ PAGE 5 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER AP-C10-01 MUUNOS VTEW VtNDDR CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE NO VENDOR NAME NUMRFR DATE TNVOTCF mmRR DATE AMOUNT M MCPA 57243 10/28/9/ 10/23/97 25.00 1^ ����� VENDOR TOTAL 25.00 | �����v �� M2167 METRO COMMERCIAL SERV* 57244 10y28y97 073737 10/13y97 82.50 57244 10/28/97 073174 10y08/97 92.25 VENDOR TOTAL 174.75 m344? mTDwFT CORPO* 57245 10/28/97 27311mR 10/07/97 57.46 VENDOR TOTAL 57.46 M3444 '1TDWFT COCA-COLA ROT* 5724 10/28/9/ 00222203 10/01 /97 14.91 VENDDR TOTAL 14.91 M3448 MTDwFST Sp�CT4iTY SAL* 57247 10/28/97 7270 09/24/97 215, 16 57247 10/28/97 7268 09y24y97 46.00 VENDOR TOTAL 261 . 16 1,13477 TREE & LANDSCA* 57248 10/28y97 1O/20/97 1918.81 VENDOR TOTAL 1918.81 M3982 MINNESOTA DAILY 57249 10/28/97 437 10/02/97 25.00 VENDOR TOTAL 25.00 M4290 MINNESOTA GOLF ASSOCI* 57250 10/28/9/ 0451571 08/29/9/ 24.00 VENDOR TOTAL 24.00 MINN RECREATION & PAR* 57251 10y28/97 004281 09/30/97 1340.00 ���� VENDOR TOTAL 1340.00 M5175 MINNESDTA UC FUND 57252 10/28/97 10/17y97 45.84 VENDOR TOTAL 45.84 M5470 MITA FINANCIAL SERVIC* 57253 10/28/9/ 20202153 10/01/97 102.99 VENDOR TOTAL 102.99 N0901 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CI* 57254 10/28/97 12A503 09/10/97 1006.00 VENDOR TOTAL 1006.00 N3400 NDRSEMAN AWARDS 57255 10/28y97 3328 09/25y97 115.02 VENDOR TOTAL 115.02 N3426 NOR /H COUNTRY GLASS 57256 10y28/97 893 10/0/y97 391 . 19 VFNDOP TOTAL 391 . 19 N3535 NORTH METRO MAYORS AS* 57257 10/28/97 950223 09/r?/97 60.38 VENDOR TOTAL N3800 NORTHERN HYDRAULICS I* 57258 10/28/97 18232287 10y06/9/ 48.82 vFNDOR TOTAL 48,82 6 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER AF -01 110UNDS VTEN VENDOR CHECK CHPcK INVOICE INVOICE ) No vE1'.D01 TCE Nm0R DATE AmouNT N11111 NORTHERN STATES POWER* 57259 10/2897 10 I /97 14,02 klENDOR "r011t. „ )6: N207 NORTHERN WA-FER WORKS * 57260 10/28/97 M175490 1.,-.)/07/97 VP::NDOR TOTAL 172,45 02000 ODYSSEY GOLF 57261 10/28/ 7 2242200 09/30/97 1 . 0 o"r f-7; „60 03185 OFFICE DEPOT, IC, 57262 10/28/97 10/21 /97 116,86 i em 116,26 P200 PPSI-COLA COMPANY 57262 10/28/97 328285/0 /0f.:"..:•/97 :129 1c?1 „ VENIJOP 101AL 380,25 VENDOR TOTAL P2000 ii:; SECTOR J00 BUL* 57265 10/22/9/ 90,00 VENDOR lorAL RAmsEy couNTy 57266 10/22/97 001517-42100 10/13/ 7 15339,75 VENDOR " it: 15339,75 ,4111 „„N ,„, 57y6, 10/28/97 231262 07/11 /97 VENDOR ! OVAL 182, 45 S1144 T ,A, SCHTESKY ANO SON* 57262 10/22/9/ 0015552-TN 09/30/97 156,43 VENDOR TOTAL 156,43 92225 ';-. HO1 ELLIOTT HEMOP* 10/2 / 7 09/ 0/ 7 332,76 57269 10/22/9/ 43227 09/30/97 729 10229/ 43222 VENDOR TOTAL 16927,01 92:F:00 SHRED-TT 57270 10/22/97 .10/1 :4 /97 VENDuR TOFAL 49,95 9225 STATE 01.- MTNNti.i.SOTA - * 5-7.;:nn MN06205012P 10/01 ./97 270,00 57271 102897 MN62050080 10/01/97 510,00 vEmpoP ToTAL 720,00 S MAR"I" 1:::' 57272 10/28/9/ 6530 09/09/97 8422,.05 VENDOR TOTAL 2422,05 C. SF' P F'CIiF C, CO/ /97 „ vEmpoR ToTAL 533,75 4110 FADE 7 ACCOUNTS PAYADLE CHECK REGISTER AP-c10-01 MOUNDS VTEW VENDOR CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE NO VENDOR NAME - NUMBER DATE TNVOTCE NMDP DATE AMOUNT 57:?-14 10/28/97 702269 - 10/07/9/ 57274 10/22/97 70227 10/07/97 48,50 in ,70 VENDOR TOTAL 240,20 S6250 SRF CONSULTING GROUP ,* 57275 10/22/97 2745-e 09/e0/97 le03„e3 vENOOR TUiAL 1203,83 s7400 STRETOHER. S PROP, POL* 57274, 10/22/97 TN.,9027 , 1 10/10/97 VENDOR TOTAL - 28,24 SW,00 SYSCO F000 sERvTcp'3 o* 57277 10/2 /97 71ololo2 10/10/97 VENDOR TOTAL /3,43 T290 THERNA-STOP PRODUCTS 5/Y/ 09/10/97 2599,6 VENDOR TOTAL 2599,68 2670 TwTm cTTY PU:USE PE* 57279 10/22/97 09/27/97 2201 ,00 VENDOR TOTAL 2201 ,00 U0400 U S wEST 57220 10/22/97 10/01 /97 t::i2„51 57280 10/28/97 57220 10/22/97 10/10/9/ - 77,52 57280 10/28/97 10/10/97 1159,62 57220 10/22/9/ 10/04/97 - 52„62 57220 10/28/97 0/1e/97 VENDOR TOTAL U0401 U S WEST COMMUNICATIO* 57281. 10/28/97 10/10/97 57221 0/22/97 10/10/97 57281 10/2897 10/10/97 vEND0R ToTAL 62,52 U4000 UN:F.TqD STATES POSTAL * 57282 1(*.t/:::M/9 / 900,00 vEN00R ToTAL U6000 UNITOB RFNTAL sERVICE* 57223 10/22/97 740104842 10/08/97 54, 19 4 ,25 57283 10/22/97 74010803 10/15/97 187,63 57223 10/22/97 740104239 10/02/9/ - 1e0,72 VENDOR -101AL 418,25 V5000 vWTNG LLECTRTC 5/225 1022/9/ 3264045 le „23 57285 10/28/97 3290720 10/10/97 64, 10 VENDOR TOTAL W0621 WARNINO SYSTEMS, INC 57226 10/2e/97 3e1-4 VENDOR TOTAL 929,09 • -W1900 WEST PUBLISHINO COMPA* 57287 10/28/97 906/1870 09/16/9/ 4111 PAGE 2 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECk: REGISTER CHECy CHECy INvOICE INvOICE 1\10 VENDOR N.1 ff.V.11,:i.: . N i..111 B ER D A"1E .0\1 ./0 I 1..:17. N 11 ii4l:: IIP;1"i:::: ANUUN1 vEND0R TOTAL • 27,76 WILSON SPORTINB GOODS* 57288 10/28/'..,v 1620606 09/2":3/97 '..:.:06, 1-..-:!, '.'..5-.../•:::::8:•:::.! 10/.....-: :/':.;/ 16: '.00!5 Cr:::?/23/97 VENDOR TOTAL 816,29 W5701 WOLD ARCHITECTS AND E* 57281 10/28/9/ 97102-1 09/30/97 2550..00 VENDOR Tyr . 2550,00 BRAND TOTAL 121018..89 1111 1 1 1111 PAGE I ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PRE-PAID CHECk REGIs- AP-010'.-Ci2 MOUNDS VIEW vENOOP cHEcK INvOICE TNvOTCE NO VENDOR NAME NUMRER DATE INVOICE NMPR DATE AMOUNT NI NORTHERN RTATER POWER* * 4110 . • . - F6100 FREOBERS TfMOTHY 55542 10/10/97 i0/10/9/ 104,25 . VENDOR lorf.:,T. 104,25 71034 mEEHAN , BRucE 1D/10/v2 220,21 VENDOR TOTAL 220. 21 60213 THERRES , ROBERT 5'5544 10/14/97 VENDOR TOTAL F4437 ELAN FTNANcTAL sERvTc* 55545 10/14/9/ 10/02/97 VENDOR TOTAL m2125 mERmATO BOwLTN5 LANES 55546 10/14/97 10/09/9i 2144, 07 VENDOR TOTAL 2144,07 C5225 Commr",mwALii-i LAHO TTT* 55147 10/14/ / . 0909/97 26247,26 VENDOR TOTAL 869247,36 MOROAN EYNNETTE 5554::::: 10/1 'LP:is 123,60 VE:kitICIR 1 m3416 MTURGTEGH NORTH 55549 10/14/97 4'1::::44 90,0G I::4110 moumTm vjEw , cTTy DE 56425 li.)!/11.5./97 VENDOR TOTAL U6500 UNUm 1. '1 TNSURANCE 56426 10/15/97 vr-:::NnoR Tr:ITAL. P2-15 mouNos vTEL0 , ciTY 10/1 / 7 10./15.P7 243,24 VENDOR TOTAL 243,24 S2215 SHOREvTEw , CTTY 0E 56432 10/16/97 10/15/97 116 k)k) CHEEPVATE' 10/16/97 10rAL sEAGTE soFTwARE 56440 10/16/97 226295 10./15/97 vENDOR TOTAL 189,06 m0220 MIT OTSTRTBUTTNG CO 56442 10/16/97 T172965 227 ,22 56443 1016/97 1176065 u/s29/v7 355,84 56413 10/16/ 7 T120596 0 /12/97 25,94 56443 10/ 1/ /9/ 175175 09/30/97 1 ,98 56442 10/16/97 175175A 02/20/97 1 1111 PAOE 2 ACCOUNTS PAYARLE PRE-PAID CHECK REBIS- AP 7G10-152 mOUNDS vTEIA VENDOR CHECK CHECK INVOICE INVOICE NO VENDOP NAME NUMBER DATE THVOICE NMBR DATE AMOUNT 1111 56443 10/16/9/ 1175175 443 10/16/97T 184328 0//25/97 VENDOR TOTAL 12880 6 75,02 1426,78 61025 SAN -1E?: , TRACY 56445 10/20/97 10/17/97 60,00 VENDOR TOTAL 60,00 m4200 mTNNESOTA Dt...:1- 1 or REv* 56446 10/20/97 10/20/97 11523,00 VENDOR TOTAL 11523,00 62535 STONS .1.. BANNERS 56447 10/20/97 000015846 07/02/97 513,22 VENDOR TOTAL 13,33 wo4a5 wAKEETELD , .-1.•i 56442 10/20/9/ 4256 962,87 VENDOR TOTAL m4202 mTmNEsoTA DEPT or REv* 56449 10/21 /9/ 10/21 /97 25,00 VENDOR TOTAL 25,00 GRAND TOTAL 4110 , Item No. 317 Staff Report No. —� L(, 0 Meeting Date: October 27,1997 Type of Business: C.A. WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; City of Mounds View CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Resolution electing to continue to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communites Act Date of Report: October 14, 1997 By November 15, 1997 each metropolitan community must decide whether or not to continue in the Livable Communites Act program. To do so, each community must pass a resolution in support of the program. Each city must also demonstrate that they have spent an amount equal to or greater than the Affordable and Life Cycle Housing Amount(ALHOA) calculated by the Metropolitan Council each year. If a city does not does not spend an amount of its ALHOA it must submit that amount to the Metropolitan Council or local housing authority. Mounds View's ALHOA for 1997 and for 1998 is $0. fa) Participation in the program, allows the City access to three separate funding accounts set up by the Metropolitan Council. These include the Tax Base Revitalization Account, Livable Communities Demonstration Program, and the Local Housing Incentives Account. This also allows Mounds View access to Local Planning Assistance Grants and Loans. Mounds View and the North Metro 35W Coalition have received grants through participation in this program. Attached is Resolution No. 5171 supporting the Livable Communities Act and stating that the City of Mounds View will continue to participate in the program. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 5171 supporting the Livable Communities Act and stating that the City of Mounds View will continue to participate in the program. C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\CCSTAFF.00T • RESOLUTION NO. 5171 110 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION CONTINUING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT CALENDAR YEAR 1998 WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act(Minnesota Statutes Section 473.25 to 473.254) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is intended to address housing and other development issues facing the metropolitan area defined by Minnesota Statutes section 473.121; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base Revitalization Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account and the Local Housing Incentives Account, is intended to provide certain funding and other assistance to 1110 metropolitan area municipalities; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Funds or eligible to receive certain polluted sites cleanup funding from the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development unless the municipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under the Minnesota Statutes section 473.254; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires the Metropolitan Council to negotiate with each municipality to establish affordable and life-cycle housing goals for that municipality that are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council as provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide; and WHEREAS, each municipality must identify to the Metropolitan Council the actions the municipality plans to take to meet the established housing goals through preparation of the Housing Action Plan; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council adopted, by resolution after a public hearing, negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for each participating municipality; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality which elects to participate in the Local • Housing Incentives Account Program must do so by November 15 or each year; and 0 WHEREAS, for calendar year 1998, a metropolitan area municipality that did not participate in the Local Housing Incentive Account Program during the calendar year 1997, can participate under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254 only if: (a)the municipality elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program by November 15, 1997; and(b)the Metropolitan Council and the municipality have successfully negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Mounds View hereby elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act during the calendar year 1998. Dated this 27th day of October, 1997. ATTEST: Mayor (SEAL) 411, City Administrator 41° C.\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\LCARES98.RES Item No. 10 -TOS pii Staff Report No.g7-ZZI -C_ • Meeting Date: 8-11-97 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: Lynnette Morgan`.- A. Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing t consider the transfer of the off-sale intoxicating liquor license for Murzyn Liquors, 2840 to Khanh Van Dyong Date of Report: October 24, 1997 The City Council approved a license transfer of Murzyn Liquors this past August. However, the transfer did not finalize. As such, Mr. Khanh Van Dyong has submitted an application for the transfer of the off-sale intoxicating liquor license for Murzyn Liquors. The attached Public Hearing notice for the transfer of the license was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the establishment and placed in the October 14, 1997 publication of the New Brighton Bulletin. Mr. Dyong has submitted the necessary application information and has paid all license fees for the operation of this establishment. The license fees include the off-sale liquor license, tobacco 0 products and the investigation fee. The attached memo from Chief Ramacher indicates the there are no incidents which would prevent Mr. Dyong from being license. • 1 lotice of Public g CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Mounds View City Council will meet on Monday, October 27 at 7:05 p.m. at Mounds View City Hall, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, Minnesota, 55112 to consider the transfer of the off-sale intoxicating liquor license for Murzyn Liquors, 2840 Highway 10 to Khanh Van Duong. Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to this matter may be heard at this meeting. If you have any questions regarding this meeting, please contact me at 717- 4000. Chuck Whiting City Clerk Administrator This notice is mailed to property owners within 350 feet of subject property. This notice published in the New Brighton Bulletin, October 14, 1997 • MEMO To: Chuck Whiting, City Administrator From: Chief Ramacher Subject: Liquor License Application Date: October 17, 1997 On 10-1-97, Khanh Van Duong(dob/5-20-65) applied to the City for a liquor license. The license location is at 2840 Hwy. 10(currently Murzyn Liquor) The Police Department conducted an investigation on Mr. Duong. The following is a synopsis of that investigation: * Mr. Duong was born in Vietnam in 1965. He came to this country in 1982. * Mr. Duong attended and graduated from Kennedy High School in 1987. • * He has work for Riches Engineering since 1987 as an assembler. Still currently working for Riches. * Mr. Duong became a citizen of the United States in 1990. There are no wants or warrants and Mr. Duong has no criminal history. * Mr. Duong has never owned a business. His wife will be his only employee. In summary, the investigation revealed no reason to deny Mr. Duong application for license. • Item No. 10-7:6 Staff Report No.97-a..5.a Meeting Date: October 27, 1997 • Type of Business: PH& CB 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 resolution 5168, a Resolution Approving the MOUNDS VIEW BUSINESS PARK EAST SECOND ADDITION Final Plat as requested by Everest Group, Ltd; Planning Case No. 505-97 Date of Report: October 24, 1997 Background: This plat for the MOUNDS VIEW BUSINESS PARK EAST SECOND ADDITION, otherwise know as the Building N site, was originally approved by the City Council on October 24, 1994. Because the plat was not filed with Ramsey County within the time frame allowed, it needs to be reviewed again reapproved by the City Council. • The Planning Commission at its meeting on October 15, 1997, approved Resolution No. 531-97, a resolution recommending approval of the MOUNDS VIEW BUSINESS PARK EAST SECOND ADDITION final plat. This resolution has been attached for your reference. Summary: The Building N project site consists of approximately 6.89 acres of vacant land with approximately 1,100 feet of frontage on Program Avenue. The site is bordered by the Clinch-On Products building to the north, Program Avenue and Interstate 35W to the east, R. J. Riches Restaurant and a car wash to the south, and McDonalds Restaurant, Mounds View Inn and the C. G. Hill building to the west. The Building N site consists of four separate legal parcels which are proposed to be joined together to form one new parcel. The parcels are all zoned PUD as a result of a 1994 rezoning adopted for this development. The size of the proposed building to be constructed on this site is planned to be 102,950 square feet. 162 parking spaces are to be provided, at a straight ratio of 1 space per 635 square feet of floor area. Analysis: According to Section 1202.01, Subdivision 1 of the City Code, full platting is required for all major subdivision requests. The applicant, Everest Group, Ltd., is requesting approval of a the final plat for the proposed Mounds View Business Park East Second Addition. Review of this plat is required by the City Engineer, the Director of Public Works, the City Attorney, Rice Creek illWatershed District, and Ramsey County. The plat, dated 9/8/97, bears the necessary data for both preliminary and final plats, as specified in the City Code. 1 Planning Case No. 505-97 Mounds View Business Park East Second Add'n Plat October 27, 1997 Page 2 As with any subdivision of land within Mounds View, two issues need to be addressed. The first is easements. As a result of previous plattings, easements have already been dedicated to the City which will need to be vacated as a condition of this plat's approval. As a result of the earlier plat approval, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 554 on February 27, 1995 that vacated the easement areas highlighted on the 8'/2 by 11 plat reduction attached to this report. While this ordinance was never recorded with Ramsey County, staff verified that it can still be done at this time to validate the vacation. In return, the City will require that the outermost or exterior 10 feet of the to-be-created parcel be dedicated to the City as a permanent drainage and utility easement. The other issue addressed with the platting(and replatting) of land is the park dedication requirement. According to Section 1204.02 of the City Code, all subdividers of land are required to dedicate to the City for public purposes a portion of land, or, at the City's sole discretion, an equivalent amount in cash based upon the value of the land. It has been and continues to be the City policy of requiring a cash dedication in lieu of land. For commercial and industrial lands, the appropriate dollar amount is ten percent of the fair market value of the land. Because this proposal replats land for which park dedication fees have already been paid, Subd. 6 of Section 1204.02 relating to dedications for re-subdivision applies. Staff calculates that the appropriate park dedication fee for this re-subdivision is $56,771, which amounts to ten percent of the land's fair market value less prior park dedication payments made for these properties. The applicant has indicated a willingness to pay this amount in a letter dated 9/18/97. • Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 5168 approving the final plat for the Mounds View Business Park East Second Addition, otherwise known as the Building N site, with stipulations. James Ericson, Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Letter from Cathy Bennet to Applicant,dated 9/3/97 4. Letter from Applicant,dated 9/18/97 5. Plat Reduction 6. Full-size Plat,dated 9/8/97(Separate Attachment) 7. Planning Commission resolution 531-97 8. Resolution 5168 N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\505-97\BLDGN-CC.RPT 11111 CIT7C OF MOUNDS ' PLANNING APPLICATION `` -I-- ' APPUCANT: Everest Deve1opment,. Ltd.APPUCANT:__________ _ Phone 636-5500 _ , ADDRESS: 2665 Long Lake Road, Roseville, MN 55113 • Street Address City, State, and Zip Cade Interest in Property idled( a• porop rime 60x): .:.: . Q Owner of Property . . Q Ccntrafor Deed Owner C Lessee, Cperator, Manager C Agreement to Purc..tasa .. Other (explain) • • • _� _, - .... 0°c °^ 1/ evidence of agplw.artC• s intarasr in file preppy,tsy �R begone findrequest _ P�oP Tr iivv _ - - �„e - • Address/Gen OLVED - . �.. .'"" ... -.--'''*7"-'- r - :T..- - Lcatton 5 Legal Oeso:iotion or Property Identification Number 08-30_23-44-0 08-30-23-41-0012 4 and 08- 002 8, 08-30-23-44-0012 5, 30-23-44-00/6 7 Legal Owner: Name/Address Michael Investments 2665 Lon Lake Road Roseville MN ; 55113 . .• Present Use (cnecic ap-aroprio: atb ). .. 7-L"---..%,--7.:`-'_'_'-' Y - ..:..t,_El UndevelaneCiNacant - - = - Y, r,7 :C .:,<:Singfe'Farnuy D+,•_11,__'-'1,-=•-•,'="-%`-‘,.•••g .._ vr.-: T..i _ ..:::_.4,.:(...,.................,,,,,,,,_1, n py/� - ..... - - - _-14-1-liar ��r.r. - - 4:--•:4-•... ,,-,,„,41...4.7;„<�4,...f..+.. !a.,e .'�ull• wQxFam•il}�Dwe.. w• . -;� -s, 41 14,r t ....ia.. �G�'- ----r x' " y -.. : .t' - "C1•7«.--. 7.1k11 ultf-ra_muy(No.: if Unrfs•'g,<. :" ;-�- - .. � ' r y._.._...• = . _ ,,+ .'4*.,.Y-CV- � Btisrrt •r at.. ......:" '7-}'' ...i-t-'„"-w• .r...�+•.'•x �.*. " ▪ e. ,-„,`,'"•'---%:fir .; `+ h ;.:y ess/Cemmercal:EstablishNye::: .0,-,......--3,-,:;:•,. .-::--:-A-,.;.:5-;•• . - wi- ;.;L•• . .••ri-•`•,-'- ^.7•i.. .z � Icyi'•'•.— + �`iD :7:ifndus {acs• `�ly� .4..0, Tr--3, ...a , •w .• +.w.pu •►. 774....:-%:he t..nSnn� t y `l1et.to,''.,r1(Ite' -).44-.✓ i 4 h.. .rI f"tt_ 4 . + r eir _ ,x k:%irt ,..,,, .,,,::Za`d 7sri.+.• "Y � r!: rr ,,, .-- �f: %y ,It;-=---.---7•13.7,7, � N--.�. ♦hat (e:Ciaini i .T .. r - s-h - �1. , 11 •- - .,••..r.: •mow::.`.:�:.'�:.� _ - •,.......,4„......, i ~ ' s• ,y,", +/ •Ye..•: T_4....:T`ti »t.`_-.:.r�1 +.L i 1a = �.!•1.C.XY+ - ' Prti ar.tyC Jr_Cati071n 2r- -ri M14..Sr•.. a...-a«-:.- �^ K�:a. ..t.+,..---:i...-----:.--_-_-,...,,--r:.--_i._:.•-...,X- :�Y.. N 7.4.•Y N _ z Y'. .'.y. 'r A�StdC "7r.... r.' =T ' s� ` .rir- r _...�0't:c Air - -, .*: • .....•-••••,-.............. : Qr$n Subdivision replat four (4) existing legal, parcels into one as Mounds View Business Park East n• A••ition for creation of Bu •ing ,.' site ••t• ease note: Appticant may be responsible for adaitianai fees assac ated . the. review of this r= � est I HEEY CE:,LAF,E THAT THE AECVE STA► hafe ARE i RUE / I . . • . . _ c� iii Aeztsning __ .. _ - -.. Sig • -•:9-8-97.7----_-:,... acre-minimum;nirrirn Variance ~., r'�-1 as cre R-Z- i vCQ maim m st,cat pant Fund O ast Few .- -,..,-:-:.:-..-1-•,,,,..---...;,-44.,•.:-:-•,•..v._,-; --. C•.r+aitiand Use Permit ,g.� yrs W.CQ - • oar.paid ▪ _ Code Appy g'2-S' �1 c:fters=CO - raiat NumbK S'5 • 0eveioa.45ds Ran+review S1C0/ece. �uanm CC' saxmutsS74 _- — aFees paidMinor Suaaivision S150 • Apar Sutaivisian (170122 plus 0 aaoasit� _ a. elan Amendment r'iecaipt Wumoer a A+teraacn Permit SSC pias deocai danernineo tt Start - .. . edam .,urfar Aenrnd S;C - �''� rldditicrtd Fie Paid - Panning Sign • WO • -- •.. Cs= - PPJII - S:SC . :t"ieeaiar*Umoer PJC Amendment •Si50 - Cate of Ind a= rt - • Oats — _ AF'R _ a":OII41 C.: -.TAW. C cvQ-Q . �._ Q .147 1�Jr .3 N N 5275 n� 5267 5263 I PUD 5251 > I < • ti 0 N 523C1 I (x_:•'•7 N J. ' 260 WOO 0a1 E 259 5250 q, OR N O N +f O 524' 5240i N t 5205 N 5200 N N I 1523• 52_0 U 570i ?' .4 5 • 5220 yle / 3 ::O ) 521• 521• O 2 IP ny ]15209 SZQOI �,�' b�'r 5150 `` -� O O T O � � • �(��u r0� I �� 119! NN NN ll I N N N N N ../.----N. CIS 7, ks, ff. I _,.., .._ PUD 1'7 y\ `w'•14 . I QA TV n i OOP. °A C� 124 I Z iw ,,‘. H-3 r\ DoE ,� RlcE cqN Q, ,, in rn _ Rp 0>I) N .NCV \. W Li cn I � W • CRP � � Iffiiiiiiiiihibb L.I rR-5 GG 64 - 8-3.. TOWNS EDGE TERRACE — �. - MO81LE HOME PARK 7 r• . o I IP� +825 _ 4e60 1 7 1 4821 -c a I I 488,. 7.7. 410 Zoning Map Planning Case 505-97 Applicant: Everest Development, Ltd. Location: Sxxx Program Avenue 1.0 M©S . o• •Ilk2Phone: (612) 784-3055 Fay (612) 784-3482Inert• Partners-� 40 September 3, 1997 • Mr.Timothy Nelson The Everest Group, LTD 2665 Long Lake Road,Suite 330 Roseville,MN 55113 • Dear Tim: • Jim Ericson and I have reviewed the Mounds View Ci Code, plat maps and documentation relating to thededication� information you presented and previous We have come to a conclusion for an amount park fedi�o in Mounds the Business parcels associated with Building N taking into consideration the following platting of the information. • Building N includes the following parcels and was appraised3for 5615,000 or SZ.OS per sq. ft. ( ,=0 sq.R)-Program Land Addition 08-30-23-44..0012 I01,886 sq.ft.) Ili OS-30.23 ( ft- -Program Land Addition • ' �_ -44-0016(5,731 sq.$)-Oudot A,MV Business Park East 08-30-23-41-0012(99,241 sq-ft.)-Piaecrest Addition(portion of total)(portion of total) • The Mounds View saes that"For City Code, . 1•.tl u.d-vi i. , * .' . '., f. t.any subdivision of a parcel on which a cashs • i ' been made but on which an additional cash dedicationdedication for parks has previously amount of cash dedicatione required due to re-subdivision,the gross density Iess anyapplicable redit for the prior cash edict rcel(s)shall be based on the new tion • In 1974,58,500 was paid on the Pro parcels, 08-30-23-44_0002, 0012,00111,00004, 0007Land 1st,0008, 0009ddition ,which nnd amooun s following3,169 of land for an estimated.02 cents per sq.ft.paid or anto 0 cents sq.per ft. sq. assumed market value of 20 c�tr per • • In 1994 as part of the C.G. HiII Development,S14,172.73 was paid which included parcel 08-30- 2344-0016 or Oudot A. This was based on a marker value of SI.43 per sq. ft.. Outfo• estimated to be 9,239 sq. ft.of land of which 5,781 sq.& is included in buildinc ' • . 'tame+w,., 50r1HKiti 2401 Hignway 10 •Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 Eoual Capomlrrty E•rrptoyer �ao�.,.�.00b. The Everest Group Page Two r 9-3-97 1111) Based on these assumptions which have been sufficiently documented by Everest and verified by City Staff,the following is the calculation for park dedication due for Building N. Total Gross Area Building N: 300,128 sq.ft.x$2.05=615,000 x 10%=$61,500 Minus credit for prior cash dedication for area included in plat 93,220 sq.ft.+ 101,886 sq.ft. = 195,106 x SO?0=39,020 x 10%=$3,902(Program Land Add) 5,781 sq.ft.x S1.43 =8,267 x 10%=$827(MV Business Park East Oudot A) Total Due for Park Dedication: $61,500-($3,902+$827)=$56,771 Upon written confirmation that payment will be made to the City of Mounds View in the amount of $56,771 for park dedication fees in relation to the plat for building N, I will schedule consideration of the Development Assistance Agreement for EDA action ar the next possible regular meeting. If you have any questions feel free to contact me at my direct number 717-4002. Sincerely, f"L'I/L 72€41"-4)6S--- yB ett EDA Executive Director cc: EDA Board Members Chuck Whiting, City Administrator • Tun O'Meara, Briggs&Morgan Jun Ericson, PIanning Associate Bob Long, City Attorney 6126360183 EVEREST GROUP 601 P02 OCT 01 '97 08:44 • .41•M•••••••• THE EVEREST GROUP LTD September 30, 1997 Ms. Cathy Bennett Director Economic Development CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW • 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 Dear Ms. Bennett iI am writing in reply to your letter dated September 26, 1997, which we received today. You are correct in stating that The Everest Group does not agree with your park dedication fee calculation of $56,771.00, as set forth in your prior correspondence of September 3, 1997. We believe your calculation of the fee is improper under City Ordinance Section 1204.02, and inconsistent with the City's application of its park dedication ordinance to several other similar re-subdivisions of commercial/industrial land. We also disagree with your characterization that In previous correspondences the City determined that the park dedication fee for the resubdivision of the land for Building N amounts to approximately $57,000.00_- Staff offered a position on calculation of the park dedication fee. Under your ordinance, the City Council, which has not yet taken action on this matter, determines the park dedication fee. Notwithstanding our disagreement with staff's position as described above, we are interested in finalizing the Building N Development Assistance Agreement, and reluctantly agree to payment of a park dedication fee in the amount of $56,771.00, conditioned on the following: 1. Approval of the Development Assistance Agreement in the form presented at the August 25, 1997, EDA meeting, but with a substantial • completion date of 12/31/02 in Section 3.4(c); 2. The $56,771.00 cash park dedication fee is to be paid in full at the time of execution and recording of the plat for Mounds View Business Park East 2nd Addition; 2665 Long Lake Road 6126360183 EVEREST GROUP 601 P03 OCT 01 '97 08:44 r . Page Two September 30, 1997 Ms. Cathy Bennett CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 3. The plat is approved as submitted, with preliminary review by the Planning Commission on October 1, review and recommendation of the Planning Commission on October 15, and approval by the City Council at a public hearing on October 29, 1997, per the schedule outlined by Jim Ericson. We request that Staff process Subdivision and Development Assistance Agreement approvals and notify us when the approvals are concluded and the Development Assistance Agreement is available for execution. Sincerely, THE EVEREST GROUP, LTD • imothy J. Nelson TJN:Ic cc: EDA Board Members Chuck Whiting, City Administrator Jim O'Meara, Briggs & Morgan Bob Long, Kennedy & Graven Jim Ericson, Planning Associate 4 . RI ` l ill , . ..... :i„„ --1 g I P F---p 1H . _ter = I o I' 1 ig I leg 1 Pa cn i � g 1 '44\ Igo ►s, * `'\ ASF I tiro „ r. � ti X03 Q X* Xi Etch `� N \i `•rr. 8 8 x C 11g N rr__,, a b•l muI or✓.N�Z1Ir r \ "�1 1 I N °),r. y \ Y I I 2pi N e.ori:rr�p�a \ (� ti a IF fro \ •r°P•r• lN.� iii 111 ad- c z I�I ,s-‘`i t�.gar.i 8 \ Y mIs! ..yq. • o f ,. �� \ r_ h tC'�) z b `�1 I=� �`��e b Bpd. \,, \ N �iJ0 a:`Iwl ° \ 1s4 I I\� —s \"1)4 ` ,IL—`_ 0.0.00,1/.11 .,mwwlnc.)urn o� ) A N,, S ^ 1 \ L �� �' a-� o.moa kW mr". u�nn an o.»...o 1 j0� R ij aoxo. s ..16.24:10.1 \ % q\°�4 `_ N Q 7 e t .e 0✓:,0 �\ 9i\ Q r e°(:),) Jp� 0, r%' \\ \ to Y ✓N F. I.72 "o19 bdp.,,s \ \ ; \\ Cr) _ a I= bo \ ` Ro V 6 od I'"I Q `' ' un.an wun a..n�.wio �� N A` i 8�. {� m I T.P. (67WAY311)Ll'COG MpL.00�OW---• � ,.Vl 7C f OIWl00V OW=OM)TMma001M£2toc) 0 W , ca s N r • j'y N La J) ,-1 I �1,fea e y -1 O b o o n a dd 1 jt I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 531-97 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW • COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR MOUNDS VIEW BUSINESS PARK EAST 2ND ADDITION; PLANNING CASE 505-97 WHEREAS, Everest Group, Ltd. has requested approval of a major subdivision for the properties legally known as: That part of the South 5.acres of Lot 2 lying West of the Easterly 80 Feet of said Lot 2, Block 2,PINECRESTADDIT7ON, lying East ofMOUNDS VIEW BUSINESS PARK EAST ADDITION, according to the recorded plats thereof and situate in Ramsey County,Minnesota; Lot 3, Block 3, PROGRAM 4ED LAND FIRST ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof and situate in Ramsey County,Minnesota; Lot 2, Block 1, PROGRAMMED LAND SECOND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof and situate in Ramsey County,Minnesota; • That part of Outlot A,MOUNDS VIEW BUSINESS PARK lying east of a line beginning at a point on the south line of said Outlot A, said point being south 89 degrees, 19 minutes 21 seconds East, assumed bearing, 409.00 feet from the southwest corner of said Outlot A, thence North 31 degrees, 43 minutes 48 seconds East 19.26 feet to the north line of said Outlot A and said line there terminating. WHEREAS, the above-described properties are zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development; and, WHEREAS, a plat date-stamped 9/8/97 titled MOUNDS VIEW BUSINESS PARK EAST 2ND ADDITION has been submitted by the applicant and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has reviewed the proposed plat and finds it consistent with the City's street plan in that no additional right of way will be required as a result of this plat and that the proposed easements shown on the plat will be sufficient for the City's utility needs; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant's request for a major subdivision reorganizing the four lots into one 6.89-acre parcel to be known as Lot 1, Block 1, Mounds View Business Park East Second Addition and found that it is in conformance with all applicable sections of the Mounds View Municipal Code. • • t Planning Commission Resolution 531-97 Mounds View Business Park East 2nd Addition Plat 0 October 15, 1997 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the major subdivision request by Everest Group, Ltd., contingent upon the following: 1. Before the Mayor and City Clerk/Administrator sign off on the Plat, the applicant shall accomplish the following: a. Payment of the park dedication fee in the amount of$56,771.00 as required in Section 1204.02 of the Municipal Code related to dedication of lands. b. Dedicate to the City via a separate document those easement areas so noted on the Plat for drainage and utility purposes covering the outermost ten feet of proposed Lot 1, Block 1,Mounds View Business Park East 2nd Addition, and provide proof of such recordation to the City. 2. Approval of this Plat shall be obtained from Ramsey County and recorded with the County within 120 days of final approval of the City Council. Within ten days of III said recording, the applicant shall furnish the City with a reproducible copy of the final plat showing evidence of the recording, otherwise the approval of the final plat shall be void. 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 15*day of October, 1997. Jerry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Iopke, Community Development Director 40 N:DATA\GROUPSICOMDEVIDEVCASES1505-9TBLDG NRES RESOLUTION NO. 5168 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT FOR MOUNDS VIEW BUSINESS PARK EAST 2ND ADDITION; PLANNING CASE 505-97 WHEREAS, Everest Group, Ltd. has requested approval of a final plat for the properties legally known as: That part of the South 5 acres of Lot 2 lying West of the Easterly 80 Feet of said Lot 2, Block 2, PINECREST ADDITION, lying East of MOUNDS VIEW BUSINESS PARK EAST ADDITION, according to the recorded plats thereof and situate in Ramsey County,Minnesota; Lot 3, Block 3, PROGRAMMED LAND FIRST ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof and situate in Ramsey County,Minnesota; Lot 2, Block 1, PROGRAMMED LAND SECOND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof and situate in Ramsey County,Minnesota; • That part of Outlot A,MOUNDS VIEW BUSINESS PARK, lying east of a line beginning at a point on the south line of said Outlot A, said point being south 89 degrees, 19 minutes 21 seconds East, assumed bearing, 409.00 feet from the southwest corner of said Outlot A, thence North 31 degrees, 43 minutes 48 seconds East 19.26 feet to the north line of said Outlot A and said line there terminating. WHEREAS, the above-described properties are zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development; and, WHEREAS, a plat date-stamped 9/8/97 titled MOUNDS VIEW BUSINESS PARK EAST 2ND ADDITION has been submitted by the applicant; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has reviewed the proposed plat and finds it consistent with the City's street plan in that no additional right of way will be required as a result of this plat and that the proposed easements shown on the plat will be sufficient for the City's utility needs; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has approved Resolution 531-97 recommending approval of the applicant's request for a major subdivision reorganizing the four lots into one 6.89-acre parcel finding that the proposed subdivision is in conformance with all applicable sections of the Mounds View Municipal Code; and, • Planning Commission Resolution 531-97 Mounds View Business Park East 2nd Addition Plat October 15, 1997 • Page 2 WHEREAS, the 6.89-acre parcel created from this subdivision will be known as Lot 1, Block 1, Mounds View Business Park East Second Addition and WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents associated with the request: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Letter from Cathy Bennet to Applicant,dated 9/3/97 4. Letter from Applicant,dated 9/18/97 5. Final Plat,dated 9/8/97 6. Planning Commission resolution 531-97 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves the Mounds View Business Park East 2nd Addition final plat request by Everest Group, Ltd., contingent upon the following: 1. Before the Mayor and City Clerk/Administrator sign off on the Plat, the applicant shall accomplish the following: • a. Make payment of the park dedication fee in the amount of$56,771.00 as required in Section 1204.02 of the Municipal Code related to dedication of lands. b. Dedicate to the City via a separate document those easement areas so noted on the Plat for drainage and utility purposes covering the outermost ten feet of proposed Lot 1, Block 1, Mounds View Business Park East 2nd Addition, and provide proof of such recordation to the City. 2. Approval of this Plat shall be obtained from Ramsey County and recorded with the County within 120 days of final approval of the City Council. Within ten days of said recording, the applicant shall furnish the City with a reproducible copy of the final plat showing evidence of the recording, otherwise the approval of the final plat shall be void. Adopted this 27th day of October, 1997. Duane McCarty, Mayor ATTEST: • Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator N:\data\groups\comdev\devcases\5o5-97\bldgn-cc.res Item No. 11A Staff Report No. 97-2257C Meeting Date 10-27-97 • Type of Business CB WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Council Members From: Cathy Bennett, Director of Economic Development Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution No. 5175 Approving the City of Mounds View's application for participation in a Cooperative Agreement with Minnesota Department of Transportation Date of Report: October 24, 1997 Summary: The attached resolution and letter was prepared by consulting engineers at SEH requesting and supporting participation in a cooperative agreement with MnDot for the proposed signal at Edgewood Drive and Highway 10. The resolution is required to allow the funding of the signal to be considered by MnDot in their upcoming budget cycle. This budget cycle is for 1999 but, if approved, would be available to Mounds View in 1998. As part of the application which is due by November 1, 1997, the City is also required to submit an • estimated cost-sharing allocation, traffic study summary and preliminary layout of intersection and roadway alignment which are all attached. Although this information is preliminary and community meetings and firm Council action has not been taken with regards to the signal and roadway realignment,this is a critical step to assure that funding would be available if the City chooses to implement the signal and realignment along with the rind road concept. The City is not committed until we are requested to sign a"Cooperative Agreement". This resolution is applying to be considered to enter into such agreement. MnDot will review the applications in early January and make their recommendations as part of the budget. The City would not be requested to review the agreement until sometime in the spring of 1998. If the City chooses not to pursue the signal and road alignment we can always write a letter asking MnDot to remove us from the list. Background: Mounds View was one of four cities to participate in a design course sponsored by the University of Minnesota this spring. The focus in Mounds View was on design solutions for the Highway 10 corridor. The course resulted in the development of a"Ring Road"concept which would provide a local level road system on either side of Highway 10 between Edgewood Drive and County Road I. One of the key links in the Ring Road is through the O'Neil property which is located between Long Lake Road, County Road H2, and Highway 10. The link would connect a new signalized intersection at Edgewood Drive and Highway 10 and a new four way intersection at Mounds View Drive and Long 40 Lake Road. I City of Mounds View Staff Report October 24, 1997 Page 2 • City engineers from SEH have done excellent work in gaining support from MnDot for the signal with the potential for funding 50%of the signal and 100%of the turn lane and median construction. Recommendation: Staff is recommending the approval of Resolution No. 5175 Approving the City of Mounds View's request to participate in a Cooperative Agreement with Minnesota Department of Transportation. n41 Cathy Bennett, Iirector of Economic Development • • • RESOLUTION NO. 5178 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW'S APPLICATION TO BE CONSIDERED FOR PARTICIPATION IN A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View is considering the implementation of a ring road system within the City to promote local circulation, keeping traffic off of TH 10; and WHEREAS the City of Mounds View is proposing to realign Edgewood Drive north of TH 10 and to make certain intersection improvements at the intersection of TH 10 at Edgewood Drive, including a new traffic signal installation, within the corporate City limits in Ramsey County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, preliminary engineering has been completed to design a proposed layout of the new intersection and new roadway alignment at Edgewood Drive north of TH 10 as part of the ring road concept. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED bythe Council of the City C ty of Mounds View that the City shall be responsible for the preliminary engineering, project design, right-of- way acquisition, and permitting functions for said improvements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that following approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation of plans and specifications for said improvements, and before the contract letting for the construction of said improvements, the Minnesota Department of Transportation shall prepare an agreement to provide for the State to pay its share of the costs of the improvements in accordance with the latest"Procedures for Cooperative Projects with Municipalities". PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW THIS 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1997 ATTEST: Duane McCarty, Mayor SEAL: 411 Charles S. Whiting, Clerk-Administrator I CM OF Phone: (612) 717-400 Q EW Fax: (612)784-3462 A� 66 '1.64 Partners'AS October 28, 1997 RE: Mounds View, MN Cooperative Agreement TH 10&Edgewood Drive SEH No. A-MOUND9708.00 Mr. Kevin Hoglund Cooperative Agreement Engineer Minnesota Department of Transportation Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 Dear Mr. Hoglund: The City of Mounds View hereby requests to enter into a cooperative agreement to complete the construction of the relocated intersection of TH 10 and Edgewood Drive. This intersection will • complete a ring road system within the city to promote local circulation, keeping local traffic off of TH 10. A preliminary layout of the new intersection and new roadway alignment is shown in the attached sketch. Enclosed you will also find: * Cost-sharing allocation * City Council resolution requesting the cooperative agreement * Traffic study summary detailing the mutual benefits for constructing the new intersection The enclosed traffic study summary indicates that constructing the intersection of TH 10 and Edgewood Drive, thus completing the ring road, would: * Provide access and circulation for local traffic * Decrease accident potential * Not seriously disrupt traffic progression along TH 10. The proposed cost sharing allocation was based on previous similar cooperative agreement projects and is consistent with Mn/DOT's"Cooperative Construction Project Procedures". • .6 PRINTED WITH 2401 Highway 10• Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 +�• SOY INK TM recycled Paper Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Kevin Hoglund October 28, 1997 Page Two The City requests your office to review the information provided and compare it to the selection criteria. The City also recognizes it's responsibility in administering the project and its cost share for engineering and other associated costs. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Cathy Bennett(City staff)at 717-4002, Glen Van Wormer(SEH) at 490-2045, or Pamela Maki (SEH) at 490-2122. Sincerely, • Charles S. Whiting Clerk-Administrator Enclosures cc: Glen Van Wormer, SEH(w/enclosures) Pamela Maki, SEH Steve Campbell, SEH(w/enclosures) 111 TH 10 & Edgewood Drive - Traffic Study Summary Background- • The City of Mounds View is set up in a grid pattern with north/south and east/west streets, while TH 10 which serves regional commuting traffic,is aligned at a 45 degree angle from the southeast to the northwest. This alignment creates skewed intersections with the City's street system and hampers local circulation. The City has developed a"Ring Road"system, as a way of serving local traffic and keeping it off of TH 10. The idea behind the ring road system is to tie the local businesses along TH 10 together using a local street system, giving it a sense of community and improved access. The ability of local traffic to reach adjacent businesses without utilizing TH 10 will enhance their value and thus, their success. The ring road will also help keep motorists with short trips from using TH 10, thereby creating better progression on TH 10. The Mounds View Community Center is located along Edgewood Drive and will also be connected via the ring road. A schematic of this ring road system is shown in Figure A. The intersection of TH 10 and Edgewood Drive is a very integral part of this "ring road" concept. The ring road is essentially parallel to TH 10 and will cross TH 10 at two points; at County Road I on the northwest end and Edgewood Drive on the southeast end. County Road I is currently signalized. This intersection is currently a T intersection with two-way stop control. TH 10 is a four-lane • divided highway with a depressed median and turn lanes at major intersection. Edgewood Drive is the north approach to TH 10 and creates a 45 degree skewed intersection. Figure B shows the existing geometrics of the intersection. Intersection Relocation- The intersection of TH 10 and Edgewood Drive will be relocated to a site halfway between the signalized intersections of County Road H and Silver Lake Road in order to maximize the performance of the traffic signal system on TH 10 and maintain progression. The realignment will also eliminate the existing skew of the intersection and will line up Edgewood Drive with the ring road on the south side of TH 10. A preliminary layout of the new alignment of Edge wood Drive and TH 10 is enclosed. A traffic signal installation has been justified and approved and will be installed at the new intersection to promote circulation on the ring road system. A new connecting roadway will be constructed between Edgewood Drive and Silver Lake Road on the south side of TH 10. This roadway will serve as the south frontage road of the ring road system. Left and right turn lanes will need to be constructed at the new intersection, along with a new median opening. The existing median opening for the current Edgewood Drive intersection will be closed. The abandoned Edgewood Drive will be turned into a cul-de-sac and access to TH 10 will be removed at this location. • • Signal Coordination- 0 Six intersections along TH 10, from County Road H on the south to Silver Lake Road on the north, are part of a coordinated traffic signal system. Figure C shows the locations of the signalized intersections along the TH 10 southern corridor. The average spacing between the intersections is 1500 feet or approximately 1/3 mile. The spacing between the relocated intersection at Edgewood Drive and the existing intersections north and south of it is 1225 feet. The new signal will be coordinated with the existing signalized intersections along the corridor. The corridor signal timing was studied to determine the feasibility of an additional traffic signal in the system. Since the roadway serves commuting traffic,the traffic patterns are very directional, with southeast-bound being the dominate direction in the A.M. and northwest-bound being the dominate direction in the P.M. Because of this directionality,the installation of another traffic signal can be accommodated without seriously disrupting the signal system. The analyses were based on volumes and assumptions found in the TH 10 Corridor Study done by HDR, Inc., May 1996. Additional analyses was performed, at Mn/DOT's request, for several different scenarios; including present volumes, future volumes, present geometrics, future geometrics, and possible phasing modifications. Mn/DOT personnel were informed of the finding and are in agreement with them. Benefits- 4110 The traffic signal installation and intersection relocation of TH 10 at Edgewood Drive will benefit the City, State, and motoring public in many ways: • It will provide and maintain access for individuals and businesses and help foster interaction between them without requiring them to use TH 10. - • The intersection has been located such that the traffic progression along TH 10 will not be disrupted. • It will decrease the accident potential of the existing two-way stop controlled skewed intersection, since volumes are anticipated to increase with the development of the Community Center. • It will provide an opportunity for walking,biking and other modes of transportation services, which should not take place on a major regional expressway, to access land uses along TH 10 and to cross TH 10 in a safe manner. The coordination of the local street system, frontage roads and regional TH 10 should balance both local and State-wide needs and provide a system which better meets the needs and desires of local citizens. • For these reasons, the City of Mounds View requests Mn/DOT to include the traffic signal installation, and construction of the median opening and turn lanes in the Cooperative Agreements Program. The City will fund the Edgewood Drive roadway realignment and the frontage road completion as part of this project. This project will provide for a good local street system, as well as providing some relief for TH 10. The study made by the City and the SJR submitted to Mn/DOT, at City cost, demonstrates a mutual benefit to both the City and to Mn/DOT. The City recognizes its responsibility in administering the project and its cost share for engineering and other associated costs. • • et-,qCOS-( •tu it TH 10 & Edgewood Drive October 22, 1997 Mounds View, MN SEH A-MOUND9708.00 • Estimated Cost Split Estimated Estimated Mn/DOT Cost City Cost Traffic Signal Construction 50% $65,000 50% $65,000 Turn Lane and Median Construction! 100% $195,000 0% $0 Right-of-Way Cost 0% 100% Edgewood Drive & Frontage Road Construction 0% 100% Cost in Construction Engineering 8% of $20,800 Excess of Construction Mn/DOT's Cost Share 11111 • I 1 W - 1 , • j 2•' 1 FLOWERFKiLO NO 1 x O ,,Ar�. ot" O eem it Z ^ th 'W' cot:. ®AV. N11n W w •:1 W /® STN® Z l e7N1 L. N ; 1 AVE. _ > ^ UM c ~ ? NON LA. ! 1 // ^ A :.a .. o 8 S .. ,�I`. F Z • �� .n O 1 #�� LA. S DI `® W W �,� 1. COL a 1 _ l't ; nth T BUY u AVE. N.E.' O `-•- Z / eon .11�(1KA y' c:.. sl - OOUNTY fl0.. J rai e.m u / j R,�A15CY° .1 W NALL!�k 8 (i 0M• 1S IE ^ izi.AINI: ;Q :; 1a u i i I g ¢ i ao W eme LA `.//1 ^ ; S j / eSW I 4 AROAN aI - ; AV. Y AVE 0` ____— e'-+ ow �SHOREVIEW i I i o a IEEE! Mil P 01 SHERWOOD�ONEEf1F1ELO LAI.C.a Tra*EN P10e/' 0 \ � COVM PE � ... .. _..... SME SOW � (no scale) Y ® IMF ill ty I DR. oa ',10117/ , -NC ..DP. ,.v Z - ILOrig �� ZC q `•1 10. 111.1= / W • ,rte ,° • i }}}�ttt �� o'< �f ' 'Tf- \Q 1 00. :.`' DR. Z ser .r 7. i i �� l)t o �.+� TERRACE W DR. I. g .° AYe..! • 1 list!�_ • . . iLlitrui -&lieliii igna Or STATE �� �• - EXAM. I II •At.LAKE CT.DR i IV : - - STATION V.PARK NEW DR. ���� f5 \ STATION ��� M PAPK YAW TEA �.'{F71, hbr...........VIEWOR. I'M w_____ .. • • • z � „ • AVnailerE ' 1!k i 4 I ZIP 1 © O °� of � 8 �� � p , \�, ea. ../1 ARDEN HILLS t9e1 .A 4ei.„:.:.:1\.\----1 CJ AVE q w a O 7!r ti-'X'.`s=,1_ S Y > I „F 4 Tr{• 1.. "milh ALLEr VIEW :N ,'� e Dais, - rM 12 k' •a: S 40 P iirF•7ER s ill r MUST. M10- IID n"111% b4 - 0EO e - - s, f.A AYLM�—_ __ 7 .�• A 71.1 ST.R �. � ^,`/--` ONOONARY AVE.Rr , —_....._._ ......1 _— C 4 W 1 wwsoh wAr T .71 OA O=I _� c 4e2.1Tra1W �,lL_ �gJ I \--#1. 7' PaA A> �� '+ •EEK ►WOa '•TER. i.Y.,t �j I 'Y.. _ _ ,,y,E w •I«1 r -A, E s[C si G0�i a 6REENVIEW�� lan Y .�' ! .�v,s�5•• • O el Inn 57.x)\\ _e AIMITON ' '; •T`° �%. R. 7M��%�� + Y?•I q ° 4 q n F. ®o Tn ST. iC•`ti� ?�.l i FElN1O O+ I I S t•:X 41`- 01- , © O 8 M I iMEN St. N.W."' 02 MVI r{-qq.flt 1 A a� _ Y K EN < ,Nb TER16rn t d:{+�.,, ,':L$_E:\�•i. �e ° u < n TER. 1 ®W ..-1--q Sv ` a W a O ST. N.W. eK1 ® i�� �� • �B �. .: �\ 2 s ARO1. AVE talo w < i o aOSEW... W = \ CT E I' Z q': oP0-!f.5 1,,111 15M ST .w- .. Lake '2 ¢ Z 7s. OLLEE 4,t51 •S.N4a TER.M.W.JJ ERN C�,•� 1.1n ST.NW. llrn l f F _ . Ss.N.W.FRE.EE 1]M STI ' •, , . 1]In c TEP« n � i oa a�-i INn ST OR -O �i 1 i _L" F . �i' N,W EPOCN pp'"r. ..P OpJi Z Ix. u O ...\�A ,, -. ,',1 1]1n ST• / aLA •.',. L OF S i ile 171"sT. a •_ 2..Z..," Z._ \ m �WSa'� k A (•) � DA-N Cla jt .Ff O WTRPAINEfl OPARK aDfl�M1 W:� Pik ` x A_._ .�ar .^, . Lekd i ao• TY Legend °Existing Traffic Signal •Proposed Traffic Signal TRAFFIC SIGNALS ALONG T.H.10 . FILE N0. T.H.10 AT EDGEWOOD DRIVE FIGURE _SEMI MOUND9708.00 DATE: MOUNDSVIEW, MINNESOTA No. C 08/25/97 J rc � 1 Y Z ARDAN N OI J Y A' DAN AVE. il, U • 4 -,,,_ C7 0p,PORT Op QQ'- z J D R- t�0 (_, EE Q(.(.. . LA C) .. x.nHERWOO• SHER W000 GREENFIELD J PL. Z 1 p Q�-' 4 p p O Y p > — aY, in 00 3 O N'd 1 Z 115 O � a Z w � W �(no scale) ` uQ. aWC a p O a �C ul N ' it O HIL IEW RD.El !LLV1E • RD, -S Z p � Q OAK W E cc I - g lL) r W J v • °OAK OOD - -J c W 2 a i a PtNEVv z OOC E o W CO. - cl - f. 111 • Com! RD. .` *© DR' o GROS / wo ♦♦ OOD o w 2 411) • A . ,ri, i • w •..O -•• NSON P LU v B- • . ... • • `. 21. - , :. Z ' ,. : . ♦ , ~ 5 24 irp ..21..LAKE CT. DR. •' ■**■•• ♦ 2 no O 22.PARK VIEW DR. ♦i (�f K • 23.HODGES LA. q 5 a a 24.PARK VIEW TER. , . - a lir 22-. 25. SLYER VIEW DR.:. ~ 0Y U ' ii mi - Rgk- 2 • .Q 0 • LQUISA.AYE. D w © V o • CLEARVIEW c go a w AVE • O Q RIDGE g 0 LA. w LEY DR. a0 . G ° .0 Z W00� s c .W• • , • LE 0 DR. i � ,- � 0 2 S � o 0 0 0 8 W ' w� W = z $ a °� a °C �' °' w WOOD- S z d w CREST 1 i SP.RtNCi EW t4 W 0 g ioL4-ii, LA. 88 EHillsi °° RING ROAD PLAN impluimminsmi FILE NO. MOUN09708.00 T.H.10 AT EDGEWOOD DRIVE FIGURE � DATE: 08/25/97 MOUNDSVIEW, MINNESOTA No. A i • o N0 \ Tti, o . . o 0 • • N 0 \ W yi N N < 4' IT N. (not to scale) NNN \ N •••••I� V\\\\ • • N r-K 1 ,NN N . . . . EXISTING GEOMETRICS \ i. 111 FILE NO. ND9708.00 T.H.10 AT EDGEWOOD DRIVE FICHE _SEMI MOUDATE: MOUNDSVIEW, MINNESOTA NO. B 08/25/97 Item No. i v I�'g Staff Report No. 97C, Meeting Date: October 27, 1997 IDType of Business: PH& CB 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: Wetland Alteration Permit and Partial Easement Vacation Request by Good Value Homes for Lots 17 & 18, Edgewood Square (Pinewood Circle); Planning Case No. 506-97 Date of Report: October 24, 1997 Summary: John Peterson, representing Good Value Homes, Inc., has requested that the City approve a wetland alteration permit and vacate a portion of a drainage easement that covers Lots 17& 18 of Edgewood Square which was dedicated to the City as a result of the initial platting in 1982. Even though wetlands are present over parts of Lots 17 & 18 and all of Lot 19, drainage easements • were dedicated for the entirety of the three lots. This may have been done to simplify the legal descriptions of the easements. To build on the two lots, a wetland alteration permit would need to be obtained because work will be done within the City's wetland zoning district. In addition, approval is needed from the Rice Creek Watershed District. The City reviews all development that occurs within wetlands and their buffers because of the important role that wetlands play in maintaining the ecosystem and the area hydrology, in that they are critical to the present and future health, safety and general welfare of the land, animals and people within the City. Any existing and potential development within the City and the Rice Creek Watershed pose increasing economic and ecologic demands, potentially despoiling, polluting or negatively altering wetlands and their contributory function and benefit to the City. Wetland Alteration Permit Analysis: According to Chapter 1010 of the Municipal Code relating to the Wetland Zoning District and the recently-adopted Ordinance No. 602 amending Chapter 1010, any work occurring within the 100- foot buffer surrounding a wetland or within a wetland itself requires either a wetland buffer or wetland alteration permit. Because the City's official wetland zoning maps indicate that the work as proposed will be occurring within the wetland, an alteration permit reviewed and approved by the City Council is necessitated. The scope of the proposed work involves the filling and • excavation of a previously identified wetland area. In May of 1997, the applicant arranged to have the wetland delineated which is shown on the grading plan as the"worst case delineation." City of Mounds View Staff Report Planning Case No. 506-97 October 24, 1997 Page 2 • This indicates that the actual location of the wetland's boundary differs from the City's adopted wetland zoning maps. A representative from the watershed district confirmed the delineation as shown on the applicant's grading plan to be accurate. In order for the City Council to approve a wetland alteration permit request, the proposed development shall comply with the requirements as specified in Section 1010.08, Subd. 4. I have put together a matrix listing these requirements and whether or not this development satisfies the individual criteria. ,...£#i3„{{#}, x{£rsF FS3f£33ss£:�...E... :s•s•{#.f{ 3j€...;.x...•••4#3.5::£i>,#t..»O css t 5 i s££ £ £ k >{ . # ONGOING' k:_ R„,A3 $k5s »» n »3n: 5, f: :y a , Oa { " 4i _ ?? k"<; Any alteration shall not cause a The applicant proposes to fill 11,850 cf of flood Yes reduction in the flood storage capacity storage capacity but will replace it with an of the wetland. additional 39,500 cf of flood storage capacity. Any alteration shall not reduce the It is assumed that the water quality of this Yes existing water quality enhancement wetland will not be negatively impacted as a value of the wetland under conditions result of the two homes being constructed,as of ultimate development long as a minimum 10-foot wide natural area is left to protect the wetland. Any alteration shall not reduce the Because more than 50%of the lots will be Yes existing wildlife habitat value of a protected by a drainage easement and the . wetland. construction area limited to non-wetland areas, there will be no apparent reduction in the habitat value for the wetland. Alterations shall be carried out so as To reasonably use these two lots,vegetation will Yes to minimize the impact on vegetation. need to be removed for the construction of the Removal of vegetation within a homes. In addition,vegetation will be removed wetland zoning district shall be via the filling of one area and the excavation of permitted only when reasonably another area,but this is to serve a greater need of required for the placement of creating additional flood storage capacity that structures and use of property. will benefit all adjoining property owners of the wetland. Stormwater runoff from a development Because of the grading that will occur,it is Yes may be directed to a wetland when in estimated that potentially less runoff will be compliance with the local water directed to the wetland. While a manicured lawn management plan and only when in place of natural vegetation may elevate the substantially free of sediment, debris level of contaminants entering the wetland, and chemical pollutants. leaving a ten-foot wide strip of natural vegetation around the wetland will help cleanse runoff entering the wetland • City of Mounds View Staff Report Planning Case No. 506-97 October 24, 1997 • Page 3 <_ 3 «f #£si <3s , 3g f < ': o „ « n " # < « .? s, 6s „.: sa z>n«<>zizzz5n s<iu;; ,zl, ,1 11sefiiLa .. " : 55,«„ s„ _;» �m„lie XY „,s ssoss drveri .lou,a:<,„«;..<:.5..isxi.3,, „ A ,<« o y :: :;a „ ; , . sna < „ amkss „ , - ; The proposed action shall not cause Currently,all of the runoff from these two lots Yes stormwater runofffrom a development drain directly into the wetland. As proposed,the to take place at a rate which would grading and rooflines will direct 50%of runoff exceed the rate or volume of runoff as toward the street,away from the wetland. anticipated by the City's Local Water Management Plan. The quality of water infiltrated to the The quality of the water that will enter into the Yes water table or aquifer shall remain ground water system as a result of this substantially unchanged development is not expected to differ significantly from before. No part of any sewage disposal system These lots will be connected to the City's sanitary Yes requiring on-land or in-ground sewer system and as such will not be disposing of disposal of waste shall be located wastes on site. closer than 100 feet from a wetland. Waste which would normally be This requirement will be added to the resolution Yes disposed of at a solid or hazardous approving the wetland alteration permit. waste disposal site shall not be directly or indirectly disposed of into • the wetland Construction erosion control measures Plans and supporting documentation for such Yes and retention facilities shalt be measures and facilities shall be approved by the designed to limit soil loss to not more City prior to commencement of construction. than 5 tons per acre per year. No alteration shall be allowed which The health,safety and welfare or persons in and Yes endangers the health, safety or welfare around this area will not be endangered by this ofpersons or which may result in development,nor will it result in unusual road unusual road maintenance costs or maintenance as the roads are already in place and utility line breakage. are functioning as anticipated. As can be seen, all of the criteria with regard to Section 1010.08, Subdivision 4a can be met. In addition, Section 1010.08, Subdivision 4b lists requirements that will need to be met which will be included as contingencies to the resolution approving this wetland alteration permit. Staff has consulted Rocky Keehn with SEH, Inc., the City's engineer concerning drainage and wetlands issues, with regard to this development proposal. Mr. Keehn has reviewed the plans and finds them consistent with the City's Local Water Management Plan. Vacation Analysis: • According to Section 12.06 of the City Charter relating to Vacation of Streets, the Council may by ordinance vacate any street or alley or other public grounds or part thereof within the City. Minnesota Statutes and the City Charter require that vacations require a public hearing. Such City of Mounds View Staff Report Planning Case No. 506-97 October 24, 1997 Page 4 vacations • may be made only after published notice in the official City newspaper and for providing the affected property owners and public to be heard. This action shall be recorded with Ramsey County to take effect. When originally platted, these two lots and a third were placed in a drainage easement as they were deemed to be unbuildable. The City since that time has adopted its Local Water Management Plan which comprehensively deals with all aspects of drainage, stormwater runoff and wetlands within the City. Along with the Wetland Zoning Ordinance, which was adopted by the City in 1992 and revised in 1997, certain types of development under certain conditions are allowed within and alongside wetlands. Vacating a portion of the original easement over and across Lots 17 and 18 would not be inconsistent with either the Local Water Management Plan or the Wetland Zoning ordinance. SEH also recommended the City retain an additional ten feet of easement around the wetland to guarantee a natural vegetation strip would be maintained between the wetland and the sodded backyards. The City attorney has prepared Ordinance No. 603, an ordinance approving the vacation of that part of the drainage easement shown on the reduced grading plan. Once adopted by the City Council, the ordinance would then be published in the City newspaper and would become effective 30 days thereafter. Recommendations: • 1. Approve Resolution No.5173, a resolution approving the wetland alteration permit requested by the applicant, Good Value Homes, to allow for the construction of two single-family homes on lots 17 and 18, Edgewood Square, subject to stipulations. 2. Approve the first reading of Ordinance No 603, an ordinance authorizing the vacation of a portion of a drainage easement over and across Lots 17 and 18 of Edgewood Square for • Good Value Homes, to allow for the construction of two single-family homes. '4...ler.A.A.A.4.47:k ..1....••••••," James Ericson, Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Wetland Map 4. Fax from Rice Creek Watershed District,dated 10/16/97 5. Letter from the Applicant,dated 9/29/97 6. Development Grading Plan,date-stamped 10/3/97(Separate Attachment) 7. Resolution 5173 • 8. Ordinance 603 NADATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\506-97\GOOD VALU.RPT • .c ads.,.. ,- a j,t,r.� illi r.;�--':�w�; CO `.., DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • „,1. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION :",'°? 2401 13"ighway 10, Mounds 'View MN 55112 ')'s`-Parat., 0 612-784-3055 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information Name of Applicant John R. Peterson . " Te.leph�one' ' 755-9793 Address 9445 E. River Road Fax 755-6207 Coon Rapids, Mn 55433 Good Value Homes, Inc. Interest in Property(check appropriate box) )- Owner of Property a Contract for Deed Owner a Lessee,Operator,Manager . ' a Agreement to Purchase a Other(explain) - Applicants must provide evidence of interestin property at the time of application,and ifyou are not the owner of the property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner Diving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. liroperty Description/Proposal Address or General Location Legal Description LIDS 17'1 t si 6 WuOrm S QuA7244 Property Identification#(PIIN#) 4 of Acts Current Zoning Q — Present Use Type of Application a Undeveloped/Vacant a Comprehensive Plan Amendment 5200 a Single Family Dwelling a ReZnninv a Duplex/Two Family Dwelling - a 5200/ac;min£200 max 51000 Major Subdivision £250+S250 deposit a Multi-family Dwellings a Minor Subdivision £150 a Business/Commerciai Establishment a Planned Unit Development(PUD) 5350 a Industrial Establishment a PUD Amendmentc a Other(explain) 510 a Conditional Use Permit R-1,R-2 S75;all others 5200 C. Variance R-1,R-2 S75;all others 5200 a • Code Appeal £75 co Develop ReviewiSite Plan S 100/ac;min 5100 max 5500 Wetland Alteration Permit £50+deposit* . a Wetland Buffer Pit 7 a Fioodplain Permit £200 4111 a Other 'see Mtmicipal Code for explanation.of deposits Please complete the reverse side of this application. s--AvOH 11flVAUUD9 U Development Application Page 2 S Property Classification Abstract 0 Torrens Description of Proposal W& P E �E-Qt ?<iz "f-t-��T t-Ec E � c �=� L r,-s . Ew oar S 4 L' 2 - VAC,&r O. BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON rrIIS APPLI�,` ON,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVID:» . • 'E AND ACCURATE. • Signature of Applicant Name of Applicant(typed/printed) GortiV ‘ikort...%e. ray C Signature of Property Owner 1 Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) G o L)4-t-.V e (kR-c; • FOR OF_ICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal 9—• — Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. 5 o 62 "I 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid: Account# Check Application: 5ce 11 .5 Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: . Total: • C:.OFFlCb1WPWLINWpDOCZADIvi NWORMSIDEVAPP.FOR 1197 ' r 7937 ;::: . .8000 8005 8012 7935933 � .•® 7984 7989 7988 7929 7928 7927 D r� N 7927 ® �' N 7925 �4' f' 7924 14V°. 0 �' 0 7980 7971 7968 7921 0 7923 • MCN ca 7920 w 791• Q ,•, � m COI 7944 7953 7917 7914 Z PI N N041k9\�rO e N N7948 7913w 7913 �`' ^'. mac, N7934 7931 791017909 '"`M CI n M ,p mac' c, 7930 7909 0 ni I cc i N ND • d`c, e� 7906 790 �jI79OO NIP P �' i n 7905 790 N.. .1• co o N P R co O N N N N 7901 O to i In I r' I M N M'I N IDN 0CO N N In N N N III N N :. O O r'-' N V- CO - C r7 'Cn r•••-• ., ,. O 7 ND 1 N N 7889 7888 N N •N PT ° ,n .' N N J N I N I N I N N tO N -�., OAKWOOD DR N N N N . 787517868 7869 7860 { Un ^ r3 U, 7855{J 7870 7861 17854 p 765 785C J 561- 5616 5619 5618 N N N N N N .: 754717840 7845 784~0 784111go561 cn :: 56 : 12'561;N 7837 7830 82 560 06 5607 N N N N v £ Tz: 7827 762 Alrill :3 56005601 5600` '7 '� 7817 .:: ��l � 556215563 5562 iiiiii 7800 780117800 i� �w N N N 7778 7807 1 = 555615557 i? 5556 7749 7750 7768 Pl M el:V 555015551 a 5550 F m m I iii m 773917740 7751/ �I N `� w N N N 55 5544 '&3 55455544 N N N N NI N 7729 7730 7741 77 • PINEWOOD C1R ,n a, n 2 a, O N P c 5538 5539 m ^ `V i 7726 7719 7720 7731 773• ' n 74 ,^,, ?�S 55361 w,�N N N J N N 1 7710 77 Z N N N N N 9 1_; 5532 5533 5532> 177703 091 771 c p 7721 7720 -15IIM ��N 0 0 0 mp/ 552615527 N 5526 Ito c�'n 'n �'; 770117700 '� I. N770 II 1 7701 N N N N N 5521 552015521 5520N c•,,N `1.), 0 0 2 inc° in I ..; i A CI'4. 0 0:5°' g Nen N N N N N N N N N r) r) O: Lou -,.. m —1 7660 N N N` N 766: --31766•' un in to 5497 R— R-4 11: 7643176580 N N co N N N 7641 7656 7661 N N= e- S � 1217639 7644 7651 - I 7635 D 7635 76305 5480 5479 47655 p 5474 ( 5473 7645 O 7625 7628 7641 5468 = 5467 4 • �- 761 7610 z r R-4 2 e v v r,: -Ti A 7631 ' 5462 1 5463 ,• Uo ra P. 761: w 759`-, 759 N q z 5445 5454 I 5455 III 0 ,� ^ P. . n 763 ` r) —2 7581 17580 7531 ,' _� 5446 5447 0 75657564 - •- p 54405441 QN7551 7550 7521 . ,� 5434 5433 753517534 751T5426 542575211752Q"= 5420 I 5421 5414 5415750517504 75015401 1 Xi".....778111Fe - 5406 1 5405 �.,..o� BRONSON III Zoning Map Planning Case 506-97 Applicant: Good Value Homes 4 Location: Lots 17 & 18Square g Ed ewood ��\�Y 3 ire i— r P (yJ I: 26 M.Y. PARK a ' 5 -, - 4� • 16.- 17 ..• 18 1110 3 2 =i j$ 14 .0 0 • - .. . 10 • _ •�� - 24 X. I .. . ..4 ititlioliosimiL. cn o . ......:.:.:;.::::::::::::•:•.-:-::: ::::•:::il - III .... i • Si I O ?- C49 1 04 i : -: ';f':':` 2 I NF '3�► •�: 4 I 5 RE 4� .4S AItis:: Sr� :.x i:: �:tr{: 1.:�ti ............:.:..:.:.:.:.:,.:::.:„..::.:.:.:.:,.::.:.:.:.,.:.:.:.:.:.:..:„..:.:.::,_ .:_:_:_,..:.:.,.:„.::.:.:.:.,..:.....::.::::.:.:.:::k::::::::::::::::::,..:,... • n e pc ' :yr'. :ti :i:�'.` f:ti✓}ti}i i :v t•:;.�.`;: : t Z GO • - 125 t :;;i;: tib• .oR4:?i0:::tii:-%::i�:;%?•':fi} �''ti:: i. __, .0 2. Aiiiir0 :tiff::'' : :ti::v:Y ?.... i •• 1.- 0 1 2 4 q _ ::ti ti::::'•. '?'.:. . ..;::•: • :=:•.�::::•::::y}tib.;:?:•: ':':�:•:�::':'}: ti'-'i::::':•::•:•'•-:::'•:•':':v.::•:v::'?•:•':•. al 0. O ;: :ti: 2 2 .1•x'1 J:+•••• :TD ...�.••:::,::•_':' : 1 logo 0,4,40-0,',......, :fir:::::::::•:•:::::Y.:::• c - 11.' ll.Jl. •-•��J+t+t.►1+••q•°•••ry••••••••••• �••�• AA.•°••410 •0•••••••+•• e—.....—.. .._1 � 'LA �►•••► '.+G 1..1#Its 11•1.•1+••I/.•+f•1••4i•••••+0.1•r �♦ V ♦• II\ '.+••+1.;so•:•«IR�♦�•'•:SGS♦•/ Mikir•!••evi•1 ..1 �.1 ——— "� 1` •`s1.�♦♦„�1�„►i�„i,•1 s°fi•i ►ice%�•'�Os� • r 6 W 6 19 • + �- �_lir� i�•!:!ai;i•`, HOZ ••• ••' 100-Foot B -- -- ---77-_.--..:,•:".I047,1,•-.....•••••••.,44%,•1, • :°•: :•••1•' 16 15 er 7 t 2 5 r*:0•00:00:4100110:*. 19 *.'.'• : 18• 17 i _ Ie , ,,, ♦••• •.1.►L” 1°01.•1• 11••• ►.• 4_7_.___ i.--- AI .,/ 6 15 .• , t.1,'.... • • • ►• ��,••`st �_'•�` PINEWOOD CIRCLE tJl ---•_ IMF. .Afrl�+ir N • I •+•4+- 1 9 9 1 6 •_ _ 9 10 .11 12 13 �• I— — + __ ,V 10 10 • S 8 . i.. .--- + .. I 1 L+�� isG c��'' 1� I j O A I t \ ji 143~ac,. 4,r '•` _ !� i I ' QI213 y J. _ 2 5 q 1 ;, - -- - t;- - - — - ill 1 Wetland ZoningMap Planning Case 506-97 Applicant: Good Value Homes, Inc. Location: Lots 17 & 18, Edgewood Square N 4 10/16/1997 14:15 612-483-9186 RICE CREEK W DIST PAGE 01 r • RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT SUITE 330 ARDEN PLAZA RCWD PERMIT NO. 97-117 3585 LEXINGTON AVENUE NORTH ARDEN HILLS, MN 55126-8056 c: City of Mounds View 17. Montgomery Watson Inspector Brough RCWD File PERMIT PERMIT APPLICATION NO, 97-117 James Schoch Issued to: Good Value Homes, 9445 East. River Road. Coon Rapids, MN 55433 Location: East of Edgewood Detre and immediarly north of Pinewood Circle, Mounds View Purpose: ' Approval of a Land Development Plan and Wales Alteration Plan for three single- family residences within an existing development known as Edgewood Square. 2.0+ acres At their meeting on September 24, I997, the Board of Managers of the Rice Creek Watershed District reviewed your permit application and the recommendation of the District Engineer basad upon the following exhibits: • 1. Permit Application. dated August 27, 1997, rived August 25, 1997 2. Preliminary Plat and Grading Plan prepared by Passe Engineering, Inc., last revised September 22, 1997. received October 8. 1997. 3. Project narrative pavane! by Passe Engineering, Inc., dated August 21. 1997. received August 25, 1997. 4. Hydrologic calculation prepared by Passe Engineering, Inc., dated August 7, 1997, received August 25. 1997. 5. Walsall delineation report, prepared by Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.. dated July 11, 1997, received September 22, 1997. 6. RCWD Permit File 92-161. 83-72, and 80-115. • • 7. Cash surety is the amount of S3,000, received October8, 1997. They found the project as planned to be in accordance with the Rules & Regulations and Guidelines sf the oaDspermit istrict and therefore approved the pas requested. with the following additional NO ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS • Continual on reverse-- . lYJ/10/ll 14:15 b12-483-9186 RICE CREEK W DIST PAGE 02 RCWD PERMIT NO. 97-117. cam: Page 2• It is the responsibility of the Permittee to provide all measures site during construction. This site to contain sediment on the may the use of erosion control measures not outlined on the erosion mmol plan. If this erosion control irement is not met. the Permiaee may be ordered to provide additional measures if deemed necessary by the District the Properly owner to provide necessary rrz inrr„snc.- Co �Iurre toa. the is also the responsibilitymanagement of systems approved as part of this Permitthat ysdesigned.a ed maasge:asezzc will continue to function as originally designed. NOTE FOR PROVmER OF A CASH SURETY: At last Two (2) inspections of the project site are included with this Permit, one after measurescompletion, rev erosion control measures are in place and one after project egesation, and silt fence removal. and will be conducted m aagreements. terms. and stipulationsassure compliance with all forfeiture toYour cash of this Permit. Failure to comply with the foregoing may result a of. may, rescission of the Permit, and is in violation of Chapter 112.89 MSA, a misdemeanor. sdevegetative aver has been arab!District Office in writing when project is complete and permanent and a float inspection will be made. Any additional iatpecrioa. requested or required, will be billed at SZS/visit. This document is not amsfesahle, and is valid for conaaize twenty-four months after the date of issuance. No vctioD is authorized beyond s time co co !ere a °'o due of Oettzber 16, 1999. If Permittee requires more mp construction, a renewal of the Permit will be necessary. Please testate RCWD at 483-0634 the work in proms, $ when the project is aboutto c+ot�ce so an inspector may view y acceptance of this Permit, Permittee has consented to the foregoing. The enclosed Owner's Certification form must be completed and forwarded within tea (10) days of project is RCVVD of Managers Eugene L. Peterson / if/ Secretary, R 'J► : . of Managers Andrew I. Cardinal, Sr. Daze of Issuance: October 15. 1997 jet Form C Revised 1/91 v {udauuufaaaQ _'p GWDVALUE HOMES . 1_ Suite 19 CID2.¢43.4.1� • September 29, 1997 Community Development Department City of Moundsview 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 Re: Lots 17 and 18 Edgewood Square To Whom It May Concern: We have owned Lots 17, 18, and 19 Edgewood Square for many years. During that period of time we have been paying signiificant amounts of taxes on the property. We are hereby requesting vacation of the drainage and utility easement which encumbers the Lots 17 and 18 Edgewood Square. We are not requesting a vacation . of the easement over Lots 19 Edgewood Square. It is m understanding also need to request a Wetland Alteratioin Permit before we can build on the subject lots. Last week the Rice Creek Watershed approved our request to alter the wetlands per the enclosed plan. Please advise me as to what steps need to be taken to obtain building permits for these two lots. cerely, J.11 R. Peterson Pr sident • Good Value Homes,Incorporated 9445 East River Rd.N.W..Coon Rapids.MN 55433 612-755-9793 Fax 612-755-6207 cr Registered Builder#20054981 euoEx,,twcwxn 4EALtOR' �'—^ RESOLUTION NO. 5173 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR LOTS 17 AND 18, EDGEWOOD SQUARE,REQUESTED BY GOOD VALUE HOMES; PLANNING CASE NO. 504-97 WHEREAS, Good Value Homes has requested approval of a wetland alteration permit to construct single-family homes on properties zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential, legally described as follows: Lots 17 and 18, Edgewood Square, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, Lots 17 and 18 meet the dimensional requirements of a build able lot as set forth in Section 1104.06 of the Mounds View Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, parts of Lots 17 and 18 lay within the wetland designated as GF-4 in the City's Local Water Management Plan; and, WHEREAS, the minimum recommended building elevation within this sub-watershed is 903.4 feet; and, • WHEREAS, The City reviews all development that occurs within wetlands and their buffers because of the important role that wetlands play in maintaining the ecosystem and the area hydrology, in that they are critical to the present and future health, safety and general welfare of the land, animals and people within the City; and, WHEREAS, the scope of the proposed work involves the filling, excavation and grading of land within the wetland buffer and the construction of two single-family homes; and, WHEREAS, the Rice Creek Watershed District on October 16, 1997, approved a permit for this project; and, WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reviewed the grading plan dated 10/3/97 and found it to be in compliance with the City's Local Water Management Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the proposal and finds it consistent with the standards in the City's Wetland Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 1010.08, Subdivision 4 as follows: • Any alteration shall not cause a The applicant proposes to fill 11,850 cf of flood storage reduction in the flood storage capacity but will replace it with an additional 39,500 cf 111 capacity of the wetland of flood storage capacity. Resolution 5173 Wetland Alteration Permit--Good Value Homes Planning Case No.506-97 Page 2 • • Any alteration shall not reduce It is assumed that the water quality of this wetland will the existing water quality not be negatively impacted as a result of the two homes enhancement value of the wetland being constructed,as long as a minimum 10-foot wide under conditions of ultimate natural area is left to protect the wetland. development • Any alteration shall not reduce Because more than 50%of the lots will be protected by a the existing wildlife habitat value drainage easement and the construction area limited to of a wetland non-wetland areas,there will be no apparent reduction in the habitat value for the wetland. • Alterations shall be carried out so To reasonably use these two lots,vegetation will need to as to minimize the impact on be removed for the construction of the homes. In vegetation. Removal of vegetation addition,vegetation will be removed via the filling of one within a wetland zoning district area and the excavation of another area,but this is to shall be permitted only when serve a greater need of creating additional flood storage reasonably required for the capacity that will benefit all adjoining property owners of placement of structures and use the wetland. of property. • Stormwater runofffrom a Because of the grading that will occur,it is estimated development may be directed to a that potentially less runoff will be directed to the wetland when in compliance with wetland. While a manicured lawn in place of natural 41110 the local water management plan vegetation may elevate the level of contaminants entering and only when substantially free the wetland,leaving a ten-foot wide strip of natural of sediment, debris and chemical vegetation around the wetland will help cleanse runoff pollutants entering the wetland. • The proposed action shall not Currently,all of the runoff from these two lots drain cause stormwater runofffrom a directly into the wetland. As proposed,the grading and development to take place at a rooflines will direct 50%of runoff toward the street, rate which would exceed the rate away from the wetland. or volume of runoff as anticipated by the City's Local Water Management Plan. • The quality of water infiltrated to The quality of the water that will enter into the ground the water table or aquifer shall water system as a result of this development is not remain substantially unchanged expected to differ significantly from before. • No part of any sewage disposal These lots will be connected to the City's sanitary system requiring on-land or in- system and as such will not be disposing of wastes on sewer ground disposal of waste shall be site. located closer than 100 feet from a wetland • Resolution 5173 Wetland Alteration Permit--Good Value Homes Planning Case No.506-97 Page 3 • • No alteration shall be allowed The health,safety and welfare or persons in and around which endangers the health, this area will not be endangered by this development,nor safety or welfare of persons or will it result in unusual road maintenance as the roads are which may result in unusual road already in place and are functioning as anticipated. maintenance costs or utility line breakage NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves the wetland alteration permit requested by Good Value Homes, contingent upon the following: 1. Plans and supporting documentation for controlling erosion shall be provided by the applicant and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. 2. The pervious surface areas of the lots shall be sodded or landscaped (up to the ten- foot natural vegetation strip along the wetland) to prevent substantial soil loss from the site. This will need to be accomplished before certificates of occupancy are issued. 3. Only clean fill, substantially free of chemical pollutants and contaminants, shall be brought onto the site. 411 4. The minimum building elevation for the homes to be constructed on these two lots shall not be less than that specified in the City's Local Water Management Plan. 5. No waste--solid, hazardous or otherwise--shall be allowed to enter directly or indirectly into the wetland. 6. A ten-foot wide strip of naturally vegetated land shall be left unlandscaped and included within the easement area to further protect against contaminants (fertilizers, etc.)from entering into the wetland. 7. The homes' foundations shall not exceed 2,000 square feet nor shall the homes be setback more than thirty feet from the front property line. In addition, the homes shall maintain a minimum 25-foot setback from the rear drainage easement. 8. No work(landscaping, mowing, filling, excavating, removal of vegetation, or any other alteration of any kind) shall be permitted within the easement area. 9. The applicant shall arrange to have Ordinance No. 603 (the Ordinance authorizing the partial vacation of drainage easement area over Lots 17 and 18,) recorded with Ramsey County and provide proof of such recordation to the City within six(6) • months of the effective date of said Ordinance or this wetland alteration permit shall be null and void. Resolution 5173 Wetland Alteration Permit--Good Value Homes Planning Case No. 506-97 Page 4 Adopted this 27th day of October, 1997. Duane McCarty, Mayor ATTEST: Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator • OCT-24-97 12:46 FROM:KENNEDY & GRAVEN 10:6123379310 PAGE 3/4 ORDINANCE NO. 603 • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT OVER LOTS 17 AND 18, BLOCK 1, EDGEWOOD SQUARE. THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City of Mounds View Municipal Code Appendix D is hereby amended to include reference to the following Special Ordinance No. 603: Subdivision 1. All of the following described land is subject to an easement ("Drainage Easement")for public utility purposes,as show on the plat of Edgewood Square,Ramsey County, Minnesota: Lots 17, 18 and 19, Block 1, Edgewood Square, according to the plat filed of record with the Ramsey County Recorder. • Subd. 2. The fee owner of the land subject to the Drainage Easement, Good Value Homes,has requested the vacation of a portion of the Drainage Easement,such portion described as follows: For that portion to be vacated out of the Drainage Easement being Lot 17 and 18,Block 1,Edgewood Square,a plat of record situated in the City of Mounds View,Ramsey County, Minnesota described as follows: $eginning at the southwest corner of said Lot 18, thence along the west line of said Lot 18 North 00 degrees 02 minutes 59 seconds East, 84.00 feet; thence North 57 degrees 28 minutes 15 seconds East, 39.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 57 minutes 01 seconds East, 147.14 feet to the east line of said Lot 17; thence along said east line South 00 degrees 02 minutes 59 seconds West, 105.00 feet to the southeast corner of said Lot 17; thence along the south line of said Lots 17 and 18 North 89 degrees 57 minutes 01 seconds West, 180.00 feet to the point of beginning herein. Subd_ 3. There are no public utilities or facilities located in the portion of the Drainage Easement area to be vacated described in Subd. 2 of this Ordinance. The proposed vacation of • the portion of the Drainage Easement therefore will not adversely affect the ability of the City or other utility to maintain, repair, or replace public utilities. SJR132435 MVZ10-5 OCT-24-97 12:46 FROM:KENNEDY & GRAVEN ID:6123379310 PAGE 4/4 Subd. 4. The Council finds that there is no longer a public need for that portion of the . Drainage Easement to be vacated, as described in Subd. 2 of this Ordinance_ Subd. 5_ The portion of the Drainage Easement, as described in Subd. 2 of this Ordinance, is hereby vacated. SECTION 2_ This ordinance takes effect 30 days after its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 1997_ Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 1997. Duane McCarty, Mayor Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk-Admin. 1111/ APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert Long, City Attorney 1111 SJ1t232435 $ f //C Item No. Staff Report No. 7- 01.____M _- Meeting Date: October 27, 1997 Type of Business: CB 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: Consideration f Resolution No5172, a Resolution Authorizing Abatement of Public Nuisances at 2349 Laport Drive Date of Report: October 24, 1997 Background: On April 14, 1997, the Mounds View City Council approved Resolution No.5106, a resolution authorizing abatement of public nuisances at the property located at 2349 Laport Drive. Staff was however unable to carry out the abatement as thero e grant access to theproperty. P P rtY owner, Leona Lodmill, refused to As a result, staff--with the assistance of the City Attorney--sought alternative rope o t means access the search warrant to Pproperty and thus applied for and was granted an administrative gh Ramsey County District Court. • On September 18, 1997, the administrative search warrant was executed which allowed Citystaff and representatives from St. Paul - younty inspect the property located at 2349R sport Drive forllviolations of ment of the City and Environmental Health to tate nuisance codes. Numerous violations were observed and documented with a camera, In the course of the inspection, large accumulations of debris and junk inside the house were observed through windows. The extent of this accumulation prompted staff to apply for a second administrative search warrant to gain access to the interior of the home and any outbuildings. This search warrant was issued on September 24, 1997 and executed October 1, 1997. On October 15, 1997, a comprehensive listing of the observed nuisance code, building code and fire code violations was sent to Mrs. Lodmill. In addition, the letter indicated that the City Council on October 27, 1997 would be discussing a resolution authorizing abatement of her property. The resolution, which was drafted by the City Attorney, is worded in such a way so as to reference Minnesota Statutes. The City Attorney has also drafted a court order to be filed in the event Mrs. Lodmill refuses to cooperate in the abatement process. Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 5172, a resolution authorizing the abatement of public nuisances r at 2349 Laport Drive. present /.4.?„,,,k.j._. Lc-446-z, es Ericson, Planning Associate C:IOFFICEIWPWINIWPDOCS\JERICSONILODMILL.RPT t t CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA0 RESOLUTION NO. S 172 ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS EXISTING AT 2349 LAPORT DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF MOUNDSVIEW WHEREAS, the Building Official of the City of Mounds View has determined that the building at 2349 Laport Drive, in the City of Mounds View constitute a hazardous building within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 463.15, Subd. 3; and WHEREAS, based on the investigation of the Building Inspector it is recommended that the hazardous conditions on the property be abated; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 463.161 authorizes the governing body of any City or town to correct or remove the hazardous condition of any hazardous building or property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View as follows: 1. The City of Mounds View finds that the property located at 2349 Laport Drive in the City of Mounds View legally described in the attached Abatement Order is hazardous within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 463.15, Subd. 3. 2. The hazardous building at the foregoing address also constitutes a public nuisance within t0 meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 561.01, 561.02 and Chapter 607 et seq. of the Mounds View City Code. 3. An Abatement Order substantially similar to that attached hereto shall be served upon all required parties in order to effectuate this resolution and abate the hazardous conditions on the property. 4. The City Attorney is authorized to take all necessary legal steps to secure compliance with the Order and to obtain authority to abate the hazardous conditions by court order or consent and assess the costs thereof against the property. Dated this _ day of , 1997, by the City Council of the City of Mounds View. Duane McCarty, Mayor Chuck Whiting, City Administrator 4110 YANGJ0115612 CR225-157 I Administrative Search Warrant Affidavit ' , Property: 2349 Laport Drive,Mounds View,MN r Owner Leona Lodmil • Date: August 12, 1997 Page 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCH WARRANT Based upon the application of James Ericson for an administrative search warrant to enter upon premises at 2349 Laport Drive in the City of Mounds View, County of Ramsey,State of Minnesota,pursuant to Mounds View Municipal Code,Chapter 607. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT James Ericson and persons under his direction and control (including,but not limited to,representatives from the St Paul/Ramsey County Environmental Health Department,the Blaine/Spring Lake Paric/Mounds View Fire Marshal and any other state or county agency representatives as deemed necessary by your applicant)may enter the above-described premises for the purpose of examination to enforce the Mounds View Code of Ordinances,State Statutes and Fire Codes and may take photographs and perform other such duties as are necessary to enforce the Mounds View Code of Ordinances,State Statutes and Fire Codes and may hold said evidence in custody according to law. Said 0 entry shall take place on a regular business day between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and includes but is not limited to entry to the house and any out-buildings located on the above-described premises. If the property owner is absent or resists at the time of the execution of this warrant said entry may be effected by using reasonable force in the least intrusive manner. BY THE . i ' 4A.— i - /� oof Distriurt Dated: 9--2-47-g 7 • EXHIBIT H Administrative Search Warrant Affidavit Property: 2349 Upon Drive,Mounds View,MN Owner: Leona Lodmil Date: August 12, 1997 Page 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY DISTRICT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT ullid EC Based upon the application()flames Ericson for an dye search warrant to eater upon premises at 2349 Laiwrt Drive in the City of Mounds View,County of to Mounds View Ramsey,State of 1��pmt Municipal Code,Chapter 607, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT names Ericson and persons undo:his enter the above-described-bed dir�oa and control may Premises for the purpose of=mination.to enforce the Mounds View Code of Ordmancer and may take photographs andersorm other such P dudes as are maty to enforce the Mounds View Code of Ordinances, andhold said evidence in �' custody according to law. Said entry shall take place on a regular business day between the hours of 9:00 am,and 4:00 p.m. A 'COi •4 udge of Distrim Court Dated: GCIiDCN W. SHUMAKER ( CHIEF JUDGE - DISTRICT COURT MINNESOTA-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT . • COTV OF © fl 11111eA Phone: (612) 717-4000 Q W Fax: (612)784-3462 °"ess • partnecst'QS October 15, 1997 Leona Lodmill 2349 Laport Drive Mounds View, MN 55112 RE: City Council Abatement Hearing scheduled for October 27, 1997 Dear Mrs. Lodmill: As you are aware, City representatives entered upon your property and gained access to your home on October 1, 1997 in order to inspect the premises for health and safety concerns and for violations of the building, housing and nuisance codes of the City and State. This was done in accordance with the administrative search warrant signed by Judge James Campbell on September 24, 1997. A copy of this warrant was left for you. • On October 27, 1997, the City Council will discuss and may approve a resolution to abate your property of those nuisances observed as a result of the inspection. The meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. and will take place at City Hall, located at 2410 Highway 10 in the City Council chambers. The actions required to correct the observed nuisances are as follows: • Removal of scattered piles of wood and diseased tree sections from property • Removal of automotive batteries, oil and antifreeze from property • Identification of the contents of and removal of sealed metal 55 gallon drums from the property • Removal of the 1982 Trans Am automobile from the back yard • Arrange to have all vehicles on the property display current and valid license plates • Terminate the use of the shed for living space • Terminate outdoor disposal of human waste products • Correct all fire code violations as indicated in the attached memo from the Fire Marshal • Formulate action plan to begin correction of exterior housing code violations as identified in the attached memo from the Seasonal Inspector • Removal of all junk and debris behind and alongside of the garage • Removal of all medical oxygen containers and tanks from the outside of the home • Removal of automobile tires, rims and other discarded automotive parts from the property • Removal of the junk kitchen and media appliances from the property • • Removal of rusting scrap metal and debris from property • Removal of rotting, molding and mildewing debris under blue tarps .•rnT[p Nnr - 2401 Highway 10•Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 t: SOY INKITM recycled paper Equal O000rtunity Emolover Letter to Leona Lodmill 2349 Laport Drive October 15, 1997 • Page 2 On our inspection of the interior of your home, we were astonished at the amount and extensive nature of the clutter and debris in what seemed to be every room of the main level. Because of the debris in the dining room, access to the upper level of the home via the stairway is not possible. It appears that the bedroom(s) on the main level are also inaccessible due to the debris. The kitchen area, overwhelmed by an extensive collection of clutter, stacked dishes and food containers, is practically unusable, although there did not appear to be any significant levels of garbage, rotting food or unwashed dishes to constitute a public health nuisance in the opinion of the St. Paul -Ramsey County Department of Public Health. The Mounds View City Code does, however, address interior sanitation standards. Section 1005.07, Subd. 5 states that interiors shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition, free of rubbish, garbage,junk and debris and no materials shall be stored in a manner that impedes free access to any window or door. Due to the debris and junk present in your home, only the kitchen, living room and bathroom can satisfy this provision--the upper level is completely inaccessible. The resolution to abate your property will not include any requirements for the interior of your home, even though it is clear that numerous violations are present. Instead, I would like to propose an alternative solution for your home's interior. Over the years, numerous members of the community have come forward expressing a desire to help you clean the property. The City could help coordinate a volunteer crew to "give you back your home" by removing the junk and debris that has taken over. While we have not checked into this possibility, a large-volume dumpster could be brought to your property at a discounted rate or even at no cost to you in which to dispose of the junk and debris inside and outside the home. Give some serious thought to this idea—let your neighbors, concerned residents, church members and others help clean your house. The City will discuss this option at the Council meeting and solicit assistance from the community. We are all concerned about your health and well-being; a clean house certainly would contribute to a healthier life. In terms of the building code violations present on the exterior of you home (see the attached memo from the City's Seasonal Inspector), there are programs available through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) and Ramsey County that would allow you to make the needed repairs to your home at little or no cost to you. From what you have expressed at Council meetings, your adjusted annual household income would qualifyyou for either the MHFA or County deferred loan of up to $10,000, for which there would be no payments or accrued interest. I have enclosed the brochures explaining these programs for you. To apply, simply call the numbers listed. The City can assist you in this process as well by contacting the agencies for you—all you need do is ask. If the City Council does approve the resolution to abate your property, the City would then contact an outside abatement firm to haul away the exterior nuisance code violations. Before this110 occurs, I would be willing to contact area service organizations (such as the Northwest Youth and Letter to Leona Lodmill • 2349 Laport Drive October 15, 1997 Page 3 Family services or Fare for All)to solicit help in cleaning the yard for you. Again, you will need to notify me if you would like the City to try to arrange such action prior to any Council ordered abatement. If this cannot be arranged or you would prefer it not to be arranged, the fees resulting from the abatement of your property would be billed to you. If you are unable to pay for this service within a one-month period or fail to arrange a payment schedule, the total amount plus any administrative fees will be assessed against your property. I hope you will take advantage of the help that the City is offering you to clean your property and your home. It is the City's intent to provide residents safe and attractive neighborhoods in which to live and to ensure properties and housing are free from health and safety concerns and public nuisances. It is not the City's intent to harass, intimidate or infringe upon the rights of its citizens and I apologize if you feel that you have been singled-out or unfairly treated. You may call me at the City if you have any questions about this letter, the programs available to you, or the impending resolution authorizing abatement of your property. I can be reached at 717-4022. Sincerely, CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW • (jaakikkgZ James Ericson Planning Associate Enclosures cc: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Charles Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator Duane McCarty, Mayor • SAINT PAUL Saint Paul - Ramsey County - Department of Public Health Awi� auk -.� Rob Fulton, Director ;RAMSEY COUNTY October 13, 1997 CERTIFIED MAIL P 223 832 720 Mr. and Mrs. Roger Lodmill 2349 LaPorte Dr. Mounds View, MN 55112 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lodmill: On October 1, 1997 representatives of this Department conducted an inspection of your property while accompanying representatives of the City of Mounds View during the execution of their search warrant. In the course of this inspection an accumulation of human waste was observed behind the shed next to the garage. Such conditions constitute a source of filth and thus are a public health nuisance as defined by MN Stat. 145A.02, subd. 17. In accordance with MN Stat. 145A.04, you are hereby ordered to abate the nuisance by • October 20, 1997 and to prohibit behavior on your property that leads to such• • conditions. Specifically, you are hereby ordered to cease and desist any unapproved . • method of disposal for human waste. . A follow-up inspection will be conducted to determine compliance at the end of the • stated time period. Failure to abate this nuisance in the required time frame may result: in one or more of the following actions: 41,1. Removal of the nuisance pursuant to MN Stat. 145A.04 subd. 8.d. and extension of the cost of abatement as a lien against the property. 2. Injunctive relief. • • 3. Prosecution under other applicable local or county ordinances. • It is a violation of MN Stat. 145A.04, subd. 7 to refuse an authorized representative of the St. Paul - Ramsey County Department of Public Health to enter a premise to • enforce public health laws, ordinances, or rules. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at 773-4470. Sincerely, ni., (f • Karen M. Chaussee, R.S. Environmental Health Specialist II . • cc: Joe Hibberd, R.S., Supervisor Zack Hansen, R.E.H.S., Section Manager Jim Ericson, Planner, City of Mounds View • • CODE VIOLATIONS OBSERVED AT 2349"LAPORT DRIVE 1111 On September 18, 1997 three representatives of Mounds View, members of the St. Paul Ramsey County's Division of Evironmental Health and I, Joseph Deutsch, by use of a search warrant inspected the property located at 2349 Laport Drive. Upon my inspection I identified numerous violations of both the Housing and Building Code. Below is a descriptive list of the observed violations and the section of the code that they correspond to. I. House: 1. Peeling paint. Sec. 607.04 subd. 2b 2. Rotting boards. Sec. 1005.06 subd. lb 3. Rotting eves. Sec. 1005.06 subd. lb H. Doors: Exterior Side Door Sec. 1005.06 subd. 3 1. Frame is rotting. 2. Screen door is not tight fitting. Exterior Front Door Sec. 1005.06 subd. 3 1. Threshold is rotting. • M. Windows: 1. Rotting window frames. Sec. 1005.06 subd. 3 2. Broken window. Sec. 1005.06 subd. 3 IV. Steps: 1. Top step of concrete steps is broken Sec. 1005.06 subd. 2a off. It is in place but unattached to the steps. V. Roof: 1. Looked to be patched in a questionable Sec. 1005.06 subd. 1 c mariner in at least four spots. 2. The roof appears to be damaged around Sec. 1005.06 subd. 1c a vent on the back side of the house. 3. The structural members of the roofing Sec. 1005.06 subd. 1 extending out from the front of the home overhanging the steps appear to be beginning to rot due to water damage because of lack of protection from the elements. • VI. Garage: 1. Roof needs to be replaced. Sec. 1005.06 subd. 1c 2. The eves are rotting. Sec. 1005.06 subd. lb 3. The window frame is rotting. Sec. 1005.06 subd. 3 VII. Inside of Home: I. Viewed from a back yard window I Sec. 1005.07 subd. 5 observed belongings/debris piled up above top of window and possibly up to the ceiling. 2. The other back yard window had the Sec. 1005.07 subd. 5 drapes pulled and were tight up against the window, as if things were piled up against the window. 3. From my view from the front door, I Sec. 1005.07 subd. 5 saw virtually no open floor space except for a small area in the bathroom and possibly just outside of the bathroom. VIII. Back Yard: 1. Junk and rotting debris scattered about Sec. 1005.05 subd. I the back yard area. Accessory Building: 1. A shed in the back yard appears to be heated and have electricity • running to it, yet a building permit was not taken out for this structure. In addition, this suggests that someone could be living in the shed, which in turn constitutes numerous violations of both the City's Housing Code and the Uniform Building Code. ^ 11 1 �Q�1 r- MEMO 0 ., .. A: To: Jim Ericson From: Mark Bishop. Subject 2349 Laport Drive. Dare: September 19, t 997 Herewith., the promised memo. The Fire Code issues which I noted yesterday are as follows; 1) Electrical extension cords rennin;from one building to another (Sec.85IviUFC) . 2) Apparent wood stove chimney in"shed",mon didn't look acceptable 3) Need proof of contents of sealed drums in yard in light of Flammable Liquid labels(Sec. I 79 MUFC) s' 4) Propane inside"shed'? :i • t r I J . j . R 0 .r-ie" Ds11D ORDINANCE NO. 605 `''f6 t�� ,r�n� 97- X53 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW • COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING A FRANCHISE FEE ON ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS UTILITY COMPANIES FOR THE OPERATION OF THE UTILITY WITHIN THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1: PURPOSE Subdivision 1. The Mounds View City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to impose a franchise fee on those public utility companies that provide natural gas and electrical services within the City of Mounds View. Subdivision 2: Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 517 and Ordinance No. 518, and the Franchise Agreement between the City of Mounds View(the City) and Northern States Power Company(the Company), a franchise fee of not more than four(4%) of the Company's gross operating revenues may be imposed by the City at any time during the 20 year term of the Franchise. The franchise fee is paid as full compensation for the rights to transmit and furnish • electric energy for light, heat, power and import, transport, sell and distribute natural gas for heating, illuminating and other purposes as outlined in Section 2 of Ordinances 517 and 518. SECTION II. STATEMENT A franchise fee is hereby imposed on Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation, for its electrical and gas franchises granted by the City in the amount of 2.5% of Northern States Power Company's gross operating revenue. SECTION III. PAYMENT Said franchise fee shall be payable to the City in accordance with the terms set forth in Section 4 of the Franchise Agreements. SECTION IV. SURCHARGE Any such supplier may add to its effective rates for the utility services on which the public utility gross earnings tax is imposed, a surcharge to reimburse such supplier for the cost of the tax. SECTION V. PROOF OF COMPANY FINANCIAL STATUS 1111 Each said company shall make each payment when due and shall furnish therewith a complete and correct statement of revenues for the period. Such company shall permit the City and its representative free access to the company's records for the purpose of verifying such statements. SECTION VI. ENFORCEMENT The City shall have the right to levy against all property of such company or companies for payments of any amounts due. • SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE The effective date of this ordinance is 30 days after its publication and (60) days after written notice of this ordinance is served upon Northern States Power Company by registered mail. SECTION VIII. SUNSET CLAUSE This ordinance shall automatically sunset on December 31, 1998. Ordinance Introduction: October 27, 1997 Ordinance Adoption: November 10, 1997 Date of Publication: November 21, 1997 Effective Date: December 20, 1997 ATTEST: Mayor (SEAL) Clerk-Administrator • ON BEHALF OF NORTHERN STATES POWER: Name and Title Date Name and Title Date Name and Title Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: • City Attorney 1/ F ORDLYANCE NO- 6,6/ i CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAM.SEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1200, CHAPTER 1204 OF iii; MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARK DEDICATION FEES_ • THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 1204.02, subd. 4 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is amended to read: Subd. 4. Dedication for Residential Lands: The subdivider of any tract of land which is to be developed for uses chatl dedicate to the public for public use as parks, playerounds, public open space or storm water holding areas or ponds, that dollar value of the tract to be subdivided, which corresponds with the applicable dea:ity size of the subdivision in the following schedule: • Subdivision Size Cash Dedication Greco Dcnsir s Per Acre Residential uses on parcel(s) with 5% of market a total area of less than one acre value of land 0.0 2.4. ;,,,c1 1=--; :c: ae:c Q 11 3wel _ng ••-;4,-tee_ '50.04 ;;Zie 25484 C c= 5. Residential uses D •a'1 7-al= ;:cr. ;_cro 10% of market on oarcell(s) with a total arta of one acre or greater value of land Section ? Section 1204.02, subd. 5 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is amended to rmd: • Subd. 5. Dedication for Commercial and Industrial Lands: The subdivider of any tract of land which is to be developed.for commercial and industrial uses shall dedicate to the public for public use as parks, play uads water holding areas or ponds, ten �o � public open space or sro subdivision or, at the option of the ��t (10%) of the land of the proposed ter/ . cent (10%) of then 1�ftlnicip2Iity, an equivalent of� parker value of the land at me 'me of theto subdivision Simon 3. Secson 1204.02, subd. 6 is amended to read: Subd_ 6. Dedication for Re-Subdivision: cash dedicaaaa for � For any subditiZsion of a parcel on which a cash d di is parks has previously been made but on which required due to re-subdivision, the an additional cash the re-subdivides amount of cash dedication required on parcel(s) etc be developed for . be uses shall b a *ertdZzalaced on the ee� market value o f the Land set forth in subdivision 4 of this the rime ofre-subdivision based on the schedule secsoa less any a plicable credit for the prior cash dedication. The amount of cash dedication develotxd for ca reared on the re-subdivided tames) to be mme:ciaj or industrial uses market value of the land at the time of re-subdivision be based on ten ne;c.-nt (I0%) of the riot c�jl ddication. �bdivisioa less anvIicable edit for the (1988 Code §42.13) Secon 4. This ordinance. takes effect thirty days aft=- its publication Adopted this_ day or" • 1997 ATTEST: Mayor Dame McCarty (SZL) Chuck Whitmg, City A dmiin;_ or • =130624 `<C-=S-t7 08/15/97 10:00 NW YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES -> 612 784 3462 NO.547 P02 It 16- JOINT POWERS AG EMENT FOR NORTHWEST YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES I. PARTIES. This agreement is made and entered into by the Cities of Arden Hills, New Brighton, Mounds View, Shoreview, North Oaks, Roseville, Little Canada, Falcon Heights, and St . Anthony, all located in the State of Minnesota. II. RECITALS. A. Northwest Youth and Family Services (NYFS) is a non-profit corporation providing programs to meet the developmental needs of youth and families residing in the northwest suburbs of Ramsey County, including, but not limited to, the municipalities which are signatory to this agreement ( "participating municipalities" ) and students from Independent School Districts 621, 623 and 282 . 410 B . The participating municipalities intend to act as the sponsors of NYFS by providing financial support and policy guidance for its' activities, which activities are considered to be in the best interest of the citizens of the participating municipalities . C. It is the intent of the parties to set forth their respective rights and obligations pursuant to this joint powers agreement. D.The governing bodies of the participating municipalities have adopted resolutions authorizing the execution of this agreement pursuant to Minn. Stat. 471.59 . III.TERMS AND CONDITIONS. In consideration of the mutual understandings of this agreement, the parties hereby agree as follows : A. Funding, 1 . Communities will be asked to provide a resolution of support for such funding. In addition to the participating municipalities share of the 4110 annual budget, funds for the operation of NYFS will be secured from grants or appropriations from private organizations, the State of Minnesota, Federal and County Agencies, and other legal and appropriate sources. 08/15/97 10:00 NIS YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES -> 612 784 3462 NO.547 D0 2 . Participating municipalities shall make a minimum financial III commitment . Each municipality shall pay a share of NYFS' annual budget, an amount equal in percentage to the particular municipalities per capita population ($1. 20 per capita) compared to the total per capita population of all the participating municipalities. The populations of the municipalities shall be determined by using the most recent Metropolitan Council population data. This amount may be adjusted annually for inflation. Any adjustment beyond that would require approval from the participating municipalities. 3 . Amounts payable by the participating municipalities shall be paid to NYFS on or before January 30, of each year to cover the participating municipalities share for that year. B . Board of Directors. Each contributing municipality may appoint a member to the Board of Directors. Outside members of the Board of Directors may be appointed. The Board shall adopt bylaw provisions requiring an open process for contracting services and a provision prohibiting the organization from supporting or opposing individual candidates for election to any of the participating municipalities councils . C. Further Obl,iaatiof of NYFS.. In addition to the4111 obligations set forth elsewhere in this agreement, this agreement is further contingent upon NYFS doing the following: 1 . Prior to the participating municipalities payment to NYFS, NYFS shall submit a written report to the participating municipalities including the proposed budget with a breakdown for the cost of each service to each participating municipality for the previous year and the budget year; 2 . Periodically advising participating municipalities of services available through NYFS to its residents; 3 . Establishing a sliding scale for counseling services to residents of participating municipalities and periodically advising participating cities of such fees; 4 . Providing other reasonable information requested by the participating municipalities; 5 . Purchasing a policy of liability insurance in 1111 the amount of at least $600, 000 .00 , naming each of the participating municipalities as additional insured and providing copies of 08/15/9? 10:01 NW YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES 4 612 784 3462 NO.54? PO4 4111 such policies to each participating municipality, annually; and 6 . Provide each participating municipality with a copy of its Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, Amendments thereto, and the IRS tax exempt status letter. D. Additional Parties. Upon the agreement of at least 50% of the participating municipalities, additional political subdivisions may be added as additional participating municipalities by each such political subdivision adopting a resolution authorizing participation and the execution of an addendum to this Joint Powers Agreement whereby the additional municipality agrees to be bound by the terms of this Joint Powers Agreement . E. Term_ This agreement shall remain in full force and effect for an indefinite term unless any party gives all of the other parties at least 60 days written notice of its intent to cancel this agreement effective December 31, 4111 of the year in which the notice is made, or unless all of the parties modify this agreement in writing. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement on the dates set forth below. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON By: - By: Mayor Mayor Its : Its: Clerk/Manager Clerk/Manager Dated: Dated: CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY OF SHOREVIEW By: By: Mayor Mayor 1110 Its : Its : Clerk/Manager Clerk/Manager Dated: Dated: 08/15/97 10:01 NIS YOUTH & FAMILY SERUICES 4 612 784 3462 NO.547 P05 CITY OF NORTH OAKS CITY OF ROSEVILLE 1111 By: By Mayor Mayor Its : Its : Clerk/Manager Clerk/Manager Dated: Dated: CITY OF LITTLE CANADA CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS By: By: Mayor Mayor Its : Its: Clerk/Manager Clerk/Manager Dated: Dated:_ CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 4110 By: Mayor Its : Clerk/Manager Dated: 4111 . FAX August 25, 1997 To: Bob Long, City Attorney From: Chuck Whiting, Mounds View Re: Northwest Youth and Family Services WA Bob: Mounds View's participation in the Northwest Youth and Family Services joint powers agreement is slightly changed by some modifications to the joint powers agreement. I don't think you need to do much with this other than to review it. I don't see the Council approving this until we finalize the 1998 budget. Also, it was drafted by the Roseville City Attorney and should be better that what was in place before. Let me know what you think. Thanks • • HP 97- ZZ&ZC - • BERNICK AND LIFSON A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW fa NEAL J. SHAPIRO SUITE 1200, THE COLONNADE t A150 ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN SAUL A. BERNICK' 'ALSO CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT 5500 WAYZATA BOULEVARD THOMAS D. CREIGHTON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 95416-1270 SCOTT A. LIFSON LEGAL ASSISTANT DAVID K. NIGHTINGALE+ KATHRYN G. MASTERMAN TELEPHONE (612) 546-1200 PAUL J. QUASI' ROBERT J. V. VOSE FACSIMILE (612) 546-1003 October 13, 1997 IMPORTANT: FOR YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION Via facsimile and U.S. Mail Mr. Chuck Whiting City Administrator City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 Dear Mr. Whiting: As you know, for the past three years the North Suburban Cable Communications Commission has been 0 involved in preparing new cable franchises on behalf of its Member Cities: Arden Hills, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Little Canada, Mounds View, New Brighton, North Oaks, and Roseville. As part of this process the Commission has completed a comprehensive and detailed assessment of all of the telecommunications needs and interests of the communities, has been reviewing and assessing the proposal submitted by Meredith Cable to meet those identified needs and interests, and has initiated final negotiation of the renewed franchises. The Commission has accepted a proposal which meets the broad telecommunications needs of the communities and is currently engaged in negotiating final franchise language with Meredith Cable. Upon completion of this process in the near future, the Commission will recommend a final franchise to the Member Cities for review, consideration and adoption. It is expected that negotiation and drafting of a final franchise document, and consideration and adoption of such franchise by the respective Member Cities will require the next two to three months to complete. However, the respective current franchises each expire on or about November 8, 1997. Accordingly, the Commission and Meredith Cable have agreed to an extension of the current franchises to January 19, 1998 to accommodate completion of this process. Extension of the franchises requires that the Member Cities amend their franchise to provide for an expiration date of January 19, 1998. Enclosed please find a draft Ordinance Amendment which provides for such an extension of the franchise term. Please place this issue on the Council's agenda for consideration and action at the next meeting. Upon adoption by the Council, please return a copy of the Ordinance Amendment for my records. In summary: 1. Cable franchises expire November 8, 1997. e: Enclosed is extension (recommended by Cable Commission) to January 19, 1998. Adopt attached. 4. Send a copy to my attention. M Mr. Chuck Whiting • October 13, 1997 Page 2 5. Adopt the Model Right-of-Way Ordinance as soon as possible and also send a copy to my attention. I do not care if you adopt the version I provided or the League of Minnesota Cities version (they are very similar). The new cable franchise is based on the Right-of-Way Ordinance which must be adopted before or simultaneous with the cable franchise. Please call me if you have any questions. Yours truly, BERNICK AND LIFSO, , P.A. Amy homas D. Creighton Enclosure cc: Mr. John F. Gibbs, Esq. Ms. Coralie Wilson C:\CABLE\NSCCCC\ADMIN.LO1 ill III 3 City of MOUNDS VIEW Ordinance No. 606 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CABLE FRANCHISE ORDINANCE NO. 319 ARTICLE II., SECTION 4, FRANCHISE TERM. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 319 , Article II., Section 4, Franchise Term, is hereby amended to read: Section 4. Franchise Term This Franchise shall commence upon the effective date of the regular certificate of confirmation issued by the Board and shall expire on January 19, 1998. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and official publication. PASSED by the City Council this day of 1997. 111 Mayor City Administrator ATTEST: Introduced Adopted _ Published Effective Accepted by Grantee this day of , 1997: GROUP W CABLE OF THE NORTH SUBURBS, INC. • By: C:\CABLE\NSCCCC\RES.AMD 11111-.1350 '�� \ Northwest Youth & Family Services • 3490 Lexington Avenue North • Shoreview, MN 55126 • (6I2) 486-3808 • FAX (612) 486-3858 October 23 , 1997 Mr. Chuck Whiting City of Mounds View 2401 Highway #10 Mounds View MN 55112 Dear Chuck: As you are all aware a process is underway to have a revised Joint Powers Agreement between the nine cities. While presenting the • original one to the various city councils, several different city attorney's were asked for their opinion. As one could expect, these opinions and recommendations did not all agree. Of particular concern were the issues ofwhat happens to the assets if wecease to exist and in a similar manner the debts. There was the suggestion that Northwest Youth & Family Services should be a co- signer and the opinion that we could not be as we were not a municipality. Some council people would prefer to have a contract with the agency, which essentially has the same kind of financial expectation and yet does not involve the cities in being so directly involved in policy and management issues. The one consistent message that I have now heard from all the cities is an appreciation of the work we do and a desire to continue to participate with us in the future in a similar manner financially. The suggestions from the various attorneys have been forwarded to Roger Jenson, Roseville's legal council and he will be drafting another version of the agreement. In the meantime, while this continues to be in process, I would appreciate it if you would continue to plan for the 1998 budgeting purposes in accordance with the spirit of cooperation and support of your council. I am hopeful that we can get this fully resolved before the first of the year, but wanted you to know where we are at and why there has been somewhat of a slow up in the total execution of the agreement. I am attaching a sheet which will again indicate the amount of financial participation being requested by each city for 1998 . Let • me remind you this amount may be slightly different than that which was sent to you in the Summer as this reflects the $1.20 per capita as outlined in the Joint Powers Agreement. This formula was not questioned by any city so I think it is safe for you to plan based on it. I am sorry for the confusion and appreciate your patience and assistance with this effort. If you have any questions please give me a call. Sincerely, KAY Z. ANDREWS, LICSW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Attachment • Ilik • Northwest Youth & Family Services City Participation Request August 15, 1997 1997 Per 1998 Per City Population Contribution Capita Request Capita AH 9,513 $ 11,075 $ 1 .16 $ 11,408 $ 1.20 ` FH 5,293 $ 6,494 $ 1.23 $ 6,351 $ 1.20 LC 9,081 $ 10,561 $ 1.16 $ 10,878 $ 1.20 MV 12,638 $ 14,319 $ 1.13 $ 15,165 $ 1.20 NB 22,324 $ 29,410 $ 1.32 $ 26,788 $ 1.20 NO 3,516 $ 4,076 $ 1.16 $ 4,219 $ 1.20 RV 33,522 $ 40,722 $ 1.21 $ 40,226 $ 1.20 SV 25,345 $ 29,907 $ 1 .18 $ 30,414 $ 1.20 III ` Total Total 1998 1997--> $ 146,564 Request--> $ 145,449 iNFQR ,\ AjIflJ s4 MEMORANDUM 0 pq J AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 11111 TO: Legislative Committee Involving Anoka County-Blaine Airport FROM: Mark J. Ryan, Airport Planner .,/17 RE: Responses to City of Mounds View LTCP Comments DATE: October 22, 1997 In recent weeks,at the encouragement of certain legislators from the northern suburbs,MAC staff has met with representatives of Mounds View, Blaine, Lexington and Circle Pines that neighbor the Airport. The first of these meetings occurred on September 30, 1997 at the State Capital. At this meeting the City of Mounds View presented its concerns about MAC's Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update for the Anoka County-Blaine Airport. The City's main contention was that MAC was planning improvements that were not consistent with the July 1986 agreement. Besides the disagreement about how the Airport should be developed over the next 20 years, a few specific questions arose from some of the legislators in attendance. Thus, prior to responding to the Mounds View comments to the Public Hearing record, we wish to focus on items raised by certain legislators. These issues are: 1111 1. What is MAC doing to regulate activity at the Airport? MAC has little authority to "regulate" activity at any of its airports. MAC is required by Federal grant assurances to keep its airports "available....for public use on fair and reasonable terms without unjust discrimination, to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical use". All MAC airports have been provided development funds through the Federal Aviation Administration and, as such, MAC cannot limit or restrict public access to its facilities, which are supported by aviation system user fees. 2. Why has MAC not responded to Mounds View's request for operations details? MAC has responded to the City's request for air traffic information. In a April 23, 1997 letter to Chuck Whiting, City Administrator, MAC provided a copy of the Air Traffic Control Tower records to date. This information (attached) had been requested at an April 14, 1997 City Council Meeting. Further, the City staff was requested to pass the information along to a Mr. Markfeldt, who initiated the request. If further information or clarification was necessary, Mark Ryan, MAC staff offered further assistance. No further requests have been received. 3. Why doesn't MAC respond to aircraft noise complaints around the Blaine airport? MAC staff has not been aware of any great influx of noise complaints involving the reliever airports, including Anoka-Blaine. Recently, it has come to our attention that some callers have voiced their concerns to the MSP Noise Complaint Line which receives hundreds of calls weekly. To avoid further confusion, and to properly direct calls concerning the Reliever Airports, MAC is implementing a screening system to insure • that aircraft noise complaints at Anoka-County-Blaine Airport, as well as the other reliever facilities, are directed to the specific reliever airport staff. As has been the case with callers to the individual airports, staff has attempted to listen to the concerns and, when possible, research the issue and respond directly to the individual. • 4. What is the wingspan of a Boeing 727 aircraft? The Wingspan for both the Boeing 727-100 and 727-200 is 108 feet. 5. What type of aircraft operate at Anoka County-Blaine Airport? The predominant type of aircraft using the Airport are the single engine and twin-engine propeller aircraft. About 95% of the based aircraft are of the single and twin engine propeller category with operating weights less than 12,500 pounds. The remaining 5% of the based aircraft are twin engine propeller and jet aircraft weighing less than 30,000 pounds. 6. Why are historic and unique aircraft allowed to operate at the Airport? Historic and unique aircraft are a part of the civil aviation aircraft fleet and can, by federal regulation, operate at any airport that has received financing from the user fees, i.e., Federal Aviation Trust fund. These aircraft operate under special certification. All the aircraft are civilian and are certified by the FAA. MAC Response Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) Comments Responses to questions raised by the City of Mounds View as part of the Public Hearing record for the Long Term Comprehensive Plan for the Anoka County-Blaine Airport (both verbally and in writing) will become part of the Hearing Officer's report to be presented to the Commission next month.. MAC's objective is to prepare a long term Plan for the development of the Anoka County-Blaine Airport as a Minor airport within the Metropolitan Aviation System. The most significant differences between various •airport types is the maximum permitted runway length. Minor airports have runway lengths less than 5000 feet. Other Minor airports with similarly planned improvements are Flying Cloud, Airlake and Lake Elmo. All plans for the Anoka County-Blaine Airport are developed consistent with the role defined for it by the Metropolitan Council, i.e, as a Minor Airport. On May 8, 1986 the Council adopted a revised "Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide." The 1986 edition defined a "minor" airport as one having up to a 5000 foot long runway. In July 1986, the MAC and the City entered into a stipulation agreement that certain improvements should be incorporated into future plans for the Airport. The Agreement was signed by the City on July 22, 1986 and by MAC on July 23, 1986.These improvements included,among other things,shifting the existing north south runway further north,extending the existing east west runway, adding precision instrumentation to the east end of the east-west runway and development a noise abatement plan for the airport.All items within MAC's ability to accomplish at the time, were implemented. In addition, the City and MAC agreed that MAC would continue to develop the airport as a "Minor Airport" as that term was defined in the 1986 Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. According to the 1986 Metropolitan Development Guide a "Typical Functional Characteristic" is a runway length from 2,500 to 5,000 feet in length. The following Responses relate to similarly numbered comments present to MAC by the City in the attached . July 10, 1996 letter. Response to Letter 6(City of Mounds View) A general comment is that many of the City's comments are related to an out-of-date draft LTCP Update (July 1996 rather than the most up-to-date May 1997 version). The May 1997 draft was the one released for public review prior to the hearing. 1. Page 1-5 of the May 1997 draft LTCP Update contains a history and description of the Stipulation Agreement (a.k.a. Order) as referenced. A copy of the Stipulation Agreement/Order will be added to the final document. 2. The May 1997 draft LTCP Update contains a copy of the August 1996 Draft Noise Abatement Plan for the airport. The plan is summarized on pages 4-7 and 4-8. Prior to the draft noise abatement plan, a Field Order was in place that outlined acceptable airport operation procedures. The City's position is noted. 3. The City of Mounds View alleges that the LTCP "improperly uses" the FAA's Airport Reference Code (ARC), Approach Category B., Design Group II standard (ARC B-II) for defining design standards for capital improvements at the Anoka County-Blaine Airport. The City contends that an out-of-date method of describing the types of aircraft using the Airport, i.e., Class D & E, is more appropriate. MAC's position is that the Anoka County-Blaine Airport, like other Minor airports, such as Flying Cloud, Airlake and Lake Elmo, is designed in accordance with FAA's current ARC B-II standards. By way of background it must be noted that in 1978 the Metropolitan Council uncal developed its first Aviation Systems Plan. In that Plan it attempted to describe various types of airports needed to support aviation demand within the metropolitan area. In an effort to describe the typical characteristics of various airports, the Council categorized aircraft as type "E", to reflect the single engine propeller aircraft and type "D", twin engine aircraft. Type "C" aircraft were depicted as the large corporate jets. The "AA, A and B" categories reflected the larger commercial airliners. By the Council's definition, MSP was the Region's Major Airport, St. Paul Downtown as the Intermediate and the remaining MAC airports as Minor. At that time, circa, 1977/1978, FAA classified airports as Basic and General Utility, Basic Transport, General Transport and Air Carrier. The FAA category for the Anoka County- Blaine Airport was a General Utility. In 1989, FAA did a major overhaul of its planning and design guidelines and established the "ARC" system to define airports using a combination of aircraft operating characteristics (approach speed) and aircraft dimensions (wingspan). For the Anoka County-Blaine Airport,the design aircraft characteristics included aircraft having approach speeds up to 121 knots and wingspans up to 79 feet. Within the regional system, all Minor airports, except Crystal Airport, are classified as ARC B-II. The ARC B-II design • category doesn't set any maximum aircraft weight limits. For MAC airports, however, all Minor airports, except Crystal, have a single wheel design strength of 30,000 pounds. In summary, The Anoka County-Blaine Airport is a Minor Airport as defined by the Metropolitan Development Guide. By FAA definition the Airport is a reference category B-II. The Airport should be designed to safely accommodate single and twin engine propeller aircraft, as well as some business and small corporate jet aircraft. 4. In May 1986, the Metropolitan Council updated its Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. This update changed the categorization of a Minor airport to include runway lengths between 2,500 and 5,000 feet. The Order, dated July 1986, specifically states that ... "MAC agrees to develop the Anoka County-Blaine Airport, consistent with the requirements of state law and the Metropolitan Development Guide, as of the date of this Agreement, as a "minor use" airport. The Order was signed over two months after the Guide was amended to allow Minor airports to have 5,000 foot long runways. Page 3-11 and 3-12 of the May 1997 LTCP Update have detailed runway length data justifying a 5,000 foot long runway. 5. As discussed above, ARC B-II design standard are warranted and not in conflict with the Master Plan and Order. ARC A-I design standards are not appropriate. The 1983 Master Plan recommends that Runway 8R/26L be widened to 100 feet. As previously noted, a 100 foot runway width is appropriate for A and B category runways with a precision approach having visibility minimums below 3/4 statute mile, 6. The May 1997 draft LTCP Update recommends that Runway 17R/35L be developed to a length of 4,855 feet. The LTCP no longer contains the referenced statement. 1111 7. As discussed above, ARC B-II design standards are considered appropriate. The taxiway width recommended in the May 1997 LTCP Update has been revised since the July 1996 draft. The recommended width is now 40 feet, not 35 feet. MAC typically constructs taxiways to width of 40 feet to facilitate snow removal. The FAA allows design parameters to be exceeded as long as Federal funding is not requested for the additional portion of the project. MAC typically does not request Federal funding for such projects. The 1983 Master Plan states that taxiways parallel to a non-precision runway should be separated by at least 200 feet. A maximum distance is not stipulated. A 300-foot taxiway separation improves the safety and operational flexibility of the runway/taxiway system with little additional cost or impact to the land envelope. 8. Operational demand, as projected in Chapter 2, indicates that the number of operations is expected to increase to 272,300 by 2015. Without the addition of a parallel runway(s), the airport cannot accommodate projected demand. Table 2-8 presents the projected fleet mix for the planning period. Approximately 232,500 operationsby single engine aircraft and 35,400 operations by multi-engine aircraft are anticipated by 2015. As indicated in the capacity section, the theoretical number of operations the Airport can accommodate without capacity enhancing improvements is 230,000. FAA planning guidelines suggest initiating improvements when an airport reaches 60 percent of available capacity and to construct them when operations surpass 80 percent of available capacity. The 1983 Master Plan identified the need for parallel runways. 9. The May 1997 draft LTCP Update does not recommend a GPS precision approach to Runway 17R. A non-precision GPS approach is recommended. Runway 17L currently • has a non-precision approach. When Runway 17R/35L is constructed it will replace the current north-south runway (Runway 17L/35R) as the primary north-south runway. Therefore, a non-precision approach is warranted. PAPIs are not indicative of a precision approach; they are primarily used during VFR approaches. PAPI's are a replacement for the older VASI system. VASIs were recommended for all runways in the 1983 Master Plan. 10. The future storage requirements are not based on ARC design standards. The future storage requirements are based on maintaining the existing aircraft to hangar storage ratio. As additional aircraft base at the airport, additional storage facilities will be needed. Table 2-4 presents the existing and projected based aircraft fleet mix. While the percentage of single-engine aircraft is projected to decline slightly (90 percent to 88 percent), the total number of single-engine based aircraft is projected to increase from approximately 387 to 482. Multi-engine aircraft are expected to increase from 35 to 55 during the planning period. To accommodate this demand additional hangars will be required. 11. The majority of the existing "historic" aircraft based at Anoka County-Blaine Airport meet ARC B-II design standards. As previously stated, an ARC B-II design standard is appropriate for Anoka County-Blaine Airport and its role as a Minor Airport.. There are • several historic aircraft based at the airport that have a wingspan greater than 79 feet. These aircraft reportedly make less than 150 operations per year, and are therefore not considered the overall design aircraft for the airport. Historic and unique aircraft, in general, cannot be prohibited from using a public airport. Such a policy would be discriminatory and in conflict with Federal mandates.. 12. As previously stated, an ARC B-II design standard is appropriate for Anoka County- Blaine Airport. 13. Following revisions based on the response to comments, the LTCP Update will be presented to MAC for approval. Following MAC approval, the LTCP Update will be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for a determination of consistency with the Metropolitan Development Guide • METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION s>°°"5 S°tir Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport Frr 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799 o Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296 tt MAC ° F • ti° wooa�s April 23, 1997 • Mr. Chuck Whiting Administrator City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 Subject: Air Traffic Counts - Anoka County-Blaine Airport Dear Chuck, At the April 14 1997 Mounds View City Council meeting Council member Trude requested a copy of the Air Traffic Control Tower activity records to date. I believe she we relaying a request from a Mr. Markfeldt. Enclosed are the monthly air .traffic counts recorded by the FAA Air Traffic Control personnel. These records cover the period from start of operation, October 1. 1996, through March 1997. • The traffic counts are recorded during hours of tower operation, presently 7AM until 10PM, everyday. The daily counts are identified categorized as Itinerant - goes or comes from outside the local control area, or Local - stays within the local area. The number of operations are recorded as AT - air taxi, GA - general aviation and MI - military. Most of the "Military" counts involve aircraft flying over the Airport. I trust this information is what Mr. Markfeldt requested. If not, have him call me directly (726-8129) . Sincerely, Mark J. Ryan Airport Planner 1111 The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer. Reliever Airports: AIRLIKE • ANOKA COUNTY/BLAINE •CRYSTAL • FLYING CLOUD • LAKE ELMO •SAINT PAUL DOWNTOWN Users:All ATCTs AIRPORT TRAFFIC RECORD P! cc-.. NOV 4-_..}996 iI ORIGINAL of this form to Washington Office,AMS-420 thru Regional Air Traffic Division Facility Name Location RULI. 1 - l9 ANOKA CONTROL TOWER (ANE) BB8pp8gg91 AIRPORT ROAD ""` SLAI E1 MINNESOTA 55449 1710 9? 6 Al lig (10-1) Facility Type("X"one) (1-2) (3-4) (5-9) Facili Mo. Yr. Location(dent. (11) Approach 0 8. Radar t E.VFR TowerIf dailyhours Control 0 C.Limited Radar o G. Contract Tower Type of Hrs. tOths Towers Changed operation ® O. Non-Radar haus change 1 o C a (Continue on Reverse) (12)❑ yes ants►new 0 - 2 1 (Also submit FAA Form 7230-26) / _ hours. (77-78) (79) ITINERANT Airport Operations Count - - - o�-- LOCAL I I AC AT GA MI Total -- Told Special use IS- Operations Civil Military Total 1811 (17-21) (22-26) (27.31) (32-36) Itinerant Operations (47.51) (37-41) N2-48) Local 1 3 185 3 191 131 1 132 323 21 2 156 2 160 1 101 101 261 3 3 188 _ 191 13 . 136 327 4 ®_ 212 181 181 393 51 240 2 242 160 I 160 402 -• 6 250 250 I. 184 18 ' 2 229 1 149 1 442 L__ 231 149 3 8o 2 210 4 216 104 4 108 � 324 ( -- 9 178 4 182 86 86 1 268 101 3 264 267 345 I 4 349 I 616 11 9 186195 132 I 132 I 327 12 270 3 273 230 4 234 507 13 240 8 248 I 1219 2 221 469 to 135 135 I 76 15 6 221 227 76 21t 161 6 276 •77-3 o— `� n 198 198 44 17 1 38 2 '' 3 _I __. _ _.—__ to l InallitilliMM® 92 92 203 19 179 181 110 110 291 20 138 140 75 75 • 215 211 3 152 157 176 76 313 2279 79 42 J 142 121 • 23 1 66 67 44 44 111 t- 24! 4 95 2 101 1511 151 I 252 -- 25 4 163 2 169 1 1671 167 336 261 _ 36 36 ( 131 13 49 , = 123 1 1041 --� 104 227 .e 226 2381 1 238 i 464 1 18 19 61 1 6 25 `0 I 2 , 42 1 44 I 61 ' — 6 50 •11 ] 2 1 106 1 1 I 109 j 78 i 78 ; 187 !Total _ IT66 14948 1 49 1 5063 3947 ? � X07 ? QnZ ; This Side For Use by VFR Towers Only (AH Approach Control Terminals IIMust use FAA Form 7230-26 ALL VFR Towers recording 1 I . 0 19 L 16 A I N 1E IM IN - - 1 J_— ADP Instrument Operations (1-2) (3-4) (5-9) Control on this side 10-4 MUST COMPLETE Mo. Yr Location (dent. Instrument Operations Remarks T 1 Total Day AC AT GA Military 11aE) 1 1 1 24 1_76.19:11 9 ZS 2 1 �30 3— za�a)( 33 12 ' 3 24-2711 12 4 9 (26.3,11 9 5 -- -- - 7 (32.35(1 7 6 1 1 2 4 ---- (36-3911 1 3 _____r_____7 14 I_ (40-4311 14 6 15 I ' T--. (44-47)1 1 5 9 1 11 4 I (46.511 1 4 I —__.__.-..� 10 118 r --_..--_. I (552.55, 18 al 11 I I I 2 3 ( 56.59) 2 3 1 1 12 16 1 60.631 16 13 10 I 164-67) 10 14 2 6 {eea,+ 2 6 15 37 1 72.751 37 '6 2 4 6 1 76-791 4 8 • (14-2) 1 2 6 16.1911 2 7 8 2 24 20-2311 26 9 I 8 -- ----- (24-2711 8 ) 19 126-3111 19 1 1 3 1 (32as,1 3 2 ' 3 0 I (36-391, 3 0 1 4 I 1 4 4 (46.43, 4 5 . 23 5 (4-47)1 1 2 4 (46-51) 2 5 3 2 (52.55)1 3 2 1 29 (56.59); 29 . 25 )1 25 7 12 6.4-671! 12 13 I6e-71); 13 1 2 0 72-7511 21 _ i1. 12 684 5 ; 701 (17-21) I (22.26) (27.31) (32-36) I I 1 Users:All ATCTs AIRPORT TRAFFIC RECORD .r-. 7, Mail ORIGINAL of this form to Washington Office,AMS-420 thru Regional Air Traffic Division DEC Facility Name 179 Location ANOKA (ANE) CONTROL TOWER BLAINE, MINNESOTA r j 9 • 6 ANE (10-1) Facility Type("X•'one) • I1I (1-2) (3-4) (S-9) Rice*(11) ApproachMo. Yr. Location(dent. 0 8.Radar ❑ E.VFR Tower Type If daily hours Hrs. 10ths Control 0 C.Limited Radar ® G.Contract Tower Changed of operation Towers 0 D. Non-Radar have change 1, (Continue on Reverse) (12)0 Yes enter newI (Also submit FAA Form 7230-26) hours. (77-78) (79) Airport Operations Count ITINERANT LOCAL - - ua AC AT GA M TOW Spacial Uw (1 5 I Total Civil Military Total t8) (17.21) (22-28) (27-31) (32-36) IUttant raOpaolans (47-51)(37-411 (42-481 Local 1 159 159 173 173 332 2 205 205 243 6 249 454 3 342 342 274 274 616 4 I 73 _ 73 40 40 113 5 40 40 4 4 _ 44 6 2 69 71 _ 56 56 127 7 6 175 2 _ 183 209 2 211 394 4 129 4 137 168 168 305 9 147 147 184 I 184 331 t0 103 103 113 113 216 11 4 107 111 140 140 251 12 2 151 153 134 134 287 13 8 150 • 2 160 154 154 314 14 5 158 163 154 154 31715 16 1 29 29 0 � 0 29 33 33 I 0 ! 0 33 1 17 29 • 29 10 10 39 18 118 2 120 720 4 74 194 19 1 98 2 — 101 132 2 134 235 20 46 46 26 26 72 21 82 . 82 91 91 173 22 80 4 84 151 151 235 3 120 120 191 191 311 24 100 100 193 193 293 1 25 1 165 2 168 94 94 262 26 4 13$ 5 147 135 2 137 284 2 159 161 145 ! 306 88 88 96 96 184 ,9 2 61 63 96 96 159 40 19 19 2 21 ow 41 3 , 374 , 13437 1 3474 ,). 13492 16931 1 FAA Form 7230.1 t4-45 This Side _ For Use by VFR Towers Only (All Approach Control Terminals Must use FAA Form 7230-26 el 1I 1 91 . 6 AL_ N E I I ALL VFR Towers recording _._ .__,.L_ f ADP Instrument Operations (t-2) (3-4) (5-9) Control on this side 10-4 MUST COMPLETE Mo. Yr. Location (dent. Instrument Operations Remarks Total Day AC AT GA Military (10-E) (14-1) 1 2 616-19); 2 6 I 2 2 2 20-2311 2 2 4-- 1 4 24-27,1 14 2 5 0 26-31)1 5 2 1 5 2 8 32-35)1 2 8 2 39 36.3911 41 , 7 1 22 40-43,1 23 8 15 44-47) 15 9 19 48-51) 19 ' 21 52-55) 2 1 11 _ 2 0 56-5912 0 411111 12 18 6463) 18 13 16 64.67) 16 14 - 4 68-71) 4 6 '5 9 72-75) 9 16 13 76.7911 13 1 (14-2) 17 6 1 6 t8 I 34 2423)! 34 19 2 0 24-27)1 2 0 1 20 I 23- - - 2s-31)1 23 21 2 3 32-3511 2 3 22 19• 36-39)1 19 23 440-43)1 4 24 1 1 44-47)1 11 .25 3 $ 46-511 • 1 3 1 26 1 'id I 52.55,1 h14 27 30 56-59)1 30 28 1 y 60-63) 1 H 29 1 2...8_, 1 64-67) •,�. 9 30 1 9 es 7,)1 1 9 31 72-7511 , Total 7 6 8 2 1 : 6 9 0 (17-21) (22-26) (27-31) (32-36) v l L Facility Use Users All ATCTs AIRPORT TRAFFIC RECORD Pr- -; Vr ail ORIGINAL of this form to Washington Office.AMS-420 thru Regional Air Traffic Division J41/I ty Name . Location - ,'�_ ANOKA CANE) A BLAINE, MN. 55449 (.'t 1 t k 6 ANEM (10-1) Facility Type("X"one) (1-2) (3-4) (5-9) Facili Mo. Yr. Location(dent. (11) Approach 0 8.Radar 0 E.VFR Tower Type If daily hours Control 0 C.Limited Radar Hrs. 10ths �I G.Contract Tower Changed of operation Towers 0 D. Non-Radar have changc.1, (Also submit FAA Form 7230-26) (Continue on Reverse) (12)❑ Yes enter new „ / I hours. / (77-78) (79) Airport Operations Count _ ___- -. ITINERANT LOCAL - - - Day AC AT GA M1 I li Total Civil M�btary Total Total Spacial Use ! (17-2 t) (K-i0 ) t6 ! (.2T-3t (32.30( lunarant (37•47: (42 45! Local °malaria 07-51) 1 S4 55 62 2 64 119 2 184 184 90 90 274 3 101 101 132 132 233 4 _ 3 92 95 84 84 179 5 1111 2 83 85 I 64 64 149 6 1 ME_ 82 66 66 148 __ 203 6 209 240 _ 240 449 1 80 81 102 102 183 • 164 164 144 144 308 10 3 33 36 12 12 48 11 3 190 193 74 74 267 12 3 75 78 60 60 138 13 2 80 82 66 66 148 14 15 MEM 23 28 28 51 88 80 80 168 16111111 32 22 22 54 I 17 104 _ 105 72 72 177 19 Iv 4018 1 39 10i 10 50 82 4 86 209 20111111 1111 •75 58 58 133 21 296 296 391 22 if 3 40 62 62 102 3 6 IIM 2 70 21_ 47 64 64 64 128 64 64 104 i 104 168 •9 165 165 206 206 371 <0 61 65 96 96 161 <1 94 94 42 42 I 136 otaf 29 2617 16 2662 2484 I 6 I 2 • 0 j 515 FAA Form 7210.1/4014i This Side For Use by VFR Towers Only (All Approach Control Terminals Must use FAA Form 7230-26 • ALL VFR Towers recording 1 I 2AL9 16 A IN IEIM I N Instrument Operations (1-2) (3-4) (5-9) ADP Control on this side 10-4 MUST COMPLETE Mo. Yr. Location 'dent. Instrum.nt Op.rations Remarks r Total Day AC AT GA Military (10-E) (14-1) 1 0 (16-19) 2 0 - - - - 2 17 (20-23) 17 3 I 19 (24-27) 19 4 3 3 8 (26-31) 41 5 2 3 2 (32-35) 3 4 6 1 2 8 (36-39) 2 9 e18 (40.43) 18 j i _ 8 (44.47)1 8 9 2 9 (48-51) 2 —r. t0 '_ _ 14 (52.55) 1 7 11 I 3 I 2$ (56-50)4_3 1 IIIII 12 r 3 6 0 (60-63) 6 3 13 1 31 (64-67) 3 2 1 14 15 (66-71) 15 15 1 0 ;72-75) I 9 1s 2 7 (76.79)1 2 7 (14-2) 17 40 (16-10)1 40 18 ( 1 2 9 :2o-23)I 3 0 19 3 0 ---1— •;24-27113 0 20 2 7 (28.31)! 2 7 21 18 (32-35)1 18 22 15 (36.3911 15 • 23 6 (40.434 6 24 1 15 (44.47)1 16 25 3 (48.51)1 3 • 26 1 8 (52-55) 1 8 27 1 7 (56.59) 1 7 28 12 (60.63) 12 29 12 (64-67) 12 30 2 12 1 (66-71) 15 • 31 8 (72-75) 8 Total 1 9 6 4 6 1 ! 6 6 6 (17-21) (22-26) (27-31) (32-36) 1 Facility Use . Users:All ATCTs AIRPORT TRAFFIC RECORD .Q,� -,, h Mail ORIGINAL of this form to Washington Office,AMS-420 thru Regional Air Traffic Division 6 " , Facility Name �� Location ANOKA (ANE) CONTROL TOWER BLAINE, MN. C.C; A N (10-1)Facility Type("X"one) �' 0 1 I9 7 ( I 1my • (1-2) (3-4) (5-9) • (11) ApproachFacility Mo. Yr. Location Idant. 0 B. Radar C7 E.VFR Tower Type If daily hours Control 0 C. Limited Radar iHrs. 10ths G.Contract Tower Changed of operation Towers 0 D.Non-Radar I have change. 1, `� (Also submit FAA Form 7230-26) (Continue on Reverse) (12)❑ Yes enter new �I hours. / (77-78) (79) ITINERANT Airport Operations Count LOCAL Day - - 15• AC AT GA MI Total Coil Muaary Total TOS 5,+�Ia1 Ulla 16) 117.21) (22-261 (27-31) (32-36) lnnarantOparatana (31-41) (42-46) Local 07-51) 1 44 44 32 _ 32 76 2 2 118 2 —+ 3 _ 122 — S . 2 94 . 96 44 4 110 110 118 44 140 118 228 111111.11111111111 5 66 66 80 s 80 146 _ ' 2 3 100 138 138 238 7 2 157159 176 20 196 2 109 122 264 268 355 111190 1 48 2 51 • . . 1011 49 2 51 44 44 95 tt =� 16 99 86 2 88 187 12 2 115 102 _ � 13 102 217 1 152155 216 2 218 373 J 14 2 112 114 138 138 252 15 37 - 37 18 18 55 12 53 i6i:_ii__ INE . 19 MI • ' 198 280 280 7 : 20 1 179 180 344 • 344 524 21 2 27 29 42 42 71 22 2 50 54 38 23 _ 4 103 8 115 80 6 86 201 24 99 2 101 54 6 60 25 103 7 110 152 6 158 268 26 S353 66 IIII 7 118 66 119 120 88 88 208 107 109 126 126 235 95 103 141 141 244 " 137 8 145 162 _ 162 307 gm 2 156 4 162 218 4 222 384 IIMI3, 107 76 3,230 3,577 I 58 3,635 6,865 FAA Forel 7230-1 i -asl Pic AT 7/1(1.00 • This Side _ For Use by VFR Towers Only (All Approach Control Terminals Must use FAA Form 7230-26 I 1 • 1 0 1 I 9 7 ALL VFR Towers recording I I--- i- A- __ '- _N 1__E I M " N. instrument Operations I (1-2) (3-4) (5-9) -- - AOP on this side Control MUST COMPLETE 10-4 Mo. Yr. Location (dent. Instrument Operations _ _ Remarks I Total Day AC AT I GA I Military nae, — -- - ...— ------ (14-1) 1 8 - - -- - - .. . ._- - -- . _ - It6-1911 H 2 2 3 (20.2311 2 3 3 ------ -- _ 35-- ----.- 24.2711 35 4 - ---- __6 (28.31)1 6 , 19_ -- -- (32.351 1 9 • 6 - -- - -_ 1 25 (36.39) 2S - 14 3 0.431 7 8 1 I- -- - -1z- 9 1 6 I 2 48111 2 0 10 -__t .- . 2- .5— f-- (52-55,1 - 1 13 (52"55, 11 I j 114 1 2 56-5911 2 12 --- 8[.___ _ 60 6311 111 t3 —+._8_ • -- _ 12 64.6711 12 .14 i 21 68.7111 2 1 15 1 7 --- 72.7511 1 7 16 21 76.7911 21 (14-2) 17 1 15 16-19,1 16 18 1 20-23)1 1 2 19 t24-2711 1 4 20 - 20 _ _ .. 26-3111 20 21 - - 2- .. I 32-3511_ 13 . 22 2 9 36.3911 11 23 2" 1 4- - �- 40.43); 16 24 - 2 2 44-47)1 2 2 46-5111 1 6 25 15 1 1 26 2 52-5511 2 27 1 2 4 56-591! 2 5 28 ' 29 7 1 60-6311. 23 1 17 64-674 I R 30 1A °6-7111 164110 11 91 72-7511 71 OW12 492 4 !508 (17-211 (22-26) (27-31) (32-561 J Facility Use Users:All ATCTs AIRPORT TRAFFIC RECORD p:;,=:, !rr„.,r Mail ORIGINAL of this form to Washington Office,AMS-420 thru Regional Air Traffic Division 1QC- acility Name Location ANOKA COUNTY ATCT RECLk v BLAINE, MN. 4 9 2 7 1 11 (10-1) FacilityT ) 1 I El I1I N Type("X"one (1-2) (3-4) (5-9) (11) Approach Facility Mo. Yr. Location'dent. ❑ B. Radar 0 E.VFR Tower Type If daily hours Hrs. 10ths Control 0 C.Limited Radar la G.Contract Tower Changed of operation+ Towers 0 D.Non-Radar have change 1, `----,. (Also submit FAA Form 7230-26) (Continue on Reverse) (12)0 Yes enter new (_ hours. (77-78) (79) Airport Operations Count _ ITINERANT LOCAL • Day�II I1 - . - (1�1 AC AT GA MI I Total Civil I Molnar/ Total Total Spacral Ulla161 (17-21) (22.26) (27-31) (32-36) Itinerant ' (37.41) (42-461 LUCaI Operations (47.511 1 242 • 242 260 260 502 2 256 256 308 308 564 3 5 148 2 155 216 6 222 377 _ 4 135 9 145 148 8 156 301 s 122 2 126 118 118 244 6 214 4 219 318 318 537 7 192 192 316 4 320 512 � 6 243 287 287 530• _ ' 266 8 274 513 10 71 71 1 A 1A(1 '111 11 84 2 86 60 60 146 12 2 169 4 175 300 300 475 13 2 105 2 109 150 4 154 263 14 7 185 192 134 _ 4 138 330 _ 15 199 2 201 326 326 527 16 __-- 230 230 292 292 522 17 2 182 2 186 216 216 402 18 176 176 183 183 . 359 19 1111 179 182 240 240 422 2U 205 6 213 218 .22 240 453 21 9 4 141 293 22 2 98 6 106 116 2 118 224 23 . 225 225 280 • 280 - 505 24 159 3 162 21.0 210 372 25 201 6 207 218 6 224 431 26 9 • 6 218- 4 2Z_ 385 . 5 162 8 175 206 14 220 194 .:t,,,- a 1 94 95 26 2 28 12.3 <0 .1 _ ow 39 4727 85 4851 5909 1 88 5997 1 10,848 I FAA Form 7230-1(4.45) R1S AT 7230-99 • This Side For Use by VFR Towers Only (AU Approach Control Terminals Must use FAA Form 7230-26 el i 02. 9 7 A N E M N. ALL VFR Towers recording L—_-I. _. (---_1 _� —I I � ADP Instrument Operations (1-2) (3-4) (5-9) Control on this side I i 10-4 MUST COMPLETE Mo. Yr Location(dent. -_— Instrument Operations Remarks j - Total Day AC AT GA Military (tae) (74-1) � - - . ----6- --- -- 4)6.79); 6 - --- + 2 10 (20.23)1 it) 3 1 13 424.27)1 14 4 16 1 — 426-3n1 17 5 i 20432.35)] . 20 tiII 6 i 39 _- .136.39)1 39 I 2ti (40.43)1 -) 8 .. --- -.._ . --- 15- i-- --- - } - #44.47)1 15 e -}I29 I--- „8.57)1 9 10 7 r (52-55)1 7 11 11 ! 26 565911 26 1 4 _ � 12 16 60.63)1 16 t3 24 67'�---4 -1 - + 14 2 2168-71)1 23 15 -- 9 72-7571 9 16 -_ 7 76-79)1 7 -_ (14-2) 17 16.191 19 _ 20 20-23) 20 t9 1 26 24-27) 27 20 34- - 1 .. 28-31) 35 211 2 21 2 32-35) 25 22 --- 3 • 21 1 36-391 25 23 18- 44o-43) 18 24 -- 10 444-47) 11---- . .25 2 11 448-511 13 26 1 24 152.5511 25 27 1 27 456.59)1 28 28 12 (60.63)( 12 29 (64.67)11 30 (68-7111el 31 - 472.75)1 Total ) -I 1526 5 1 544 (17-21) (22-26) (27-31) (32-361 J 1/Facility Use Users:All ATCT•s AIRPORT TRAFFIC RECORD ail ORIGINAL of this form to Washington Office,AMS-420 thru Regional Air Traffic Division APR ecu ity Name Location 2— 19z ANOKA (ME) COUNTY TOWER BLAINE, MN. L�k�' 9, 7 (10-1) Facility Type("X••one) _ A� N� E 1MN (1-2) (3-4) (5-9) Facility Mo. Yr. Location(dent. (11) Approach 0 B. Radar ❑ E.VFR Tower Type If daily hours Hrs. 10ths Control 0 C.Limited Radar ® G.Contract Tower Changed of operation Towers 0 D.Non-Radar have change 1, (Also submit FAA Form 7230-26) (Continue on Reverse) (12)❑ Yes enter new hours. ••• •°.°A'11-(77-F8-)i--(7-4) Airport Operations Count __ _ ITINERANT _J LOCAL - - - ray -- AC AT OA MI Total 1� Tdel C w i Military TotalSpet:ul use 16) (17-21) (22-26) (27-31) (32-36) Itinerant (37-11) 02-46) Local Ooaratw+na (47-511 _1 0 93 0 93 112 0 112 205 2 0 193 _ 1 194 242 2 244 438 3 2 74 2 76 80 0 80 156 4 5 58 2 65 12 0 12 77 5 1 1GF 6 153 7 96 4 930 3R3 6 3 167 7 177 158 0 158 335 7 _ 2 170 8 _ 180 - 234 0 234 414 3 .190 3 196 254 8 262 458 0 117 0 117 132 0 132 249 6 125 9 140 202 0 202 342 1 5 249 6 260 _ 324 0 324 584 - 2 2 168 6 176 236 0 236 412 34 20 0 24 0 0 0 24 4J 0 44 0 44 24 0 24 68 5 0 190 0 190 2.90 0 990 480 6 2 124 4 135 116 0 _ J 116 251 7 3 204 14 221 r 284 6 290 511 • 8 2 194 8 204 310 0 310 _ 514 9 6 204 4 - 214 300 0 300 514 1 183 9 1R7 356 0 356 541 _ 1 0 129 0 129 168 01684 1 232 6 239 310 0 310 49 K 0 236 8 244 290 0 290 534 1 24 0 25 0 0 0 25 - • 2 150 12 164 192 8 200 364 • 0 258 6 264 340 0 340 604 5 88 8 101 70 0 70 171 l�, 1 206 10 217 296 0 296 513 225 1 0 225 378 0 378 603 KO 1 194 .0 195 248 0 248 443 .1 4 287 8 299 356 0 356 655 otal 64 4944 140 5148 6540 28 16568 11/16 I FAA Fn1,n 72:1n-1 west This Side For Use by VFR Towers Only (All Approach Control Terminals Must use FAA Form 7230-26 41110 1 I 1 ALL VFR Towers recording ' 01 3 9 1 7 A 1 N I E L M 1 Instrument Operations (1-2) (3-4) (5-9) ADP on this side Control 10-4 MUST COMPLETE Mo. Yr. 1 Location (dent. I —- Instrument Operations Remarks -r— - — Total Day AC AT GA Military (10-E) G (14-1) 1 — 6 .. 06-191; _--- 2 20 (20.23(; 20 3 2 15 (24.27); 17_ 4 (26.31); 14 5 221 ±__1±J 33 1_1 ::: - 3 1E711 -T- --- --1-L.__.—3— ,•...7)Y..__ 17 - 9 ---80e-51); 8 10 1 27 (52.55); 28 i. 3-. ill 11 37 1 06-594 12 23 (60-63; 23 13 4 20 (64.67); 24 14 27 (66.71(; 27 15 18r72-7st• 18 16 1 8 (76-79)1 9 • (14-2) 17 —� 10 r 06.19) 10 18 1 14 (20-23) 15 19 1 19 (24-27) 20 20 2 14 - - - i2e-31) 16 • 21 2 23 (32-35) 25 22 12 =- (36-39)i 12 23 7 (40.43)] 7 24 8 (••-ul1 8 25 2 19 (40-.51)} 21 . 26 13 (52-55)1 13 27 23 156-5w= 23 . • 28 6 25 (6o-e3)! 31 29 1 29 (64.67)i 30 III 30 12 •68-71)1 12 31 1 26 (72-7s11 27 'oral 30 579 6 . : 615 (11-21) (22-29) (27-31) (32-36) - v • 4-0 Pillsbury Center Kennedy 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone &Graven ,612) 337-9310 fax e-mail: attvs@kennedv-graven.com CHARTERED ROBERT C. LONG Attorney at law Direct Dial (612)337-9202 July 10, 1997 Metropolitan Airports Commission Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport 6040 - 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799 RE: Mounds View Written Comments and Objections to Proposed Draft Long-Term Comprehensive Plan Update Dated July, 1996 Our File No. MU210-6 Dear Commission Members: . This letter will serve as the City of Mounds View's ("City") formal written comments and objections to the Proposed Draft July 1996 Long-Term Comprehensive Plan Update ("Plan") for the Anoka County/Blaine Airport ("Airport"). These comments are based on review, comments and final action by the Mounds View Airport Task Force and the Mounds View City Council. (Resolution attached as Exhibit A). The City requests that these written objections and the Resolution be made part of the official record being developed as part of the public hearing process for consideration of the Plan. The Metropolitan Airports Commission ("MAC") must prepare its Plan in full compliance with the Court Order dated July 28, 1986, Court File No. 4549M (Order). (Order attached as Exhibit El). MAC must also prepare its Plan in full compliance with Minnesota Statutes, sections 473.611, subd. 5, 473.641, subd. 4, and 473.655. The City's formal written objections stated herein are based on changes the City believes must be made to the Plan for it to be in compliance with the Order and the Minnesota Statutes referenced above. The Plan, as currently drafted, conflicts with the Order and the cited.Minnesota Statutes governing development at the Airport. Specifically, the capital improvements proposed by the Plan will have the effect of converting the Airport from a Minor Use to an Intermediate Use Airport in conflict with the Order, Minnesota Statutes, and the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. The City hereby respectfully requests MAC to make amendments to the Plan in accordance with the following written objections in an effort to ensure that the Plan is in compliance with the 411) Order and Minnesota Statutes to avoid the need for costly additional litigation regarding the Airport. Metropolitan Airports Commission July 10, 1997 . Page 2 • The City's written objections are based primarily on the following basic legal guidelines governing future development of the Airport as specified in the Order: 1. Pursuant to the Order, MAC must "develop the Airport pursuant to the Airport Master Plan formally adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission on August 15, 1983 and approved by the Metropolitan Council on November 22, 1983 (the "1983 Master Plan"). 2. The 1983 Master Plan was adopted on the basis that "since development of Anoka County/Blaine Airport is limited by law to minor status, it will be assumed that its fleet will consist entirely of types D and E aircraft" (see page 50 of 1983 Master Plan). 3. Proposed development and capital improvements at the Airport included in the Plan designed to establish a larger size "Design Aircraft" larger than the "Typical Operating Aircraft" which are types D and E aircraft (now referred to as types A and B aircraft - 12,500 lbs. gross takeoff weight or less) are in conflict with the Order and the 1983 Master Plan and would therefor not be allowed. 4. Minnesota Statutes, § 473.611, subd. 5 states in part that any long-term comprehensive plans adopted by the MAC for the enlargement of existing airports shall be consistent with the Development Guide of the Metropolitan Council. 5. Minnesota Statues, § 473.641, subd. 4 states in part that MAC shall not use revenue from any source for construction of air facilities to expand or upgrade the use of an existing metropolitan airport from minor use status to intermediate use status as defined by the Metropolitan Development Guide, Aviation Chapter. 6. Minnesota Statues, § 473.655 states in part that development of the Metropolitan airport system by MAC must be consistent with the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. Based on the foregoing legal guidelines and provisions of the 1983 Master Plan and Order, the City's formal written objections to the Plan are as follows: 1. The Airport history section of the Plan starting on page 1-3 makes no reference whatsoever to the Order governing future development at the Airport. The Plan should be amended to include a full description of the history regarding the Order, the specific provisions of the Order that govern the future development of the Airport, and incorporate by reference a copy of the Order as a new exhibit. 2. The Plan, on its face, fails to comply with the requirements of the Order in that the Plan4110 does not include the Comprehensive Noise Abatement Strategy to protect the health, PC:,i 26 134 Metropolitan Airports Commission July 10, 1997 . Page 3 safety and welfare of the citizens adjacent to the Airport as required by the Order. The Plan should be amended to include a specific section or chapter devoted to the Comprehensive Noise Abatement Strategy required by the Order. In response to your letter of October 25, 1996, the City's official position is that MAC is currently in violation of the Order for failing to have adopted a Comprehensive Noise Abatement Strategy as required by the Order. 3. The Plan improperly uses an Airport Reference Code (ARC), Approach Category B, Design Group II standard (ARC B-II) for design standards for capital improvements, including all runways, taxiways and setbacks for the Airport. Using an ARC B-II design standard is in conflict with the Order which incorporates the 1983 Master Plan in that the Plan calls for design improvements of the Airport to service larger aircraft than the typical operating aircraft, Class D and E aircraft at the Airport and as prescribed by the 1983 Master Plan. Exhibit 3-1 of the Plan clearly shows that the use of ARC B-II standards are improper in that it allows for "Design Aircraft" greater than 12,500 lbs. gross takeoff weight, which is the standard for the "Typical Operating Aircraft" design for the Airport specified in the Order and Master Plan. The Plan must be amended on pages 3-8 and 3- . 31 and elsewhere to state that the Airport should continue to be designed in accordance with the 1983 Master Plan and Order and should follow an ARC A-I design standard to be consistent with the 1983 Master Plan and Order. Exhibit 3-1 should be removed or amended to reflect this change. 4. Recommendations in the Plan on pages 3-10, 3-11 and 3-31 and elsewhere recommending that Runway 8R/26L be extended to a length of 5,0( 0 feet should be removed. Such a recommendation is in conflict with the 1983 Master Plan which does not provide for such an extension and is in direct conflict with the Order which allows for an approximately 800 foot extension to then Runway 8/26 to its current length of 4,000 feet. In addition, there is no justification based on the data presented in the Plan to extend runways beyond their current lengths. For example, on page 3-11 of the Plan, it states "according to the FAA runway length program, a runway length of 3,2(X) feet would support approximately 95% of all small aircraft." Since the Airport is to be designed to serve predominantly D and E (now A and B) type aircraft according to the 1983 Master Plan and Order, and since the Plan itself on pages 2-2 and 2-7, states that the FAA projects that there will be a decline in the number of active single-engine and multi- engine fleet of small aircraft, there is no evidence to support a showing of a lack of capacity at the Airport if the Airport continues to be developed in accordance with the 1983 Master Plan and Order which calls for it to be predominantly used by small type D and E aircraft. • RrL.LFP4 MII.10 Metropolitan Airports Commission July 10, 1997 • Page 4 5. The recommendation that 8R/26L should be widened from 75 feet to 100 feet should be deleted. Runway 8R/26L should remain at its 75 foot width. As established above, an ARC B-II design standard is improper for this Airport and in conflict with the 1983 Master Plan and Order. Using an ARC A-I standard instead, a 75 foot width on Runway 8R./26L is appropriate. 6. The recommendation for the proposed parallel runway 17R/35L to be developed to a length of 5,000 feet "if it is politically feasible" should be removed from the Plan since it is in conflict with the 1983 Order and Master Plan which states that the runway is to be only 4,855 feet long. 7. The recommendations regarding dimensions of taxiways on page 3-31 must also be amended to be in accordance with the Order and 1983 Master Plan. As stated above, it is inappropriate to use an ARC B-II standard for designing a.taxiway width of 35 feet. The current 30 foot width should be left in place. It is also inappropriate to consider a 300 foot separation on Runway 17R/35L based on a possible precision approach for that runway. Pursuant to the Order, a precision approach may only be installed on runway 8-26. The recommendation on page 3-14 regarding a 300 foot separation to accommodate ARC B-III aircraft is also inappropriate given that the design standards for the Airport 411 should be for the ARC A-I smaller D and E aircraft provided for in the 1983 Master Plan. 8. The recommendations for proposed parallel 8L/26R I 7R/35L Runways should be removed from the Plan in that there is not a sufficient increase in the number of operations of the small D and E type aircraft at the Airport to warrant the expenditures on such additional runways at this time. Adding such improvements at the Airport to accommodate a possible growth in commercial aircraft of the ARC B-II standard would be in violation of the Order and the 19,83 Master Plan, which has not recognized such aircraft as being the typical operating-aircraft for the Airport. 9. The recommendations for a GPS precision approach on runway 17R and precision approach indicators (PAPIs) for runway 17R/35L should be removed from the Plan as being in conflict with the Order which allows for precision approaches only on the east/west runway 8/26. 10. The recommendation for an additional 215,000 square feet of private hangar storage on pages 3-25 and 3-30 should be removed from the Plan. The projections for based aircraft upon which this recommendation is based are incorrect in light of the fact that the Plan has been based on an ARC B-II design aircraft which is in conflict with the 1983 Master Plan and Order. If the ARC A-I design standard is used, a much lesser amount of hangar storage space would be needed during the planning period based on the FAA projections • of a decline in the smaller single and double engine type D and E aircraft. RW1 12 1`?4 Metropolitan Airports Commission • July 10, 1997 Page 5 11. The recommendations for increasing hangar storage for "historic and unique aircraft" at the Airport should be deleted from the Plan. These "historic and unique aircraft" are not the design aircraft for the Airport and have been shown to be a major cause of noise problems at the Airport. The Plan should not provide for additional hangar space and contemplate and increased fleet of such "historic and unique aircraft", but rather should call for a downsizing of the size of the fleet of these aircraft at the Airport. In addition, the Comprehensive Noise Abatement Strategy that must be developed for the Airport in accordance with the Order should provide for a reduction in the number of based "historic and unique aircraft" at the Airport to reduce noise. Therefore, the Plan should develop a section showing how a reduced fleet of historic aircraft will be accommodated making room for smaller D and E aircraft which are in compliance with the Order and 1983 Master Plan. 12. An amended Capital Improvement Plan (as compared to the one shown as Table 3-3), should be prepared to reflect a smaller dollar cost in light of the reduced capital improvement needs resulting from switching from an ARC B-II design standard to an ARC A-I standard which is in compliance with the Order and 1983 Master Plan. • The written objections contained herein and the proposed amendments are based on the provisions of the Order, 1983 Master Plan, and the Minnesota Statutes referenced above, which provide the legal guidelines for improvements at the Airport. The proposed Plan as currently written, is in conflict with the 1983 Master Plan, Order and the Minnesota Statutes cited herein. The City respectfully requests MAC to amend the proposed Plan to reflect the City's written objections and to bring it into compliance with the 1983 Master Plan, Order and Minnesota Statutes. The City hopes that MAC will cooperate in making such changes to remain in compliance with the Order and to avoid the cost of additional litigation regarding the Airport. Please inform me as to the next steps to be followed in the official MAC process for consideration of the proposed Plan. If you have any questions regarding our written objections, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Robert C. Long Mounds View City Attome • RCL:jes MILIO o Metropolitan Airports Commission July 10, 1997 . 41110 Page 6 cc: Mayor Duane McCarty Councilmembers Chuck Whiting Mounds View Airport Task Force Senator Steve Novak Representative Geri Evans Blaine Mayor Thomas Ryan Circle Pines Mayor LeeAnn Osbun Miller Lexington Mayor Dot Heifort 1111 • EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 41, : CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING CITY'S FORMAL WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION'S PROPOSED DRAFT LONG-TERM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE DATED JULY 1996 FOR THE ANOKA COUNTY-BLAINE AIRPORT WHEREAS, future development of the Anoka County-Blaine Airport ("Airport") is governed by a Court Order dated July 28, 1986. Court File No. 454984 ("Order") which resulted from litigation the City of Mounds View ("City") initiated against the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Airports Commission ("MAC"); and WHEREAS, the MAC has prepared a proposed Draft Long-Term Comprehensive Plan Update dated July, 1996 ("Plan") for the Airport; and . WHEREAS, the Mounds View Airport Task Force ("Task Force") has reviewed the Plan at Task Force meetings held on October 14, October 28 and November 18, 1996; and IIIWHEREAS. the City Council had previously directed the City attorney to work with the Task Force-in reviewing and preparing a response to MAC's Plan; and WHEREAS, the Task Force at its meeting on November 18, 1996 reviewed the proposed written objections to the Plan prepared by the City attorney and voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve the attached formal written objections to the Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council at its work session on November 18 received the recommendation from the Task Force and heard a presentation from the City attorney regarding the attached written objections. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council hereby adopts the. attached written objections to the Plan as prepared by the City attorney and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council hereby directs City staff and the City attorney to forward this resolution and written objections to MAC to be included in the formal public hearing record as the City's position regarding MAC's Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council authorizes City staff and the City attorney to take all necessary steps, including litigation if necessary, to represent the City's 1110 position regarding the Plan and to insure that any Plan formally adopted by MAC is in full compliance with the July 28. 1986 Court Order. RC:113sa5 A-1 `d[:12 5-51 A•alv:H !i•j•,; 4 ,,• t'Nohr, :9P6 .• AFFESr LLkc r , / (•:S E ) ' A-2 • EXHIBIT B CZ:.:17. C. RA:4S1 c77!—":NM .a�:CICAr. %i`?r C" • The City ce :"zeros View, a zric_pal cor"..crat_cn, Plaint==s, vs. S 7_,AT C:1 AND C_.F The Metrepoltan Council and Fie N . 454984 The :2*_c ci:tan Ai:per-s C-mmi.ssicn, agencies ct the Sate ce Mir.nescc:, Defendants The City c: :curds View (City) , the Metropolitan Council (u') and mettopclitan `irper's C:.'rmissicn (MAC) herecy agree thac. the Ascended C la:.'2L oe the City is c.ere_.v d'_s„ •ssed with ^re=cdic_ with respect t3 Ai tcr_ :,(==-.*? ?Lan .cases and 3 as :rte==_� Cy the :raft Environmental Impact Ste-. Alt ,e-'-nate 3 �--�.cn - T2..L - the =cl owi:g sz_oulaticns: 11111 consc�elation of the �< r_aj ai l: :prejudice, MAC agrees a �ve_oc t:. - . -ncka County - 31eine ?�_rCr= (?:rcr_) , consistent with requirements of star _ and the : '=ctc1it:n Development `..de, as of the data de this Agreement, e as a cr :se" airport. _. 2. Consistent with t`:== _ocr-'s desionated rel_ and with sLata 1=w, MAC ac=es •aveic the Ai:tor= eur suant o the 1i=.'cry Master Plan fc_�.'.'ally adco t Ov the Metropolitan ai.i:.cr'a Cocrmi.ss_cn on August 15, 1983 and acoroved :.y the Matr:Cclizaa Council on ;jcvemee_r 22, 1983 2. MAC shall commence as quickly as practical the dave?cciient of ` pi -c_ :a sL� =n ?has25 i and asdi--� ,^V _:e urst �VIrc:rLIL'l _"pact Statement Alternate 3, which includes t:e fci_crri:_ _ ovisic ns: a. RerrcvaL ce the-scuthe_r'y 2,580 feet ce existing C Runway 17/35 and the addition ce 2,!8O feet to Runway 17/25 rc�: ce the existing C easz,West _..7tay. C. Additicn ct ac:cxi a- =1 y 300 feet to the easterly end de existing Runway 8/25. • 4. :'PC acmes to ras`ic= the _:_sr,' ',aticn and use cL any I.ns hunt _andira c sy5za.ra or .ticr'nave Landing system solely to the yeast/ est Runway 8/2i. . T::e Cit) or. Mcun s View '! au.z- rite development de land sie jec -- .� C ......relC�..^e.aL ...., _ S -'-sic cn '_z acocr an._h _p non with preyed local cempraiie_nsi-re plan __d _p1_- ^.ac le :ening M-g and cefici=7 cen _^ls, a_ as may ae amended irem time to time. a—L • bstall adopt Veld rules consistent with a Airport Mast r ?an to d rl' a t»a saga and adeicier:c utilization cc airspace and runways at the ai.-cr- • and and tcrccec= the health safety and is "-'ar_ P I ct citizens ad,acrnt to tn e. Air cr. 7. MAC shall develop a long term comprehensive plan "tion sPeci c.1,y includ1.3 a cr:rpraaensive noise aaaca nt strategy to protect the health, sa acp and welfare or the citizens ad;acent t; the Airport. • C_'_" C2 NCS 7=4". (b/1 Dated: 'Iv , 1986 ?'Chard Meyers F160/6 ,/ • Attorney' for Plaintiff 1758 Venus avenue i St. ?au1, Ai 55112 (512)626-5595 MET C?Ct l AI?mCATS CCM,ATICN • 1111/ (7 'aced: X; j 19 / `hc..as ,!Andersen 72409 G m.er j. Ccur 1 ?. 0. Box 11700 Twin City Airport Station St. ?au1, MN 35111 (612)726-1892 Michael ?erens 4702X 'Attorney .or Defendant, Metropolitan Airports Cc mission 4824 DDS Canter Mi:n.eatoL_s, MN 35402 (512)222-6451 • So CI:dared: : • 2a_ 1986 N udge c :a..11i_fir_ Court t 111/1 B-2 INFORMATION • IDEAS AND PRACTICES ONLY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Wed., October 8, 1997 2:00 p.m. Members present: Chuck Whiting, Rick tarsen, Lynnette Morgan, Mary Saarion and Bill Hanggi. Members abent: John Hammerschmidt (attending deposition). Comments & Suggestions: Comments had been received but they were addressed more as complaints and not suggestions or ideas. In addition,comments were unclear and anonymous so that committee members were unable to ask for clarification. It is hoped that persons submitting ideas and suggestions would provide specific ideas and ways that ideas can be acted upon. Committee members discussed ways that employees could be encouraged to provide ideas and suggestions that would benefit practices rather than a forum to aire complaints. Brainstorming ideas of incentives such as a roving something(trophy, Russian Eskimo, etc.)Providing more prestige and acknowledgement that person had provided a good idea, suggestion or did something that improved the work of the City. Another idea was to provide an award for good ideas such as a Mounds View sweatshirt, watch, mug, or something that would be given for a . good idea. Another suggestion was acknowledgement and publicity such as"Employee of the Month" or a writeup in the City Newsletter informing others of good ideas. It was finally decided after discussion that this would be a good isssue to solicite ideas and suggestions for the next month. Therefore members of the Ideas and Suggestions Committee are asking employees to submit ideas on how to encourage employees to submit ideas and suggestions that would improve the work of the City. Incentives like rewards, appreciation and acknowledgement? Other? What could the committee do to encourage employees to think of and suggest ideas that benefit the work of the City? Discussion of Policty of Bulletin Boards: Lynnette had distributed the policy on bulletin board advertising and information. The members reviewed the policy and thought that it was workable. After discussion it was agreed that the bulletin board in the City Hall foyer would have as priority employment information that is required by law. As a second priority would be City information and as a third priority information regarding Community activities. The Bulletin Board in the copy room would continue to be information pertinent to employees. The Jobs Bulletin book would continue to have job listings. Round Up Revenue: Saarion distributed information regarding a practice which offers people the opportunity to round up their bill when paying for utility bills. If a person had a$5.69 bill they could round up the check to $6.00 The extra money would go into a fund that was earmarked for • something specific. Roseville has this practice -the money goes in a fund for Community Gardens. Although the fund is not large, it is a way to support an ongoing activity. The Anoka Electric Company offers this program too and provides grant funding with its revenues to applications including utility assistance, community projects, etc. • Action List: This is what the Committee will do before the next meeting: 1. Mary will find out more information from Roseville on how there round up program is administered, how it works and the pros and cons of the program. 2. Lynnette will e-mail employees information regarding the bulletin boards. 3. Chuck will ask the Recognition and Awards Committee to discuss what their thoughts are on providing incentives for Ideas and Suggestions. Next Meeting: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 at 2:00 p.m. in Conf. A. • • Independent School District No. 621 T -) 1 0 Mounds View Public Schools 2959 North Hamline Avenue•St.Paul,Minnesota•55113•Phone(612)639-6001•Fax(612)639-6103 • Dr.Janet L Witthuhn,Superintendent INFORMATION MEMO ONLY To: Sandy Marlin, Terry Schwerm, Jerry Haffeman - SV Bob Benke, Mat Fulton, Maurie Anderson - NB • Duane McCarty, Chuck Whiting, Mary Saarion -.MV Dennis Probst, Brian Fitzinger, Cindy Walsh -AH • From: Dave Stimpson, Jan Witthuhn, Nick Temali Subject: Athletic Facility Needs Analysis Date: September 30, 1997 As you are aware, during the past six months our respective organizations have been working 410 together with a consultant to determine whether the athletic/recreation facilities located within the Mounds View School District boundaries are adequate to meet current and future community and sc ••I needs. As the study concludes we would like to invite you to a meeting on Tuesday, October 2 N :00- 7:00 p. a District-Service Cent', 2959 North Hemline Avenue, to hear the consu ant rep• e results. We will provide a light supper, so please RSVP to Donna Carlson, 639-6212, by Monday, October 13. Thanks for your interest and support of this important study. • • Serving the communities of Arden Hills•Mounds View a New Brighton•North Oaks•Roseville•Shoreview•Vadnais Heights Equal Opportunity for Education and Employment • Athletic Facility Needs Analysis Prepared for: Mounds View School District and the cities of: Arden Hills, Mounds View, New Brighton, and • Shoreview, Minnesota October, 1997 °A. I*1‘ By: Ingraham & Voss Inc. • Park and Recreation Planning • Land Use Planning • Landscape Architecture • City Planning • • °It\ 7373 West 147th Street, Suite 140 • Apple Valley,MN 55124 Ph. (612)431-4401 FAX 431-4602 Athletic Facility Needs Analysis Mounds View School District Arden Hills, Mounds View, New Brighton, and Shoreview Table of Contents Introduction and Study Description Summary of Major Findings and Major Recommendations 3 District and City Recommendations 4 Demographic Forecasts 5 • Athletic Facility Inventory 6 Athletic Facility Map 9 Needs Analysis 10 Level of Service Comparison and Standards 14 Athletic Participation and Sport Specific Needs 15 Major Findings 16 Study Area Recommendations 17 Study Participants 19 Tables and Figures Athletic Facility Inventory Table 1 Athletic Facility Map Figure 1 Facility Use Summary and Forecast Table 2 1 Introduction Athletic facilities (ball fields, gymnasiums, etc.) for public recreation are a fundamental service provided in a cooperative manner by local government and school districts. Concerns have been raised by many citizens within the Mounds View School District area (primarily Arden Kills, Mounds View, New Brighton, and Shoreview) that the supply and availability of certain athletic facilities is inadequate. City and School District staff wanted to determine the adequacy of the facilities and what actions are needed if inadequacies exist. This study follows the preparation of April, 1997 District 621 Facility Analysis by Wold Architects. That study examined school facilities including school athletic facilities, but the adequacy of athletic facilities was limited to meeting school physical education and school competitive sports needs. That study recommended a number of athletic facility improvements and additions. This study builds upon the Wold study by examining broader school needs (including intramural and community education) and community recreation needs and city facilities. This study is designed to answer the following question: Are athletic facilities located within the Mounds View School District adequate to meet current and future community and school needs? The study components are: 1. An inventory of existing public athletic facilities (city and school fields, gyms, pools etc.) within Mounds View School District boundaries (Cities of Arden Kills, Mounds View, New Brighton, and Shoreview and portions of North Oaks, Roseville and Vadnais Heights). See study area map - Figure 1. 2. An evaluation of the existing and future use of these facilities. 3. An analysis of the adequacy of athletic facilities to meet future needs. 4. Recommendations regarding facility management, expansion and additions to meet the forecast demand. 1110 i Major Findings and Recommendations Population growth will not be a significant factor within the District. Therefore, city and School District actions should be the focused on meeting existing facility deficiencies. While most athletic facilities within the District area are adequate to meet existing and future demand, the following additions and improvements are needed to correct existing shortfalls: • Additional Gym Space is Needed The most serious shortfall is a lack of sufficient gym space for adult and youth sports. A minimum of two indoor community recreation facilities are needed with a at least six full size gym courts. • A Sport Tournament Facility is Needed 110 The study area has no park capable of hosting a local, regional or state sports tournament. A sports complex park is needed with a capacity of eight to twelve fields for soccer, softball and youth baseball. • Seven Additional Soccer Fields are Needed Youth soccer is the fastest growing participation sport in the country and in the study area. More soccer fields are needed to allow full participation, to minimize conflicts arising from shared use fields and to prevent over-use of existing fields. At least seven additional youth soccer fields should be constructed within the District area. • Additional Youth Baseball and Fast Pitch Softball Fields are Needed. The study area has a shortage of medium size baseball and softball fields (200'-250' outfield dimensions). These fields would serve the needs of youth baseball players ages 10-16 and fast pitch softball players. Three to five additional fields are needed. • 3 District and City Facility Recommendations • Mounds View School District - • Pursue construction of District-City shared use gyms at middle or high schools. • Establish an athletic field maintenance and renovation schedule and budget. • Increase the number of irrigated fields at middle schools and high schools. • Evaluate the feasibility of building an competitive aquatics center or converting an existing pool to better serve competitive aquatics. • Evaluate the need for an additional medium sized slow pitch softball field. Arden Hills - • Pursue construction of District-City, City-private sector, and/or four city shared use gym facility. • Begin evaluation and planning for a four city shared-use tournament sports complex containing 8-12 fields (baseball, softball and soccer). evaluate use of a portion of the Arsenal site for the sports complex. • Add at least one additional full-sized soccer field and one small soccer field. Mounds View- • Pursue construction of District-City, City-private sector, and/or fourshared use city gym facility. • Begin evaluation and planning for a four city shared-use tournament sports complex containing 8- 12 fields (baseball, softball and soccer). • Evaluate the need for a medium size(200'-250')youth baseball or fast pitch softball field. New Brighton - • Pursue construction of District-City, City-private sector, and/or four city shared use gym facility. • Begin evaluation and planning for a four city shared-use tournament sports complex containing 8- 12 fields (baseball, softball and soccer). • Add one to two full size soccer fields and one small soccer field. • Develop a large (+290') baseball field. Shoreview - • Pursue construction of District-City, City-private sector and/or four city shared use gym facilities. • Begin evaluation and planning for a four city shared-use tournament sports complex containing 8- 12 fields (baseball, softball and soccer). Evaluate use of a portion of the University of Minnesota land for the sports complex. • Add 3-5 medium sized youth baseball/fast pitch softball fields. • Add 3-4 small soccer fields. 4111 • Evaluate the need to add an additional football field or create a joint use football/soccer field if football demand is sufficient. 4 Demographic Trends/Forecasts • The population within the District is forecast to increase from an estimate of 78,719 in 1996 to 85,825 in 2010. This represents a modest growth rate of approximately of(0.5%) one half percent (about 500 new residents) per year. School age population is forecast to remain stable for the next five years with minor increases and decreases among certain age segments. • The number of youth in grades K-5 will decline(-12%) between 1997-2002. • The number of youth in grades 6-8 will decline slightly(-4%) between 1997-2002. • The number of youth in grades 9-12 will increase(+8%)between 1997 and 2002. • The number of youth age 6-18 (prime youth sports participants) is forecast to remain stable between 1997 and 2002. • The number of adults ages 19 -40 (prime adult sports participants) is forecast to be stable between 1997 and 2002. • The number of adults ages 55 - 75 (active seniors)will increase between 1997 and 2002 and will continue to increase for the next 25 years. Metropolitan Council Population Estimate and Forecasts 1996 2000 2005 2010 Annual Rate Arden Hills 9,678 9,700 10,150 10,600 0.6% • Mounds View 12,789 12,500 12,400 12,300 New Brighton 22,584 23,500 23,750 24,000 0.4%(-0.2%) North Oaks(621) 3,300 3,400 3,450 3,500 0.4% Roseville (621) 3,000 3,100 3,300 3,500 1.1% Shoreview 26,118 28,500* 29,500* 30,500* 1.2% Vadnais Hgts. (621) 1.250 1.300 1.375 1.425 1.0% Total 78,719 82,000 83,925 85,825 0.6% *City of Shoreview is 95%developed and City staff feel the Met Council forecast is too high. but they have not yet prepared their own population forecast. Given the modest growth forecast and the highly developed nature of the district (Iess than 5% vacant developable Iand remains) the overall demand on athletic facilities will not be significantly effected by the modest increase in population. Most of the population growth is forecast to occur in Shoreview. The biggest population growth segments will be active seniors, who will increase demand for facilities such as indoor and outdoor walking areas and day-time gym space. The athletic facility needs should focus on meeting the current shortfall in facilities for youth and adults and on the expanding senior citizen needs. • 5 CO V) I I-- 1 0 �) co ao i ao I N N e-I • '-I W I , I 1 1 C CaO C �' 0 ' i 1 to • E E O Lo ,o ini "t I at 3Q. NN N NI I I , , 1-- e-I _ , ! 1 1 1 I I ail 12i ! 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 �1�I iN Ei� I I ; NMI E1aI "1 cmiE NINIEiE E, E, 1 I poi y I— O Ito 1 tol N! m' m O j 1 I L 0 V Ncn �1 N NI yl Nj'-ININ N NIN y ' CD N; 1T-I�i 1 I�! , � ° 1 iI 1 llil c O I I I - E E lo, 0U al I i 1 1 f o 1 X1111 ° m I 1 o °1 1 I I �r • Imo' cC NI 1 WII i i 1 l I i I 1 I I , 1 .L1 Mil _ I I1II , : O IIS r 1�1e-; '1CA1 I 0 E, I 1�1 1 I 1 I 11 I I I lei li j I l i , ' I I ! I 11 1 1 1 1 . .i I OI 1 1 1 1 I i I l I 1 i I �I cs MI u,' iNi 1 1 1 1 I I l I j l I �! obi Iad' i « I Zi EEl co I ;I 1 1C� L.I •5 ill I II ; i U O m �Itl i I Iii 1 . OI 0 co ! 1 Irl 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I III I I I I (I) v m II I I al I iri 0 1 ,- 1 . 1 I I I `I.. 1e, m >I w I I ' 1 ! i I ; 1 1 I I IIMMI -I oI 1 I 1 I 1 i I I I 11 I 1 •— • «I - o I I I I I I 0m « �I ! I I I ! 1 I ( I I I COi °I E ,1 'ICOjNI1-ININiNlC1 CNIV;NININI 1e-I1-' ems' i l* 1 e-,tp I I 1 i 1 I I 1 V °I I 1 I I I I I 1 , ' i III I I , 1 � ' ad E ml 1 j 11 j I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I � O 1 O N I I I 1 I I I I i I 1 01 NI �_ 1 I j 1,-1 I <I �I MN ( 1 I QI ! i I I 1 , 1 a�ii dol I 1 I. !. I I I i I I I OI O NI 1 1 11-",'-"! , I N I IMI I 1�1 calk'.. 11 I I , ; I 1 • I I I l l j i I 1 1 I 1;QI 1 i 1 CU I Iii i l I ! I i I I caiF 1 ^' ( 1 I '" OI (01 I , ' l ! C' V1 8r 1 1 1 I I y: 1 OI ..1 I I Ia-1 IZ.i „= � mi. mi =1 Qi 1 1 1 1 Im; t;_, c. c; o, I j UI Zia.. ImlIasi- c:cl mlml —, of I I 10 c. m of ;• I Im C`j j ICI.vl:vi - a-Eii 1=,EiEIE1E: CD;'of Iaii I j 1 -a: Y1 Co ml�l•-1 �IwIL, 3�mI ml ail a�IWI cni:1 QI ..,I L. 1 I L. L_1 of EiMI�, �I mi ml m:Wrwiwlwl mi=IL HI of cn 1 1Mt oi lai I r;wl CCJI-oi OI 3i cai '5�m��lYl.a;Y, ml(J1I ' car an an 1 i 1=i m, G1 c-j ml OI 01-1,ml y a31 C1 CII, aiJ1_1 _'2; C' c; a31.—i ' .',�1 cQ1� J1 JI ,, Ci 1- (1-, 17;c; I==tC.; i arc•! ml =' =. c. clmlml_lc. I0I �1mImIEIm13 Ni �.; ^.,�' mlt;�l C1 °,Y, c' c41 c _ �I pl �, ml ml - o'er - - c: csi c!of :a' .. . .. 6 cnca.)I l I , IIOIN N kA IN N N r n, � vl I • C:1) Eo E c of c 0.3 EL CO �� I II ii II I1 0 0 0 II . � IIII - I i i o I ri r OI U � I 0 1 0 1111 I II jI =0 0 r v-,- H I rjN r. r r 0 OI --• , I I I i I R I I I I 1 1I i i I I l i I l I I I I I I I I p 715 i 01 I Ir I I IT' IPI I o I 1 • Il i !I i I I I I 1 i731S 1 IiI CI :ail E NI r 1r1rc, * a • � l�Uv 0 m ":+7 1 I r r N lr ) 2'c i f I rr '" N )J m I v II 1 I ' I I , I •C I I . I 2 Tssa I I I i aCl O I I I I OI ' CI as (D1 IIII i I � I I I , I I 1 I —! of ^ 1 I i iI I I I I III I I 1 .1=1 (77 NI I I I II II I 1 I I I� I w1E . r ! I it 1, 0 eIWi i I iNir' AI vi iCpl� l '7I I I j I rI l ' U. I I I i I I I I I aC' I I I I I l i I • ' 1 E • I1; = N I 1 H 01 ' 1 IOI Ir'rI r r � C. ca I , . 1 ! I I 1:11 1 CD I�or # I I I Hioi II II I I I I Ical r Ir• 1,-1 ml N) I1 . 141 , l I I II II .i 1-2i I--i; I 1� iai i IiOi O —; O I I C1 _ ~1 I d;• � i~ a I I F-•I I p"oi 1 13' of IL. I cI ZI HI p;O1 I �! lo; a�1 o1 �1 Y1 • I =INI I I I>' 1(N mi I CO I LI mIU C.Q U r• NI 'NI, cm >l mi of I WI': I c; .. U; . >• c: Imo, Im1 I Q]I `'IcC IC,IQ .I mi I I 1 ! c' , 01 IUI I of ml .....-1-....,-, 04z, L..i• I I I O. i—i i `�� 0I `' 31 an>1 -civtui I 13I�' it; ; z; IY. gal m �1 wi1 m; � NI=I c: I cull ISI m. ..713 m; !pit �I C'1 01 zi c;�i ' 1'i; o = !pit I .r; tAl I eIIl. �I�1CIII�I�i3, ala�iioo >' o, , c1 3,tnla, c: c; 0131c: 31�1c1 >1 >1aiin! 1mi I CD =i =1 cI ; oI s . . m1 > ' 3. i o1 { m, I E: I ml .I...I �Io'=ICaIalICI" I Iyi ' cri2ias;71!a: 9 c1mi �Iml I.DI �i 7 NI • 1 I Iljp' ►pl i I I C N e-,Mi 7IN!NIN NI HH � ica OIco O O N O'IO --,col� � I ...trio �" TI,' S I I I T• I T (n 1 -7 I I I I I I UI I 11 a E c I I m1 ! le-,Or, I m a O Q'1 T W , ' , I a. I I 1 I I r IN' i I ' -: _. 1 IT' I I i• E11 IIiIjllj I II I i I C, o 'C I I I I I I r-i ' I cal i ILUI l I ! I EI 1 � ' � I � 1 � I � 10, U I I I >; I I l I i 1�I LII I jI •c �I I l I O! 1 E 00 10 0)1 of 0l..l i o; - E • E T' N r•-•• ao I l co i p I.; O >, TI U0l I I i ca , A-1 �, �I I � � I III I I I 1 1 1 ► 1 ly, , l . 71 , O i I I �1 c7.4 I , I I I I : � O =I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I 1 ctl I i i I I I l I I I I I jp. Ip, 'cm, . 0 �' I �Oj I i 1 I 'C! epi I � , IOI 10. l0 0' I X I j ' 0 IL i O` p; O 1 i I ► 1 I I I . I I Imo' Imo' IN: i I I p' I j I i c' (AI — 0► I I i I I I I , I I 1 I I IL. '0: ca `I I� I i• i I i I �_ 1 I I 01 I Li Zi j I I TI I II. I 1 I !TI Mrr4i I ' , 1N ! , 01 m mi v' al I I I I I • Iv 1 I i �I �{ .51410 U `-I I I i I . i I y` O Ui I I . OI m I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I ► O' 101 •al OI m a U)I L70 # !; I* al OI 7_101 ml— ► C I IT, ' �"�� 01.1 =1M l J (O I I TI'"l TI IT coOI�'�I O;cOI�} �I LI ca C C:2,1 l 1 I I j I j ! I I re-re- 'I 1 cD; ml-I Oj 1 i� ITI 0'15170.i=1 1 w ca I I I i I I 1331 i I I I i l I o f E' fl,! m(—" I n. �I 1 I I I I; I I I I , I I I I �I� Ul C: I O I j l ; I 0•04 O 01 in O I I I i I I I I iNINi 'a I I ' ' I ' I ' ! , I I'N, II Iti II I • liw1 I I I I . ' ! ! I I I I l l : ► . I. ,n �.lcil 1 I ,li NI.:..; EI coi _ of I 1 1 I i l 1 I l i j I j I 1 1 I I .n! ca N I I I I I I l I I i I I I I I I I O. la: i I �i E I 1 ell,f `�' I • I i it I IMI IN IO o . I I 0 I 1 jNl INI wl 1 I O'O I�•�I�' �' l i1 ► i I I I ' II i� ���. 1N1�'Ni . 101 751 1 1 f 1 1 j I j• i I I I IT, iTl �' I C) 0_, I I I i i I I I m. .. Eco I I I 1 I ; i '�, i I 11 1 m al or 0 NI I i I I i I l 1 I �p, I O' �I 1 h IO OI -5 ' I I IT'T I I I I i 1Oi Ole'I (cloary OIT `')i L'l OI odi M NI I 1 I I i I I I I T tal T1N NI r`il I �` Im �i CN I I I I I I I I l I l I V I• I I TI .0 all (AI aoii *7'; I l l i • l i . I j 1 1 1 1 a of mI m' moi... cal Ca N I 1Ni NI 1 I IN;N;NiN I IOI NI cDlcUia01 o•rl�l ii:„81.-v)113 J I , Nlr- U m►� I I I I i ; , I. I ' (A�01 a7, 1 I • I l I I�I I -p, ml N• ' It- lol I 1c,• I`I IQIyi IUI 1 i—I I rm-;= mIfi— I ml I I I-�' 1 1 m1 I l Q H; L7.1 m; I EI ;cal c Cr Ia I- I 01 mil a. a. ;.njal �' 0' 1ml jo 1 !VI 3• F.I ' to c .-., 0: a-,.......1 olmlo lc. ; a.; : 1 • S wit O O O1.°' 1>I IO: •I ; ' yl. i i I m1 QIZI la=16.1 t EI _ ..�i.,.l O --.�IaIOt = �I 1 ml OI i I C' C (•>' WIy U1 O.. •, cal , , j V i OI CAI INI 101 -.1 i ml I 7; 7Iv' U' 71 ¢i OI a 1 Q I Ol EE. I L, 1 03, 7I ,-: 031431 L .:2!'a'I v CID c0" I 10' Q. I 7, i N' m Iz' IIc: I 1EiE I It; I I Eck, Ei 1a)1 I a'.–;+I El I >I01 1..-", ml , i IOiOI 1 lyl } mi E1 , 0 (Lal ICD' E' >„ `'�I o'Y' I I I W' ' ;0JIV I , ISI 1 1 E; U' 71 G: EI all I i,`.of TI OI MI 0i01-.11 2' I I3: a)I "Si� 31 �i 1 11-1 1• >i >; >, L, all [L 'CSI N; a)! c.01 ml ml ! It-i I c; 71Q cj cQi I I m: E; mf coI I'4, CI I of (a, I I'>:I--i o, o; , I j I Irl I I Eicnl of E;E', O1 1 2;0i �1 E, E1. 01 (n UI an >N 7!—, L. >,•>' c I , L. L 1 c' V wl 01 �I'(ni�t I L,�;�' =:E101 �1 mi o, i IQIQj ani ¢, ,mi i c:II; n cai� 1QI3ic1colCI 01oi 101mloIoINIWI 1 I IaIn.I2I a,d I I4AI7,.••i 1ILI r V. 0. J W 0.0. a 3-Irma Z. rm mm a ^ m 53. cNM. Ml el c • m aNWWNmr, o N Nd N . Ew ^ U� ; cEE Wr c $rFcwr � = ° u 2 frt2 m caWwWW = am 3d' _I ° ° v (it� die a > S qu3 ° 8Ya m m m a a . N a •7Nax c ° =U W ° . J0amo , c =2OS 7 = cv, - Sgco5, ° - 2macmNt a a J - aA. doa E . 3 ; m " 2 ` a m a a ° mo -8 y m a c r E O m • •.. •i.# �"� .... o Qa a. = > YE . a' ` jdc € N U 1'19' 2 O !a 0 0 c c 7 -. at p d 63O iO r- 2 J . > ^ H. NmUW = w = ` a0. NOr > < < Uti. a2am > 26- (9 (.21 _, .00 26asT _ _ 2n > rN4 NDAmOrrN. r rN !?0fNDt. 67O K a Q Q Q K Q Q.Kr N YT ON Q !` m r N N:O N b Q co ..- 2 Z Z.Z Z Z Z Z 2 2 2 I-c -. D O O O °+ V. S n ), 6,1 .. _,let. ......a,•,mr• �,)4'r-, O',, c -O c H 3Hu. °5 a . -�i_ - 'e. I4"�- , 1E?+ 6�'< ' . ' C S ° q ° *N c °a 5 0i U E -t m m N \ •p Z i3 Y'� 'kV.' ▪ 4 , O O O O 7 . co co L O 7 O N O = _ 2 a',.. o 2,°:`-_'';".----4."''. ,..! -r- II 9 Q r•• N ( ? N of c !n m n m '�!!s' 1 H ' -..�`Zs ice:•:. jr di.I Z Z M1= = = N N f/1 ft) N N Tq N (r i -."4".'"- -"ti•;--f-7,,3•a. , I 1 ...\...• li .2. 4,...:-.....je ‘r g Ate:*y.Y '17 ►�"��t`A�`.y L it ar rt 'rte...: a.c.r� �.,•,i,_ ---ttt��� "',\ ■ .6,--.. a • .11:42k4k . ; }TF--:,_... "sus\TO . ..•r. 4,„..„*.'+'�' 1 ::.'-.V .,.} etc.- ,?- - .�1�, '•:A ���app F A.'. Needs Analysis411 Athletic Association and Recreation Activities Use and Forecasts In May, 1997 the athletic associations and city recreation staff serving Arden Bills, Mounds View, New Brighton, and Shoreview were asked to provide data about their current facility use, participation and forecast growth, future facility needs and general comments regarding facility adequacy and facility recommendations. That information is summarized in Table 2 and in the following text. The Athletic Associations rely largely on school district facilities for gym space and use a mix of school and city fields for outdoor sports. All the associations that use school gym space expressed a strong need for additional gym space as school sponsored use and competition among the associations was limiting their gym time and preventing young people from participating in certain sports. The association information and comments highlighted the need for additional gym space, soccer fields, additional lighted ball fields, tournament facilities and a competitive aquatics facility. The city park and recreation departments offer public recreation programs for all age groups. Due to the intensive use of School District facilities by school groups, most public recreation programs are held at city athletic facilities. All city recreation staff expressed a concern over lack of facilities and said public demand exceeds their ability to provide programs due to a lack • of athletic facilities. Specifically, the city recreation departments felt a need for additional gymnasium space for adult and youth basketball, volleyball, gymnastics and fitness classes. They also expressed a need for additional soccer fields, fast pitch softball fields, and additional pool time. 10 • y R N R C.D O t. m C% TS o0 0o C °,?3 p CSA ON (1) L — — I 4. - ci) ca ami O aa)) — R 1. G. 2 2 C .E w a a a e. a) a) a) .6411. . I.,.•R . CI am = a) a) m N vel N C 'c 'R N R U U C. CO 2 Gs N. �. _ "^A C^0 T "Q � 5, _ _ U y U ar CO Cq R R R 4=. — 4.. 4.. a) 0 0 R = .o R. R 0— - ti 'UC •V R a)• RIii to.� N N U _ C y R • I • 0_taC -t _ V L- t/1 vI c. Vl Vl H S C\ C., C C1 21 — O O h O . CO C.J. O O cn O O V1 O VI C '--"' O OO G1 v-1 N iQ' O t-- tel 00 v1 - N O• 1 O tel i cVtj Lk cC)y O O f+1 V1 N 00 O O O O Lel V1 O O O O v1 00 N 'CLA 0, 00 'Cr (01 ' Q' oo N -- N '0 Cr L ••••, a) 'v IC C< C. N N -5 L R N — r R a) -+ , to , — •.0 00 . M 00 00 CQ Q tel � 1 00 I 00 -r �. — — E a ^ 0 S a) `-1 rn c�1 y oo en v1 v1 �' C C L ;= as Lca R Lr OO R OVI 4cC `. p• m - . '- -C ° a _ o o cL o 3 a)• C R R y Ca R RUU R L.. .7•) R p 12 •Q N• — = w -C R y RNvL �W / •C aV1 U y m y R y Lr Q., U �' T1 yay :41RQC t.e L 'C 9 Y -0 - G 'Q Cy . moZ' >, 0 • - re. - 0 0 . aO Q . c OI � c..) : _1 � c.7 -- 2 cz.. v z c: C.J :Z. .t: 2 11 a) • ea a) y er L 'Z.: ea ca. R t00 N _C. a • CaC 4- C R a) 3 0 Uy- C" 'C CA a •z. = RCl) i.. .0 C . OC a) 15 OaC COI n2 U O U C. aC -s wy y N a) . a) RC C. aCAC . N y RO C -a °-oc R Cl) R a) Fs... C co• Q R y .".Q a) 'C a) C. 'a) cn a) c Z7 10 R •= a0i d R d 'Q U Q) iU. 0 = a) p CO t 0 y CA CC in a) - a) C. CO CJ L^ A ,�, -3 U >, w CO C„ _ a) U .0 >, CO 1= y •= al z L -8 'LJ O tG C C. ^ Cil C. C R y R . a) CA :p COui C '_ us p , a) RU O n N N O G 0 y COa)cnN :71.4 O O Uy 0 a) C CO U 4» z 'CCO O C. O. >y R R 1) Cl) E c,-, a' es O C. a. O 1.Q'�1 'Ga)a) UUaO +d cw y c .C a) a) a) ` y to y410-0 0 CO O C co N a) = i C R =U R 0 a.--= ,c 5 -Q U U U . y _~ CA y C 03 a) v �I = I...• 0. - A VI V2 ..7 C/I CI ., ON OO ^. C\ G1 CI N.., .54 Pilo C1 C . t) h O C C h M O C O O ELI CL ON �O — v'i GC' N h N ON O C en N V0 N O L a.. y a. ea 00 .0 N C� �p oo 00 00 I + CO U as y C 00 y 00 00 y C\ + = N C 0 0 = ... 00 ^ CO (� CO _, CO C Jt.-1) COL Gm v OL, .0 2 C y O a) OCOI .y 3 C •S 3 O' 3 0 o` COi 3 '. R CO R a) , CO >UU f- CO 3 U Q c..)) .B 2 LL. > Lam. y �.. ti a) > `h"a • .CI y rn ` N y y •v N y ca R .' U CI) y CO U. i o u � ° Z � i 5 tad o '�' vC4 3 ` ;r is < ,i U 2 z U ` .sR.o 2 f o� ° •-• 'r 12 • Athletic Association and Recreation Activities Comments Gym space limits enrollment and participation. (basketball, exercise classes, gymnastics, open • gym time and volleyball). Swimming pool space time limits participation. Need competitive pool facility to meet community needs. More pool time is needed for public aquatic use -exercise classes and open swim time. Indoor practice space is needed during off-season. (softball and soccer) Field conditions are deteriorating due to overuse. Field shortage requires scheduling for constant practices and games. (soccer) Downtime is needed during the growing season for field renovation. Desire for sport specific and size/age specific fields. (baseball, softball, soccer) Lack of smaller(U8 & U10) soccer fields limits participation Additional full-sued soccer fields are needed for older youth and adult use. • Tennis courts need resurfacing. Need to keep skateboards, skaters and bikes off the courts. Add court lighting. Additional lighting of fields is needed (all outdoor sports) Need for additional practice fields. (baseball and softball) Groups of 3--1 fields are needed for tournament. (soccer). Need for "real" bathrooms and drinking water at fields Add concessions for association fundraising use. 13 Comparison to National and Local Recreation Standards10 The 1987 National Recreation and Park Association Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines provide guidelines for minimum numbers of athletic facilities to serve a given population or geographic area. Also, local recreation standards are used where there are no national standards. The local standards are based on a 1996 study of seven Twin City area suburbs. The numbers listed below are the minimum recommended number of fields for the study area (District) existing population of 80,000 people and for the 32 square mile residential portion of the study area. These are rough guidelines and do not reflect specific local needs, but they are instructive to obtain a snapshot view of facility supply. As such, the comparisons of study area supply to NRPA minimum standards and the metro area averages is presented below. The standards do not reflect recent use trends, such as increased soccer participation, or local needs, such as increased indoor facility needs during Minnesota winters. Minimum NRPA Minimum Study Area Recommended Recommended Supply per Population per Service Area Shortages Baseball/Softball Fields Small (under 200') 53 32-39 56 Medium (200-285') 10 16-24 28 (6-10 fields) • Large (290'+) 21 16-18 28 Fast Pitch Softball 4 no standard no standard Football Fields 6 4 - 8 no standard Indoor Community Gym Courts 2 8 no standard (6 courts) Soccer Fields Small (under 300') 14 20 no standard (6 fields) Large (300'+) 13 8 - 11 14 Swimming Pools 5 4 no standard Tennis Courts 68 40 - 50 56 IIII 14 • Athletic Participation and Specific Sport Needs Increased participation in girls athletics. Girls athletics has grown by leaps and bounds in the 1990's. The result has been a more equitable availability of extracurricular and community choices,but the supply of facilities has not been increased to meet this new demand. Increased participation in basketball and volleyball. The popularity of basketball, and to a lesser extent volleyball, is at an all time high,nationally and locally. The number of youth and adult basketball players continues to rise. The New Brighton and Shoreview Community Center gyms are packed for pick-up basketball and volleyball. No gym time is available for scheduled league play in these facilities. Increased participation in gymnastics. More and more children are participating in gymnastics and are starting at younger ages. Due to this increased demand and the need for specialized equipment and facility set up gym space and time for gymnastics is very limited and does not meet current demand. Unmet adult basketball and volleyball demand. Due to the lack of adult size facilities,the number of adults than are able to participate in indoor league sports within the study area is much less that the average participation rate in similar size communities. This lack of participation is due to the lack of adequate facilities. Increases in soccer participation. Soccer participation continues to increase and the lack of fields is causing over-use and damage to popular facilities. Soccer participation is limited by the field supply and almost all opportunities for multiple use fields (i.e. use of a softball outfield for a youth soccer practice area) are in place. Youth soccer participation grew 75%in the last 10 years and is forecast to continue to grow at 5-10%per year. Increased school use of school facilities. After-school use of School District gymnasiums continues to increase and limits youth and adult participation in indoor sports. There are only six full size gym facilities (11 courts)within the School District. These courts are in constant use during weekdays and on many weekends for athletic and non-athletic uses (concerts, meetings events etc.). Increased demand for practice time. Many sports participants are playing,training and practicing year-round for a sport that is seasonal. The demand for indoor practice space by school and non-school groups limits gym availability. Lack of a competitive swimming and diving facility. While the number of pools is generally adequate for community demand,the study area lacks an aquatic facility to accommodate competitive swimming. Swimming participation is stable and is limited by available pool time. Due to the high cost of a new or remodeled aquatics facility a study is recommended to determine the feasibility of a regional or multi- community facility. Increased demand for sport specific facilities. Participation in many sports is becoming more sophisticated and requires specific facilities such as; various size fields for youth soccer and youth • baseball, equipment storage areas for gymnastics, volleyball, floor hockey, etc., practice fields and equipment such as bating cages, pitching machines etc. 15 Major Findings 1111 Based on analysis of athletic facility use, current supply of facilities, athletic association participation forecasts, local and national facility guidelines and demographic and sports trends, the following are major findings of the study. Athletic facilities within the District area are generally adequate to meet existing and future demand, with the following notable exceptions: Additional Gym Space is Needed There is a lack of indoor gym space for youth and adult community use. The demand for gym space greatly exceeds current supply. School use dominates the existing school gyms and school demand is increasing as more girls participate in sports and multi-sport participation increases. Gyms at the two community centers (New Brighton and Shoreview) are at capacity for pick up games and are not available for organized youth or adult use. Demand for gym space will continue to grow, increasing the gap between supply and demand. The greatest deficiencies occur at the community and youth sports level. Adequate gym space is not available for organized adult recreation use (primarily volleyball and basketball leagues) or for youth sports (basketball, volleyball and gymnastics, practice and games). Based on a desire to have a minimum of one full size gym court per 10,000 people there should be at least six additional full-size gym courts constructed in the study area for community use. These could be built in conjunction with school facilities, if the gyms are guaranteed to be available for community use during non-school hours (similar to the City of Shoreview's use of one of the Turtle Lake School gyms). A Sport Tournament Facility is Needed There is no facility capable of hosting sports tournaments (primarily soccer, softball, baseball). Tournaments play an important part in our sports culture and require a number of fields at one location. Currently, no park in the study area has more than three fields. A minimum five fields is needed for a local tournament and it is desirable to have eight to twelve fields for regional , state and national tournaments. Tournament or"Sports Complex" parks need a minimum of 40 acres of and it is desirable to have 60 - 80 acres. The only opportunities to acquire and build a facility of that size are at the Twin City Arsenal site in Arden Dills and the University of Minnesota property in Shoreview. Plans for a major recreation facility(perhaps incorporating the community gyms) should be made for one or both of these locations. 16 • Additional Soccer Fields are Needed • There is a shortage of soccer fields. Soccer is the fastest growing sport in America and within the study area. The current supply of adult full size fields barely meets the existing need and over-use is causing turf maintenance problems. Youth fields are in short supply. Based on Iocal youth association use, comparisons to other Twin City area suburbs, and growth in participation a minimum of seven additional youth soccer fields should be constructed. Specific field sizes should be determined by association and community input, but it appears that two Under-8, three Under-10 and two Under- 12 fields are needed. Additional Medium Size Softball and Baseball Fields are Needed. Based on national standards and comparisons to other local communities, the study area has a shortage of medium size baseball and softball fields (200'-250' outfield dimensions). Interest in fast pitch softball and youth baseball is increasing. Three to . five additional medium sized fields are needed. Study Area Recommendations so Based on the analysis of existing facilities and the forecast for future needs the following actions are recommended: 1. Construct additional gymnasiums for community and youth sports use. A minimum of two additional community recreation facilities are recommended, containing at least three full- size gym courts each. Since the peak demand for gym time occurs from September through May, location at a sports complex (see #3 below), or at an existing large park will allow for joint use of parking and a lower development cost. 2. Evaluate the potential to construct shared-use gym additions at high schools and/or middle schools. Shared use and funding between school and cities to be modeled after use of Turtle Lake gyms, with the schools being responsible for scheduling Monday through Friday during daytime hours and cities are responsible for evenings and weekends. Also, evaluate the possibility of shared gym construction and use with the private sector and/or churches. 3. Acquire land for a sports complex consisting of multiple soccer and softball fields for tournament use. Due to the large land area required (±50 acres) the Arsenal property in Arden Hills or the University of Minnesota property in Shoreview are the prime locations for this type of facility(see Figure 1 for possible locations). The sports complex should serve all of the cities and should be jointly developed and financed by all the communities in • the study area. 17 4. Build seven additional youth soccer fields (two under-8 fields (90'x150'), three under-10 fields (150'x240'), and two under-12 fields (180'x300'). Specific field sizes should be • developed with athletic and community recreation input. These fields should be located primarily in Shoreview with some in Arden Hills and New Brighton. Some of these fields may be located at a sports complex (see recommendation #3 above). 5. Evaluate adding lighting to some soccer, baseball and softball fields for extended playing hours. 6. Construct 3-5 new baseball or softball fields with 60' and 75' base paths and 200'-250' outfields for older youth baseball and fast pitch softball use. The schools and Shoreview have the biggest needs for these type of fields. 7. Additional fields will allow for the scheduling of some"down time"during the growing season. Field maintenance, repairs and renovation can occur during these non-use periods and will allow over all field quality to improve. 8. Where non-existent, establish a tennis court maintenance schedule similar to a pavement management program. Add lighting to extend available play time at popular tennis courts. 9. Prepare a long term maintenance schedule and budget for school outdoor athletic facilities (baseball, football, soccer and tennis). Increase the extent of irrigation on school athletic fields. School District Athletic Facility Need Recommendations (summarized from the April, 1997 Wold Architects Study) Chippewa Middle School Add one large gym. Modify pool for diving. Add an outdoor hockey rink. Edgewood Middle School Add two station gym, storage area and locker rooms. Expand pool locker room. Remodel pool to add sixth lane and to allow for diving. Highview Middle School Add one large gym. Modify pool to meet diving needs. Purchase additional land to expand athletic facilities. Irondale High School Add two station gymnasium, storage and locker rooms.. Add practice fields for soccer and baseball and an indoor hockey rink. Site area limits expansion. Add all-weather track, tenths court lights and irrigation. Mounds View High School Add two gym stations and storage areas. Expand gymnastics area. Add new wrestling area. Renovate fields. Add irrigation. • Size of site limits use by athletic programs. 18 • Study Participants District 621 Community Education Nick Tema li and Jill Stevens City of Arden Hills Cindy Walsh City of Mounds View Mary Saarion City of New Brighton Maurie Anderson and Pat Tuma City of Shoreview Gerry Haffeman and Tom Marshall Ingraham & Voss Inc. Greg Ingraham North Oaks Homeowners Assn. Michelle Kline Metropolitan Council Michael Munson The Lawrence Group Larry Charboneau 41110 Roseville Parks and Recreation Bob Biersheid New Brighton Soccer Club Glen Begin Irondale Basketball Assoc. Joe Nfirocha Mounds View Basketball Assn. Bob Teigen Mounds View Volley Ball Club Ginny Jarombek Mounds View Swim Club Jack Boder Irondale Girls Fast Pitch Assn. Rollie Schwanz Mounds View Softball Assn. Dave Brentz North East Tennis Assn. of Shoreview Lynn Erickson Irondale Baseball League Rich Haworth North Suburban Soccer Assn. Charlotte Janita • 19