HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2007/08/06Z- z ac/?
UAL
4ST oa o
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA
MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL
Monday, August 6, 2007
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. SPECIAL PRESENTATION – Festival in the Park T-Shirt Design Winner
_________ 2. Finance:
A. Review 2008 General Fund Budget
_________ 3. Public Works
A. Draft Streets Feasibility Report
B. Review Status of Noise Wall Project: Options/strategy
C. Water Meter Reading System Replacement Proposal
D. Water Sprinkling – Irrigation Update
E. Emergency Power Supply – Generator Purchase
F. Xcel Energy Gas Main Installation Project Update
________ 4. Community Development
A. Review Rental Licensing Program, Potential Expansion to Single-Family Rental
Properties
B. Review Nuisance (Repeat call) Ordinance
C. Proposal to Locate Clothing Recycling Containers in the City
D. Tree Preservation Ordinance
E. Review Premium Stop Redevelopment Proposal
________ 5. Administration:
A. Progress Report on City Goals
B. Ultimate Fighting Report Update
C. Discuss Resolution Establishing the Process for Determining the Sufficiency of
Petitions Pursuant to City Charter
Next Work Session: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
Next City Council Meeting: Monday, August 13, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
Item No. 01A
Meeting Date: August 6, 2007
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: Desaree Crane, Assistant to the City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Special Presentation – Festival in the Park T-Shirt
Design Winner
There will be a special presentation of the Festival in the Park T-Shirt Winner at this
Work Session. Please wear your Festival in the Park T-shirts to this presentation. This
will serve as great publicity for the Festival in the Park event scheduled for Sunday,
August 19th. If you do not have a Festival in the Park T-Shirt, then please contact me
and I will ensure that you have one.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
Item No. 3A
Meeting Date: August 6, 2007
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: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Street and Utility Project for 2008 – Consider
Authorizing Preparation of an Updated Feasibility
Report
Background:
Prior to the City Council Work Session on August 6, 2007, the Streets and
Utilities Task Force will be asked if they would want to consider recommending
that the City Council initiate the Street and Utility Improvement Program in 2008
by scheduling a reconstruction project for a selected portion of the City.
Discussion:
Staff recognizes that this recommendation may be somewhat beyond the scope
and purpose of the Streets and Utilities Task Force and more in line with the
authority of the City Council. However, it is a necessary issue that would need to
be addressed before the Streets and Utilities Task Force can develop a
recommended overall Street and Utility Program.
Given this, the City Council may want discuss this issue. Should the City Council
wish to implement a project in 2008, Staff will present a resolution on August 13,
2007 to update the feasibility report of the portion of the City that is selected by
the City Council.
To implement a construction project for 2008 authorizations to proceed must be
made shortly. A schedule for the development of a Street and Utility Program and
a schedule for a 2008 Street and Utility Improvement Project have been drafted
(see attachments). It should be pointed out that the Public Hearing for the Street
and Utility Program is scheduled for October 22, 2007 and the Public Hearing
and ordering of a 2008 Street and Utility Improvement Project would occur later,
on November 13, 2007.
Recommendation:
Staff is looking for direction on this matter. Specifically, Staff is looking for
Council direction regarding whether they would like to implement a Street and
Utility Improvement Project in 2008, and if so, what area of the City the project
would include.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Streets and Utilities Task Force Program
Action Plan and Schedule
Prepared March 28, 2007
Revised / Update: July 31, 2007
March 5, 2007 Discuss Strategy Option – City Council Work Session
March 12, 2007 Structure of a Streets and Utilities Task Force Developed and Approved
by City Council
March 21, 2007 Task Force Notice published in New Brighton-Mounds View Bulletin and
published on City Web site
March 28, 2007 Task Force Notice published in New Brighton-Mounds View Bulletin
March 29, 2007 Task Force Notice mailed to all properties in 2005 and 2007/2008 Street
and Utility Improvement Project Areas
March 30, 2007 Letter sent to all interested parties who have requested to be on the
Streets and Utilities Task Force. Includes meeting dates and times, where
to obtain meeting packets, and information on reviewing the “Streets 101”
presentation
April 2, 2007 Task Force Status discussed with the City Council at a Work session
April 14, 2007 Bus Tour to review Street Issues (12:30pm-2:30pm).
April 16, 2007 Task Force Meeting – Introduction, history, objective, discuss developing
a street standard(s).
May 7, 2007 Task Force Meeting – Design Group: Discussed Street Widths
Finance Group: Discussed Financing Sources
May 21, 2007 Task Force Meeting – Design Group: Developed recommended street
width guide map, discussed Street
Sections and life cycles
Finance Group: Discussed Assessments / Tax Levy
June 4, 2007 Task Force Meeting – Design Group: Developed Recommended Street Section
and Curbing Material
Finance Group: Discussed 10-year Financing Plan
June 18, 2007 Task Force Meeting – Design Group: Discussed Curbing Styles
Finance Group: Finalized 10-year Financing Plan
July 2, 2007 Task Force Meeting – Design Group: Developed Recommended Curbing
Style
Finance Group: Developed Communication Plan
July 16, 2007 Task Force Meeting – Design Group: Discussed Water Quality / Best
Management Practices
Finance Group: Discussed recommended policy for
previously assessed properties
August 6, 2007 Task Force Meeting – Determine if a project for 2008 is desired, if so
discuss what neighborhood section to authorize preparation of a
revised/updated feasibility report in preparation of a 2008 construction
project (must be a sub-group of former sections A, B, and/or E)
Design Group: Finalize Water Quality Issues/ Utilities/ and Grouping of
mailboxes
Finance Group: Finalize Communication Plan
August 20, 2007 Task Force Meeting – Develop Prioritization and Implementation Plan and
Policy
September 4, 2007 Task Force Meeting – Finalize Prioritization and Implementation Plan and
Policy
September 17, 2007 Task Force Meeting – Review and Approve Final Streets and Utilities
Task Force Recommendations
September 19, 2007 Public News Letter of Draft Streets and Utilities Improvement Program is
created (color program: implementation and street width maps included)
September 24, 2007 City Council sets public hearing of October 22nd pertaining to the Streets
and Utilities Improvement and Implementation Program
September 24, 2007 Public News Letter / Public Hearing Notice is reviewed by City Council
September 25, 2007 Draft Streets and Utilities Improvement Program and Public Hearing
Notice Press Release
September 25, 2007 Draft Streets and Utilities Improvement Program and Public Hearing
Notice placed on City web site
September 25, 2007 Public News Letter / Public Hearing Notice submitted to be printed
September 27, 2007 Public Improvement Hearing Notice is sent to newspaper to be published
on October 3rd and October 10th
September 27, 2007 Public News Letter / Public Hearing Notice Posted at City Hall and
Mounds View Community Center (park buildings if feasible)
October 1, 2007 Public Hearing is announced at City Council Work Session. Discuss any
issues
October 2, 2007 Public News Letter / Public Hearing Notice sent to all Mounds View
Property Owners (Note: this is different than how the Mounds View
Matters is delivered – which is simply to all properties within Mounds
View) and if possible/ feasible to all properties within Mounds View
October 3, 2007 Public Improvement Hearing Notice is published in the newspaper (first
publication)
October 8, 2007 Public Hearing is announced at City Council Meeting
October 10, 2007 Public Improvement Hearing Notice is published in the newspaper
(second publication)
October 15, 2007 Public Hearing information is displayed on City Message Board
October 22, 2007 Public Hearing for the Streets and Utilities Improvement Program is Held.
City Council Approves and Adopts the Streets and Utilities Improvement
Program which includes the Streets and Utilities Task Force
Recommendations and Implementation Program.
October 23, 2007 Final Approved Streets and Utilities Improvement Program is displayed at
City Hall and Mounds View Community Center. It is also displayed on the
City’s web site.
January / February Final Approved Streets and Utilities Improvement Program is displayed in
the next edition of the Mounds View Matters
Infrastructure Improvement Program
2008 Street and Utility Improvement Project
Action Plan and Schedule
ASSUMES NO ASSESMENTS
Prepared June 20, 2007
Revised / Update: July 31, 2007
August 6, 2007 Task Force and City Council discuss what neighborhood section to
authorize preparation of a revised/updated feasibility report in preparation
of a 2008 construction project (must be a sub-group of former sections A,
B, and/or E)
August 13, 2007 Council authorizes preparation of a revised/updated feasibility report - for
Section X
August 14, 2007 Informational Notice and Notice of Neighborhood Meeting sent to property
owners in Section X
August 22, 2007 Meeting and /or discuss project with all relevant government agencies
(Rice Creek Watershed District, Ramsey County, St. Paul Water, MWCC,
Department of Health, Corps of Engineers, DNR, MPCA General Storm
Water Permit….)
August 30, 2007 Neighborhood Meeting with Property Owners in Section X. Also include
discussion pertaining to raingardens
September 4, 2007 Staff report (verbal) summarizing the neighborhood meeting. Review /
discuss comments and issues from Neighborhood Meeting
September 10, 2007 Due date for submitting General Feedback Forms & Raingarden
preference Feedback Forms
September 17, 2007 Notice sent to Project Neighborhood – October 1st Work Session, can
obtain draft reports on-line or at City Hall on September 28, 2007
September 26, 2007 Draft Revised / Updated Feasibility Report Completed
September 28, 2007 Post Draft Revised / Updated Feasibility Report on City’s web site, Print
additional copies to have at City Hall
October 1, 2007 Council reviews draft feasibility report at Work Session
October 8, 2007 City Council sets Public Improvement Hearing Date of November 13,
2007
October 10, 2007 Public Improvement Hearing Notice is prepared (includes: time, place,
general nature of improvement, and estimated cost and notes that no
properties are proposed to be assessed)
October 11, 2007 Public Improvement Hearing Notice is sent to property owners. Possibly
include draft feasibility report
October 11, 2007 Public Improvement Hearing Notice is sent to newspaper to be published
on October 17th and October 24th
October 17, 2007 Public Improvement Hearing Notice is published in the newspaper (first
publication)
October 24, 2007 BRAA to submit FINAL feasibility reports (25 copies).
October 24, 2007 Public Improvement Hearing Notice is published in the newspaper
(second publication)
November 5, 2007 City Council Work Session – discussion on any remaining items (if
needed)
November 13, 2007 Public Improvement Hearing is held, present FINAL feasibility report. City
Council approves report.
60-Day Protest Period
January 12, 2008 End of 60-Day Protest Period
January 14, 2008 City Council orders the project and authorizes the preparation of plans
and specifications
April 28, 2008 City Council Approves Plans and Specifications, sets a May 22, 2008 bid
date, and authorizes the advertisement for bids
April 30, 2008 Consultant prepares bid notice and sends to construction bulletin and City
Newspaper to be published on May 7th and May 14th
April 30, 2008 Consultant sends plans and specifications along with all permits
application to all relevant government agencies (Rice Creek Watershed
District, Ramsey County, St. Paul Water, MWCC, Department of Health,
Corps of Engineers, DNR, MPCA General Storm Water Permit….)
May 7, 2008 Bid Notice Published in City Official Newspaper (first publication)
May 14, 2008 Bid Notice Published in City Official Newspaper (second publication)
May 22, 2008 Bids Received (Thursday 10:00 AM, Mounds View City Hall)
May 26, 2008 Award Construction Contract
May 28, 2008 All necessary permits are received: (Department of Health, MCES, Rice
Creek Watershed District, Ramsey County, St. Paul Water, DNR, MPCA
General Storm Water Permit….)
May 28, 2008 Neighborhood Preconstruction Meeting Notice sent out
June 11, 2008 Contracts Executed
June 18, 2008 Preconstruction Meeting held with Contractor
June 25, 2008 Neighborhood Preconstruction Meeting held
July 7, 2008 Construction Begins
November 14, 2008 Construction Completed
August 15, 2009 Placement of Bituminous Wear Surface
pItem No. 3B
Meeting Date: August 6, 2007
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: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Trunk Highway 10 Noise Wall Update
Background:
On January 2, 2007 an update regarding the Trunk Highway 10 Noise Wall was
presented to the City Council at a Work Session. At this meeting the City Council
indicated that they wish to have Mn/DOT proceed with the noise wall in the Ardan
Park Area (Segment A) and other aspects of the Trunk Highway 10 Noise Wall.
Based on this direction, Staff requested Ulteig Engineers, the engineering firm
that the City hired to work on this project, to forward all the data, including
incomplete construction plan sheets and incomplete specifications that they had
developed to Mark Lindaberg, Mn/DOT Regional Representative.
Staff met with Mr. Lindaberg along with Peter Wasko, Mn/DOT’s Noise
Abatement Specialist on Thursday, May 31, 2007. The purpose of this meeting
was to discuss the status of the noise wall in the Ardan Park Area (Segment A)
and determine the City preferred alignment of the wall adjacent to Ardan Park.
At the Work Session on June 4, 2007, Staff provided the City Council an update
on this project and asked for direction as to the alignment of the wall in Ardan
Park. City Council directed Staff to direct Mn/DOT to proceed with the plans that
showed the wall being located at the City/State common property line.
Discussion:
Based on the May 31, 2007 meeting with Mn/DOT, plans for the noise wall for a
portion of Ardan Park are currently being created and construction of the wall is
scheduled to begin in late spring of 2008.
In addition, Mn/DOT has stated that they will perform sound monitoring at two
spots along Laport Drive as per the cities request. These will be at the same
monitoring locations (2312 and 2300 Laport Drive) that were done in 2000.
Staff has calls into Mn/DOT to re-confirm the construction schedule for the wall
and to get a status report regarding the sound monitoring activities at Laport
Drive.
Recommendation:
Staff is providing this as an informational update.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item No. 3C
Meeting Date: August 6, 2007
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: Michael Schnur, Lead Utility Operator
Item Title/Subject: Water Meter Reading System Replacement
Proposal - Review Options
Background:
The current meter reading system was installed between the fall of 1995 and the
spring of 1996. This involved replacing the meters, and installing an automated
meter reading system. The meter reading system was comprised of two different
types of readers. The first and most common installation was the MIU / Phone
Reader, which once every three months makes a call to the City with the current
meter reading. The Second was a MXU / Radio Reader, which once every three
months the City would drive by each house and get a current meter reading. The
MIU / Phone Readers were installed as the standard reading units. Only in cases
where an MIU / Phone Reader could not be installed was a MXU / Radio Reader
installed. There were approximately 300 MXU / Radio Readers installed. This
project was contracted and installed by Water Pro, for a total price of
approximately $830,000.
Discussion:
The meters themselves have been very reliable and accurate. The only problem
the City has encountered with the meters is a noise emanating from the chamber
(working /moving part of the meter) on higher volume using houses. This was
typical on some homes with irrigation systems. Correcting this is an easy and
inexpensive repair. It is done by either changing to a bigger meter, or replacing the
chamber.
The MXU / Radio Read devices have operated very reliably in the past. The only
issue encountered was a mass failure of the batteries with in these units. However
this issues was expected and has since been addressed. The replacement of
batteries with in these units should not be an issue for another 4-5 years.
The MIU / Phone Read system, however, has posed ongoing maintenance issues
from the initial installation. While these issues have been manageable in the past,
it has become a large problem in the last four quarters.
·Year 1996 216 MIU related repairs
·Year 1997 199 MIU related repairs
·Year 1998 118 MIU related repairs
·Year 1999 67 MIU related repairs
·Year 2000 146 MIU related repairs
·Year 2001 92 MIU related repairs
·Year 2002 29 MIU related repairs (started MXU battery changeover)
·Year 2003 106 MIU related repairs
·Year 2004 184 MIU related repairs
·Year 2005 Misplaced in move (approx. 150)
·Year 2006 103 MIU related repairs
There have been approximately 1400 MIU related repairs in 11 years. These
repairs are typically related to broken wires, (phone and meter wires) disconnected
phone lines, (residents going to a cell phone only), and shorted out phone
connections and bad MIU units themselves.
In the past, Staff has been able to repair enough malfunctioning MIU accounts to
keep the “malfunctioning repair list” from growing at an accelerated rate. However,
in the last four quarters, the list has gone from 200 malfunctioning accounts to over
1000 out of 2300 total MIU accounts.
Since the City’s sewer rates are dependant on water usage, the Utility Billing
Department is spending an extra 20 hours a week working on the adjustable
sewer rate. This has started with the end of the first quarter of 2007 reads.
Staff has been in contact with Invensys Metering Systems, the manufacturer of the
MIU system, to find out if there was something that they know of which would be
causing these problems. At this time, Invensys Metering Systems has not been
able to offer any solutions.
Meanwhile Staff has performed several investigations to determine the source of
the failures. Staff has had the City phone lines check by Qwest and Popp
Communication to see if it is possible that it is a phone line or modem related
problem - no problems were found. Staff checked and re-checked all of the
settings on the modem and in the MIU software for proper settings - no problems
or inconsistencies have been found. This leads Staff to believe that it is a
wholesale failure of the MIU system in some capacity.
Compounding the MIU failure issue is the trend for residential homes to eliminate
the land-line telephone. According to the Star Tribune March 3rd 2007 issue, About
one in eight homes did not have a land-line telephone in the first half of 2006. This
compares to one in 20 based on a national government survey that was conducted
three years earlier.
Further Discussion:
There are three viable solutions:
Option 1 – Repairs by Staff with no organized program. Estimated Cost
$125,000
Continue to take the current approach and buy small quantities of radio read
readers at a cost of approximately $100.00 each. This course of action will
be the cheapest for this year, but will cost the City more by the end of the
replacement process for the readers. It will also take a very long time
because of the slow process of getting into houses. It would probably take
two to three years to complete the process. This process will affect both
Public Works, and Utility Billing with extended phone complaints and
adjustments.
Option 2 – Repairs by Staff with an organized program. Estimated Cost
$100,000
Solicit competitive bids with all radio read suppliers who wish to bid. The
approximate price for a large purchase of 900 to 1000 units would be
between $85 and $90 per unit. 900 to 1000 units would only be enough to
replace the current failed phone read system. Staff, in an overtime situation,
like the sump pump program was performed, could do the physical
replacement of the reading system. Going door to door after hours when
most people are home, would be the most efficient use of manpower to get
the most number of readers in, in the shortest period of time. Assuming that
all the current wiring is in tact, the replacement of the readers would only take
approximately 5 min inside the house. If other repairs are needed, it could
take up to 15 - 20 minutes per home. The bulk of the replacement would be
done in the first or second pass through the City, and appointments for the
rest could be made on an individual basis. Installation of this by City staff
would cost approximately 200 man-hours, or $7000.00 in labor plus benefits
and equipment. This approach would be similar to how the City addressed
ther Sanitary sewer Illicit Discharge Inspection Program.
Option 3 – Contract Out the Repairs. Estimated Cost $500,000
Solicit competitive bids for replacing the entire reading system, and having
the replacement performed by an outside contractor. This would be by far the
most expensive route, but it would also ensure accurate readings for years to
come. The cost for this replacement would cost somewhere around
$500,000. While staff could do the change out, it would take City staff six to
twelve months to do because of staffing capabilities and burnout.
New Discussion:
At the June work session, council agreed, in principal, to proceed with option
number two, with a couple questions.
Study MIU versus MXU, why switch out the system?
MIU’s (phone reads) are no longer manufactured, as this technology is
outdated.
The trend in cell phone use has, and is continuing to rise especially
among younger home owners/renters. This makes MXU (radio read) the
only current option for new residents and failed MIU’s.
A half MIU and MXU system requires more equipment and time for billing
and public works department.
MIU’s are becoming extremely unreliably with increasing failure rates with
no explanation from manufacturer other than age.
How would the MXU be read?
Currently, HD Supply, the vendor who the City purchases all of its meter,
and meter reading supplies from, reads the MXU’s. (This is done every
quarter free of charge.)
The city can purchase its own drive by reading equipment, and then staff
could do the readings. However, that system will cost an estimated
$25,000.
Additionally, Invensys will no longer support the Cities current radio read
reader, which is original from 1995. This means when the City’s current
reader fails, the City will have to purchase a new reader. This reader will
cost at least $10,000 to $15,000, but at this price would not have the
“drive by” collections feature – it would only be a “point and click” reader.
At that time it might be advantageous to purchase its own drive by reading
system, because the City will have to have some means of reading its
meters on a daily basis.
Data collection – will the company continue to collect the data? What
does this cost?
The MXU’s are currently read every quarter by the vendor. We spoke to
Paul Thom (vendor who does the readings) and asked for a quote price
for the readings to be performed. Quote has not been received yet. Rough
estimate is $300.00 per Quarter. The City received a quote from Paul
about 3 years ago and it was $300.00 per read then, but has vendor has
never been billed City citing the “the paperwork wasn’t worth the hassle”.
Is there a commitment from this company?
Not currently, but this shouldn’t be too difficult to obtain regardless of
continuing use and purchase of current use MXU’s. The City would still
have to support all of the current meters and readers. The City can read
its own meters, but due to safety and equipment capabilities, it currently
would take two people two days to read all of the meters.
Should we look at a totally new system – one that uses the latest
technology?
To take advantage of some of the latest technology, the city would have to
replace not only the readers, but also the meters, which don’t need to be
replaced at this time, and probably won’t for another 15 years or more.
The City of Blaine currently has a fixed network system, where the new
radio devices send a signal to a centrally located tower once every hour.
This system, which would be compatible with the Cities current meters,
would provide instant data to Utility Billing. Some of capabilities of the
system are to alert staff of possible inside the home leaks, so in a short
period of time, the city can send those residents a notice of a possible leak
and get it fixed before it leaks for a quarter. However, I have heard mixed
results about this system. When it is installed outside the home, it
appears to work well, but inside the home installations, seem to be a little
troubling getting the signal out of the house and to the centrally located
tower.
The greatest advantage to the Fixed Network system is the capability of
reading it directly from a central location, the Utility Billing Office.
However, this advantage also comes with a cost of having someone to
monitor that information, and then process the information all the way
through the action steps of timely notification of problems to the
customers.
These fixed network systems are a little more, for the units that are in the
homes, but the centrally located collectors range in price from $25,000 to
$60,000 plus.
All of the new radio read systems, and fixed network systems have a 20-
year expected battery life, with a 10-year 100 percent replacement
warranty.
One available radio read system, has a leak detection capability built into
it, where it will flag probable leaks, and is readable from outside the home.
Another one of the radio read systems has the same capability, but has to
be read from inside the home.
If installed correctly, all radio read systems are readable with a drive by
type system, which would take 2 – 3 hours to read, if the City owned the
equipment. The equipment ranges in price up to $25,000.
Recommendation:
It is Staff’s recommendation to proceed with Option #2 by soliciting bids for the
wholesale change out of all of the malfunctioning MIU / phone accounts to radio
accounts.
Further consideration:
The City may encounter property owners who do not allow access to update the
meter reading devices. Similar to the Illicit Sanitary Sewer Connection Inspection
Program, the City may need to consider methods to promote access to various
properties to update the meter reading devices. This could include adding a
refundable or non-refundable charge until reading capabilities are restored. The
City could also consider the way in which water charges are assigned when the
City does not received a direct water meter reading. Currently the City assigns
the average of the last four quarters in which reading were obtained. The City
could use a different methodology such as adding an additional percentage into
this amount to ensure that the City is charging enough. It would also provide the
property owner an incentive to allow access so accurate reading can be taken.
Respectfully Submitted,
Michael Schnur Lead Utility Operator
Item No. 3E
Meeting Date: August 6, 2007
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: Nick Fleischhacker
Item Title/Subject: Emergency Power Management and Generator
Purchase
Background:
In 1977, the City purchased a used 1971 Military generator. This piece of
equipment has been utilized for emergency purposes for lift stations and wells
throughout its useful life. Recently this piece of equipment has had several
mechanical issues. The repair of these mechanical problems exceeds the value
of this piece of equipment ($2,000). The Public Works Department and the City
Mechanic have decided that repairing this piece of equipment is not a cost
effective measure.
Currently the City is without a backup power generator. The City of Spring Lake
Park has recently purchased a small standby power generator capable of
powering the city’s two lift stations. The City of Spring Lake Park has allowed the
use of this piece of equipment for emergency situations.
Discussion:
Emergency Power Management
In 2005 the City adopted the Ramsey County Emergency Operations Plan. As a
part of this plan Mounds View City Hall is described as an Emergency Operations
Center (EOC) This Emergency Operations Center will be the City’s disaster relief
command post. From this location search and rescue operations will be
conducted as well as overall disaster coordination. As a part of the functions
required of this site during disaster relief operations, Staff feels that emergency
standby power is essential for its proper function during emergency situations.
As a part of the City’s overall emergency power management program Staff has
outlined several areas of City operation that are critical during a long-term power
outage.
Municipal Wells/Water production
During an extended power outage, the operation of the City’s municipal wells and
treatment facilities is critical to human health and fire protection. During a power
outage the City’s water tower provides proper water pressure to the water
distribution system. However if the proper water levels in the tower cannot be
maintained during an extended power outage, standby power generators will be
required at the City’s remote wells (wells 4,5,& 6).
Lift Stations
During extended power outages, lift station operation is critical to ensure the
proper operation of the sanitary sewer system. The City has two lift stations that
cannot be shut down if power to both of these faculties is interrupted. City Staff
is required to use a trailer-mounted generator to supply the necessary power to
the site until it is sufficiently pumped down, at which time City Staff moves to the
next lift station to begin pumping operations again. This process is repeated until
on-site power is restored.
Municipal Garage
During extended power outages the municipal garage contains equipment (such
as loaders, snowplows and other heavy equipment) and resources that are
important during an emergency situation. During a significant weather event in
the summer or the winter, power supply to this facility is important to ensure a
quick response to emergencies large and small.
Staff is currently exploring the feasibility of powering the municipal garage in
emergency situations from the existing booster station generator located near the
City’s water tower. It may, however, be more cost effective to purchase a small
standby generator for permanent installation due to the high cost of running
copper wire between the booster station and the municipal garage.
Xcel Energy Peak Control
The City is currently part of Xcel Energy’s peak control program. This program
requires the Ccity to cut all power to its municipal wells during high power
demand situations. This program is currently in use and saves the City
approximately $20,000 per year. The purchase of a trailer-mounted generator
would allow these sites to be utilized during peak control periods. These peak
control periods typically occur during hot stretches of weather when water
demand is also at its peak. This situation has made it difficult for the City’s water
department to maintain tower levels in the past. The purchase of a mobile
standby generator would allow utilization of all the City’s wells as well as having
the ability to draw water from multiple aquifers should one become contaminated
in the future.
Community Center
Staff also investigated the feasibility of emergency power for the Community
Center. As per the recommendation of the emergency operations manager
(Chief Sommer) emergency power for the Community Center was not necessary.
Consultants
The City submitted a request for proposal to a consultant familiar with this type of
project and the estimated project administration cost submitted by the consultant
was $40,000. This cost includes specifying the proper generator and providing
specifications and contract administration for retrofitting City Hall for auxiliary
power.
Staff concluded that this option was too expensive and decided to work with
vendors independently to specify the proper generator for the City’s needs.
Sound Attenuation
Ziegler Cat, a vendor the City has been working with to develop generator
specifications, offers an enclosure for the generator that reduces the decibel level
considerably. As delivered the generator produces 71dB which is equivalent to
busy traffic or a noisy restaurant. As an option, Ziegler offers an upgraded
enclosure that reduces the decibel level to 55; 55dB is equivalent to light traffic,
refrigerator, or a light breeze.
Generator
Staff has contacted several vendors regarding the purchase of a stand alone
trailer-mounted generator. Originally three generators were budgeted. One was
to be a permanently mounted generator located at city hall. The second
generator would serve the well houses 5 and 6. The third would be smaller and
serve only the lift stations.
The budgetary break down for these items are as follows
City hall alternative power supply project $80,000
Trailer Mounted Generator (Wells 5 and 6) $70,000
Trailer mounted Lift station Generator $30,000
Total $180,000
After extensive discussion Staff’s recommendation is to purchase two equally
sized generators that would serve all sites throughout the city capable of auxiliary
power. Staff feels this would provide much needed versatility in an emergency
situation. Furthermore, it would provide for the water department during peak
control periods to pump from multiple wells throughout the city.
Staff has solicited quotes from Ziegler Cat for budgetary purposes and those
numbers follow:
Generator Price $70,000
(Including Interconnect cables, 4 GFCI outlets, 4 exterior telescoping
lights)
Sound Attenuation enclosure $44,705
(Enclosure reduces Decibel level from 71dB to 55dB)
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the purchase of one trailer-mounted generator in 2007 and
budgeting for a second generator in 2008 or 2009. Staff also recommends
removing the current military generator from the City fleet via public auction.
Staff would like direction in this matter pertaining to both the purchase of said
generator and the optional components included (noise attenuation enclosure).
Respectfully Submitted,
Nick Fleischhacker
Item No. 3F
Meeting Date: August 6, 2007
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: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Xcel Energy Proposal to Replace a Gas
Transmission Line Update
Background:
The City has received a draft proposal from Xcel Energy to replace a gas
transmission line in the City.
On April 19, 2007, the City received a map from Xcel Energy indicating the
general path for a proposed 8” steel gas main with a request to meet to discuss
the proposal.
Based simply on the map received, Staff noted some general comments
regarding this proposal. A memorandum containing these comments was also
forwarded to Xcel Energy.
On May 16, 2007 Staff met with three representatives of Xcel Energy to discuss
the proposed gas main replacement project. The original alignment of the
proposed gas main was along the south side of County Road 10. At this meeting,
Staff was informed that Xcel was now considering installation along the north
side.
On June 4, 2007 Xcel Energy Gas Engineer, Omeeda Rahim, presented the gas
main proposal at the June Work Session.
Discussion:
The City has received a permit application for the installation of the proposed gas
transmission line. The permit included extremely simplistic sketches of the
proposed installation. Based on these simplistic sketches and general lack of
information Staff scheduled a meeting for July 24th with Xcel Energy Gas
Engineer, Omeeda Rahim, and other Xcel representatives and their selected
installation contractor.
Staff posed numerous questions at this meeting and expressed great concern
that the necessary information needed to review the permit was not provided. It
also became evident at this meeting that there were numerous construction
related items that were not previously planned and needed to be addressed.
The permit had no information pertaining to the location of the valves proposed to
be installed along Highway 10, no screening plan, no detail drawing of the
protection railing around the valves – this issue was discussed at the June Work
Session.
The permit indicated installation along the Greenwood Drive alignment between
Sherwood and Arden. There is no roadway through this area and there are areas
that are not owned by the City. This area may also be redeveloped at some point
in the future. Should the City permit an 8" high pressure gas transmission line to
be constructed on private property? Also, should the City permit to install the pipe
in an area we know will develop and will hinder the development of this area?
The application submitted by Xcel energy does not meet the requirement set
forth in the City Code. Code 910.09 section b.
910.09: PERMIT APPLICATIONS: Application for a permit is made to the
Director. Permit applications shall contain, and will be considered complete only
upon compliance with the requirements of the following provisions:
(a) Registration with the Director pursuant to this Chapter;
(b) Submission of a completed permit application form, including all
required attachments, and scaled drawings showing the location and area
of the proposed project and the location of all known existing and
proposed Facilities.
Therefore, Staff will be denying the permit application in its current form, and
returning it to Xcel Energy.
As a note, Xcel has mailed an information flyer to residents along Greenwood
Drive. Attached is a copy of this flyer. In the event Xcel Energy resubmits a
permit application for this project and construction will have a significant impact
on adjacent properties as a result of this project. Staff would recommend that the
City require Xcel Energy to conduct a public information meeting to address
citizen comments, questions, and concerns before a permit is issued.
Issues Staff Seeks Council Direction On:
• What information does the City Council want to see in regards to the valve
on County Road 10?
• What level of public notification would the Council expect?
• Does the Council wish to allow Xcel Energy to use of public land (Hillview
Park) as a staging area?
• Are there any special restoration or compensation the City should seek for
this project?
• Should the City permit an 8" high pressure gas transmission line to be
constructed on private property?
• Should the City permit to install the pipe in an area the City knows will
develop and will hinder the development of this area?
• What level of disruption to Mounds View citizens would be acceptable for
this project?
• Are there additional actions the Council wishes Staff to take?
Recommendation:
Staff is looking for direction on this matter. Specifically, Staff is looking for
Council direction regarding the aforementioned issues.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
LETER SENT OUT BY XCEL ENERGY TO RESIDENTS ALONG
GREENWOOD DRIVE
Dear Xcel Energy Customer:
This letter is to inform you that Xcel Energy, or one of our contractors, will be
performing maintenance and upgrading its natural gas distribution system in your
neighborhood in the upcoming months. Tentative starting date would be the end
of July 2007, with construction to be completed by the middle of October 2007.
The project will entail replacement of the natural gas pipe either in the street, or
under the boulevard (parallel to the street) in the City’s right of way. There will be
no charge to you for this work.
To install the new natural gas pipe, holes will need to be dug at various locations
in the street or boulevard. Any disturbance to the boulevard as a result of
digging by Xcel will be restored. Please let us know if you have any private lines
on your property (i.e. sprinkler systems, invisible dog fence, private electric, etc.).
There will not be any interruption of natural gas service to your home.
Thank you in advance for your patience and cooperation during this project!
Please feel free to call me with any questions and/or concerns that you may have
at 651-462-6201.
Sincerely,
Kathy Ronning
Senior Gas Designer
Item No: 4C
Meeting Date: August 6, 2007
Type of Business: WS
Administrator Review: ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Review Regulations Associated with
Accessory Collection Boxes and Vending Kiosks
Introduction:
In May, the City was contacted by Denise Forsberg, a representative of U’SAgain, a for-profit
company which collects used clothing for redistribution at drop-boxes, often located in
parking lots of commercial properties. Ms. Forsberg was seeking permission to locate
collection boxes in the City. Five such U’SAgain boxes are already located in Mounds
View—one at the PAC Building, two at the laundromat on County Road I and two at the bp
gas station at County Road H and County Road 10. The boxes at the bp station are located
near the front line of the property along County Road 10, whereas the boxes at the other two
locations are not as obvious. (Refer to the photos on the next page.) Staff has invited Ms.
Forsberg to attend this Council’s meeting.
Discussion:
Staff researched how other communities treat these types of collection boxes and other
vending kiosks such as a Red Box, usually found inside of McDonalds franchises. The
following is but a few responses received on the subject:
Fridley: They do not allow the collection boxes in their community, treating
them as outside storage. A property owner could however apply for a
conditional use permit.
Blaine: Does not permit the collection boxes, indicating that they do not meet
Blaine’s articulated commercial building standards.
Arden Hills: Does not expressly permit such uses, however their planner admitted
that they would probably allow one in the community without a special
use permit.
Spring Lake Park: They allow such collection boxes.
Shoreview: These are permitted in non-residential districts through the formal Site
and Building Plan Review process - Planning Commission review and
Council approve/deny. City Code defines them as accessory
structures. Location, setbacks and screening are the principal
considerations.
Staff’s concern with these boxes is that they contribute to clutter, bear no association to the
host property (in contrast with a video drop box, for example, at a video store) and that they
often become unsightly, aesthetically displeasing and a drop-off point for non-clothing debris
and other junk. U’SAgain asserts that they have an impeccable record for maintenance and
collection and that their boxes would not become unsightly.
U’SAgain Report
August 6, 2007
Page 2
Given that there are already such uses in the corridor, staff has serious reservations about
expressly allowing more such uses. Granted, the recycling of clothing is a worthwhile
endeavor, even if operated as a for-profit business, however staff would assert that these
uses are usually not a related, incidental accessory uses to most commercial businesses and
thus should not be permitted.
If the City Council were inclined to allow such uses and other unrelated incidental accessory
uses, staff would recommend that the collection box or vending kiosk be located behind the
front line of the host building and adjacent the building as opposed to elsewhere on the lot;
and limit the number of such kiosks or collection boxes to one, and only one. Temporary
recycling collection drop offs (often seen in parking lots of schools as a fund raising event)
could be exempted from any adopted restrictions.
Recommendation:
Staff is seeking direction at this point as to how to proceed with the issue of permanent
accessory recycled clothing collection boxes and other types of vending kiosks in the City of
Mounds View.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Photographic Documentation
Two of U’SAgain
clothing recycling boxes
at the Amoco Gas station
located at the corner of
County Road 10 and
County Road H. (Note
the garbage bags
alongside the boxes.)
Two more U’SAgain clothing
recycling boxes at the at the
laundromat/Sams building on
County Road I
A fifth U’SAgain clothing
recycling box on the ABC
Liquor/PAC Building
properties on County Road 10
Item No: 4D
Meeting Date: 08/06/07
Type of Business: Work Session
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate
Item Title/Subject: Proposed Tree Preservation & Landscaping Ordinance
Background
City Council last discussed the proposed tree ordinance on April 2nd, and at that time it
was decided to hold off on any further action until after the next city newsletter went out
with information about this proposed change. In the newsletter, staff asked for feedback
from residents as to whether they supported some sort of tree preservation ordinance or
not. Staff received one phone call the day after the April 2nd Council worksession from a
resident indicating that they were not supportive of the city putting rules on residents
removing trees from their property. The Mounds View Matters newsletter was mailed at
the end of April, and staff wanted to allow plenty of time for residents to comment. As of
now, staff has not received any other responses to the tree ordinance proposal.
Both Planning Commission and the Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission are
supportive of having some sort of tree preservation ordinance, although both
commissions are concerned about the City being too restrictive. At the April
Worksession, Council began to re-examine whether or not to put this tree ordinance into
effect, and what the City really wants to accomplish with the ordinance.
Both the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation and Forestry Commission feel
strongly that this ordinance should not prohibit single family property owners from doing
whatever they want on their property with their trees. The current version of the
ordinance addresses this by exempting all R-1 and R-2 zoned properties from Section
1127.05 Tree Removal on Lots without Construction or Grading Activity. Staff’s thoughts
are that the tree replacement and preservation requirements would only be in effect if
there is construction on the property, particularly a new home built. But does the City
want to impose these requirements on an R-1 or R-2 property owner who is just building a
new garage or deck?
"Exempting R-1 and R-2 properties when no "development" is occurring however creates
a loophole. There are presently three or four potential infill residential redevelopment
areas in the City. Submitting a subdivision application is the trigger for the tree plan,
inventory, replacement requirements, etc,. Knowing this, the land owner(s) could clear
cut the lots without penalty PRIOR to submitting the subdivision application thereby
avoiding any requirements whatsoever. Staff is unsure how to close this loophole without
otherwise restricting the typical single-family property owner. Staff will require some
direction from the Council regarding this issue.
After the discussion at the March City Council Worksession, draft ordinance was
amended to increase the max fine for each significant or specimen tree illegally removed
to $750. Is the Council comfortable with this amount?
Proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance
Worksession Report August 6, 2007
Page 2
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council review and discuss this draft ordinance, and
determine the next steps. Staff has some suggestions in regards to further action by the
Council:
1. No further action. Council may decide to not move forward at all with this proposed
Tree Preservation ordinance, or,
2. Edit the current draft to be less restrictive to existing home and business owners.
Council could consider removing Section 1127.05 Tree Removal on Lots without
Construction or Grading Activity – this would eliminate any tree removal restrictions for
property owners with existing homes and buildings; and revising Section 1127.04 Tree
Removal on Lots with Construction or Grading Activity to only be applicable to new
construction, residential and/or commercial.
Staff asks that Council consider at least moving forward with Section 1127.06
Landscaping, since the city code currently has very little requirements for landscaping
with new developments. Another important issue that this section addresses is in
subdivision 7, maintenance of landscaping. This requires property owners to trim
damaged trees and remove uprooted or diseased tree stumps.
CHAPTER 1127
DDDRRRAAAFFFTTT
333--
TREE PRESERVATION & LANDSCAPING
SECTION:
1127.01: Purpose
1127.02: Definitions
1127.03: General Tree Protection Requirements
1127.04: Tree Removal on Lots without Construction or Grading Permits
1127.05: Landscaping
1127.06 Appeal Process
1127.07 Violation and Penalties
1127.01: PURPOSE. The purpose of this chapter is to identify trees and woodlots
which are to be preserved in general and saved when development is occurring or at
any point thereafter. It is the City’s goal to ensure that development is compatible with
the natural environment and is accommodated without destroying desirable
environmental features and natural amenities. It is not the City’s intent, however, to
preserve significant trees or woodlots where substandard subdivision design, poor
drainage, excess slope in streets and driveways or inefficient utility construction will
result.
1127.02: DEFINITIONS: When used in this Chapter, the following words and
phrases shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the
context clearly indicates a different meaning:
DRIP LINE: The imaginary line at the outer edge of a tree or shrub, the point where
water would drip to the ground from the outermost branches or leaves.
HIGH VALUE TREES: Any tree from the list below.
Birches (River & Paper)
Black Walnut
Catalpa
Cherry
All Firs
Flowering Crabapples &
Hawthorns
Hackberry
Hybrid American Elm
Ironwood
Japanese Tree Lilac
All Lindens
All Maples
All Oaks
Ohio Buckeye
Pines (except Jack)
All Spruce
ROOT ZONE: That area of effective tree rooting (out to the extent of the branches plus
5 five feet).
-222888---000777
1
2
SIGNIFICANT TREE: A significant tree is defined as any live healthy High Value tree
measuring eight (8) inches in diameter or greater, measured at 4.5 feet above the
ground.
SPECIMEN TREE: Any High Value Tree over 16 inches in diameter, or any other
species over 30 inches in diameter.
TREE CROWN: The upper part of a tree, including the branches and leaves.
WOODLOT: An area of trees of significant or specimen size on at least twenty-five (25)
percent of the total lot area.
1127.03: GENERAL TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS. Developers,
landowners, and builders shall attempt to preserve the maximum number of significant
and specimen trees on lots as possible by using creative design techniques for the
location of structures and other improvements within property boundaries.
Subd. 1. Preservation Standards.
a. Structures and other amenities shall be located in such any manner that the
optimum number of trees shall be preserved.
b. Prior to the granting of a permit, the person requesting the permit shall
demonstrate that there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to the removal
of significant or specimen trees on the site.
c. Forestation, reforestation or landscaping shall utilize a variety of tree species
and shall not utilize any species presently under disease epidemic.
d. Development including grading and contouring shall take place in such a
manner that the root zone, as defined in Section 1127.02, of existing trees
shall not be affected
1127.04: TREE REMOVAL ON LOTS WITH CONSTRUCTION OR GRADING
ACTIVITY
Subd. 1. Tree Plan Required. A tree plan, which would include a tree inventory,
prepared by an arborist, landscape architect or forester, shall be submitted for
any project in which trees will be impacted as a result of said project. Tree
inventories shall identify existing healthy significant trees, specimen trees,
woodlots and smaller groups of non-significant trees within the limits of the
proposed project area. The inventory should clearly indicate which trees would
be lost as a result of the project and which trees would be saved. The tree
inventory shall be submitted at the same time as any other required application
submittals. This requirement may be waived at the discretion of the Community
Development Director and the City Forester.
3
Subd. 2. Replacement Standards. Replacement tree species shall be approved by the
City Forester in accordance with Section 1127.05.
a. For every significant tree removed, the permit holder or property owner shall
plant a new tree on a one-to-one replacement basis, up to five new trees on
lots less than an acre and up to ten new trees on lots one acre or larger. No
additional plantings shall be required on lots less than one acre where five or
more replacement and high value trees over eight inches in diameter would
remain or on lots one acre or larger where ten or more replacement and high
value trees over eight inches in diameter would remain.
b. For every specimen tree removed, the permit holder or property owner shall
plant five new trees on lots less than an acre or ten new trees on lots one
acre or larger.
c. Replacement trees shall be planted no later than twelve months beyond the
date of tree removal. The owner or permit holder shall guarantee the survival
of the replacement trees for two full growing seasons beyond the year of
planting. In cases where replacement cannot occur within the specified
timeframe, an extension may be granted at the discretion of the City Forester
or Community Development Director.
d. Replacement Quantity Reductions. The number of required replacement
trees may be reduced when deemed appropriate at the sole discretion of the
City Forester based on existing site conditions.
e. Exceptions. Replacement requirements shall not apply to trees lost as a
result of utility trimming or maintenance, work conducted by or on behalf of a
governmental agency in pursuance of its lawful activities or functions,
disease, storms or other acts of natural occurrence.
Subd. 3. Trees within development areas designated for preservation shall be protected
from construction damage by placing a snow fence or flags in a perimeter five
feet beyond the tree’s dripline, within which area no equipment shall traverse or
materials, debris or fill shall be placed.
Subd. 4. Additional Removals. If, through the course of a development activity, it
becomes necessary to remove additional trees beyond what was previously
approved in the Tree Plan. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to submit
such request to the City in writing, explaining the reasons necessitating the
additional removals, and obtain written approval of the Community Development
Director or designee before proceeding.
4
1127.05 TREE REMOVAL ON LOTS WITHOUT CONSTRUCTION OR GRADING
ACTIVITY 1 :
Subd. 1. No more than two significant or specimen trees shall be permitted to be
removed per year on lots upon which no development or grading activity is
occurring, unless an approved Tree Plan has been obtained. Trees removed
because they are an obstruction to traffic or power lines, or trees removed
because they pose a hazard to structures or sewer systems, or have been
identified by the City Forester as diseased or hazardous, shall be excluded from
these requirements.
Subd. 2. Tree Plan: A tree plan will be required if more than two significant trees and/or
specimen trees per year are removed. If determined necessary by the
Community Development Director or City Forester, the tree plan shall be
prepared by a forester, arborist or landscape architect, and may be reviewed by
the Parks, Recreation and Forestry Commission prior to approval by the
Community Development Director and City Forester. The tree plan shall include
the following information:
a. A scaled map designating all forested areas and existing and proposed uses
of such areas.
b. Location of all existing structures, roads, utilities, and driveways on the site.
c. A written narrative describing specific activities and reasons for developing
the plan, and how these actions and activities will affect the forest. Specific
examples include, but are not limited to: better forest management (thinning
or removal of dead or diseased trees), improved wildlife habitat, recreational
use, outdoor education, and trails.
Subd. 3. Tree Replacement. As a condition of a tree plan approval, tree replacement
may be required.
1127.06 LANDSCAPING:
Subd. 1. Applications for development in the R-3, R-4, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, I-1 and PUD
districts shall be accompanied by a detailed landscape plan. The landscape plan
should be developed in accordance with the site plan submitted for approval.
Subd. 2. Detailed landscape plans shall include the following information:
a. General: name and address of developer/owner, name and address of
architect/designer, date of plan preparation, date and description of all
revisions, name of project or development, scale of plan, north point
indication.
1 Parcels in the R-1, Single Family Residential, and R-2, Single and Two Family Residential zoning districts are
exempt from the provisions of this section.
5
b. Site analysis: Boundary lines of property line with dimensions based upon
certified survey, name and alignment of proposed and existing adjacent on-
site streets, location of all proposed utility easements and right-of-way,
location of existing and proposed buildings, topographic contours at two (2)
foot contour intervals, location of parking areas, water bodies, proposed
sidewalks, and percentage of site not covered by structures and impervious
surfaces.
c. Landscape data: A planting schedule table shall include symbols, quantities,
common names, botanical names, size of plant materials, root specifications,
and special planting instructions.
d. Typical sections and details of fences, retaining walls, berms and other
landscape improvements.
e. Typical sections of landscape islands and planter beds with identification of
materials used.
f. Details of planting beds and foundation plantings.
g. Delineation of both sodded and seeded areas indicated in square footage.
h. Where landscape or inorganic materials are used to provide required
screening from adjacent and neighboring properties, a cross section shall be
provided at a legible scale illustrating the prospective of the site from the
neighboring property and property line elevation.
Subd. 3. Number of plant materials required: In order to achieve an appropriate and
complete quality landscaping of a site, the following minimum number of plant
materials shall be provided as indicated below:
a. One (1) overstory deciduous shade tree for every two thousand (2,000)
square feet of the total building footprint.
b. One (1) coniferous tree for every two (2,000) square feet of building or one (1)
coniferous tree for every two hundred (200) feet of site perimeter, whichever
is greater.
c. One (1) understory shrub for every three hundred (300) square feet of
building or one (1) shrub for every thirty (30) feet of site perimeter, whichever
is greater.
d. One (1) ornamental tree for every two thousand (2,000) square feet of
building or one (1) ornamental tree for every two hundred (200) feet of site
perimeter, whichever is greater.
e. The number of plant materials required in Subdivision 3 a-d may be reduced
by fifteen percent in each category in the I-1 districts.
6
f. In the event a site plan layout does not have adequate space to
accommodate plant quantities as required herein, such quantities per species
can be reduced, provided that total required height or caliper is maintained.
The Community Development Director and City Forester must approve all
changes.
Subd. 4. Minimum size of plantings and species requirements:
a. Only tree species from High Value Tree list or other tree species as approved
by the City Forester shall be used.
b. Overstory deciduous – 2 ½ inch caliper.
c. Coniferous – 6 feet in height as measured from grade.
d. Shrubs – 24 inch plant (potted).
e. Ornamental trees – 2 inch caliper.
Subd. 5. Method of installation: All deciduous and coniferous trees shall be ball and
burlap and staked and guyed per National Nurserymen’s Standards. All shrubs
shall be potted.
Subd. 6. Use of Landscaping for Screening:
a. Where natural materials, such as trees or hedges are approved in lieu of the
required screening by means of walls or fences, density and species of
planting shall be such to achieve screening year round.
Subd. 7. Maintenance. Property owners shall be responsible for the upkeep of all
required plantings and landscape materials. Upon written notice from the City, a
property owner shall be required to trim broken or damaged tree boughs, remove fallen
trees or storm damaged trees and remove diseased trees as identified by the City
Forester.2 Uprooted or diseased tree stumps shall be removed or ground down below
grade.
1127.07 PLAN REVIEW PROCESS
All tree inventories, preservation plans and landscape plans shall be reviewed by the
City Forester. The Parks and Recreation and Forestry Commission may also review
such plans at the request of the Community Development Director or the City Forester.
When such plans are required as part of a development application (e.g. development
review, conditional use permit, minor or major subdivision) the Planning Commission
and City Council shall have approval authority. For such plans submitted when no
official planning action is necessary, the Community Development Director and City
Forester shall retain administrative approval authority.
2 Refer to Chapter 605, Tree Disease Control.
7
1127.08 APPEAL PROCESS
Administrative decisions by the City Forester and/or Community Development Director
may be appealed to the City Council. An appeal shall be filed in writing no more than
fourteen (14) days following the date of the administrative decision by the City. The
appeal shall be scheduled for consideration by City Council at the next regularly
scheduled City Council meeting which is at least seven (7) days from the date of the
appeal.
1127.09 VIOLATION AND PENALTIES
Except as provided herein, no significant or specimen tree shall be removed from any
property in the City. Any violation of any provision of this Chapter shall constitute a
misdemeanor offense. Property owners or permit holders having been cited for illegal
tree removal may be fined up to $750 for each significant or specimen tree illegally
removed. In addition to the punishment specified in this section, the City may enforce
this Code by any other appropriate form of action which could include withholding a
Certificate of Occupancy, forfeiture of all or part of a bond, escrow or financial
guarantee and stoppage of the project.
Item No. 05B
Meeting Date: August 6, 2007
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: Desaree Crane, Assistant to the City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Ultimate Fighting Report Update
Background:
At the May 7, 2007, Work Session, it was discussed about prohibiting Ultimate Fighting
in the City of Mounds View. Many cities in the metro area were looking in either
prohibiting or regulating Ultimate Fighting events.
Discussion:
Staff has been informed that the Minnesota State Boxing Commission has been
reinstated. The Minnesota Boxing Commission was created by the 2006 Legislature,
and it responsible for the sole direction, supervision, regulation, control and jurisdiction
over all boxing and ultimate fighting contests held within the state. Staff spoke with
Executive Director, Scott LeDoux, and he indicated to staff that the State Boxing
Commission is currently regulating mix marital arts/ultimate fighting and boxing events.
He further stated that the Boxing Commission will have a website very soon where
permit application materials and other information will be available. Attached is the
Minnesota State Statute in regard to the Boxing Commission and licensure
requirements.
If the City Council still wishes to go forward and start the process of banning or further
regulating Ultimate Fighting, then Staff (with the help of the City Attorney) could draft an
Ordinance, then present it to the City Council as a first reading. Staff would like
direction from the City Council to either still proceed with banning/regulating Ultimate
Fighting by the City, or to just have the Minnesota Boxing Commission regulate this
activity.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane
ATTACHMENT: MAY 7, 2007 Work Session Staff Report
on Ultimate Fighting
Item No. 05B
Meeting Date: May 7, 2007
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: Desaree Crane, Assistant to the City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Prohibiting Ultimate Fighting Ordinance Research Update
Background:
The City Council has indicated a desire to prohibit Ultimate Fighting in the City of
Mounds View. Staff was directed by the City Council to research if other cities prohibit
Ultimate Fighting.
Discussion:
Staff sent an emailed survey to 40 cities asking if; (1) do they prohibit Ultimate Fighting
in their City?; and (2) if they did prohibit, then could they forward their Code/Ordinance
language. Of these 40 cities, only 12 cities responded. Below are their responses:
City of Anoka: “Anoka does not have a specific ordinance related to
Ultimate Fighting.”
City of Blaine: The City of Blaine is currently looking into banning Ultimate
Fighting. Their Code does not currently ban Ultimate
Fighting.
City of Woodbury: “The City of Woodbury does not currently have a provision in
our city code banning ultimate fighting. It is an interesting
discussion and one I will have with our staff.”
City of Coon Rapids: “Coon Rapids has not addressed this issue yet.”
City of Champlin: “The City of Champlin does not address this issue.”
City of Chanhassen: “The City of Chanhassen does not directly regulate ultimate
fighting. We would classify it as a recreational service and
allow it in zoning districts in which the use is permitted.”
City of Fridley: The City of Fridley does prohibit Ultimate Fighting, but only
prohibits is under their Liquor Code. Attached is Ordinance
1201. (attached as Exhibit A).
City of Golden Valley:
“The City of Golden Valley has no ordinance which specifically refers to ultimate
fighting. The closest would be Section 10.60 which deals with disorderly conduct and
specifically prohibits brawling or fighting. The following sections of the City Code are
copied below: 10.60. Disorderly Conduct, Section 10.64 Disorderly House, Section
10.61. Disorderly Conduct in or on School, Church or Public Buildings and Grounds,
and Section 10.62 Disorderly Conduct - Additional Prohibited Acts.
SECTION 10.60. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. It is unlawful for any person, in a public or
private place, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know, that it will, or will tend to,
alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke any assault or breach of the peace, to do the
following:
1. Engage in brawling or fighting; or,
2. Disturb an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or,
3. Engage in offensive, obscene or abusive language or in boisterous
and noisy conduct tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger or
resentment in others; or,
4. Knowingly engage in, offer, or attempt to engage in, aid or assist
another to engage in, or congregate because of: (a) lewd,
lascivious or immoral conduct; or (b) the use of words which are
slanderous and tend to injure the reputation of others, obscene, or
personally abusive and inherently likely to provoke a violent
reaction or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace; or,
5. Whether or not posted with signs so prohibiting, voluntarily enter
the waters of any river or public swimming pool at any time when
said waters are not properly supervised by trained life-saving
personnel in attendance for that purpose, or enter such waters
without being garbed in a bathing suit sufficient to cover his or her
person and equal to the standards generally adopted and accepted
by the Public; or,
6. Urinate or defecate in a place other than (a) if on public property
then in a plumbing fixture provided for that purpose, or (b) if on the
private property of another then in a plumbing fixture provided for
that purpose, or (c) if on private property not owned or controlled by
another, then within a building; or,
7. Lurk, lie in wait, or be concealed in any building, yard or street with
intent to commit any crime or misdemeanor; or,
8. Knowingly exhibit, sell, print, publish, distribute, or offer to sell or
distribute, an obscene book, magazine, picture, photograph, film, or
any other writing, image or article which is obscene; or knowingly
perform or cause to be performed an obscene dramatic or musical
production. "Obscene" for the purpose of this Section is defined as
follows: Material which the dominant theme of, taken as a whole,
would be found by the average person applying community
standards as appealing to the prurient interest; and which, taken as
a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
and which depicts or describes in a patently offensive way
masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals or
female breast, or ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual
or simulated; or.
9. Look, peer, or peep into any window, door, skylight, or other
opening in a house, room, or building located on property not
owned or controlled by such person with intent to observe the
actions of occupants of any such house, room or building, or loiter
around or within view of any such window, door, skylight or other
Opening for the purpose of observing the Occupants thereof; or,
10. Cause the making or production of an unnecessary noise by
shouting or by any other means or mechanism including the
blowing of any automobile or other vehicle horn; or,
11. Use a sound amplifier upon streets and public property without prior
written permission from the City; or,
12. Use a flash or spotlight in a manner so as to annoy or endanger
others; or,
13. Cause defacement, destruction, or otherwise damage to any
premises or any property located thereon; or,
14. Strew, scatter, litter, throw, dispose of or deposit any refuse,
garbage, or rubbish unto any premises except into receptacles
provided for such purpose; or,
15. Enter any motor vehicle of another without the consent of the owner
or operator; or,
16. Fail or refuse to vacate or leave any premises after being requested
or ordered, whether orally or in writing, to do so, by the owner, or
person in charge thereof, or by any law enforcement agent or
official; provided, however, that this provision shall not apply to any
person who is owner or tenant of the premises involved nor to any
law enforcement or other government official who may be present
thereon at that time in an official capacity, nor shall it include the
spouse, children, employee or tenant of such owner or occupier.
SECTION 10.61. DISORDERLY CONDUCT IN OR ON SCHOOL, CHURCH OR
PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS.
Subdivision 1. Defacement of Buildings or Grounds. It is unlawful for any
person to mark with ink, paint, chalk or other substance, or post handbills on, or in any
other manner deface or injure any school, church or public buildings or grounds, or
mark, deface, or injure fences, trees, lawns, or fixtures appurtenant to or located on the
site of such buildings, or post handbills on such fences, trees or fixtures, or place a sign
anywhere on any such site.
Subdivision 2. Breach of Peace on Grounds. It is unlawful for any person to
willfully or maliciously make or assist in making on any grounds adjacent to any school,
church or public building or structure any noise, disturbance or improper diversion or
activity by which peace, quiet and good order shall be disturbed.
Subdivision 3. Offensive Language and Conduct. It is unlawful for any
person to use offensive, obscene, or abusive language or engage in boisterous or noisy
conduct tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger or resentment in others on any
school, church or Public grounds or in buildings or structures thereon.
Subdivision 4. Improper Conduct. It is unlawful for any person to, in any
school, church or public building or on the grounds adjacent to the same, disturb or
interrupt the peace and good order of such school, church, public building or grounds. It
is also unlawful for any person, upon the request of a teacher or other person in charge
of school, church or public buildings or grounds, to leave said building or premises, to
neglect or refuse so to do. No person, having been ordered by a school official to leave
a school, and having left said premises, shall reenter said school without the written
permission of the school principal or the school official who gave the order to leave the
school.
Subdivision 5. Occupying or Entering School Buildings. It is unlawful for any
person to intentionally occupy or enter a public or private school building or any
structure used for school purposes, without claim of right or consent of the school
principal or the consent of one who has the right to give consent.
Subdivision 6. Loitering on School, Church, or Public Property. It is unlawful
for any person to remain in any structure used for church or public purposes or upon the
grounds of any school, church or structure used for public purposes after being
requested to leave the premises by a person lawfully responsible for the control of said
premises. It is also unlawful for any person to loiter on any school, church or public
grounds in any building or structure used for school, church or public purposes.
SECTION 10.62 DISORDERLY CONDUCT - ADDITIONAL PROHIBITED ACTS.
Subdivision 1. It is unlawful for any person or persons to congregate on any
private lands because of, or participate in, any party or gathering of people from which
noise emanates of a sufficient volume or of such nature as to disturb the peace, quiet or
repose of other persons. Any owner or person in lawful possession or control of such
private lands who has knowledge of the disturbance and fails to immediately abate said
disturbance shall be guilty of a violation of this Section.
Subdivision 2. It is unlawful for any person or persons to congregate on
any private lands of another because of, or participate in, any party or gathering of
people in the absence of the owner of said private lands being present, without first
having obtained written permission from the landowner or other person in lawful
possession of such private lands. Such written permission shall at all times be in the
possession of one or more persons at the site of such congregation. The document
containing the written permission must bear the signature of the landowner and date of
the permitted use. Failure to display written permission upon request shall be
considered prima facie evidence of an absence of permission from the owner.
Subdivision 3. A violation of Subdivision 1 or 2 of this Section shall give a
peace officer the authority to order all persons present, other than persons identifying
themselves as the owner or person in lawful possession or control of such land, to
immediately disperse. Any person who shall refuse to leave after being ordered to do so
by a peace officer shall be guilty of a violation of this Section.
Subdivision 4. Specific Noises. The following acts, among others, are
declared to be loud, disturbing and unnecessary noises in violation of this Section, but
said enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive, namely:
A. Horns, Signaling Devices, Etc. The sounding of any horn or signaling
device on any automobile, motorcycle, street car or other vehicle on any street or public
place of the City, except as a danger warning; the creation by means of any such
signaling device of any unreasonably loud or harsh sound; the sounding of any such
device for an unnecessary and unreasonable period of time. The use of any signaling
device except one operated by hand or electricity; the use of any horn, whistle or other
device operated by engine exhaust; and the use of any such signaling device when
traffic is for any reason held up.
B. Radios, Phonographs, Etc. The using, operating, or permitting to be
played, used or operated, any radio receiving set, musical instrument, phonograph, or
other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound in such manner as to
disturb the peace, quiet and comfort of the neighboring inhabitants or at any time with
louder volume than is necessary for convenient hearing for the person or persons who
are in the room, vehicle or chamber in which such machine or device is operating and
who are voluntary listeners thereto. The operation of any such set, instrument,
phonograph, machine or device between the hours of 10:00 o'clock P.M. and 7:00
o'clock A.M. shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this Section.
C. Loud Speakers, Amplifiers for Advertising. The using, operating or
permitting to be played, used or operated, of any radio receiving set, musical
instrument, phonograph, loud speaker, sound amplifier, or other machine or device for
the producing or reproducing of sound which is cast upon the public streets for the
purpose of commercial or political advertising or attracting the attention of the public to
any building or structure
D. No person shall, between the hours of 10:00 o'clock P.M. and 7:00
o'clock A.M., congregate because of or participate in any party or gathering of people
from which noise emanates of a sufficient volume so as to disturb the peace, quiet or
repose of persons residing in any residential area. No person shall visit or remain within
any residential dwelling unit wherein such party, or gathering, is taking place, except
persons who have gone there for the sole purpose of abating the disturbance.
E. Animals, Birds, Etc. The keeping of any animal or bird which by
causing frequent or long continued noise shall disturb the comfort or repose of any
persons in the vicinity.
F. Exhausts. The discharge into the open air of the exhaust of any
steam engine, stationary internal combustion engine, motor boat, or motor vehicle
except through a muffler or other device which will effectively prevent loud or explosive
noises therefrom.
G. Defect in Vehicle or Load. The use of any automobile, motorcycle, or
vehicle so out of repair, so loaded or in such manner as to create loud or unnecessary
grating, grinding, rattling or other noise.
H. Loading, Unloading, Opening Boxes. The creation of a loud and
excessive noise in connection with loading, or unloading any vehicle or the opening and
destruction of bales, boxes, crates, and containers.
I. Construction or Repairing of Buildings. The erection (including
excavation), demolition, alteration or repair of any building or highway or utility
construction other than between the hours of 7:00 o'clock A M. and 10:00 o'clock P M,
except for (1) City public improvements after City Council notification or (2) City
emergency repairs.
J. Schools, Courts, Churches, Hospitals. The creation of any excessive
noise on any street adjacent to any school, institution of learning, church or court while
the same are in use, or adjacent to any hospital, which unreasonably interferes with the
working of such institution, or which disturbs or unduly annoys patients in the hospital,
provided conspicuous signs are displayed in such streets indicating that the same is a
school, hospital or court street.
K. Hawkers, Peddlers. The shouting or crying of peddlers, hawkers
and vendors which disturbs the peace and quiet of the neighborhood.
L. Drums. The use of any drum or other instrument or device for the
purpose of attracting attention by creation of noise to any performance, show or sale.
M. Metal Rails, Pillars and Columns, Transportation Thereof. The
transportation of rails, pillars or columns of iron, steel or other material, over and along
streets or other public places upon carts, drays, cars, trucks, or in any other manner so
loaded as to cause loud noises or as to disturb the peace and quiet of such streets or
other public places.
N. Railroad and/or Street Railway Engines or Cars, Operation
Thereof. The causing, permitting or continuing any excessive, unreasonable,
unnecessary and avoidable noise in the operation of a railroad engine or car or of a
street railway car at any time or place so as to annoy or disturb the quiet, comfort,
health and repose of persons in any dwelling, hotel or other type of residence or any
persons in the vicinity; or the creation of any loud or excessive noise or concussion in
connection with the switching, coupling or uncoupling of railroad cars between the hours
of 10:00 o'clock P.M. and 7:00 o'clock A.M., in such manner as to annoy or disturb the
quiet, comfort and repose of persons in a residential area.
O. Pile Drivers, Hammers, Etc. The operation between the hours of
10:00 o'clock P.M. and 7:00 o'clock A.M., of any pile driver, steam shovel, pneumatic
hammer, derrick, steam or electric noise of other appliance, the use of which is attended
by loud or unusual noise.
P. Blowers. The operation of any noise-creating blower or power fan
or any internal combustion engine, the operation of which causes noise due to the
explosion of operating gases or fluids, unless the noise from such blower or fan is
muffled and such engine is equipped with a muffler device sufficient to deaden such
noise.”
City of Ham Lake: “Our City Code does not address Ultimate Fighting.”
City of Red Wing: “The City of Red Wing does prohibit Ultimate Fighting.
Attached is Ordinance 413.” (Ord 413 attached as Exhibit
B).
City of Spring Lake Park: “130.22 ULTIMATE FIGHTING.
(A) Definition and purpose. Ultimate fighting is as an
organized event where the primary practice involves
individuals engaged in physical contact by striking an
opponent with hands, head, feet or body. The City Council
finds that the practice of ultimate fighting is dangerous and
puts the public health, safety and welfare at great risk.
(B) Prohibited conduct. It shall be unlawful in any public or
private building or place to permit the practice of ultimate
fighting or to participate in the practice of ultimate fighting as
above defined. Officially sanctioned and regulated boxing
and wrestling and team sports in which physical contact is
incidental to the primary purpose of the game such as
basketball, volleyball, soccer, baseball and softball are not
included among activities prohibited by this section.”
City of Savage: “The City of Savage does not currently have any provisions
in our code either banning or restricting Ultimate Fighting.”
Staff feels that the City of Red Wing has the best and most thorough Ordinance
prohibiting this type of recreation. If the City Council still wishes to go forward and start
the process of banning Ultimate Fighting, then Staff will draft an Ordinance, have the
City Attorney review the draft, then present it to the City Council as a first reading as
early as the last City Council Meeting in May.
Respectfully submitted,
Desaree Crane