The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packets - 2008/07/07 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL Monday, July 7, 2008 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Flaherty, Hull, Mueller PUBLIC COMMENT Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to three minutes. Agenda Items Discussed by Consensus ________ 1. Discussion on Banquet Center Operations – Event Center Coordinator ________ 2. Street and Utilities Committee – Discussion of Recommendations ________ 3. Trail Lighting on County Rd 10 ________ 4. Discussion on Potential Code Amendments for Senior Housing Developments ________ 5. Review Potential Purchase of a Grinder for the Groveland Road Lift Station ________ 6. Special Outdoor Event Policy – Ordinance 808 ________ 7. Franchise Fees (Chamber President and Chamber Board Chair will be present) Next Work Session: Monday, August 4, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. Next City Council Meeting: Monday, July 14, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. Item No. 2 Meeting Date: July 7, 2008 Type of Business: WS City Administrator Review _______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Joe Rhein, Consulting Engineer Item Title/Subject: Streets and Utilities Committee: Recommendations on Various Design Issues for 2009-2010- Street and Utility Improvement Project Background: On February 11, 2008 the City Council approved Resolution 7223 creating the Streets and Utilities Committee. On March 24, 2008 the City Council approved Resolution 7245 appointing the members to the Streets and Utilities Committee. The Streets and Utilities Committee held their first meeting on April 21, 2008, and has also met on May 19, 2008, June 16, 2008, and June 30, 2008. The Streets and Utilities Committee also held a Public Meeting on June 14, 2008 to review several specific design issues on the 2009 – 2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project and to get feedback from the public. Discussion: Through the course of the meetings held thus far, the Streets and Utilities Committee has reached a decision on several issues regarding the 2009 – 2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project, and has passed votes on recommendations for those issues. A summary of the recommendations coming forward to the City Council from the Streets and Utilities Committee are as stated below. The recommendations are not listed in any particular order of priority. 1. Jackson Drive Non-Standard Street Width Jackson Drive, between Laport Drive and Sherwood Road, is presently 21 feet wide. The adopted standard residential street width of 28 feet, from face of curb to face of curb, may be excessive in this location given its short length, minimal traffic, and since only one side of the street is developed (two homes) and no further development will occur. Given these facts, the Committee recommends (by a unanimous 7-0 vote) that Jackson Drive be constructed to a width of 24- feet from face of curb to face of curb. The 24-foot width allows for proper emergency vehicle access. Streets and utilities Committee Recommendations July 7, 2008 Page 2 2. Fairchild Avenue Non-Standard Street Width Fairchild Avenue, between Sherwood Road and Hillview Road, is presently 22 feet wide. The adopted standard width of 28 feet, from face of curb to face of curb, may be excessive in this location as well given the fact that the right-of-way for this segment of Fairchild Avenue varies in width from 33 feet to 48 feet. The typical right-of-way width for residential streets in this neighborhood is 60 to 66 feet. A feedback form was presented to the residents at the June 14, 2008 Neighborhood Meeting. Of the 18 residents who responded, 17 wanted Fairchild Avenue to be constructed no wider than 24 feet (see attached Feedback Form Summary Table). The 24-foot width would preserve the character of Fairchild Avenue and minimize tree disturbance. The 24-foot width also allows for adequate emergency vehicle access. At the June 14, 2008 Neighborhood Meeting, a community member informed the Committee that the street was originally made more narrow than is typical through a legal petition process decades ago. Though the street length is longer than Jackson Drive, most homeowners have very long driveways, so on- street parking is not a common occurrence, making a narrower than standard street acceptable. For these reasons, the Committee recommends (by a unanimous 6-0 vote) that Fairchild Avenue be constructed to a width of 24-feet from face of curb to face of curb. 3. Red Oak Drive Non-Standard Street Width Red Oak Drive, from Hillview Road to Long Lake Road, is presently 30 feet wide, consisting of two 11-foot wide driving lanes and 4-foot wide paved shoulders. Parking is currently allowed on both sides of the road; however, it is rarely utilized. This segment of Red Oak Drive is designated as a Municipal State Aid road, and therefore, must be reconstructed to meet MnDOT State Aid standards in order to received State Aid funding. State Aid standards require minimum 11- foot wide driving lanes and 8-foot wide parking lanes where parking is allowed. A feedback form was presented to the residents at the June 14, 2008 Neighborhood Meeting requesting feedback related to parking accommodations. A slight majority favor no parking on either side of Red Oak Drive (see attached Feedback Form Summary Table). Although cars are rarely parked on Red Oak Drive, there are occasions when it would be useful to have on-street parking (i.e. garage sales, holiday gatherings, etc.). City Administrator Ericson noted that if the streets were to be constructed without parking lanes, special permits would not likely be issued for neighborhood special occasions/needs. Streets and utilities Committee Recommendations July 7, 2008 Page 3 For these reasons, the Committee recommends (by a unanimous 6-0 vote) that Red Oak Drive be constructed to a width of 32-feet from face of curb to face of curb. The 32-foot width would consist of two 11-foot driving lanes, an 8-foot wide parking lane on one side of the road, and a 2-foot wide reaction area between the face of curb and driving lane (also a State Aid requirement) on the other side of the road. This would allow parking on one side of the street only, with parking prohibited on the other. This width also closely matches the existing street width, resulting in minimal tree disturbance. The recommended side of the street on which to allow parking has yet to be determined. Because speeding has been an issue on this road, the Committee further recommends that “chokers” be used, as appropriate, at key locations on the street to reduce the width in an effort to produce traffic calming and reduce speeds. (Refer to the graphics on the next page for examples of a choker). The Committee discussed that the narrowing of County Road H2 has not resulted in any noticeable traffic calming, so they felt that narrowing Red Oak to 26 feet (the narrowest width allowed by State Aid) would not be wise and might actually be less safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. The Committee has requested that a preliminary design be performed per the characteristics stated above, for further review and comment. A draft design will be presented at the July 21 Streets and Utilities Committee meeting. 4. Red Oak Drive Pedestrian Corridor Red Oak Drive has been designated as a potential pedestrian/bicycle corridor in the City’s Comprehensive Sidewalk/Trailway Plan. A feedback form was presented to the residents at the June 14, 2008 Neighborhood Meeting requesting feedback related to pedestrian accommodations. Approximately 62% of the residents were in favor of some form of on-street pedestrian corridor (see attached Feedback Form Summary Table). Presently, the 4-foot wide shoulders are used for parking and also by pedestrians and bicyclists. Some Committee members feel that having a pedestrian corridor is important. For these reasons, the Committee recommends (by a unanimous 6-0 vote) that the single 8-foot wide parking lane provided on Red Oak Drive also be used to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic. No separate on-street designated pedestrian/bicyclist lane or boulevard sidewalk is recommended. However, short segments of sidewalk may be needed to cross the “chokers” mentioned in Item 3 above. Streets and utilities Committee Recommendations July 7, 2008 Page 4 Examples of typical mid-block chokers. Streets and utilities Committee Recommendations July 7, 2008 Page 5 5. Hillview Road Non-Standard Street Width Hillview Road, from Long Lake Road to Fairchild Avenue, is presently 42 feet wide, consisting of two 13-foot wide driving lanes and 8-foot wide shoulders. Parking is currently allowed on both sides of the road. This segment of Hillview Road is designated as a Municipal State Aid road, and therefore, must be reconstructed to meet MnDOT State Aid standards in order to received State Aid funding. A feedback form was presented to the residents at the June 14, 2008 Neighborhood Meeting requesting feedback related to parking accommodations. Half of those who responded wanted parking on one side only. The other half wanted parking on both sides (see attached Feedback Form Summary Table). To accommodate parking on both sides, the road would be constructed to a width of 40 feet, which closely matches the existing width. Hillview Road is a bus route, so the wider width is currently working well for the neighborhood. The committee discussed options for Hillview at the June 16, 2008 meeting and came to the consensus that most residents wanted Hillview to continue as is, without changes. For these reasons, the Committee recommends (by a unanimous 6-0 vote) that Hillview Road be constructed to a width of 40-feet from face of curb to face of curb. This would allow two 12-foot wide driving lanes and an 8-foot wide parking lane on each side of the road, as recommended by State Aid. This closely matches the current configuration of Hillview Road. 6. Hillview Road Pedestrian Corridor Hillview Road has been designated as a potential pedestrian/bicycle corridor in the City’s Comprehensive Sidewalk/Trailway Plan. A feedback form was presented to the residents at the June 14, 2008 Neighborhood Meeting requesting feedback related to pedestrian accommodations. The majority of respondents were in favor of on-street shared use accommodations (see attached Feedback Form Summary Table), which is how it currently functions. For these reasons, the Committee recommends (by a unanimous 6-0 vote) that no separate on street designated lanes or boulevard sidewalks be provided for bicycle / pedestrian movements along Hillview Road. The Committee recommends that bicycle and pedestrian traffic continue to function essentially as it currently exists, using the parking lanes. 7. Hillview Park Potential Parking Areas Hillview Park is a City-owned park located north of Hillview Road between Greenwood Drive and Long Lake Road that contains multiple public use facilities (i.e. playground equipment, hockey and skating rink, softball field, and shelter). Currently, there are 15 on-street parallel parking stalls on the north side of Hillview Road adjacent to the park. Similarly, there are 11 parking stalls on the east side of Greenwood Drive. No parking is allowed on the south side of Hillview Road adjacent to the park and the west side of Greenwood Drive adjacent to the park. Streets and utilities Committee Recommendations July 7, 2008 Page 6 A feedback form was presented to the residents at the June 14, 2008 Neighborhood Meeting requesting feedback related to additional parking stalls. The response was split between citizens that wanted parking added and those that wanted no change (see attached Feedback Form Summary Table). City staff feels that parking is deficient at Hillview Park, particularly during the youth softball/baseball games. Adding off-street parking would not only expand the amount of parking spaces, but would also improve the safety of the parking. (Refer to the graphic below). Proposed off-street parking improvements at Hillview Park For these reasons, the Committee recommends (by a unanimous 6-0 vote) that 27 angled parking stalls be provided on the north side of Hillview Road adjacent to Hillview Park. The Committee also recommends that a “bump out” lane for parallel parking be provided on the east side of Greenwood Drive along Hillview Park. The “bump out” would decrease the number of parking spaces by one or two. However, it would improve safety by minimizing congestion on Greenwood Drive, which will be reconstructed to the City standard width of 28 feet. With high price of oil, the Committee is concerned that the costs for this project and the future reconstruction projects could be higher than originally anticipated. The Committee is concerned about keeping this project within budget and ensuring that all future reconstruction projects can be completed within budget. The Committee is also very concerned with the recent actions of the State Legislature (Omnibus Tax Bill) which has the potential for changing the financial Streets and utilities Committee Recommendations July 7, 2008 Page 7 model for the entire 10 year Streets Financing Plan. The Committee has requested that Finance Director Mark Beers make a complete financial report to the Committee at the July 21, 2008 Streets and Utilities Committee meeting. The estimated cost for the additional parking spaces recommended above is approximately $71,500. Hillview Park is a City-owned park that is used by more than just the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore it would be appropriate to use the Park Dedication Fund to help finance the improvements. It should be noted that the estimated costs associated with the angled parking on Hillview Road include costs to construct a concrete boulevard sidewalk along the north side of Hillview Road at Hillview Park. The boulevard sidewalk would help avoid conflict between the pedestrian traffic and the proposed angled parking stalls. For these reasons, at the June 30, 2008 Streets and Utilities Committee meeting, the Committee passed a motion (by a unanimous 6-0 vote) recommending that the costs for the angled parking on Hillview Road and the bump out on Greenwood Drive be financed by the Park Dedication Fund, rather than the Street and Utility Improvement project. The Committee also reviewed materials from Committee Member Amundsen concerning back-in/head-out angled parking. No vote was taken on issue however. 8. Fairchild Avenue/Hillview Road Access to County Road 10 The intersection of Hillview Road and Fairchild Avenue currently functions as a right-in / right-out access to County Road 10. The irregular intersection configuration that exists today does not meet current design standards. Although accidents have not been an issue, there have been many close calls as witnessed by local residents. City and County staff recommend closing the access to County Road 10. Peak hour (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) turning movements were counted on Wednesday, June 4, 2008. A total of 17 cars used the access during those 4 hours. This leads staff to conclude that if the access is used significantly, the majority of its use must be in off-peak hours. Regardless, the traffic volumes are not large enough to warrant the intersection. An informal survey regarding the access to County Road 10 was presented to the City Council and Committee on April 14, 2008 and May 19, 2008, respectively. The petition contains 40 entries representing a total of 29 properties within Mounds View. Of the 29 properties, 26 favor keeping the access open. City staff cannot attest to the validity of the survey since it is unaware of the circumstances under which the questions were asked or the responses obtained. A feedback form was presented to the residents at the June Streets and utilities Committee Recommendations July 7, 2008 Page 8 14, 2008 Neighborhood Meeting requesting feedback related to the access. The response was split with half wanting to remove the access and half wanting to keep it open (see attached Feedback Form Summary Table). Since the non-standard intersection is not needed for traffic volumes, the Committee believes the issue is safety versus convenience. Keeping the access open would also be a safety issue for the future County Road 10 trailway. For these reasons, the Committee recommends (by a 5 for closing and 1 abstention vote) that the existing access be closed and that Fairchild Avenue and Hillview Road be connected at this location by means of a curve (see figure below). Streets and utilities Committee Recommendations July 7, 2008 Page 9 9. Draft Raingarden Policy At the June 30, 2008 Streets and Utilities Committee meeting, the parameters of a Draft Raingarden Policy were discussed and voted on. The Draft Policy, which will be presented at the Raingarden Neighborhood Meeting on July 15, 2008, consists of the construction of turf grass raingardens (a.k.a. turf infiltration swales) at all locations suitable for raingardens as shown on Figures 6 and 7 of the Report for the 2007-2008 Street and Utility Improvement Project, dated December 2006. Maintenance of the turf raingarden would be the homeowner’s responsibility. In lieu of a turf raingarden, a planted raingarden could be installed by a homeowner; however, all costs for materials, installation, and maintenance of a planted raingarden would be the homeowner’s responsibility. The Committee feels this draft policy provides the most cost effective way to meet the Rice Creek Watershed District’s regulations, without adding unnecessary costs to the project. The Committee is also concerned about the maintenance/enforcement issues related to planted raingardens. They do not wish for the raingardens to become eyesores in the community. Reference Materials It is the understanding of Staff that the City Council has received copies of all meeting packets of the Streets and Utilities Committee. All background materials for the above issues have been included in those packets, and therefore, have only been summarized in this Staff Report. Please refer to those documents from the Committee meetings as necessary. The following two documents are included with this Report: • A copy of the presentation given during the Public Meeting on June 14, 2008. • A copy of the Feedback Form Summary Table The presentation was not included in the materials for any of the Committee meetings; however, the Committee Members did receive a copy of the presentation at the Public Meeting. The presentation materials will help the Council to view the materials from the perspective of the public who attended the June 14, 2008 meeting. Streets and utilities Committee Recommendations July 7, 2008 Page 10 Recommendation: Staff is looking for official direction from Council for proceeding with the design of the issues noted above for the 2009 – 2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project. Respectfully Submitted, Joseph R. Rhein, Consulting Engineer Attachments: • Presentation given at Public Meeting – June 14, 2008 • Feedback Form Summary Table 1 20092009--2010 Street and2010 Street and Utility Improvement ProjectUtility Improvement Project Public MeetingPublic Meeting General Issue OverviewGeneral Issue Overview June 14, 2008June 14, 2008 BackgroundBackground JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC STREETS & UTILITIES COMMITTEE MTGS 2008 2007 TASK FORCE MTGS PUBLIC HEARING TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED PETITION AGAINST 2008-2009 PROJECT S&U COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED COUNCIL ORDERS 2009-2010 PLANS COUNCIL APPROVES PLANSPUBLIC MTG 2 Street & Utility ProgramStreet & Utility Program 9 Projects9 Projects Construction beginsConstruction begins 2009 & ends 20182009 & ends 2018 20092009 ––2010 Project Information2010 Project Information 1st Project1st Project 5 miles long5 miles long 3 Program StandardsProgram Standards Design Standards Were EstablishedDesign Standards Were Established by Task Forceby Task Force ––Street SectionStreet Section ––Construction MaterialsConstruction Materials ––Curb TypeCurb Type ––Standard Street WidthStandard Street Width Purpose Of This MeetingPurpose Of This Meeting Public input on nonPublic input on non--standard issuesstandard issues ––NonNon--standard street widthstandard street width ––ParkingParking ––Pedestrian / Bicycle corridorsPedestrian / Bicycle corridors Will assist Streets & Utilities CommitteeWill assist Streets & Utilities Committee determine recommendation to Councildetermine recommendation to Council 4 Items For DiscussionItems For Discussion Fairchild AvenueFairchild Avenue Red Oak DriveRed Oak Drive Hillview RoadHillview Road Hillview ParkHillview Park County Road 10 AccessCounty Road 10 Access Fairchild AvenueFairchild Avenue ExistingExisting 22’Ex. Pavement Width SHRUBS (TYPICAL) PINE TREE (TYPICAL) DECIDUOUS TREE (TYPICAL) 5 Fairchild AvenueFairchild Avenue ProposedProposed 24 ‘Closely Match Ex. 22’Ex. Pavement Width Fairchild AvenueFairchild Avenue ProposedProposed 24 ‘Closely Match Ex. 28 ‘City Standard 22’Ex. Pavement Width 624’ Street 1328’ Street Tree Impacts 6 Red Oak DriveRed Oak Drive ExistingExisting 30’Ex. Pavement Width Red Oak DriveRed Oak Drive ProposedProposed 26 ‘No Parking 30’Ex. Pavement Width 7 Red Oak DriveRed Oak Drive ProposedProposed 26 ‘No Parking 32’One Side Parking 30’Ex. Pavement Width Red Oak DriveRed Oak Drive ProposedProposed 26 ‘No Parking 32’One Side Parking 38 ‘Both Side Parking 30’Ex. Pavement Width 032’ Street 024’ Street 8 + 670’ ret. wall38’ Street Tree Impacts 8 Hillview RoadHillview Road ExistingExisting 42’Ex. Pavement Width Hillview RoadHillview Road ProposedProposed 28 ‘No Parking 42’Ex. Pavement Width 9 Hillview RoadHillview Road ProposedProposed 28 ‘No Parking 34’One Side Parking 42’Ex. Pavement Width Hillview RoadHillview Road ProposedProposed 28 ‘No Parking 34’One Side Parking 40 ‘Both Side Parking 42’Ex. Pavement Width 10 Red Oak Drive and Hillview RoadRed Oak Drive and Hillview Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Options for State Aid RoadwaysPedestrian/Bicycle Options for State Aid Roadways ––No accommodationsNo accommodations ––OffOff--street sidewalkstreet sidewalk ––OnOn--street sharedstreet shared--useuse Parking/ pedestrian/ bicycles in same laneParking/ pedestrian/ bicycles in same lane ––OnOn--street designated parking/ pedestrian lanestreet designated parking/ pedestrian lane Separated from parkingSeparated from parking Hillview Park ParkingHillview Park Parking Existing ConditionsExisting Conditions No Parking This side of road No Parking This side of road 11 Existing Parallel Parking Stalls 15 Existing Parallel Parking Stalls HILLVIEW ROAD LONG LAKE ROADGREENWOOD DRIVE 11 Hillview Park ParkingHillview Park Parking Discussion Option 1Discussion Option 1 --Hillview RoadHillview Road ––Replace 9 existing parallel parking stalls with 15 angled parkinReplace 9 existing parallel parking stalls with 15 angled parkin g stallsg stalls Hillview Park ParkingHillview Park Parking Discussion Option 2Discussion Option 2 ––Hillview RoadHillview Road ––Replace 15 existing parallel parking stalls with 27 angled parkiReplace 15 existing parallel parking stalls with 27 angled parki ng stallsng stalls 12 Hillview Park ParkingHillview Park Parking Discussion Option 3Discussion Option 3 ––Greenwood DriveGreenwood Drive ––Replace 11 onReplace 11 on --street parallel parking stalls with 9 offstreet parallel parking stalls with 9 off --street parallel parking stallsstreet parallel parking stalls Fairchild / Hillview Intersection withFairchild / Hillview Intersection with Co Rd 10Co Rd 10 Existing LayoutExisting Layout ––Convenient forConvenient for immediateimmediate neighborhoodneighborhood ––Slightly less traffic onSlightly less traffic on Red Oak Drive southRed Oak Drive south of Sherwood Roadof Sherwood Road ––Informally petitionedInformally petitioned to remain opento remain open Hillview RoadFairchild AvenueCo R d 1 0 N 13 Fairchild / Hillview Intersection withFairchild / Hillview Intersection with Co Rd 10Co Rd 10 Alternate LayoutAlternate Layout ––Reduces vehicleReduces vehicle conflict pointsconflict points ––Creates a corridor forCreates a corridor for the future trail alongthe future trail along County Road 10County Road 10 ––Reduces imperviousReduces impervious surfacing resulting insurfacing resulting in more green spacemore green space ––Reduces travelingReduces traveling speeds on Fairchildspeeds on Fairchild Hillview RoadFairchild AvenueFuture trail corridor Co R d 1 0 N AM PEAK: 0 PM PEAK: 6 AM PEAK: 4 PM PEAK: 7 Fairchild / Hillview Intersection with Co Rd 10Fairchild / Hillview Intersection with Co Rd 10 Peak Hour Traffic CountsPeak Hour Traffic Counts Hillview RoadFairchild AvenueCo R d 1 0 N Performed Wednesday, June 4, 2008Performed Wednesday, June 4, 2008 A.M. PeriodA.M. Period ––7:00 to 9:007:00 to 9:00 P.M. PeriodP.M. Period ––4:00 to 6:004:00 to 6:00 14 Fairchild / Hillview Intersection with Co Rd 10Fairchild / Hillview Intersection with Co Rd 10 Additional ConsiderationsAdditional Considerations City Staff recommends closureCity Staff recommends closure County Staff recommends closure (letter)County Staff recommends closure (letter) Traffic volumes not large enough toTraffic volumes not large enough to warrant intersectionwarrant intersection DoesnDoesn’’t meet current design standardst meet current design standards Next StepsNext Steps Streets & Utilities Committee Meeting:Streets & Utilities Committee Meeting: ––June 16, 2008 7:00 PMJune 16, 2008 7:00 PM ––Will determine recommendations on issuesWill determine recommendations on issues Committee recommendations will beCommittee recommendations will be forwarded to City Councilforwarded to City Council City Council makes final decision andCity Council makes final decision and provides direction to Staffprovides direction to Staff 15 Public InputPublic Input Public Input will be considered by thePublic Input will be considered by the Streets and Utilities CommitteeStreets and Utilities Committee Feedback FormsFeedback Forms ––Results will be provided to CommitteeResults will be provided to Committee ––Fill out before leaving meeting if possibleFill out before leaving meeting if possible ––Absolute deadline: noon Monday, June 16thAbsolute deadline: noon Monday, June 16th QuestionsQuestions Thank you for your interest in the projectThank you for your interest in the project Thank you for your attention todayThank you for your attention today Please ask any questions you may havePlease ask any questions you may have 6/16/08 Survey Tally 24 ft 28 ft None One Two None Off-street SW On-street shared use On-street designated use None One Two None Off-street SW On-street shared use On-street designated use Existing 15 Stalls 27 Stalls Existing 9 Stalls Leave as Existing Remove Resident Address X X Elizabeth Schelquist 8025 Fairchild Ave X X X X X X X X Estelle Winiecke 2748 Sherwood Rd X X X X X X X X Tom Winiecki 2748 Sherwood Rd X X X X X X X Naja & William Werner 2765 Sherwood Rd X X X X X X X Naja & William Werner 2766 Sherwood Rd X X X X X X Andy Kasen 2617 Hillview Rd X X X X X Deb Riley 8004 Red Oak Dr X X X X X X Dale Finke 8004 Red Oak Dr X X X X X X Robert Glazer 2625 Hillview X X X X X X X X Henry Munneke 2640 Sherwood Rd X X X X X X X X Cindy Smith (Beck)2757 Hillview Rd X X X X X X Susan Stone 2656 Hillvew Rd X X X X X X X X X X Trisha Kasen 2617 Hillview Rd X X X X X Linda Tannenbaum 8060 Red Oak Dr X X X X X X X X Scott Schrader & Cheryl 2566 Hillview Rd X X X X X X X X Scott Schrader & Cheryl 2567 Hillview Rd X X X X Joy Dick 8059 Red Oak Dr X X X X X X X Allen Dick 8059 Red Oak Dr X X X X X X X Gloria Pettis 7950 Fairchild Ave X X X X X X X Harold Vickhart 8071 Red Oak Dr X X X X X X X X John Verbanac 7955 Fairchild Ave X X X X X X X BLANK 17 1 12 7 2 8 0 6 7 0 6 7 2 0 13 1 10 3 7 11 8 11 9 94%6%57%33%10%38%0%29%33%0%46%54%13%0%81%6%50%15%35%58%42%55%45% Majority Opinion Fairchild Avenue - Construct at 24 feet wide Red Oak Drive - Construct with no parking Hillview Road - Construct on-street shared use pedestrian accommodations No Clear Public Consensus Red Oak Drive Pedestrian Accommodations Hillview Road: Parking on one or both sides? Hillview Park Parking Co Rd 10 Access Hillview Road Parking Options Pedestrian Accommodations Hillview Road Greenwood Drive Hillview Park Co Rd 10 AccessFairchild Avenue Parking OptionsWidth Options Pedestrian Accommodations Red Oak Drive 554433AA2211Lighting Locations - Feasibility ReportCITY OF MOUNDS VIEW, MNCOUNTY ROAD 10 TRAIL - SEGMENTS 1-543506118_Landscape Feasibility.dwgATTACHMENT ADECORATIVELIGHTFIXTURE(11 TOTAL)STANDARDLIGHTFIXTURE(80 TOTAL)EXISTINGLIGHTFIXTURES(10 TOTAL) E AAAA AAA AAAAAAAA A A E E AAAAA A A A A AAAAE E A AAAAAAAAAAAA E Plan View Scale 1" = 300' EAAAAA AAA AAAAAAAA AE E AAAAA AAAAAAA AAAE LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE Symbol Label Qty File Lumens LLF WattsCatalog Number Description Lamp A 75 Mounds View EMCO Ecolume 175MH Type II.IES 13500 0.63 210 E 10 Lumec Domus.ies 13500 0.63 210 ECA14-2H-175MH CLEAR FLAT GLASS LENS CLEAR 175MH/HOR PRORATED TO 1000 LUMENS DMS55-400MH- SG2 Domus (1) 175W MH ED-28 Clear CR10 TRAIL SEGMENTS 1-5 ANALYSIS NO.1 - 80' SPACING %88%',1)28 & E A A A A E E A E A A AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAE A A A A A A A A E Plan View Scale 1" = 300' E E A E A A A A A A A A A A A A A A E A A A A A A A A A A A LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE Symbol Label Qty File Lumens LLF WattsCatalog Number Description Lamp A 62 Mounds View EMCO Ecolume 175MH Type II.IES 13500 0.63 210 E 10 Lumec Domus.ies 13500 0.63 210 ECA14-2H-175MH CLEAR FLAT GLASS LENS CLEAR 175MH/HOR PRORATED TO 1000 LUMENS DMS55-400MH- SG2 Domus (1) 175W MH ED-28 Clear CR10 TRAIL SEGMENTS 1-5 ANALYSIS NO.2 - 100' SPACING %88%',1)28 ' Item No. 3 Meeting Date: July 7, 2008 Type of Business: WK WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City Administrator Review _______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To:Honorable Mayor and City Council From:Joe Rhein, Consulting Engineer Item Title/Subject:County Road 10 Trailway Project: Segments 1- 5: Trail Lighting Details Background: On January 9, 2006 the City Council approved Resolution 6716 authorizing the preparation of a preliminary feasibility report and consultant selection for the County Road 10 Trailway, Lighting, and Landscape Project. At that time, the City Council gave direction that the City should proceed with two segments of trailway along the County Road 10 corridor: 1.) The segments on the north side between County Road H and Red Oak Drive (Silver Lake Road): Segments 1-5 and; 2.) the segments on the south side between Long Lake Road and Silver Lake Road: Segments 9 & 10. On August 28, 2006 the City Council approved Resolution 6930 authorizing the preliminary design of landscape architecture elements along the County Road 10 Trailway Corridor. During the remainder of 2006 and 2007, the project for Trail Segments 9 & 10 was implemented, with construction essentially now complete. During 2007, the Feasibility Report for Trails 1 – 5 was developed in anticipation of 2008 construction. The completed Report included the landscape architectural elements identified in the preliminary landscape architecture design. On November 13, 2007 the City Council reviewed the Feasibility Report for the County Road 10 Trailway Project: Segments 1-5 and held a Public Hearing on the project. The City Council chose not to proceed with the project at that time. Council directed Staff to perform an analysis of the TIF fund to verify that sufficient funding existed for the anticipated projects identified in the CIP. The analysis was performed in January 2008, and the issue was discussed at the City Council Work Session on March 3, 2008. Based on the results of the CIP and TIF analysis, Council directed that Staff proceed to develop the Trail Segments 1 – 5 project with a revised scope. The revised scope was presented on June 9, 2008, which included: grading necessary only for the trail and to ensure drainage, trail construction, lighting, and basic turf restoration. Landscaping and other amenities were eliminated or reduced to a bare minimum. On June 9, 2008, City Council approved Resolution 7279, approving the Feasibility Report, ordering the Project with Revised Scope and Authorizing Plans and Specifications. On June 9, 2008 Council also directed Staff to review the lighting along the trail proposed in the Feasibility Report and to determine the possibility of further cost reduction by eliminating decorative lights and using standard fixtures along Trail Segments 1 – 5. Discussion: Based on the previous action and current direction of the City Council, Staff has performed a lighting analysis for Trail Segments 1 – 5, along with the associated cost estimates. A summary of the review is provided in this Staff Report. Decorative Lighting Options As was constructed on Trail Segments 9 & 10, the proposed lighting for Trail Segments 1 – 5 includes standard pole-mounted lighting for a majority of the project length, with decorative lighting provided at key locations, such as intersections. The Feasibility Report noted 11 locations where a decorative light fixture was proposed to be installed along Trail Segments 1 – 5. The proposed locations are shown in Attachment A. The decorative lights are more expensive than the standard lights. As estimated in the November 2007 Preliminary Report, the construction cost per light is approximately $1,800 for the standard shoebox lighting unit (Emco Shoebox) and approximately $4,300 for the decorative lighting units (Lumec Domus). Review of Decorative Lighting Locations Included In Report Staff looked more closely at the locations of the decorative lights proposed in the Feasibility Report, to determine if any could be eliminated. Intersection locations were reviewed first. The Report took the approach that decorative lights would be provided at full-access intersections, but would not be necessary at restricted access intersections. The restricted access intersections in the project area include Program Avenue, Quincy Street and Sunnyside Road. Therefore the Feasibility Report provided only standard lights at these intersections. Staff feels that if decorative lights are included in the project, the current layout at intersections is appropriate. Non-intersection locations were reviewed next. One non-intersection decorative light was planned in the Report, at the location where the trail meanders onto the City-owned property west of City Hall. A bench, kiosk and trash containers were planned for this location, and it was felt a decorative light would be appropriate. However with the elimination of the trail amenities, it is no longer necessary to provide decorative lighting at this location. This decorative light could be changed to a standard shoebox style light. The results of the review of the decorative lights included in the Feasibility Report would convert one decorative light to a standard fixture, reducing the total number of decorative lights from 11 to 10. Light Distribution Comparison Council requested that Staff determine if there is a difference in the spacing required for the standard shoebox unit or the decorative lighting unit. Specifically, would replacing the decorative lights proposed along Trail Segments 1-5 with standard lights alter the required spacing of the light fixtures? A photometric analysis of the trail corridor was performed to determine required spacing for each type of fixture and to establish a more accurate total for the overall number of lights that will be required for the project. The photometric analysis was performed on the standard Emco Shoebox fixture and the decorative Lumec Domus light fixture. The analysis determined that the Emco Shoebox fixture and the Lumec Domus fixture have very similar optics and that the light distribution is nearly identical. The iso-illuminance templates for each luminaire are shown in the following illustration: SHOEBOX LIGHT DECORATIVE LIGHT As illustrated above, there is little difference between the illumination patterns, and there would be no advantage or disadvantage gained in using a shoebox luminaire in lieu of the decorative fixture for this trail lighting project. The resultant spacing would be the same with either light. Light Spacing – Photometric Analysis For the preparation of the Feasibility Report, an assumed spacing of 75-feet between light fixtures was used to ensure a conservative cost estimate. The lighting layout in the Report included 80 shoebox style lights and 11 decorative lights, for a total of 91 fixtures. As noted previously, it has been determined that one of the decorative lights could be changed to a shoebox light. For this more in-depth review, a photometric analysis was performed using the illumination templates shown above to determine the required numbers of fixtures more precisely. The analysis was based on the standards of the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) for trail lighting. The IES standards include a minimum recommended average amount of light as measured in foot- candles (fc), as well as a maximum ratio of the average illumination value to the minimum illumination value, to ensure sufficiently even lighting throughout the project. The first analysis was performed using a pole spacing of 80-feet, which was the spacing used in the construction of trail segments 9 & 10. The analysis determined that the lighting still met the IES standards at this pole spacing. Using this spacing, the photometric analysis found that 85 total fixtures would be needed to illuminate the pathway. Ten of these would be decorative fixtures at intersections, with the other 75 being shoebox fixtures. A layout of Analysis 1 is shown in Attachment B to this Staff Report. The results of the first analysis indicated that the poles may be able to be spaced even further apart while still meeting the recommended standard. Therefore a second analysis was performed using 100-foot spacing between poles. This analysis found that the standards would be met, and that the total number of lighting fixtures could be reduced to 72 – the 10 decorative fixtures and 62 shoebox fixtures. A layout of Analysis 2 is shown in Attachment C. A third analysis was performed using 110-foot spacing between poles. This analysis found that the 110-foot spacing would meet the IES recommended value for average light level in foot-candles. However, the maximum ratio of the average illumination value to the minimum illumination value was 15:1, which exceeds the IES recommended 10:1 maximum. Therefore, the 110-foot spacing would not provide uniform lighting along the trail and is not a suitable option for this project. The lighting levels and fixture quantities for the options described above are summarized in the table on the following page. Light Fixture Requirements Photometric Analysis IES Recommendations Item Fixture Spacing Average (fc) Avg: Min Total Number Of Fixtures Min. of 0.6 Max. 10:1 Feasibility Report:75-feet ----91 Analysis 1:80-feet 1.8 9:1 85 Analysis 2:100-feet 1.5 7.5:1 72 Analysis 3:110-feet 1.5 15:1 69 Since the 100-foot spacing between poles allows less light fixtures, but meets all IES standards, it is recommended that the larger spacing be used on this project. The pole spacing will not match that constructed along Trail Segments 9 & 10; however the reduction in materials and resultant saving in costs is enough benefit to justify this change. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the difference in pole spacing between Trail Segments 9 & 10 on the south side of County Road 10 and Segments 1 – 5 on the north side will be visibly noticeable. Estimated Lighting Costs The following table shows the estimated costs of the lighting options discussed above. Costs are based on the estimated unit prices for the lighting fixtures from the Feasibility Report: $1,800 for each standard shoebox lighting unit (Emco Shoebox) and $4,300 for the decorative lighting units (Lumec Domus). Lighting Cost Estimates Trail Segments 1-5 Decorative Fixtures Included Decorative Fixtures ($4,300/ea) Standard Shoebox Fixtures ($1,800/ea) Project Total Fixtures Total Lighting Cost* Savings Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Feasibility Report 11 $47,300 80 $144,000 91 $191,300 -- Analysis 1 (80-foot)10 $43,000 75 $135,000 85 $178,000 $13,300 Analysis 2 (100-foot)10 $43,000 62 $111,600 72 $154,600 $36,700 *Construction cost only for purpose of comparison. The preceding table shows that by using the larger 80-foot or 100-foot spacing between light fixtures, the City can realize a project cost savings relative to the layout included in the Feasibility Report. Note that this cost savings also includes the $2,500 from the conversion of the one non-intersection decorative light identified in the Feasibility Report to a standard fixture. If the City desired to achieve additional project savings, some or all of the 10 remaining decorative lighting fixtures could be converted to standard shoebox fixtures. The savings would be $2,500 each, up to a maximum of $25,000 if all 10 fixtures were converted. The following table summarizes the total cost estimates of the various lighting options, both with and without decorative lighting. Summary of Total Costs Lighting Options Analysis 1 (80’ spacing) Analysis 2 (100’ spacing)Feasibility Report With Decorative Lights Without Decorative Lights With Decorative Lights Without Decorative Lights Total Cost $191,300 $178,000 $153,000 $154,600 $129,600 Savings -----$13,300 $38,000 $36,700 $61,700 Elimination of all decorative lights, with the corresponding $25,000 savings, represents only 2% of the total estimated project cost of $1,274,512 as presented in the June 9, 2008 Staff report, upon which this project was ordered. Given this small relative savings, it is the recommendation of Staff that the decorative lights be used on the Trail Segments 1 – 5 project, for consistency with the previous and future trail projects that will be performed along the County Road 10 corridor. Future Upgrade of Standard Fixtures As part of this project, the City could elect to install shoebox fixtures at the time of construction in lieu of the decorative fixtures, with the intention to replace the shoebox fixtures with the decorative fixtures at some future time. A minor modification would be required to the base of each pole as part of this project to allow the future conversion, but the cost for this would be minimal. It is anticipated that the future replacement would be made at the time of another trail project along County Road 10, with the shoebox fixtures removed from this project being reinstalled on that project. Ultimately the City would end up with both the decorative and shoebox fixtures installed, but would also incur a cost for salvaging and reinstalling the shoebox fixtures from one project to the other. In the long term, this is a less efficient and more expensive approach towards installing the lights. If the City has sufficient budget, the most effective approach would be to install the type of light at the desired location at the time of original construction. Recommendation: If the City Council agrees with the information presented in this Staff Report, it is recommended the City Council authorize the larger (100’) spacing for lighting units along the trail and that decorative lights be installed at street intersections as shown in the lighting location layout for Analysis 2 shown on Attachment C. Respectfully Submitted, Joseph R. Rhein, Consulting Engineer Attachments: x Feasibility Report Lighting Location Layout (Attachment A) x Analysis 1 Lighting Location Layout – 80 foot spacing (Attachment B) x Analysis 2 Lighting Location Layout – 100 foot spacing (Attachment C) Item No: 4 Meeting Date: July 7, 2008 Type of Business: Worksession City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Discussion about Potential Code Amendments for Senior Housing Facilities Staff has been meeting with a developer about a new senior housing development (including assisted living and memory care units) for three parcels (totaling 2.38 acres) on the northwest corner of Groveland Road and County Highway 10. The developer plans to submit their development applications to the City fairly soon. Staff has been looking at the city code to determine what the City requirements are for this type of development and what planning actions the developer will need to apply for. From this research we are finding that the current city code is lacking direction and guidelines for these facilities. The assisted living and memory care piece of this project would be new for Mounds View. There are currently three other senior housing developments in the city, but all of them are only “independent living” and do not provide the services, nursing assistance or specialized living arrangements that are available at assisted living facilities. Any senior housing development in Mounds View would be zoned either R-4, high density residential or PUD if they have at least a three acre parcel. If the property would be zoned R- 4, a conditional use permit would also be necessary for any type of multi-family housing. Zoning Code Chapter 1109.04 Subdivision 2, lists the conditional use requirements for “nursing homes and other senior congregate housing” (see city code on page 3). The City has had the mindset that this type of housing must meet specific requirements by incorporating a section in the code just for senior housing. However, these facilities and their services have changed in the last several years and are often now a different type of product than independent living apartments. The primary issues that staff found when looking at the city code for reviewing the latest proposal is allowed density, minimum unit size, and parking requirements. Assisted living and memory care units are much smaller (300-600 square feet) than independent living or regular multi-family housing units (700-1100+ square feet). Because of the small units, the density for senior housing buildings, especially with those assisted living/memory care units, is at a much higher level now than allowed by city code. The parking needs are much less in assisted living and memory care buildings than those for a typical multi-family building or even a senior independent living building. Nationwide, renting households with all members aged 65 or older own an average of 0.6 vehicles. Staff has been doing research into what other cities are doing or requiring when dealing with this type of development. Many cities have found their city codes needing new direction and standards for these facilities, and a few do have some specific requirements when dealing with senior living buildings. Another common tool that cities use to accommodate new senior housing developments is to zone them as a PUD (Planned Unit Development). This could be another option for the City – require all senior housing developments to be approved as a Senior Housing Code Amendments Page 2 PUD. Such a process would give the developer and the City the flexibility needed to accomodate the unique features of this type of senior housing. The Real Life Co-op that was built in Mounds View in 1998 is zoned PUD and the issues that the City found problematic with the city code (such as parking requirements) were dealt with through that process. The current city code requires residential developments, to be approved as a PUD, to have at least a three acre parcel. There are many smaller parcels (less than three acres) available in Mounds View for redevelopment, including the project area for the upcoming senior development. As such, the three acre minimum for PUD’s is a limiting factor and would not be available to use in many cases. Below is responses about senior housing requirements from other cities: Shoreview – senior housing projects are all PUD's because flexibility for a typical high density housing project is needed for parking, density, and unit sizes. Density is regulated through the comprehensive plan – there is a high density senior housing designation that permits up to 45 units per acre. Fridley – Parking spaces required for independent living = 1 space per unit with half the spaces enclosed, parking for assisted living = 0.5 spaces per unit, parking for nursing homes/memory care = 1 space for every 4 beds and 3 spaces for every 4 employees on the largest shift. There are no minimum unit size requirements for senior housing. Maplewood – Densities for senior-only housing within each of the comprehensive land use levels is based on a calculation of the number of people per unit and the lot size, rather than the number of units per acre. This allows for slightly higher densities due to the fact that seniors tend to have less people living within one dwelling unit. There are no special parking standards for senior housing. Bemidji – To date they have been addressed within a PUD process. In certain zones they do not have a density standard but allow them as a PUD through the Conditional Use process. It allows the City to evaluate them based on the land parameters and the neighborhood. Parking requirements – senior/handicap housing = 1 space per unit for each the first 20 units and a total of spaces not less than 75% of the total number of units. Nursing homes – 6 spaces for the first 3,000 square feet of floor area, and 1 space for each 1.000 square feet, with a minimum of 6 spaces per establishment. Redondo Beach, CA – an entire section of the code is dedicated to housing for senior citizens – they allow for reduced parking requirements where appropriate, and the minimum floor area for a residential unit shall be 350 square feet. Senior housing developments may apply for density bonuses. Recommendation: After discussing the issues for senior housing/assisted living developments, Council should determine whether or not staff should move forward to the Planning Commission for further discussion about this topic, including possible code amendment recommendations. Senior Housing Code Amendments Page 3 Sincerely, Heidi Heller Planning Associate CITY CODE: R-4 District 1109.04: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an R-4 District (requiring a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title): Subd. 1. All conditional uses, subject to the same conditions as allowed in an R-3 District. Subd. 2. Nursing homes and other senior congregate housing but not including hospitals, sanitariums or similar institutions; provided, that: (Ord. 639, 9-27-99) a. Side yards double the minimum requirements established for this District and are screened in compliance with Section 1003.08 of this Title. b. Minimum lot area shall be no less than one (1) acre, or as provided in Section 1104.02, subdivision 2b(3). (Ord. 590, 11-29-96) c. Only the rear yard shall be used for play or recreational area. Said area shall be fenced and controlled and screened in compliance with Section 1003.08 of this Title. (Ord. 590, 11-29-96) d. The site shall be served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic which will be generated. e. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code1 . f. All State laws and statutes governing such use are strictly adhered to, and all required operating permits are secured. g. One (1) off-street loading space in compliance with Chapter 1122 of this Title is provided. h. The provisions of Section 1125.01, subdivision 1e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) i. The required parking ratio shall be one (1) stall per employee on the shift having the most personnel present, plus one (1) stall for every three (3) beds or fraction thereof. (Ord. 639, 9-27- 99) 1 See Chapter 1008 of this Code. Item No. 5 Meeting Date: July 7, 2008 Type of Business: WS City Administrator Review _______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Steve Dazenski, Parks/ Public Works Supervisor Item Title/Subject: Consider the Purchase of Grinder Pump for Groveland Lift Station. Background: The pumps at Groveland Lift Station, located at 2815 Ardan Avenue, were repaired in 2001 as a preventative maintenance procedure. In the following six- plus years the pumps have again become worn and the tolerances are no longer within recommended manufacturer specifications. In addition, the lack of a grinder within the wet well allows bulk material (i.e. rags, diapers, condoms, sanitary napkins etc.) to pass through and become lodged in the pump causing further wear on the motors. Discussion: Due to the worn tolerances the pumping capacity is less than 80% of pumping efficiency. This causes either both pumps running unnecessarily at the same time or one pump running double time. Also, due to the worn tolerances the aforementioned materials become lodged causing motor wear and forcing utility workers to enter the dry well confined space to remove the material. The estimated time spent removing the material is between 120-150 hours annually. The estimated cost of this labor is between $5,280-$6,600 annually. The loss of one pump has become commonplace in the last six-plus years, this routinely occurs on weekends when no one is available to read the pumping reports. As things stand right now, the best case scenario is that the City relies on the pumps to alternate when one is shut down. In a worst case scenario, the loss of both pumps would cause severe sewage back-up into the basement of households in the vicinity. Recommendation: Staff has extensively researched solutions to rectify the problems with Groveland Lift Station. Two specialists within the pump industry (Braun and General Repair Service), have been on site to inspect the pumps and give their recommendations. Both conclude that the pumps at Groveland Lift Station are in need of repair and/or replacement. General Repair Service quotes a price of $13,000+ to repair the pumps and $17,000+ to replace them. This will bring the pumping capacity back to 100% but does not ensure elimination of bulk material being lodged in the pumps. Groveland Lift Station Grinder Pump July 7, 2008 Page 2 Braun feels that minor repairs (i.e.-retrofit) will bring the pumps back to 100%. The retrofit entails installation of new seals that cost $1,200 to $1,400 each and the machining of the housing to recover spec. tolerances. Braun quotes a price of $5,000 for this procedure but recommends instead a grinder in the wet well to eliminate most all bulk material from becoming lodged in the pump. The price of a grinder is $28,000-$30,000 in addition to the cost of the retro fitting. This would bring the estimated total price for the project to $33,000-$35,000. The other option is to replace the pumps themselves with grinder pumps. The cost of this would be $28,000 for the pumps and an additional $13,000 for plumbing, wiring, and labor as the grinder pumps require larger horsepower motors (15 hp. Vs. 7.5) and larger diameter pipes. Staff feels that this would be economically prohibitive to achieve the same desired result. Braun feels that they could give a more definitive final quote on the project within a month’s time. The 2008 budget, under 730-4823-9100, allows $15,000 for Contingency which may include impeller replacement at (erroneously) Bronson. In fact, staff had intended that money to be directed towards the Groveland lift station. Account 730-4823-5160 under System Maintenance has $50,000 for sewer main and manhole rehabilitation. Staff feels that the inclusion of a grinder is a necessity in either scenario. The amount of man hours spent cleaning the pumps significantly takes away time from other projects such as city sewer cleaning, televising, assisting other departments, snow removal, etc. In addition, the constant entering and exiting of a confined space presents a safety risk that would be greatly minimized with the addition of a grinder /grinder pump. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________ Steve Dazenski Parks / Public Works Supervisor Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Aerial Image 3. E-mail from Steve Dazenski to Greg Lee, dated Feb 27, 2008 4. Photographic documentation of a comparable grinder pump from Stillwater Location Map Groveland Park Abiding Savior Church Groveland Lift Station Aerial Image of Groveland Park Location of the Groveland Lift Station From: Steve Dazenski Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1:20 PM To: Greg Lee Subject: Grinder for Groveland Lift Station Hi Greg, I had told you that I wanted to research this grinder addition for the Groveland lift station and that has been completed. We checked with other cities including Coon Rapids, Stillwater and Mercy Hospital. They are all using the same grinder that we are looking at. The conclusion is that it works great. Coon Rapids was going into a lift station on a almost every day basis, now it's cut back to twice a year. Stillwater very similar results, three to four times a week before grinder addition and now hardly at all and their staff said and I quote: "The Grinder addition is the best thing going since sliced bread" I think that means they are pleased with it!! They have budgeted for the addition of a grinder in another one of their lift stations. Mercy Hospital was getting plugged up on a daily basis but not anymore. One of the grinders has been running for three years, another for five years, all without a break down. I'm far more confident that it will help cure our problems and it was good for staff to actually see the grinders in operation. Steve Photographic Documentation Stillwater Grinder Pump Item No. 6 Type of Business: WS Date: July 7, 2008 City Administrator Review _______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree Crane, Assistant City Clerk-Administrator Jim Ericson, Clerk-Administrator Item Title/Subject: Review Potential Revisions to Ordinance 808, an Ordinance Amending Title 600 of the Mounds View City Code by Adding a New Chapter 611 Relating to Special Events. Background: The City Council asked Staff to research policy considerations for outdoor special events. Many businesses have requested to hold outdoor special events, most recently Moe’s. Staff was directed to research what other cities did in regard to such outdoor special events. Many cities responded with their policies which provided a full spectrum of regulatory possibilities. Staff was also directed to come up with draft policy language that would include a parking plan, security plan, clean up plan, and statements pertaining to toilet facilities, entertainment or stage locations, and proof of workers compensation insurance. The special event policy was discussed on June 4, 2007; October 1, 2007;February 4, 2008; March 3, 2008; April 28, 2008 and again on May 5, 2008. Many policy iterations were presented and discussed with a resolution brought forward on April 28. It was later determined that the proposed special event regulations should be presented in ordinance format. The Council reviewed the final draft of the policy on June 9, 2008 and approved the first reading and introduction of the proposed ordinance. The second reading was scheduled for June 23, 2008, however the Council opted to refrain from adopting the ordinance until more discussion could be had on the issue of private events versus public events and the number of event attendees above which would necessitate obtaining a special event permit. Discussion: The changes to the ordinance that have been made to the version presented on June 23, 2008 have been highlighted in yellow. These changes serve to differentiate between public events (such as something held in Moe’s parking lot) and private events (such as a grad party or a back yard wedding reception. The changes also provide that any non-private special event and any private event with more than a certain number of attendees would be required to obtain a special event permit. The Council will note that that number has yet to be defined, which is part of the reason for bringing this item to a worksession. Special Event Report July 7, 2008 Page 2 The other reason this is being discussed at a worksession is to confirm that the Council remains comfortable with the definition of a special event remains appropriate. By this I mean, a special event will always have an alcohol component. If a circus wants to come to town, or a carnival, fair, show, dance or other large outdoor public entertainment event, as long as no alcohol is provided or served, no permit would be required. One final question to consider is whether a public event at one of our businesses licensed for on-sale liquor sales would first need to obtain an outdoor liquor endorsement in addition to or in conjunction with the special event permit. Recommendation: Discuss the revisions and consider the appropriate number to insert in Section 611.02, Subd 1. If the City Council is comfortable with the proposed revisions and has determined the appropriate number and is satisfied with the scope of the activities which would require a permit, staff will add the item to the July 14, 2007 City Council agenda for positive consideration. If the Council is no longer interested in pursuing a special event permit code amendment, staff will schedule the matter for negative consideration on July 14th. If additional information is needed, please advise staff. Respectfully submitted, __________________ Jim Ericson Clerk-Administrator Page 1 ORDINANCE NO. 808 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 600 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 611 RELATING TO SPECIAL EVENTS SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View hereby amends Title 600, with a new Chapter 611 to the Mounds View Municipal Code by adding the underlined material as follows: CHAPTER 611 SPECIAL EVENTS SECTION: 611.01: Findings of Fact; Purpose 611.02: Definitions 611.03: Permit Required 611.04: Permit Not Required 611.05: Permit Application 611.06: Permit Review 611.07: Permit Issuance 611.08: Indemnification Agreement 611.09: Insurance Requirements 611.10: Cleanup Deposit 611.11: Revocation of Permit 611.12: Violations 611.01: FINDINGS OF FACT; PURPOSE: This Chapter governs the time, place and manner of holding certain special events on public and private property when an event’s impact upon the health, fire, law enforcement, transportation or other services exceeds those regularly provided to that property. This Chapter is enacted in order to promote the health, safety and welfare of all residents and visitors of the City by ensuring that special events do not create disturbances, become nuisances, menace or threaten life, health and property, disrupt traffic or threaten or damage private or public property. It is not the intent of the City Council by enacting this Chapter to regulate in any manner the content of speech or infringe upon the right to assemble, except for regulating the time, place and manner of speech and assembly and this Chapter should not be interpreted or construed otherwise. DRAFT 7.2.2008 334152v4 SJS MU125-11Error! Unknown document property name. 2 611.02: DEFINITIONS: As used in this Chapter, the following words and terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section: Subd. 1. PRIVATE EVENT. Any event in which the general public is not invited or admitted that have less than _____participants. Subd. 2. SPECIAL EVENT: Any concert, fair, show, festival, carnival, rally, party, tournament, street dance or other attended outdoor entertainment or celebration that is to be held on public or private property that involves the sale or consumption of alcohol. 611.03: PERMIT REQUIRED: Any person or organization desiring to conduct or sponsor a Special Event in the City shall first obtain a Special Event permit from the City. 611.04: SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT NOT REQUIRED: Subd. 1. A Special Event permit is not required for the following types of events: a. Private Events; b. The Mounds View Festival in the Park event; and c. The use of traditional public forums as alternative channels of communication by the public, provided that such use is for the free exercise of constitutionally protected activities and does not disrupt or interfere with traffic on public streets or the use of public places by other members of the public. 611.05: SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION: Subd. 1. Any person or organization desiring to sponsor a Special Event that is not exempted by this Chapter must apply to the City for a Special Event permit. The Special Event permit application must be filed not less than 30 days in advance of the date in which the event is to occur. Subd. 2. Application Information: Special Event permit applications must include the following information: a. Type and description of the Special Event and a list of all activities to take place at the event; b. Name of the sponsoring entity, the names of at least two contact persons and their addresses and phone numbers, along with phone numbers where they can be reached on the date(s) of the event; DRAFT 7.2.2008 334152v4 SJS MU125-11Error! Unknown document property name. 3 c. Proposed date(s) of the Special Event, together with the beginning and ending times for each date; d. Proposed location of the Special Event, including a diagram of the proposed area to be used showing the location of any barricades, perimeter/security fencing, entertainment, stages, portable toilets, parking areas, trash containers and any other items related to the event; e. Estimated numbers of Special Event staff, participants and spectators; f. Any public health plans, including supplying water to the site, solid waste collection and the number of toilet facilities that will be available; g. Any plans for first aid facilities and the name of the person or entity providing these services; h. Any fire prevention and emergency medical service plans; i. Security plans; j. Parking plans; k. Cleanup plans; l. The admission fee, donation or other consideration to be charged or requested for admission to the Special Event, if applicable; m. Whether any sound amplification or public address system will be used or if there will be any playing of any music or musical instruments; n. Copy of a letter to be sent by the applicant to residents within 500 feet of the Special Event informing them of the event; o. Signature of the applicant; and p. Any other information requested by the City, that it deems reasonably necessary in order to determine the nature of the Special Event. Subd. 3. Permit Fee: An applicant for a Special Event permit must pay a nonrefundable permit fee in the amount established from time to time by the City’s fee schedule. DRAFT 7.2.2008 334152v4 SJS MU125-11Error! Unknown document property name. 4 611.06: PERMIT REVIEW: Subd. 1. The City Council shall review the Special Event permit application and make a determination on whether to issue the permit or deny it. Subd. 2. Inspection: Prior to City Council review, the site of the Special Event shall be inspected by the City Fire Marshal. Subd. 3. Permit Denial: The City Council may deny an application for a Special Event permit if it determines from a consideration of the application or other pertinent information, that: a. The information contained in the application or supplemental information requested from the applicant is false or nonexistent in any material detail; b. The applicant fails to supplement the application after having been notified by the City of additional information or documents needed; c. The applicant fails to agree to abide or comply with all of the conditions and terms of the Special Event permit; d. The time, route, hours, location or size of the Special Event will unnecessarily disrupt the movement of other traffic within the area of the Special Event; e. The Special Event is of the size or nature that requires the diversion of too many law enforcement officers to properly police the event, site and contiguous areas that allowing the Special Event would unreasonably deny law enforcement protection to the remainder of the City and its residents; f. Another Special Event permit application has already been approved to hold another Special Event at the same time and place requested by the applicant or so close in time and place as to cause undue traffic congestion, or the City is unable to meet the needs to provide for law enforcement and other City services for both Special Events; g. The location of the Special Event would cause undue hardship for adjacent businesses or residents; h. The location of the Special Event will substantially interfere with any construction or maintenance work scheduled to take place upon or along public property or right-of-way; DRAFT 7.2.2008 334152v4 SJS MU125-11Error! Unknown document property name. 5 i. The Special Event would endanger public safety or health; j. The Special Event would seriously inconvenience the general public’s use of public property, services or facilities; k. The applicant fails to comply with the liability insurance requirements or the applicant’s insurance lapses or is canceled; l. The Special Event would create or constitute a public nuisance; m. The Special Event would be likely to cause significant damage to public property or facilities; or n. The Special Event would engage in or encourage participants to engage in illegal acts. Subd. 4. Permit Conditions: The City Council may condition the issuance of a Special Event permit by imposing reasonable conditions concerning the time, place and manner of the Special Event, and such conditions are necessary to protect the safety of persons and property, and the control of traffic; provided that such conditions shall not unreasonably restrict the right of free speech. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to: a. Alteration of the date(s), time(s), route or location of the Special Event proposed; b. Elimination of an activity at the Special Event which cannot be mitigated to a point as to ensure public safety and welfare, or which causes undue liability to the City; c. Requirements concerning the accommodation of pedestrian or vehicular traffic; d. Requirements for the use of traffic cones or barricades; e. Requirements for the use of City personnel and equipment; f. Requirements for the provision of first aid or sanitary facilities; g. Requirements for the use of event monitors and the providing notice of the Special Event permit conditions to the events’ participants; DRAFT 7.2.2008 334152v4 SJS MU125-11Error! Unknown document property name. 6 h. Requirements on the number and type of vehicles, animals or structures to be allowed at the Special Event and the inspection and approval of structures by the City for safety purposes; i. Compliance with animal protection ordinances and laws; j. Requirements for the use of garbage containers and the cleanup and restoration of the property; k. Restrictions on the use of amplified sound and compliance with noise ordinances, regulations and laws; and l. Restrictions on the sale or consumption of food and alcohol. 611.07: PERMIT ISSUANCE: The City Clerk-Administrator shall issue the Special Event permit once the application has been approved by the City Council and the applicant has agreed to comply with the terms and conditions of the permit as well as the requirements of this Chapter. 611.08: INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT: If the Special Event, or any portion of the event is to be held on City property or right-of-way, prior to the issuance of a Special Event permit, the permit applicant and authorizing officer of the sponsoring organization, if any, must sign an agreement to indemnify, defend and hold the City, its officials, employees and agents harmless from any claim that arises in whole or in part out of the Special Event, except any claims arising solely out of the negligent acts or omissions of the City, its officials, employees and agents. 611.09: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Subd. 1. Liability Insurance Required: The applicant or sponsor of a Special Event must possess or obtain liability insurance to protect against loss from liability imposed by law for damages on account of bodily injury or property damage arising from the Special Event. A certificate of insurance must be filed with the City prior to issuance of the Special Event permit. The certificate of insurance must name the City, its officials, employees and agents as additional insureds. Insurance coverage must be maintained for the duration of the Special Event. Subd. 2. Minimum Limits: Insurance coverage must be a commercial general liability policy. The minimum limits must be at least $1,000,000. The policy must also include an endorsement for liquor liability. The City Council may require additional endorsements depending upon the type of Special Event and proposed activities. DRAFT 7.2.2008 334152v4 SJS MU125-11Error! Unknown document property name. 7 Subd. 3. Waiver or Reduction of Required Limits: The City may waive or reduce the insurance requirements of this Chapter under the following circumstances: a. The applicant or officer of the sponsoring organization signs a verified statement that it believes that the Special Event’s purpose is First Amendment expression and that the cost of obtaining the insurance is so financially burdensome that it would constitute an unreasonable burden on the right of First Amendment expression; b. The applicant or an officer of the sponsoring organization signs a verified statement that the insurance coverage required by this Chapter is impossible to obtain; or c. The City Council determines that the insurance requirements are in excess of the reasonable risk presented by the proposed Special Event. 611.10: CLEANUP DEPOSIT: The applicant or sponsor of the Special Event involving the sale of food or beverages for immediate consumption, erection of structures, horses or other large animals or another activity likely to create a substantial need for cleanup may be required by the City to provide a cleanup deposit prior to issuance of the Special Event permit. The cleanup deposit shall be in an amount set by the City Council. The cleanup deposit will be returned to the applicant/sponsor if the area used for the Special Event has been cleaned and restored to the same condition as it existed prior to the event. If the property used for the event has not been properly cleaned or restored within 24 hours of the event completion, the applicant/sponsor will be billed for the actual cost by the City for the cleanup and restoration. The cleanup deposit will be applied toward payment of the bill. 611.11: PERMIT REVOCATION: Any Special Event permit issued pursuant to this Chapter may be summarily revoked by a City law enforcement officer at any time when, by reason of disaster, public calamity, riot or other emergency, the law enforcement officer determines that the safety of the public or property requires such revocation. The City Clerk-Administrator may also summarily revoke any Special Event permit issued pursuant to this Chapter if he or she finds that the permit has been issued based upon false information or when the permittee exceeds the scope of the permit. Notice of such action revoking a permit shall be delivered in writing to the permittee by personal service or certified mail at the address specified by the permittee in its application. 611.12: VIOLATIONS: Subd. 1. Unlawful to Sponsor a Special Event without a Permit: It is unlawful for any person to sponsor or conduct a Special Event requiring a permit pursuant to this Chapter unless a valid Special Event permit has been issued for the event. DRAFT 7.2.2008 334152v4 SJS MU125-11Error! Unknown document property name. 8 Subd. 2. Unlawful to Exceed the Scope of the Permit: The Special Event permit authorizes the Special Event permittee or sponsor to conduct only such a Special Event as is described in the permit, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit. It is unlawful for the permittee or sponsor to willfully violate the terms and conditions of the permit. Subd. 3. Misdemeanor. Any person convicted of violating this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine or imprisonment as specified by state statute. Each day in which a violation continues to occur shall constitute a separate offense. Violation of any provision of this section shall also be grounds for revocation of the Special Event permit. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days from and after its passage and publication, in accordance with Section 3.09 of the City Charter. Introduction and First Reading by the Mounds View City Council on June 9, 2008. Second Reading and Adoption by the Mounds View City Council on July 14, 2008. Publication Date: July 23, 2008. Rob Marty, Mayor Attest: Jim Ericson City Clerk-Administrator (seal)