Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packets - 2009/02/02
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA (Revised) MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL Monday, February 2, 2009 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Flaherty, Stigney, Hull, Mueller, Gunn 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. Mounds View Branding Project – Business Operators Survey Report __________ 2. Therapeutic Massage License __________ 3. February 28, 2009, Council/Staff Retreat Agenda Draft __________ 4. 2008 Citizenship Award ___________ 5. Local Surface Water Management Plan – Consideration of Revised City Review Draft ___________ 6. Public Improvement Agreement ___________ 7. Airport Meeting Update (Barbara Haake) ___________ 8. YMCA / MVCC Summer Parks Program Discussion Next Work Session: Monday, March 2, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. Next City Council Meeting: Monday, February 9, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Mounds View survey results announced Kate Garlock Bulletin staff Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Mounds View is getting branded. Earlier this fall the city teamed up with Risdall Marketing Group to distribute a survey amongst homeowners. The purpose of the survey was to gain insight as to how the city is perceived and what things the residents would like to see changed. This survey was the beginning portion of Mounds View's effort to re-brand the city. That is to give the community a new feel and a more citizen-centric focus. The survey helped the marketing group discover how the citizens wanted to be viewed. At the end of October, 3,250 households were delivered a survey and over 20 percent of those surveys were returned - a number the Risdall group deemed "fabulous." The report looked at nine topics of interest: demographic data, city services, serious issues, life in Mounds View, image perceptions, city attributes, values, brand and County Road 10. The survey demographic was made up of primarily homeowners - a group Risdall called the "key stakeholders" because of the taxes they pay to the city. According the report, Mounds View is, "A fairly healthy community." Eighty-three percent of the surveys rated quality of life in Mounds View as either good or excellent. The survey also displayed an active, outdoors community - with the primary activities listed by the survey-takers being: Walking/running, using parks/trails, gardening, biking, dining out, and shopping. Interestingly, the values desired by the community and the values the community was perceived as having, saw a high correlation. Directly correlate with values that describe Mounds View - actually the ones of importance, ones that describe - key element that will be used in brand identity. According to Risdall, "It's a city with roots and a very strong stable community aspect to it." Risdall found the citizenry to be very involved and hoped to continue work with this citizenry to help maintain and develop the small town feel that Mounds View seemed to pride from the result of the survey. One of the major concerns with the survey was the lack of renters represented. Council Member Sherry Gunn said she was surprised to see that many of the comments were to get rid of the apartment buildings. "They live here and they travel through the town," she said. Their kids are going to our schools. Somehow we need to start including them, they need to have a say. Their money does go to our city and that's what keeps us going. We have this whole other section of people that don't get represented." Mayor Joe Flaherty was hopeful that, though not having taken the survey, renters might still be represented. "[The renters] mean a lot to this community," he said. "I think we can extract certain portions of this that represent all views and values of people - doesn't matter if they're homeowners or renters." Mounds View resident Cindy Carvelli found the survey results to be highly accurate. "I think this was so fun," she said. "I almost slept with it under my pillow. I don't think there were any surprises." The full report is available to citizens at city hall, as is a copy of the video recording of the council work session. Kate Garlock can be reached at kgarlock@lillienews.com or 651-633-2777. Content © 2009 Lillie Suburban Newspapers Software © 1998-2009 1up! Software, All Rights Reserved Page 1 of 1Bulletin-News | Mounds View survey results announced 1/26/2009http://www.bulletin-news.com/print.asp?ArticleID=4187&SectionID=60&SubSectionID=... City of Mounds View Page 1 Business Image Survey Report Executive Summary The Mounds View Business Operators Survey was fielded in late November and open for about six weeks - including an extension period through January 19, 2009. Surveys were distributed to all current Mounds View businesses with about 60 mailed out with postage-paid return envelops and about 60 e-mailed out with a link to the online survey. Only six responses were returned by mail and the rest went online to complete the survey. We received 51 total responses. Seven were rejected, as they responded no to the first question “Do you currently own or operate a business in the City of Mounds View?” The total number of respondents therefore is 44, with several respondents skipping questions in the survey (note the number of respondents for each question on the raw data tables). Even with the small sample size, we are encouraged by the response and believe the data is sufficient to be viewed as informational for the purposes of brand development. As with the residents survey, we have some expected results about street repair and satisfaction with the police. The results do provide new insights on other topics in the survey. Below are some of the top-line results of notable interest to the EDA/City Council and the EDC. The top three reasons given for locating in Mounds View were: convenient location (61.4%), local demographics fit my business (43.2%), and long-term commitment to the area (36.4%). Of those Mounds View businesses responding to the survey, 60% indicated that they were members of the Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce. Half the respondents are members of other business organizations, indicating an active business community. About 63% believe that the City of Mounds View kept them well informed on projects that affect their businesses and the majority indicated that their preferred method of receiving information from Mounds View about plans for City projects was by email (67%), followed by 43% who prefer mail. Aside from the expected top two important City services, police and street repair, the next three provide further insights: managing traffic congestion, improving Co. Road 10 corridor, and economic development. Besides taxes, responses to the most serious issues facing the city indicate a very strong interest in economic development activities. Improving the County Road 10 corridor was just as high as taxes, followed by concern for vacant commercial properties and lack of shopping options. The top four attributes important to businesses are: easy access to my business 80.0%, improved traffic flow 80.0%, tax incentives 73.3%, and energy costs 73.3%. Responses to city government attributes show a respect for open and honest government and the quality of services, but also show low marks for commitment to improvement, progressive, and innovative. The questions on County Road 10 show there is interest in improving appearance of businesses (54.8%), renaming County Road 10 (41.9%), Lighting (41.9%), and improving appearance of residential areas (41.9%). While they were split on whether a new name for the road would create added value, the majority of businesses (62.1%) indicated it would not present any problems to incorporate the new name with their current business location. City of Mounds View Page 2 Business Image Survey Report February 2, 2009 Business Image Survey Overview In the process of discovery, we wanted to get a read on the local business owners and/or operators to measure their attitudes and perceptions surrounding the image of Mounds View. We also wanted to see what they thought of the local chamber and their services and programs and their views on the potential development of County Road 10. To do this, we created a survey and distributed it to the current list of about 120 businesses in Mounds View. The list was split with about half providing emails for online contact and half with only street addresses for mailing printed surveys. The majority of the respondents were those who were reached by email and took the survey online; only six of the mailed surveys were completed and returned by mail (some may have entered their responses online). Although the sample size is small, one can view the results as encouraging and as informational. In t his report, we have presented our Executive Summary, the research objectives, background information on the survey process, analysis and insights from the results and finally the research team’s conclusions based on the data we received. This document also includes the raw data tables for all questions and a report on all the written responses collected on the surveys. In our analysis we reviewed several topics and looked at combinations of responses to gain greater insights on the subjects we surveyed. The responses do give us some clear indications on some topics, while others are mixed. The final data does not achieve the standard confidence level for directional results, but we do feel that this analysis has informational value and provides some insights into the business owners and operators in Mounds View. Primary Research Objectives RMG has identified the following as objectives for the research phase for rebranding the City of Mounds View: • Measure current attitudes and perceptions of the businesses regarding Mounds View. • Discover how citizens would desire the City of Mounds View to be viewed. • Uncover the current level of satisfaction of the business environment on Co. Rd. 10. • Determine the perceived challenges and/or desired improvements for the city. • Identify the underlying elements of unity/pride in the city. • Assess how/if the current tag line fits the city's identity. Survey Research Methodology Mounds View business owners and/or operators consist of anyone that runs a business within the city boundaries. Business owners and employees have been identified as a target because their opinions and viewpoints will tell us why they are located in Mounds View and will help us to understand their viewpoints. Business Operators Survey Details • Develop a survey focused on business and community issues. • This survey was fielded in December, with an original due date of 12/31/08. The deadline was extended until January 19, 2009 to allow more time for responses. • City staff sent a letter of introduction to all businesses requesting they share their thoughts and participate in the survey process. The letter included a printed survey and a pre-stamped return envelope. Only those who we did not have email addresses were mailed surveys or about 60 businesses. • City staff also emailed about 60 businesses with a link to take the same survey online. Email addresses were also sent a second message in early January informing them that there was still time to go online and complete the survey, as the deadline had been extended. City of Mounds View Page 3 Business Image Survey Report February 2, 2009 Data Analysis, Findings and Insight Demographic Data All qualified respondents who completed the survey indicated that they owned or operated a business in the City of Mounds View. The optional questions indicated a good distribution of businesses in Mounds View and number of employees by business. The survey has captured a good sample of small to large businesses: The survey results for the number of employees at each business break down as follows: 10-25 12.9% 25-50 22.6% 50-100 16.1% 100-1000 3.2% 1000+ 6.5% The survey results for the number of years each business has operated break down as follows: 1-5 21.9% 5-10 21.9% 10-25 37.5% 25-50 15.6% 50+ 3.1% Why Mounds View The top three reasons that the businesses surveyed chose Mounds View to locate their business were: convenient location (61.4%), local demographics fit my business (43.2%), and long term commitment to the area (36.4%). Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce Members and Perceived Benefits Of those Mounds View businesses responding to the survey, 60% indicated that they were members of the Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce. To measure the overall importance and satisfaction for Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce business services we have combined very important with somewhat important to create a box score. The services or programs are listed below ranked on their box score. We asked respondents to rate their satisfaction of these services or programs by creating a box score rank for very satisfied and somewhat satisfied responses. Sharing this information will help the chamber to improve their offerings and subsequently increase participation. RANK IMPORTANCE SATISFACTION RANK 1. Member Directory/ Buyers Guide 87.5% 26.7% 3 2. Legislative influence 85.7% 28.2% 2 3. Community magazine 80.1% 23.4% 6 4. Membership Identifier/Decal 80.0% 16.6% 9 5. Business support 71.5% 26.6% 4 6. Networking for leads /referrals 66.6% 30.0% 1 7. Marketing Awareness- Chamber 60.0% 13.3% 10 8. Chamber Expos 55.5% 13.3% 10 9. Mailing lists 50.1% 16.7% 8 10. Chamber website 50.0% 20.0% 7 11. Advertising results in newsletter 33.4% 10.0% 12 12. Metro Coalition of Chambers 25.0% 6.6% 13 13. Professional Development 16.7% 26.6% 5 City of Mounds View Page 4 Business Image Survey Report February 2, 2009 Other Business Organizations Half of the business respondents (50%) indicated that they were members of other business organizations, and an active business community. These include: • Rotary, PIA Professional • Insurance Agents Assoc. • Power Washers of North America • MSSA • NFIB • IFA • Other local Chambers of Commerce • CSI, AIA Builders Assoc. • GANA Glass Dealers, MBA • Metro North Chamber • MCA • Other Trade memberships • MN Council of Non-profits • National Network of Public Health Institutes City Information The majority of respondents (62.9%) believe that the City of Mounds View kept them well informed on projects that affect their businesses. The majority of respondents indicated that their preferred method of receiving information from Mounds View about plans for City projects was by: email (68.6%), mail (42.9%), newsletter (20%), and City’s website (14.3%). City Values To measure the opinions of businesses towards perceived values of the City of Mounds View, we have created box scores that combine both Best describes the value and Somewhat describes the value together for a ranking. RANK 1. Ethical and Integrity 70.6% 2. Responsive 67.7% 3. Open and Honest 67.6% 4. Serving Needs of Citizens 64.8% 5. Involved 64.7% 6. Cooperative 64.7% 7. Respectful of citizenry 64.7% 8. Professional 64.7% 9. Quality of services 64.7% 10. Progressive 64.7% 11. Committed to Improvement 58.9% 12. Fiscally Responsible 55.9% 13. Innovative 52.9% City of Mounds View Page 5 Business Image Survey Report February 2, 2009 City Services To measure the opinions towards Mounds View city services and programs of local businesses, we created box scores that combine both Most important and Somewhat important for ranking. Similarly, we have combined the Very satisfied and Somewhat satisfied responses to achieve a satisfaction box score. This helps to show the overlapping responses and the gaps between the two rankings. Aside from the expected top two responses of Police and Street repair, the next three provide insight on their priorities. Rounding out the top five were: Managing traffic congestion, Improving Co. Road 10 corridor, and Economic development. RANK IMPORTANCE SATISFACTION RANK 1. Police 90.9% 78.8% 1 2. Street repair 81.9% 33.4% 7 3. Managing traffic congestion 75.7% 57.6% 2 4. Improving Co. Road 10 corridor 72.7% 36.4% 5 4. Economic development 72.7% 51.6% 3 6. Property code enforcement 66.7% 39.4% 4 7. Environmental issues 44.6% 30.3% 9 8. Trails system 39.4% 36.3% 6 9. Affordable housing 39.4% 27.2% 11 10. Park & recreation programs 33.4% 30.3% 9 11. Annual Festival in the Park 30.3% 30.4% 8 12. Community Center 27.2% 24.3% 12 13. Public access cable channel 9.1% 12.1% 13 Most Serious Issues Facing the City When we asked businesses to identify the most serious issue or issues facing Mounds View, we found four that have a 36% or higher response. Besides taxes, these responses indicate a very strong interest in economic development activities. In order they are: 1. High property taxes (48.5%) 2. Improving the County Road 10 corridor (48.5%) 3. Increasing amount of vacant, underused or blighted commercial properties (39.4%) 4. Lack of business or shopping options (36.4%) These were followed by: Road conditions/street maintenance (33.3%), Too much low income housing (27.3%), Crime (24.2%), Home foreclosures/rundown properties (21.2%), Lack of public transportation (18.2%), Traffic congestion (15.2%), Quality of Life in Mounds View Businesses described the quality of life on Mounds View as follows: 1. Good (72.7%) 2. Fair (24.2%) 3. Excellent (3.0%) When asked what they would suggest that the city do to improve the quality of life in Mounds View, the following written responses were provided: • Lower business taxes • Reduce crime rate • Keep policing (excellent) and continue to offer park and rec programs City of Mounds View Page 6 Business Image Survey Report February 2, 2009 • Eliminate low cost and subsidized housing • Reduce or eliminate the unnecessary taxes imposed on small businesses in the City of Mounds View. Work within the means provided to the City. Like the small businesses have to. MANAGE YOUR MONEY!! • Improving the County 10 corridor- shops, businesses, housing etc. Create a Grand Ave. feel. • Community Center service (is) less responsive and reliable than the Darby days. Our staff wants to use Shoreview, event though MVCC is just down the street Attributes Important to Businesses To measure opinions towards attributes that were seen as significantly important to businesses, we have created box scores that combined the Most Important and Somewhat Important responses together for an overall ranking: RANK 1. Easy access to my business 80.0% 2. Improved traffic flow 80.0% 3. Tax incentives 73.3% 4. Energy costs 73.3% 5. Planned city improvements 66.6% 6. Improved road signage 63.4% 7. Repair and restoration of older buildings and structures 63.4% 8. Subsidies to improve city streets for business development 63.3% 9. Anchor “Big Box” Store (Target, Wal-Mart, Best Buy) 56.7% 10. Rapid transit along the County Road 10 corridor 53.3% 11. A Business Merchants Association 48.4% 12. Code enforcement 45.2% 13. WiFi access 36.7% 14. Uniform business signage 36.7% 15. Better pedestrian and bicycle access 36.6% 16. More “specialty” or seasonal events sponsored by Mounds View 20.0% When businesses were asked what they thought was the single most appealing aspect of Mounds View, the following written replies were provided: • Location (multiple) • County Road 10 – Traffic going by my business • Population • Small town feel, with great sense of community • Small size • Warm community • Great highway access • Parks • Mounds View Square • We love all aspects of Mounds View • Our experience here in Mounds View has been completely positive • It is still a middle class area and usually that means they are family people • Convenient location. Now Medtronic City of Mounds View Page 7 Business Image Survey Report February 2, 2009 When businesses were asked what they like LEAST about Mounds View, the following written responses were provided: • Run down areas • Attitude in dealing with residents • Community Center • Fees and taxes • Easy access from nearby highways makes it easy for professional shoplifters to hit businesses and flee • Split by the highway • Not enough retail/restaurants • Lack of building and property code enforcement • Low cost housing brings crime and vandalism • A lot of low income housing • Tax base • Charter form of government • Taxes • Lack of retail development • Count Road H. County 10 and the Old Hwy 8 intersection • Influx of low income residents • Traffic congestion Most Important City Government Attributes To measure attitudes toward desirable attributes of Mounds View’s City government, we have created box scores that combine both Most Important and Somewhat Important together for ranking. The list is ranked by how well respondents felt the attributes reflect Mounds View City government. RANK 1. Open and Honest 90.0% 2. Quality Services 86.7% 3. Responsive 86.7% 4. Cooperative 86.7% 5. Professional 86.7% 6. Respectful of Citizenry 86.7% 7. Fiscally Responsible 86.6% 8. Ethical and Integrity 83.3% 9. Committed to Improvement 83.3% 10. Serving the Needs of the Citizens 76.7% 11. Progressive 76.7% 12. Innovative 76.6% Brand When asked if the current Mounds View tagline “Pride, Progress and Partnerships” appropriately described the City, the majority of business respondents (80.6%) indicated that it did. This would indicate that the tagline represented relevant business attributes that were important to the respondents. City of Mounds View Page 8 Business Image Survey Report February 2, 2009 When respondents were asked what they thought Mounds View should be known for, the following written responses were given: • Nice city • A good place to do business • Sense of community plus a good place to live • A friendly community • The Mermaid • Something other than the Mermaid • A city of volunteer citizens who help neighbors; a city where you know your neighborhoods and can walk or bike trails, a city where all the basic needs are available within walking or biking distance for citizens of all ages. • A nice, safe place to live • Being a progressive city where people want to live and shop • A nice affordable place to live • Prosperity • Work and helping small business grow and flourish • A great place to live work • Clean safe and progressive • Great city to locate a business • The jewel of the northern suburbs • A very good place to own and operate a business • Good quality city to live and work • Innovation • A city that works hard for the citizens and businesses of the city. • Clean quiet little “inner suburb” without crime • Development • Hi tech, high involvement, “show me a better way” leaders County Road 10 When businesses were asked if County Road 10 is critical to the image of Mounds View, an overwhelming 83.9% responded yes and only 19.4% responded no. This further supports the concept that the road is central to the image of the city and can be leveraged to raise the perception of the city with visitors, businesses and residents alike. Asking which… improvements to County Road 10 would be the greatest benefit resulted in the following order of ideas, along with the rating each idea received when asked which ONE item….would be most important. It is clear that improving the appearances of businesses was the top winner. This was followed by renaming County Road 10. RANK OF IDEAS MOST IMPORTANT 1. Improved appearance of businesses (54.8%) #1 (25.8%) 2. Renaming County Road 10 (41.9%) #2 (19.4%) 2. Lighting (41.9%) #3 (12.9%) 2. Improved appearance of residential areas (41.9%) #6 (6.5%) 5. Street Signage (38.7%) #7 (3.2%) 6. Landscaping (32.3%) #5 (6.5%) 7. Trailways connected to County Road 10 (29.0%) #4 (9.7%) 8. Monument sign at city’s borders (12.9%) #8 (3.2%) City of Mounds View Page 9 Business Image Survey Report February 2, 2009 When asked if Mounds View were to rename County Road 10, it was almost a tie amongst businesses as to whether doing so would create added value for your business location. The majority of businesses (62.1%) indicated that a new name for County Road 10 would not present any problems to incorporate with their current business location. When asked what types of retail or service businesses they would like to see developed along County Road 10, the top four choices were Sit-Down Restaurants (87.5%), “Big Box” retail chain store (Target, Walmart, Best Buy) (37.5%) tied with Specialty service businesses (37.5%), and Medical Clinic (doctor, dentist, etc.) (34.4%). These were followed by Shopping Center (31.3%), Hardware Store (28.1%), Fast Food Restaurants (28.1%), Grocery store (25%), Automotive service/gas station (18.8%), Professional services(office space) (15.6%), Convenience store (12.5%) and Specialty stores (12.5%) Conclusions • The majority of the business respondents for this survey represent companies that have had an operation in Mounds View for some time. Over 50% have been in business in Mounds View for over ten years, which is indicative of a group of businesses committed to the city and that find the economic environment advantageous. • Businesses believe that Mounds View does an exemplary job of keeping them informed on city projects and the City operates with a high degree of integrity, openness, and honesty. These topped the list of values for Mounds View. The businesses that responded to the survey rank the City lower on its commitment to improvement. • Those City services that have the greatest gap between their rating of importance to businesses and their level of satisfaction with those services are: street repair, improving the County 10 corridor and property code enforcement. • While businesses have strong interests in improving County Road 10 and improving the overall economic development of the City, they are equally concerned about high taxes. While they clearly want to see development, they are concerned about rising taxes. • Businesses seemed very positive about the quality of life in Mounds View. They indicated that it is a good place to do business; it’s a great community, safe and convenient; and it has a unique small town feel for a suburb. • County Road 10 is seen as both critical to the image of the city and to business development in Mounds View. Improving the appearance of County 10 and even renaming it was of interest to the business respondents. Most indicated that changing the name would not be a problem. Appendix Mounds View Business Operators Survey Results – raw data tables Survey Written Responses Sample Mounds View Business Operators Survey DRAFT 1.22.2009 346042v2 SJS MU125-65 1 ORDINANCE NO. ______ CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 500, OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE REGARDING THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View hereby amends Title 500, Section 514.09 of the Mounds View Municipal Code by adding the underlined material and deleting the stricken material as follows: 514.09: PERSONS INELGIBLE FOR TO HOLD A LICENSE: Subd. 1. Therapeutic Massage Enterprise License: A therapeutic massage enterprise license may not be issued to or held by an individual who: a. Is a minor at the time the application is filed; b. Has been convicted of any crime directly related to the occupation licensed as prescribed by set forth in Minnesota Statutes, sSection 364.03, subdivision 2, and who has not shown competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness to perform the duties and responsibilities of a licensee as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, sSection 364.03, subdivision 3; c. Is not of good moral character or repute; d. Is not the real party in interest of the enterprise; e. Has misrepresented or falsified information on the license application. Subd. 2. Therapeutic Massage Therapist License: A therapeutic massage therapist license may not be issued to or held by a person who could not qualify for a therapeutic massage enterprise license or who is not (i) affiliated with, (ii) employed by or (iii) does not hold, a therapeutic massage enterprise license. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Mounds View hereby amends Title 500, Section 514.13 of the Mounds View Municipal Code by adding the underlined material and deleting the stricken material as follows: 514.13: LICENSE TERM; RENEWALS: Licenses expire annually on December 31. The license fee will be prorated in thirty (30) day increments for licenses issued after June 30. The Clerk-Administrator must prepare an application form for the renewal of a license requiring information that the manager he or she determines DRAFT 1.22.2009 346042v2 SJS MU125-65 2 necessary for consideration of the renewal. The renewal application must be made no later than November 30. SECTION 3. The City Council of the City of Mounds View hereby amends Title 500, Section 514.14 of the Mounds View Municipal Code by adding the underlined material and deleting the stricken material as follows: 514.14: SUSPENSION; REVOCATION: A license granted under this Section may be suspended or revoked by the City Council by resolution upon notice and public hearing for any violation of this Chapter, a conviction of any crime or misdemeanor directly related to the therapeutic massage occupation unless competent evidence can be shown of sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness to perform the duties of the occupation as set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 364.04 or any fraud, misrepresentations or incorrect statement in the license application or in the course of operating or conducting business. SECTION 4. 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 _________________. Second Reading and Adoption by the Mounds View City Council on _________________. Publication Date: ________________, 2009. Joe Flaherty, Mayor Attest: ______________________________ James Ericson City Clerk-Administrator (seal) Item Number: 2 Meeting Date: February 2, 2009 Type of Business: WS Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree Crane, Assistant City Clerk-Administrator Item Title/Subject: Therapeutic Massage License Background Due to the license revocation of the Jian Kang Massage business on January 5, 2009, Staff asked the City Attorney to review the City Code pertaining to therapeutic massage therapy. Specifically, Staff asked the City Attorney to review the eligibility and suspension/revocation requirements to ensure there are enough parameters in the code for compliance. Discussion The City Attorney proposed some language changes in the Therapeutic Massage Code. Attached is an Ordinance, drafted by the City Attorney, which revises sections 514.09, 514.13, and 514.14 of the Code. Many of the revisions are minor, but the main revision pertains to persons ineligible to hold this type of license. The new language would require the business owner to continually be of good moral character. The old language would only require this when the licensed was issued. The business owner would be required to continually be eligible for a Therapeutic Massage License. Section 514.14 of the Therapeutic Massage Code was also revised by the City Attorney in order to conform to Minnesota Statute 364.04, which is attached. Staff would like to present this Ordinance as a first reading at the February 23, 2009, City Council Meeting. This will allow the City Council the opportunity to ask any follow- up questions to the City Attorney. Please review the attached draft Ordinance. If the City Council has any questions or issues, then Staff can forward those questions and concerns to the City Attorney prior to the first reading. Respectfully submitted, Desaree Crane Item Number: 3 Meeting Date: February 2, 2009 Type of Business: WS Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree Crane, Assistant City Clerk-Administrator Item Title/Subject: City Council/Staff Retreat Agenda Draft The Mounds View City Council/Staff Retreat is scheduled for Saturday, February 28, 2009, at Random Park Building from 9am to 12pm. Below is draft agenda of items to discuss at this meeting. Please advise Staff if the City Council wishes to add or make changes to this agenda. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF RETREAT AGENDA SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2009 9AM – 12PM 1. Review the 2008-2009 City Goals. 2. Discuss City Finances. 3. Discuss the Risdall Survey Report. Respectfully submitted, Desaree Crane Item Number: 4 Meeting Date: February 2, 2009 Type of Business: WS Administrator Review: _____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Desaree Crane, Assistant City Clerk-Administrator Item Title/Subject: 2008 Citizenship Award Background: The City of Mounds View Citizenship Award recognizes ordinary citizens who have demonstrated to improving the community. Past recipients of this award include: 2004: David Jahnke 2005: Frank Silvis 2006: Ed Lanz 2007: Don Hodges Discussion: Staff is starting the nomination process for the 2008 Citizenship Award. The City of Mounds View Citizenship Award recognizes a Mounds View resident who represents the energetic, courageous, persistent and informed involvement of an ordinary citizen in the issues and the challenges that affect the City of Mounds View. The award seeks to honor highly effective community leaders who have an invested a significant amount of time improving our community. Nominations are open to the public and the award is subject to the following guidelines below: Eligibility: Nominees must be: • A Mounds View resident, business owner or land owners. • Recent elected officials, City employees, City contractors, or political candidates are not eligible. Selection Criteria: 1. Courage: Exemplifies courage and determination to follow one’s own values. 2. Initiative: Demonstrates drive and initiative in his/her approach and overcoming challenges on the way. 3. Time Commitment: Volunteers a significant amount of time and energy to the betterment of the City of Mounds View and its residents; more than just financial contributions. 4. Effectiveness: Generates positive results for the community. 5. Unselfishness: Does not expect anything in return for his/her actions, i.e., financial compensation, fame or political notoriety. Citizenship nominations forms are currently on the website and at the front desk of City Hall. Nomination information will also be placed in the spring edition of the Mounds View Matters. All nominations must be submitted to Mounds View City Hall by Friday, March 20, 2009, at 4:30pm. Staff will then submit copies of the nominations to the City Council for review at the March 23, 2009, City Council Meeting. The winner will have a plaque presented to him or her at the April 25, 2009, Town Hall Meeting. If the award recipient cannot attend the Town Hall Meeting then the City Council may consider presenting the award at a regular meeting. Attached is the nomination form for the 2008 Citizenship Award for your reference. Respectfully submitted, Desaree Crane MOUNDS VIEW CITIZENSHIP AWARD NOMINATION FORM Name of Nominee: Title (optional): Address: City, Zip Code: Phone: Fax: Email: Nominated By: Organization (if any): City, Zip Code: Phone: Fax: Email: (Attach additional pages as necessary). 1.) How long have you known the nominee and in what capacity? 2.) Describe briefly specific contributions the nominee has made to the community as it relates to the Mounds View Citizenship Award criteria: 3.) What special circumstances make the nominees’ achievements outstanding? 4.) Share any additional information about the nominee you would like considered: Application Process You are encouraged to submit one or more of the following documents to support this nomination: Background information. Letters of support from different community agencies and individuals. Any other material that demonstrates the nominee’s contribution to the community as it relates to the award criteria. Nominations must be in writing and may be supported by letters and other documentation. All materials must be received by the close of the nomination period, and become the property of the City of Mounds View. Selection Criteria In assessing the candidates for the Mounds View Citizenship Award, the award selection committee will look for an individual who has given unselfishly of his or her time to fight for a just cause that he or she believes will result in a better community. The award selection committee (the Mounds View City Council) will identify an exceptional individual who meets the criteria below. 1.) Courage Exemplifies courage and determination to follow one’s own values. 2.) Initiative Demonstrates drive and initiative in his/her approach and overcoming challenges along the way. 3.) Time Commitment Volunteers a significant amount of time and energy to further a cause or issue; more than just financial contributions. 4.) Effectiveness Generates positive results for the community. 5.) Unselfishness Does not expect anything in return for his/her actions, i.e. financial compensation, fame, or political notoriety. To nominate an individual All nominations must be received by Friday, March 20, 2009. Complete the nomination form. Gather letters and documents to support the nomination. Send all nomination materials to: • The City of Mounds View Citizenship Award 2401 County Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 Ph: (763) 717-4000 Fax: (763) 784 - 4019 If you have any questions about the nomination process, please call our offices at: 763-717-4000. Item No. 5 Meeting Date: February 2, 2009 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: Local Surface Water Management Plan – Consideration of Revised City Review Draft Background: The City is currently updating its Comprehensive Plan for submittal to the Metropolitan Council. A requirement for the approval of the Comprehensive Plan is that the City have an approved Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP). SEH prepared a draft LSWMP for Mounds View in 2002; however, this plan was never finalized. Since the 2002 LSWMP was prepared, significant developments in the approach to surface water management in Mounds View have occurred, most notably: • New Metropolitan Council requirements for LSWMPs as part of 2030 Comprehensive Plan submittals • Adoption of new rules in 2008 by the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) • Recent development of the City’s Street and Utility Improvement Program • New City stormwater obligations as a holder of an Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program Given these surface water management developments, the City Council determined that at this time the most effective and appropriate method to meet the LSWMP requirements of the Comprehensive Plan is to develop a new LSWMP to replace the existing draft plan. The existing LSWMP would be used as a resource for the new LSWMP, with information from the existing LSWMP retained and brought forward to the extent practical. On June 23, 2008 the City Council adopted Resolution 7299 authorizing Bonestroo to prepare the Local Surface Water Management Plan for the City. Discussion: The LSWMP has been developed to serve as a comprehensive planning document to guide the City of Mounds View in conserving, protecting, and managing its surface water resources and comply with the Metropolitan Surface LSWMP – Consideration of Revised City Review Draft February 2, 2009 Page 2 Water Management Act, Minnesota Rules 8410, and the requirements of the RCWD. This document provides an inventory of water resource related information including the results of assessments conducted by other governmental units, both local and state. From this inventory and assessment, Mounds View sets forth its goals and policies and implementation program. The LSWMP is organized as follows: Section 1 offers an introduction to the purpose and scope of the LSWMP, including Rice Creek Watershed District’s LSWMP content requirements. Section 2 of this LSWMP provides an inventory of land and water resources within the City including a description of the physical setting, information regarding pertinent water resources data, and the 2030 land use map. Section 3 includes a comprehensive list of the regulatory agencies influencing the management of surface water in Mounds View. Section 4 describes plans, studies, and rules related to surface water management in Mounds View that are referenced in the LSWMP. Section 5 identifies the surface water management agreements between Mounds View and other entities. Section 6 provides a current assessment of surface water management in Mounds View, including surface water modeling, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process, comparison of regulatory standards, and identification of issues and corrective actions. Section 7 lists the goals and policies identified to address surface water management needs in the City. Section 8 identifies implementation projects and activities to address assessment items from Section 6 and the goals and policies from Section 7. Section 9 outlines the continued administration of this plan including plan updates and amendments. Plan Highlights: The surface water benefits associated with the recently adopted Stormwater Infiltration Program (SIP) developed to address RCWD stormwater management rules associated with the City’s Street and Utility Improvement Program (SUIP) are discussed in the LSWMP. With the scope of the SUIP reconstructing approximately 80% of the streets within the City, implementation of the SIP will have a major impact on surface water management and water quality benefits within Mounds View. The need for the water quality improvement projects identified in the 2002 draft LSWMP ha s been reassessed within the context of surface water management benefits associated with the SIP. Our findings from this reassessment include: LSWMP – Consideration of Revised City Review Draft February 2, 2009 Page 3 − The treatment areas for these 2002 projects overlap with one or more of the City’s SUIP projects that will implement SIP improvements. − The water quality benefits associated with the SIP improvements are equal to or greater than the benefits associated with the 2002 improvements. Therefore, all of the water quality improvement projects identified in the 2002 draft LSWMP have been removed from the list of implementation projects with the water quality benefit associated with the improvements replaced by the benefits of the SIP. The surface water management authority, roles, and responsibilities of the City and RCWD are clearly identified. The LSWMP includes a comprehensive assessment of the City’ surface water management system, the identification of necessary improvements to the system, and a plan to prioritize, fund, and implement these improvements. Recommendation: Staff is looking for feedback from Council on the contents of the LSWMP. Most specifically, any comments related to the Current Assessment (Section 6), Goals and Policies (Section 7), and Implementation (Section 8) sections of the LSWMP. Based on the feedback from Council, the draft plan will be updated to become the agency review draft version of the LSWMP. Based on the discussion at the Council Work Session, if Council so desires, the agency review draft LSWMP will be presented at the February 9th City Council meeting to formally authorize City Staff to submit the LSWMP to Rice Creek Watershed District, Metropolitan Council, and Ramsey Conservation District for review as required. Additional Item – MS4 Map Completion: In addition to discussing the draft LSWMP, City Staff is requesting that a related item outside the scope of the LSWMP be discussed by the Council at this Work Session. One of the City’s stormwater obligations as a holder of an MS4 permit under the NPDES program is the development of a stormwater management map. This map identifies the stormwater features (stormwater ponds, infiltration basins, structural pollution control devises, outfalls, etc.) in the City that are regulated under the City’s MS4 permit. While the preparation of the stormwater management map as required by the MS4 permit is outside the scope of the LSWMP, the basis for the map coincides with the drainage area map that is part of the LSWMP. The MS4 regulated stormwater features can be added to the drainage area map in the LSWMP to create one map that serves two purposes: a drainage area map for the LSWMP and the stormwater management map for MS4 permit compliance. The benefits to creating a single map for two purposes include cost savings in creating, printing, and updating the map, as well more efficient map management, LSWMP – Consideration of Revised City Review Draft February 2, 2009 Page 4 removing the possibility of creating contradictory information if multiple maps are maintained. If the Council wants to pursue this option, we will work with City Staff to develop a scope of work and cost to present to the Council at the February 23rd City Council meeting. It should be noted that the preparation of this map can coincide with the agency review of the LSWMP. The completed stormwater management map would be incorporated in the final version of the LSWMP that will be adopted by the Council later this spring. Respectfully Submitted, Joe Rhein, Consulting Engineer Attachments: • Revised City Review Draft Local Surface Water Management Plan (January 2009) Item No. 6 Meeting Date: February 2, 2009 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:Street and Utility Improvement Program: Agreement For Improvements Under A Public Contract Background: On October 22, 2007 the City Council approved Resolution 7176 Establishing the Street and Utility Improvement Program. The Resolution included standards for the public improvements to be performed under the projects in the Program. On February 11, 2008 the City Council approved Resolution 7223 creating the Streets and Utilities Committee. Among its duties, the Committee was to review non-standard issues for the public improvements on each project within the Program and make recommendation to the City Council. On March 24, 2008 the City Council adopted Resolution 7243 Ordering the 2009- 2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project, which is the first project in the Program. On September 22, 2008 the City Council adopted Resolution 7338 Approving the Policy to Address Non-Conforming Driveways within the Street and Utility Improvement Program. Through the development of the 2009-2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project, it has become apparent that there are a number of additional private issues that have the potential to affect the public improvements to be performed. Discussion: Philosophy The construction of each project within the Street and Utility Improvement Program will present opportunities for a number of specific improvements that will benefit only an individual property. Examples of such opportunities include: - Repair of an existing sanitary sewer service - Installation of a new sewer and water service for a future lot split - Installation of a second street access (where allowed) - Installation of a non-conforming width street access (where allowed) - Modification of a street access from the existing condition City Council Work Session – Item 6 February 2, 2009 Page 2 For each of the instances noted above, the individual property owner could pursue the work by hiring a contractor privately. However, Staff recommendation is that, to the maximum extent possible, the improvements for these situations be included in the public City contract for the street and utility improvement project. There are several reasons why this approach is desirable: - Consistency of work quality - Consistency of price - Warranty on the work - Process is easier for the property owner - Less expense to the property owner - City control over the work and coordination with the street and utility improvement project This list of reasons shows that including those improvements in the public contract will be beneficial to both the City and the property owner. However the last reason noted, City control, is the most important from a City perspective, and is the primary reason why it is recommended that the City provide the private improvements under the public contract. The City is making an enormous investment in its infrastructure through the Street and Utility Improvement Program. Each of the private improvements listed requires disturbing the infrastructure – through activities such as cutting into the curb or excavating beneath the road. If these activities are done after the City has completed their project, they will result in cutting into the brand new streets that the City has constructed. This has a detrimental effect on the infrastructure, and compromises its overall integrity. Furthermore, if private property owners hire their own contractors to do such work while the City project is occurring, it can cause scheduling problems for the City contractor, leading to delays and increased costs. Therefore, for reasons of efficiency, cost, and protection of the infrastructure, it is recommended that the private improvements in question be included in the City contract. Proceeding with this approach will require that the proper policies and procedures are in place. It is recommended that an Agreement be developed for use between the City and the private property owners for such improvements, to state in writing the roles and responsibilities of each party. Description of Situations A brief description of each of the situations for which an Agreement could be used is given below: x Sanitary Sewer Service Repair: The private property owner owns the sanitary sewer and water service lines from the connection at the main to the house. The City has an existing policy in place to address repair of water services. No such policy exists for repair of sanitary sewer services. City Council Work Session – Item 6 February 2, 2009 Page 3 The property owner is left to hire a contractor on their own and pay for the repair. A street opening permit is required from the City, at a fee of $30. In addition, if the repair requires excavation within the street, the property owner must provide a $1,000 security to ensure the street will be restored properly. If this work were done under the City project instead, the benefits would be: -Property owner doesn’t have to find a contractor -Property owner knows the price up front -Same warranty on work as the City project -City inspection of the work -No scheduling conflicts / delays for City contractor -New street isn’t dug up later -Resident could save permit fee -Resident would save security amount It should be noted that the $1,000 security for street repair is based on the existing street conditions. Staff will recommend that the security amount be raised once the streets have been reconstructed. The recommended value of the new security amount is likely to be several times the current amount. x Installation of new Sewer & Water service for future lot split: For those existing properties that meet code requirements for potential lot splits in the future, the property owner could choose to have a new sewer and water service extended to the property now to serve that future lot if they ever proceeded with the lot split. Benefits would be similar to those noted above for the sanitary sewer repair. x Non-Conforming Driveways: Resolution 7338, adopted by the City Council on September 22, 2008, established the policy for addressing non-conforming driveways. This includes instances where more than one driveway or a driveway wider than the City Code maximum would be allowed. The Resolution states that a written Agreement is required. A copy of Resolution 7338 is included with this Staff Report for reference. x Modifications of Conforming Driveways: Consideration needs to be given as to how the City will handle the situation where a property owner wishes to modify their existing driveway, but still stay within City Code requirements. The most common situation would be widening of a driveway. For example, a property owner may an existing 15-foot wide driveway, and want to widen it to 24-feet, which is the maximum allowed by Code. City Council Work Session – Item 6 February 2, 2009 Page 4 Technically, no variance is required for this situation. However, since the City will be installing concrete barrier curbs and concrete driveway aprons on the reconstructed streets, it is recommended that the City have a procedure in place to manage this issue. Items for consideration are: -Who pays for the “extra” curb cut and apron? -How does the City ensure the extra width won’t be used for access to park vehicles on an unimproved surface? The City of Spring Lake Park encountered this exact issue during their street reconstruction projects. We have previously discussed with Council a form that Spring Lake Park had developed to identify and approve a second driveway access for a property. Spring Lake Park also used that same form to identify widened (or narrowed) driveways. A copy of the form is included with this Staff Report for reference. In addition, Spring Lake Park required a property owner who received a widened driveway to sign an agreement stating that they would improve the driveway on their private property to match the City apron within a certain period of time. If the property owner did not, the City had the right to come back and remove the “extra” driveway width. A copy of this agreement form is also included with this Staff Report. Policies & Procedures It is recommended that the City develop policies and procedures for addressing the situations described above. Staff feels that a general Agreement could be developed for this purpose, to allow for such private improvements under the City public improvement project. The Agreement could contain standard language and terms, and provide blanks to be completed for each specific application: -Property information -Improvement to be performed -Cost / fee for the work -Method of payment -Signatures For the case of driveway improvements, forms similar to those used by Spring Lake Park could be included in the Agreement to clarify the work as well as to state requirements for any matching improvements the property owner must perform on their property. If Council concurs with this recommendation, this item could be brought forward to a regular City Council meeting to consider adoption of a Resolution to direct the development of the Agreement form. The City Attorney would need to be involved in the development. City Council Work Session – Item 6 February 2, 2009 Page 5 If an Agreement form is to be developed, its parameters must be established. Items that warrant discussion at this time are: -Financing of the improvements -Setting of fees -Coordination with property owners x Financing of the Improvements Resolution 7338 addresses this parameter for Non-Conforming Driveways. It states that the property owner will be responsible for 100% of the cost. Staff feels that parameter could also be applied to the sanitary sewer repairs, and also the installation of new sewer and water service lines. Those improvements provided benefit to only a single property, and are not standard benefits that are experienced by all properties within the project. The issue of widening a driveway within the City Code requirements is not as clear. It is recommended that the City Council discuss this issue and provide direction as to whether this is considered a standard benefit that should be provided (financed) by the City, or if it is a property-specific benefit that is to be paid for by the property owner. x Setting of Fees The construction contract for the 2009-2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project includes specific line items for the types of improvements described in this Staff Report. For example – installation of water service pipe by the lineal foot; installation of concrete driveway surface by the square yard. Once the construction bids are received and a construction contract is awarded, the City can use those costs to set fees for the work. The fees would include all associated costs such as engineering, legal, inspection, testing, etc. The City Council should discuss whether it prefers to set a standard fee for each improvement that is adjusted annually, or whether it prefers to set the fee for the work for each project area based on the actual construction bids received. x Coordination with Property Owners If the general approach described in this Staff Report were to be implemented, the City would need to coordinate with the property owners to identify the work to be done. Since all improvements would be private, they must be requested by the property owner. However, City Council Work Session – Item 6 February 2, 2009 Page 6 since the improvements would be done under a City project, the City would need to facilitate the work. A process should be developed for the notification of property owners and solicitation of the work. Staff feels a possible approach would be to utilize the Neighborhood Preconstruction Meeting. The standard schedule for each project within the Street and Utility Improvement Program includes the holding of a Neighborhood Preconstruction Meeting prior to the start of construction. The Meeting would typically be held in late March, and construction typically starts in early to mid May. The Neighborhood Preconstruction Meeting requires that a notice be mailed to each property to inform and invite them to the Meeting. This notice could be prepared to include preliminary information on the opportunity for private improvements as part of the project. The presentation given at the Meeting could also include a section to provide information on this subject. Issues such as the modification of an existing driveway within City Code requirements could apply to any property within the project area, and therefore information on this topic could be included in the general Meeting notice sent out. However, other issues will apply to only a small number of specific properties within a project area. For example, the City can identify in advance those properties with multiple existing driveways, or those that may meet the criteria for future lot split. Since there is a benefit to the City to have as much of these private improvements done under the City contract as possible, to avoid cut-in or disturbance of the new street at a later date, the City should actively solicit the work for those properties with specific situations, such as the multiple driveway or potential lot split. This could be done through the development of supplements for the Meeting notice. A separate supplement could be prepared for each type of improvement, and could be included with the general notice for the Neighborhood Preconstruction Meeting. For example, for a property that is a potential future lot split, a separate sheet would be included with the general Neighborhood Preconstruction Meeting notice to inform them of this fact, so that they are aware of it and can give it consideration in advance of when construction starts. If the property owner wants more information on the subject, they can get it by either attending the Neighborhood Preconstruction Meeting or by contacting City Staff directly. City Council Work Session – Item 6 February 2, 2009 Page 7 Schedule for 2009-2010 Street & Utility Improvement Project At their meeting of January 20, 2009, the Streets and Utilities Committee scheduled the Neighborhood Preconstruction Meeting for the 2009-2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project for the evening of Thursday, March 19, 2009. Staff would like to mail the notice for this meeting to the property owners three to four weeks in advance. If the City Council is interested in proceeding with any semblance of the ideas discussed in this Staff Report, Staff could prepare the necessary materials for consideration and formal direction at one of the February City Council meetings. This would allow for the information to be included in the mailing sent out for the Neighborhood Preconstruction Meeting for the 2009-2010 Project. Recommendation: Staff is looking for direction from Council on the subject of including private improvements within the public construction contracts for the Street and Utility Improvement Project. Topics for consideration include, but are not limited to: - Development of a standard agreement form - Financing of the work - Setting of fees - Notification processes / solicitation of property owners Respectfully Submitted, Joseph R. Rhein, Consulting Engineer Attachments: x Resolution 7338 – Policy to Address Non-Conforming Driveways x Example “Curb Cut Request Application” - Spring Lake Park x Example “Legal Agreement” for Driveway Improvement - Spring Lake Park Resolution 7338 Page 1 RESOLUTION 7338 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING THE POLICY TO ADDRESS NON-CONFORMING DRIVEWAYS WITHIN THE STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 7176 adopted by the City Council on Oct. 22, 2007, the Street and Utility Improvement Program was established; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 7223 adopted by the City Council on Feb. 11, 2008, the Streets and Utilities Committee was created; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 7245 adopted by the City Council on March 24, 2008, the members of the Streets and Utilities Committee were appointed; and WHEREAS, Chapter 1121 of the City Code limits single family properties to one curb cut for driveway access from the public street; and WHEREAS, Chapter 1121 of the City Code also limits the maximum allowable width of a curb cut for driveway access from the public street to a single family property to 24 feet; and WHEREAS, on August 18, 2008 the Streets and Utilities Committee adopted recommendations regarding non-conforming driveways within the Street and Utility Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, on September 2, 2008 the City Council discussed the recommendations of the Streets and Utilities Committee for non-conforming driveways within the Street and Utility Improvement Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows: 1.Multiple driveway accesses to single family residential properties will be allowed on the projects under the Street and Utility Improvement Program only if all of the following conditions are met: a.The access beyond the primary access existed prior to January 2000, or has been permitted by the City through an approved variance or other acceptable means. b.The access in question has an improved surface in compliance with City Code requirements. Resolution 7338 Page 2 c.The property owner makes formal request to the City that the access beyond the primary access be allowed. d.Upon review of the access in question, the City deems that it is not a danger and poses no public safety hazard. e.The property owner pays 100% of all associated costs with the work under the project to provide the additional access. 2.The curb cut for a driveway access to a single family property will be constructed in compliance with the maximum width and minimum setback requirements stated in the City Code per Chapter 1121 wherever possible. 3.The curb cut for a driveway access to a single family property will be allowed to exceed the maximum width requirement stated in the City Code per Chapter 1121 only if all of the following conditions are met: a.The width of the existing driveway at the edge of the street exceeds the maximum allowable curb cut width. b.The curb cut in question has been permitted by the City through an approved variance or other acceptable means. c.The City determines that it is not possible to reduce the width of the driveway to comply with the maximum allowable curb cut width. 4.In the case where a curb cut wider than the maximum stated by City Code for a single family property is allowed, the property owner shall pay 100% of all costs associated with the work to provide the following: a.The portion of the curb cut in excess of the maximum allowable width per City Code. b.The portion of the adjacent concrete apron in excess of the maximum allowable curb cut width per City Code. c.Any and all portion of the adjacent driveway within the public right of way in excess of the maximum allowable curb cut width per City Code that is reconstructed as part of the Street and Utility Improvement Program. Resolution 7338 Page 3 5.Where a multiple driveway access or a curb cut in excess of the maximum width is allowed for a single family property, the property owner shall be required to enter into a signed agreement with the City. Components of the agreement shall include the following: a.The agreement shall state the scope of the work b.The agreement shall state the cost of the work c.The agreement shall state the terms of payment for the work d.The agreement must be signed prior to any work being performed by the City on the driveway access in question. 6.The City shall establish the rates of cost for a multiple driveway access and for a driveway access in excess of the maximum width for a single family property. The rates shall be set either annually or for each individual project within the Street and Utility Improvement Program. Adopted this 22nd day of September 2008. ____________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor (ATTEST) ____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) CURB CUT REQUEST APPLICATION City of Spring Lake Park 1301 Eighty FirstAvenue Northeast Spring Lake Park, Minnesota 55432 Phone: (612) 784-6491 Fax: (763) 792-7257 To be Completed by Request Applicant NAME: STREET ADDRESS: SIGNATURE DATE City Official Use Only CURB CUT DISTANCE:LN. FT. CITY OFFICIAL VERIFICATION: SIGNATURE DATE Linear Feet of Curb Cut X’s Cost per Linear Foot = $ TOTAL DUE PIN NUMBER: For Office Use Only 20% VARIANCE APPROVED AND ATTACHED TO VERIFY DATE PAID: RECEIPT NUMBER: ASSESSED: FUND NUMBER: I hereby agree to the stated measurement, cost per linear feet, and the total amount due. I have also indicated above as to the preference of payment regarding my additional curb cut Preference of Payment: To be paid in full To be added to my assessments ADDITIONAL CURB CUT DETAILSATTACHED EXISTING HOUSE AND GARAGE EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE STREET STREETExisting Concrete Driveway Rear Property Line Front Property Line Side Property LineSide Property LineCurb Line Curb L i n e ExistingAsphalt Driveway ??Proposed 2nd Curb Cut Location EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATION Existing Curb Cut ILLUSTRATE YOUR REQUEST PHONE: 1 C:\Documents and Settings\jrr\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK14F\DRIVEWAY LEGAL AGREEMENT (2).doc LEGAL AGREEMENT The undersigned, property owner(s) of the described property located at: Spring Lake Park, Minnesota 55432 Does hereby agree to conduct and complete the number items listed below for the City of Spring Lake Park (hereby known as the “City”), within Thirty (30) days of the date signed below. In concurrence, the City shall permit a curb cut to be installed as specified by attached reference: Attached Completed Curb Cut Request Application form. Attached Contract Agreement with Contractor to perform Improvements. Attached Picture and/or Drawing of Existing Garage and Improved Driveway. 1.That an improved driveway in compliance with Section 35.073 of the City Code and the 2002-2004 City Street Reconstruction Project Policies, be constructed as noted by above reference. 2.That the property owner(s) shall pay any additional cost associated and as determined by the City, for such curb cut improvements. 3.That the City shall be held harmless from any and all liability as a result of such improvements. Dated this __________ day of _________________, 2004 By: ______________________________________ (Signature) ________________________, Property Owner(s) (Please Print Name)