Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1990/07/16 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL JULY 16, 1990 AGENDA SESSION 7:00 P.M. 1. Continued Discussion of Silver View Park Task Force Report - we will meet in the Silver View Parking Lot at 7:00 p.m. 8:00 P.M. 1. Presentation of Draft Space Needs Study Report by Roger Christianson of The Alliance 2 . Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Wetlands Alteration Permit Request By Mr. Ron Fagerstrom and Doug Arnstrom, 2552/2554 Mounds View Drive for an Extension of An • Existing Deck 3 . Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Pop Machines 4. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Demos of Various Park Equipment for Possible Purchase As Per Requested 5. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding County Road I Trail - I-35W to Quincy Street Feasibility Report 6 . Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Code Review and Update - Chapters 58 thru 63 7. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Proposed Responses to 1990 Survey Results 8. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Anoka County- Blaine Airport Letter 9 . Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Proposed 1991 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Dues Increase 10 . Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Participation in the Local Government Information Systems (LOGIS) Health Care Group MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL 1j ' co Pte . FROM: MARY SAARION, DIRECTOR PARKS, RECREATION AND FORESTRY • DATE: JUNE 27, 1990 SUBJECT: SILVER VIEW PARK PROPOSAL The Silver View Park proposal is intended to present a concept plan for improvements at Silver View Park. In no way is this plan offering precise dates, costs or designs of capital equipment, facilities or services. The Task Force was well aware that costs change and to pinpoint costs in 1990 for improvements in 1993 is impossible. For this reason, general estimates are given on each grid sheet. Examples of facility and equipment were provided as a guide to the ideas discussed by the group. In addition, ideas were offered in different scopes. For instance, a $50,000 playground facility would be grand, but a $30,000 playground facility would suffice. Another example of cost differences is the bridge over the narrows. As explained in the narrative, a pedestrian bridge is recommended contingent on the fact that the culvert is laid on the west side of the pond which would allow maintenance vehicles to pass. If the culvert is not installed, then the bridge should allow vehicular passage. The costs of the pedestrian and vehicular bridge are different. However, because it is unknown what the decision will be, the higher cost bridge was inserted to be conservative. • The Task Force again was well aware that a plan is simply a plan and that costs are volatile until the very time of receipt of bids and funding availability. Staff suggests that the Council concentrate on the first ten (10) pages of the proposal which defines the thirteen recommendations of the Task Force and Parks and Recreation Commission. The most important part of this whole plan is the concept plan (blob map) which creates a distinct function of three different areas of the park and offers purpose and intent for each area. As Ron Fagerstrom stated repeatedly at the public hearing, this • - . • • - i- �- •• is i i : :: .. ... . . •-. =- -■ - -- - .e this concept. There are duplications in this proposal but not contradictions. The proposal was created with each concept area planned separately. Because functions may occur in more than one concept area (i.e. benches, pathways, trash receptacles), the same facilities are listed in each individual concept area plan. There are some deviations regarding a hard and fast rule on the concept plan. For instance, the pond area is considered nature passive, and yet it is proposed that a hard surface pathway be installed on the north side of the pond for the walking impaired. This may be in conflict with the concept if one believes that the pathway 411 will then attract active users such as bicyclist, skateboards, rollerblades, etc. However, this deviation demonstrates that this plan is flexible and because the general concept is defined as a guide, the plan is designed to provide opportunities to consider special needs and requests of the community. -2- In conclusion, I urge the Council to view this proposal not for detail, but for concept and consider approval of the thirteen recommendations with the greatest being the • Concept Plan, the function of the park, which provides guidelines to the improvements of each area. Do not become concerned about details, because this plan will be outdated in detail in less than one year. Costs, funding sources, products, and maintenance requirements change too quickly and for this reason firm information regarding such are suggestive rather than definite. My final word is a request for expediency. We are currently in dire need of facilities on the proposal's capital items list. The picnic shelter and park has increasing use and there is a need for purchase of decorative dumpsters and trash receptacles. Also, grills and more picnic tables are needed. The hard surface court needs to be sealed and color-coated. Staff is anxious to begin requesting funds for these necessary amenities so that the facility can be as functional as possible. MS/SL • MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNC \ c� - A 114 110 FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRATO11411 DATE: JULY 12, 1990 SUBJECT: DRAFT SPACE NEEDS STUDY REPORT Roger Christianson of The Alliance will be present at your July 16th Agenda Session at 8:00 p.m. to review with you the draft of the Space Needs Study Report including a narrative and conceptual site and building plans. As you know, Roger presented his draft conceptual plans to the Department Head Team and City Staff during the week of July 2nd and each department has had individual discussions regarding the conceptual drawings. As a result of these discussions, the Department Head Team met with Roger on the afternoon of July 11th to provide him with our comments. Those comments and requested changes or additional options will be part of Roger's presentation to you. Roger will be seeking your input and direction with respect to these conceptual drawings and draft report before finalizing the documents. 410 It is my hope that the draft of the report will be provided to you no later than Friday, July 13th in order that you may have an opportunity over the weekend to review this document. Should you have any questions prior to Roger's presentation, please let me know. DFP/mjs MEMORANDUM ITEM: 2 411 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Planner, Michelle Hren DATE: July 11, 1990 SUBJECT: Wetland Alteration Permit - Ron Fagerstrom/Doug Arnstrom 2552/2554 Mounds View Drive Mr. Ron Fagerstrom and Mr. Doug Arnstrom have applied for a Wetland Alteration Permit to allow the extension of an existing deck. The property is located within a buffer zone of a wetland. The applicants have proposed a three (3) ft. width extension with stairs to the existing deck. The Wetland Ordinance allows construction in a wetland buffer zone with a Wetland Alteration Permit. As a result of this addition there does not appear to be any impact on the Wetland. • Staff is requesting direction from the City Council regarding the appropriate resolution to prepare for this request. CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING APPLICATION Datep0-00 0 APPLICANT: NamecPC)11 a. e(,,s ro✓1'1 1 \) 0U 4r'dl�s rUv1'1 Phone)c=( 572. j Address 05' /�SSy / QUA 0L ate,,, Dr( ti Interest in Property (Check Appropriate Blank) : Owner of Record Lessee, Operator, Manager Contractor for Deed Owner Agreement to Purchase Other (Expl ain) Documentary evidence of applicant' s interest in the property may be required before final City action on this request. PROPERTY : Address/General Location army,-q QS Q7 PcJv- Legal Owner: Name/Address c avn-e s 2,im c1 Present Use (Check Appropriate Blank) : Undevel aped/Vacant Apartment /7 nyl e Family Dwell iny Business Esabl ishment — Dupl ex Dwell iny Industrial Establ ishment Multiple Dwell iny (3-6 units) • Other (expl ain) Property Classification: JAbstract Torrens[ REQUEST: (Explain) -� c �Gi0i/L, c4 pa- h0 iU/ d•ill SI irS -c),'' b y -I- h (J ✓i s , O��i 1,,i v i If i s ynature FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: TOTAL BASE *(Base Fees are Non-Refundable) DEPOSIT FEES Subdivision , Major $250 ($150) TOTAL FEES PAID /5 0.0-0 Subdivision , Minor $100 ($75) Date Paid (o-ate -yd Rezoniny $100 ($50) Receipt Number 5 8 Conditional Use $100 ($50) Variance $75 ($50) Code Appeal $100 ($50) Park Fund Dedication Alteration Permit $150 ($50) /,5•0. oca Date Paid I Plan Review $100 ($50) Receipt Number • ' Other ($50) PLANNING SIGN $ 50 Addt'1 Fees Paid -42(45-0, U Date Paid 6/.z6/90 Receipt Number • . 3 3 SSS-' BLAINE N • WM.. CO . . I g 81 PO 1 g A # . . . „, i1 1 1 2[ \1 .4*. 1417'. 4111 (L I ==1 i -: BLAINE cL ..,.. kW W z_:-....... '''- 2 ... ll 11 , ii c5z N\Qi i iiiit v) , i ISLAM I. PAW W MIMI! Si . g —MAL —.201— a gill 1 y71 1 SOR • 111r- 2:::::::::::::::.:.:. 1 . 1 ..:...., • .. : ! -------1---21134;412-----1 j: : eammumwessam .—,22. I I 1 ' illt g WA:11 KV PIM 0,10, . ,, .0 - IReW—m 1 4( 1i .17 . 026.... ' ..7........:•:.:•:.:::.:......'..'.. . /4 a] 1) 2 LALWIrt ma LAMM 1 • : PAM i I P C glibilliri . w i . m m Gm; —I LOMA MN g 7 , _ i . Nv./..,:, ......„.J1 ...L. ce w 1 ; /\ ! 0 ..,.. I___ ___ 1 Pit ------":-.--” _1 -6 c i ml-jt I OS = i —1' kctr 1 . L- '4111 1 i I1 1 PI I A 1404 10071. . .... .• • 0 4- , e, z NEW BRIGHTON Ron Fagerstrom/Doug Arnstrom 2552/2554 Mounds View Drive Planning Case No. 305-90 III .' I t : ) - 2-8-90 REV. 2-14-90 1 11% MEMO TO: COUNCILMEMBER QUICK WVM3 FROM: MARY SAARION, DIRECTOR PARKS, RECREATION AND FORESTRY DATE: JULY 11, 1990 SUBJECT: POP MACHINES I met with Mr. Parsons from Coca-Cola Bottling Company regarding the feasibility of pop machines in the park. I expressed my primary concern of vandalism. Mr. Parsons did not feel that vandalism would be a problem and stated that it would be the company at risk, not the City. After discussion of activities and use of various parks, Mr. Parsons recommended that one machine be placed under the large picnic shelter at City Hall and one at the new picnic shelter at Silver View. He suggested the six-select machine at $14.00/month. At $.50 per can and a minimum of 25 cases per month, at the two above locations, profits would be $375.00 for a 5 month operation period (May - September) per machine. I have reviewed this with the Parks and Recreation Commission and they expressed two concerns: 1. Who will be responsible for filling the pop machine and how often does it need • to be filled? I shared my opinion in reference to this question that the public works employees would be the logical ones to fill the pop machine during regular trash and facility inspection tasks. It was then the Commissions' question as to whether or not the public works has enough time to take on another task. 2. The concern about collecting money was expressed. Would money need to be collected every day; every two days? If money was stolen would it be the City's liability? Who would be responsible for collecting the money? Generally, the Commission wanted to be sure that any profits generated could compensate time spent to manage the tasks involved. I still am concerned about vandalism. Mr. Parsons did not know of any machines in area parks. I asked if Minneapolis parks or anywhere else in the metro area used their machines in parks. He was not aware of any, although, he said that most golf courses have pop machines. My basic concern is that even if we are not liable for any damage done to the machine, I am reluctant to give any more "opportunities", or enticements for vandals to be detrimental to park facilities. On the other hand, the pop machines do provide a service to the park users and may provide profit monies for additional park amenities. I would like to suggest that we try one machine at City Hall picnic shelter from May - September in 1991 on a trail basis to actually see the use and profit potential of a pop machine in the parks and evaluate the profit versus the cost of operating a pop machine service. MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL • FROM: MARY SAARION, DIRECTOR PARKS, RECREATION AND FORESTRY DATE: JULY 10, 1990 SUBJECT: REQUEST TO PURCHASE TRASH RECEPTACLES FOR SILVER VIEW PARK As mentioned in the last memo concerning Silver View Park, staff believes there is an immediate need for the installation of trash receptacles at Silver View Park. The Silver View Park proposal recommends the purchase of twelve (12) trash receptacles. The model desired is the same brand which has been installed in the other parks. These receptacles are permanently mounted in a concrete slab, are made of durable plastisol-coated metal mesh which is decorative, functional and requires minimal maintenance. Each receptacle would have a hood which would help alleviate flying litter and insects. These receptacles are $218.00 each, with a total of $2,616.00 for all twelve. A brown color is recommended to blend in with the natural setting. The second recommendation of the proposal is a Hid-a-Bag or decorative dumpster- type facility. This is needed near the picnic shelter to accommodate the trash generated by picnics. This trash bin would be locked with the same key as the picnic shelter and therefore only picnic shelter users would have access to its use. This would eliminate the use by persons wishing to dump their personal household trash. This unit is $650.00 plus $75.00 freight for a total of $725.00. It is made of galvanized steel and painted with durable urethane, colored to blend in with the environment. Aesthetically designed, this container comes with permanent mounting provisions. Staff requests that discussion be initiated on Monday during the on-site visit to the park to establish a general concensus on location of the receptacles. RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval to purchase twelve (12) litter receptacles Model WVT32I from Wabash Valley and one Hid-a-Bag II from MacQueen Equipment, Inc. for a total of $3,341.00 to be funded with undesignated monies. MS/SL _o ', t., `� III „, #,-, ` er - USED BY: Parks: �t r,,,,,.-..,irii►g.,.�1 I7tvljl /.,/®:�F'74..%= �11*--44� . - National >>• �i• Ill®�1�, Provincial , j ;' % f State 3 - � ` � 7. Municipal I Campgrounds �'- Rest Areas f rfi � --",..A..*„,,,_. --- �, p t .- Dept. of Highways -- -4, •-..-‘,4--1"-•-;;;-11 x yl' Schools Playgrounds Ski Lodges ---- Recreation Areas ----,..___ _ „..--..,. .-,„..........._ - - * �_. and many others. ,.....::: tis — •. . . ,t"4, . , Do s ; .; - 'k, . , -,1„, — :;;,..=,._-- ,:445..,.. I --,.(i.4 .,,... , .., s ..... , . ,,,4, \ . , .4.4. . .rta.,, : , i " '' ..": .'" 4 ' ) ., 'x`1'i -<u pt t ' t F k 1 0, k I.s _ .--'-z,'", n „c i-.,-,-,74- .= k i Self closing lids with or without LATCHED UNLOADING DOORS - Bag rack tips out "Bear Proof" latches. for easy removal of bag and quick installation of a new one. 1t. SPECIFICATIONS: HID-A-BAG° I & II containers are manufactured from HID•A•BAG® I HID-A-BAG® II 1r galvanneal steel and painted with a durable urethane, CAPACITY 70 Gal. (260 I) 130 Gal. (500 I) • colored to blend in with the environment. Aesthetically DIMENSIONS: Width 26"(660) 48" (1 220) designed, HID-A-BAG° containers come with permanent Depth 42" (1 070) 42"(1 070) mounting provisions and each unit is serial numbered for Height 48" (1 220) 48" (1 220) your asset control. WEIGHT: Standard 220 lbs(100 kg) 295 lbs (135 kg) w/Platform 265 lbs(120 kg) 360 lbs(163 kg) OPTIONS AVAILABLE: Bear Proof Latches — w/1x4 Cedar 240 lbs(109 kg) n/a User Platform — Keylock on Unloading Door w/2x4 Cedar 260 lbs (118 kg) n/a BAG REQUIREMENTS: 2.5 mil -42" x 50" (1 070 x 1 270) Rd.,HAUL-ALL EQUIPMENT LTD.,1984 U.S.Patent No.D291,135 �1 — I ' DISTRIBUTOR a" -r eachesyotrthrougirarre : t, •' •=r ' :rishibutorswhoseintegritjrand` product knowledge qualifies thetntoasalstyou in the selection andplannin 41.7 your IWAti r tam ► __ _ . ITw; .c wr •.*•gypgr, t-:IAl HIS i3I " t(a[U6man . : LITTER RECEPTACLES aA‘\1,1 tttttttt • i►►►►� •tt•tNt�ii+�►►►� • • . s _ � - f{��•,s< A u� �;s`�� �i #"3.+�4 v s r sir�����tea.�'�h.,.F� :. ?'1 i. asp.-z'le'' y � 'sc ..s, Y. } ,t�'. �..sa� �.�n�,.�.s:::�'as...-w fid...4 !,. P..zL.a MODEL WVT32I INNOVATION • Wabash Valley is proud to present its newest member of durable products to the Park and Recreation industry. As with Wabash Valley's line of plastisol-coated outdoor furniture, our receptacle is made to last a lifetime . . . for the first time a series of maintenance-free equipment that truly stands up to adverse environmental conditions. An aesthetic and practical approach to litter control . . . Form and function at its finest. 32 51, 411 MEMO TO : Mayor and City Council FROM: Public Works Foreman Ulrich DATE : July 12 , 1990 SUBJECT : Demos of various Park equipment for possible purchase . as per requested In response to inquires from Mayor Hankner and Councilman Quick we will have a couple of demos on some of the possible capital equipment request as per the list submitted at an earlier council meeting. Mentioned in our list of possible equipment purchases was a three wheel type truckster for balif i.eld maintenance . The reason being is that our current Toro Workmaster is out dated and inadequate for the job it is expected to do . The Workmaster was out of service because of an accident that occurred prior to my arrival here . We finally collected an insurance claim and repaired it to the condition you see today. With our growing maintenance needs on our ballfields , . soccer fields , and football fields we are spending more manhours preparing these facilities because of the inadequacies of our current equipment. The new equipment requested will increase our 411 productivity in numerous ways . It has a specificially designed ballfieid drag that will groom the fields rather than merely drag them, and in less time by reducing the hand work required to fill in base and sliding paths . It has the ability to transport small loads of aglirne to be spread in problem areas in the field. Also mounted on the truckster is a thirty gallon paint striper that is used to paint more permenant lines in the grass areas of the fields thus eliminating constant maintenance . Forester Rick Wriskey has requested a small zero turning radius mower to mow the areas around city hall . The maintenance �f the ("ii-•37 ri,-tll U,--f t,.1 ever requires an extensive amount of manhours , do to its exposure in _ 1- - i • - • this task with its ' collection system, manuverability, and increased cutting width. The need for an additional tractor has increased to the point where we cannot accomplish our turf maintenance in the time allotted by mother nature. In both the spring and fall we have approximately two to three weeks to spray, areate, seed, and fertilize our turf areas and this can't be done with one tractor . This tractor would also be utilized for turf repair and construction projects while the other one is mowing. It will also be equipped with a front mounted broom for snow removal on sidewalks and ice rinks . There are a couple of other ideas that I would like to discuss with you in regards to this tractor and equipment Monday night. 411 MEMORANDUM --- Memo To :Mayor and Council Members From :Ric Minetor, City Engineer/Director of Public Works Date :July 11, 1990 Subject :County Road I Trail - I-35W to Quincy Street Feasibility Report Attached is a copy of the feasibility report for the Mounds View section of the trail and the alternatives for crossing under the I-35W bridge. I have recommend the alternative suggested in the report and also recommend funding the project with the bridge modifications included. The Council's previous resolution did not address the bridge crossing and the current level of funding is not adequate for the entire project. A resolution amending the previous resolution could be prepared for the next Council meeting if the Council concurs in this action. The report identifies the total cost to Mounds View as $28,770. I would recommend that the resolution be amended from the current $15,000 to $30,000 for the entire project. If subsequent investigation proves that the crossing may be more expensive, the Council could review the situation at that time. S NOV 09 '90 1E:04 SR.! INC.) P.2. • eoP 44: r July 10, 1990 :/ pr '' 4 , ..� . Honorable Mayor and Members of the CityCouncil City of Mounds Vie 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 ATTN: Mr. R.A. Minetor, PE Director of Public Works RE: County Road I Pathway - Phase II Feasibility Report Shoreview City Project 90-12 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: The following report details the results of our feasibility study investigation for the construction of a bituminous pathway along the north side of County Road I from the west end of Phase I of the pathway project in Shoreview to 0 Quincy Street in the City of Mounds View. The requirements and costs associated with the construction of Phase I of the County Road I Pathway Project are detailed in our April 9, 1990, Feasibility Report to the Shoreview City Council. - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Approximately 1,700 lineal feet of eight-foot-wide bituminous pathway is pro- posed to be constructed along the north side of County Road I within existing right-of-way. The pathway construction for Phase II is proposed to begin at the west end of the Phase I pathway at a poin . . - y '. feet east of Interstate Highway 35W (I-35W) , and extend west to Quincy Street. The proposed pathway will require improvements under the existing I-35W bridge overpass structure. The existing bridge does not currently include any provi- sions for the construction of a pathway or sidewalk adjacent to County Road I. It does not appear feasible or safe to route pedestrians and bicycles onto the roadway shoulder under the bridge structure. It is our recommendation that this be precluded from consideration as an alternative for safety reasons. There- fore, the alternatives examined in this report all consider modifications which will allow pedestrian and bicycle movement off-roadway. A plan view of the existing bridge is shown in attached Exhibit 1. • NOV 09 '90 16:05 BRW INC, P.3 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers July 10, 1990 • Page 2 We have reviewed the bridge structure to determine possible alternative improve- ments to enable the pathway construction. Three alternatives were investigated as follows: Alternative 1 • The existing steel plate beam guardrail under the bridge along the north side of County Road I would be removed, and concrete barrier would be placed along the back of the existing curb. The pathway would be routed between the concrete barrier and the existing concrete pillars. The pathway would be constricted to an approximate width of four feet in this area. This alternative would create safety concerns relative to the narrow width of the pathway and the close prox-- mity of County Road I traffic. The estimated cost of Alternative 1 improvements is approximately $14,500. Alternative 2 The existing steel plate beam guardrail under the bridge along the north side of County Road I would be removed and concrete barrier wall would be cast-in-place between the concrete pillars. The pathway would be routed between the pillars and the existing concrete curb. The pathway would be constricted to an approxi- • mate width of six feet in this area. This alternative would not provide any protection for the pathway from the adjacent roadway. • The estimated cost of Alternative 2 improvements is approximately $17,500. Alternative 3 This alternative includes routing the pathway north of the concrete bridge pillars to limit modifications to the existing guardrail system. The pathway construction would require some earthwork and the construction of a concrete retaining wall along the length of the bridge. The improvements would enable the construction of the pathway to the full eight-foot width. This alternative would provide the optimum pathway alignment based upon safety and the separation of pedestrians and bicycles from County Road I traffic. The estimated cost of Alternative 3 improvements is approximately $20,000, including bituminous pathway construction under the bridge. Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and Ramsey County approval will be required for any improvements to the existing I-35W bridge. It should be noted that the review process could have some impacts to the pathway design and the project schedule. . For the purposes of this report, it has been assumed that Alternative 3 improve- ments would be made to the I-35W bridge, pending Mn/DOT and Ramsey County appro- val . Although Alternative 3 is the most expensive improvement plan, we feel • that it is the most feasible, considering the emphasis on safety which should. be NOV 09 '90 15:05 EPW Irl! P.4 . r Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers July 10, 1990 Page 3 • placed on the pathway because of heavy usage by school-aged children. Alterna- tive 3 improvements to the I-35W bridge are illustrated in attached Exhibit 2. The proposed pathway improvements are shown In attached Exhibit 3. ESTIMATED COSTS The estimated project costs for the pathway construction with Alternative 3 I-35W bridge improvements are presented below. Please note that a 35 percent allowance has been included in determining the total project cost to allow for indirect costs such as engineering, administration, legal and contingency items. Item Unit Number Item Quantit Price Extension 1 Bituminous Pathway 1,380 SY $ 8.50 $ 11,730.00 8' wide 2 Retaining Wall Construction 150 SF 25.00 3,750.00 (At 'Approaches to I-35W Bridge) 3 I-35W Bridge Improvements 1 LS 20,000.00 20,000.0 (Alternative 3) Subtotal $ 35,480.00 35% Indirect & Contingency 12,420.00 Total Project Cost $ 47,900.00 METHOD OF FINANCING It is proposed that the total cost for the project be financed by the City of Shoreview and the City of Mounds View in accordance with the proposed Joint Powers Agreement. Based on the cost split detailed in the agreement, and the cost estimate presented in this report, the City of Shoreview would be responsi- ble for approximately $19,130 of the total project cost of Phase II, while the City of Mounds View would be responsible for the remaining Phase II cost of $28,770. The cost of the Phase I improvements in Shoreview previously identified will remain City of Shoreview costs. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The bituminous pathway construction presented in this report is a feasible addi- tion to the current City of Mounds View and City of Shoreview pathway systems and will provide a needed extension of the proposed pathway detailed in our • £I06-80# a[ Ma4AaJo4s 40 RatO `3d ` tyy sa[JP43 •a •.,p :oo s;uawyoraab S)t/3y9 Ja5euew aoaroJd 3d `4a.J43 •y R.,eg '3NI `MJ8 'RtaJaouis •Ma4AaJoys do 8140 a&a put, MaEA spuno. 10 R443 a44 44dauaq MA 44 4P44 Pup 4too4os pooMauLd a4; oa Ma4AaJoys 40 sauap[saJ aqa J0j WaasRs Remq;ed aaatdwoo r sJadJ.o at aryl `atgtsrad s4 aparoJd s441 art; uotu4do aqa do LIP BM 0661 'IC Jag0400 paaatdwo3 uoIaonJasuo3 0661 'LI Jagcnaadas liras uoEaonJlsuo3 0661 `t Jagwaadas (Ma4Aaao4S) 402Jauo3 a3acoJd PJeMV 0661 `LZ 4sn6ny (mom spunow) uo4arpuauw:o3ad Nem' Ma vtaa 066I `£Z lsn8ny 6u4uad0 pt8 0661 `9 4sn5ny suo4aroLd43ads put, suetd aAo.iddy 0661 `91 RUT suotarohfl3 dS pur surtd Jam pue uo4arauasaad Ra4E4gtsead •umoys scarp eqa puoRaq papueaxa aq atnpayos aya aryl ;Jobe.: plop sluaw9A0Jdw= o6p4Jq MSE-1 a4? JO; sSa00Jd tPAOJddt, pup M2►AaJ Rlun00 Raswea pup .100/uI aya ;rya palou aq wogs aI •Motaq etnpayps a4a Rq pat4p4ap Sr paaooJd woo loaroJd a4a `suopPoLdt3ads put, surld a4; 4.0 [ AOJdde a4a uod0 •paJrdajd aq ptnoM suom34340ads pup suptd 40 las at6u4s p aryl 6u4pupls -Japan Jno S . 41 •;oatoJd RPM449d I ppoa Rauno3 aqa 4a II aseyd Jo3 suo4a -ro4d43ads pur suPtd do uotar.,pdajd aya aztJoyanr pup ;JodaJ sc44 ;daa3e MatA spunow do 8140 e4; 494; PuacuJtooaJ am `Mem spunoW 30 4343 944 PUP Ma4A0J04S 40 R440 944 uaamleq 4uowggJBV sJBMod WPC eqa d0 uotanoaxa pup trAo.ddr 614wnssy ' Lootos poo,eutd ay; oa s;uepnas 221,J4s4Q [004aS JO; aar0J atoRo4g pup ur4J4Saped Jej s r ;p A0.ld ttcM UoiaonJasuoo krMyard pasodoJd ayj •aJodaj Rait4g4sraj Re'4ard I prob 4luno3 '0661 '6 Lcidy a6e • d 0661 401 RUT sJagwewt .ouno3 R443 pup JoIPfr atgPaou0H --- NOV 09 '90 16:06 BRW INC. P.5 0 COUNTY ROAD I PATHWAY - PHASE 11 SHOREVIEW CITY PROJECT 90-12 CITY OF MOUNDS vigw CITY OF 1 tu, gHOTIeVIEW - -- ......,—.4__ _ _ _1 ts. 1 - 1 tu - (f) to 1 i . 1 6' FACE OF PILLARS TO FACE OF CURB SR/DGE OVER 1-35'W * '. -- -L'' , 4-"----4---. I 'SEC COR CONC. I STEEL - i P/L1.ARS j ' STEEL . PLATE BEAM j (TYR) 1 PLATE BEAM 4:-Na 7-1 GUARDRA/L— '4 . -...a..„... _D. -I--.---—--'4 ---: :'-"" •••-a:I-45 at.. —a. _ .a-___1- 0_2 - c, __a_... :::-0- —c2 5 A7c7—I 6 1 — ———"--,———7--;4.-- — — —14 .8C8 - - -- . rit 150 csj 7.- I V COUNTY ROAD I -sr i CONC. C 616 c‘J $Ca ------h---;--. 7---—.—_— _----__ _--4-----=-.=.----4.=-.==.-:---z.--. -=..- =--.?--4-1±.--7.-• .... __ ---0----.11----1/-——IT—cr 7T-0-t---T)--.6.-12--,i---z7:)--8-, If - - -,- -..- , srta STEEL I CONC 1 PLATE BEAP PLATE BEAM PILLARS. J I GUARDRAIL • • GUARDRAIL I I (TYR) . T / EXISTING CONDITIONS 1-35W BRIDGE OVERPASS JULY 1990 0 • SINN -a 511___, migaoliammmemerftnro"~umaii. • ,,. e EXHIBIT I NOV 09 '90 16:07 BRW INC0 P.7 = ay z� aQ l ; • • 1- i-z to Q g 1-3 z> z cD a:I>- ww w a> =z >.• - 0 0) ! .oz I Xo wo... 1-d o z 0 Q =i =- w"' 04 ow fit- t S oma Il!rittl._ o o� �< •>.. I ', acz 4-, H�J LU O +.#• U W oowa I If- - I 2 0 LL _ �._._ 61 lc ler -to et 1.1 Pi re) T --7C‘) Lii LU LU a ct O Q Will-J._W .00 0 at I N .J t jt�'!� Ud3 �3 Q. �' G1. was 1-m (5Cr 0 v)Z XJn N WU n. >„ txo wa(D : W i a f O A�.N(t03 - CO-ix it a- _ a. — 0 >" sew I .' CCa 141 I (1) < w . • CC a CC w 4-In CC w ?» x (w� lu col- 2 miaow p W-'�— Q• ? zc_...( ra 1... .. _ . W W /ill - O w260 2 4OG.C3 NOV 09 '90 16:07 ERN INCA y --" -I 1:71. P.8 i '� , • .1 33a0 30Ifi WE ,j ..7...., III . Q.I Q val-A=4, • •is":'a• III X � } �.,;tw o'40 1 1I a) P. '• 1M - LU 0 4d _ � ' I m5t-I t�Q to I Ii 1 , I 1111'' ! I, 0 I Z'• '.9 L_ n Q p1/ ] 4k u I11 I °�li '.-, i x• W • H.,.; r 44_, J{ N1 ..tet44 } . yv.Asa.•iiii +w.-rrr.�.01004aw.rr.�' ! 'I S11W11 A119 ti. f „� 0 °' -------{-- I•. . Z 1 — f .1r • w 1i:4 • T a Q. 0 2.l , II01 o CG • a. 1.. • QC'! �1rjT3 _ v _. _ �, ; O w a1 ' of H ' 1 : F L. C 1� Ti .Y i r - y,�v `107 J O.MO MSE-1 4 scivivb, I- 1- t0 :2 i I 1 Z _W { _ y! � i LL O } -. 1�{ 0 d1 �cg 1 0 111"x' am'1 :1.:101 d d ..y Li..'"-- j! a f" Q ...... , •' :i y a a U 2 I i f c et > z = S tu 0 0 II I x a o z j .. j�.! U 0 0) 5 g. ( 0 x m 0 Z T w m Ce I1}.1 1 a z 9 O o r g ii ! � 6 3 x . .1 W p r W m ► _. W ills : ? Z m h ft�li S111 1..1 F' •' A. a `� �� _ I, 1;I1 I•gl 0 .1 y :: 0 0 < ; w 110 .1 a W u .l_. a 0 1 w 1Z.* . a ,... I vfa - v If :..i I r--,r-4' .„ , ., 0 WN• 1---.,.......1 ! , , , •— I I - 1332i1S AONIr10'•}.t _� !��rp^it� _ lijte:41/,,,, MEMORANDUM Memo To :Don Pauley, Clerk-Administrator From :Ric Minetor, City Engineer/Director of Public Works Date :June 29, 1990 Subject :Code Review and Update - Chapters 58 thru 63 I have reviewed these chapters with Jim Tobias and find only minimal changes are necessary. These are listed below: Chapter 58 The definition of swimming pool states " . . .more than 150 square feet in area and/or over 24 inches in depth. . ." . This could be construed to include a rain barrel, a stormwater detention pond, or the small department store pools which have a semi ridgid side wall . Although a dtention pond or rain barrel are somewhat facetious, the department store type pool is prevalent throughout the City and are of a portable nature. Usually these are removed after use. Jim and I feel the problem can be addressed by 411 changing the definition to read " . . .more than 150 square feet in area and over 24 inches in depth, constructed as a permanent facility of any type material and located either above or below ground or partly above and partly below ground. " Section 58 . 08 ( 3 ) should read "Pool water drained into any municipal sanitary sewer shall be metered through a City approved metering device capable of recording actual volume in gallons and accurate to plus/minus 5 percent. Draining of pool water into any other municipal facility shall require a permit from the Director of Public Works. " A section 58.08 (4) should be added to read as follows: "Filling of any swimming pool with water obtained from the municipal water system shall be through either a metered faucet or through a metered hydrant adapter provided and operated by the City. The hydrant meter will record the volume used and the homeowner will be charged $25 plus the quantity of water at the current rates. Chapter 59 The Code does not need to be revised, however, resolution #2166 • should be amended by revising subsection (C) Plan Check Fee as follows: " A plan check fee of 65% of the building permit fee shall be charged for all permits except for simple buildings (i.e. garages, decks, and storage buildings) valued less than $10,000 and constructed of standard materials and construction techniques. The plan check fee will apply to any non-standard construction techniques or materials which require special review by the building inspector." CHAPTER 58 SWIMMING POOLS 58. 01. DEFINITIONS. Swimming Pool. A swimming pool is any structure, basin, chamber or tank containing an artificial body of water for swimming, diving or recretional bathing, more than 150 square feet in area and/or over 24 inchco in dcpth, built of any material located above or below ground. over 24 inches in depth, constructed as a permanent facility of any type material and located either above or below ground or partly above and partly below ground. 52 .02. FENCING. All outdoor swimming pools existing and hereafter constructed shall be completely surrounded by a fence or barrier that will prevent the unauthorized entrance into the swimming pool by any person when said fence or barrier is locked as provided hereafter. All points of entry into the pool area shall have installed thereon gates which shall be equipped with latching devices installed on the gates in such a manner as to prevent of opening of said gates by any child that is not supervised by an authorized adult. Said fence or • barrier shall be at least five feet high. 58.03 COMPLIANCE. All persons owning or operating an outdoor swimming pool shall comply with this ordinance within ninety (90) days from the date of publication. 58.04 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. No person shall begin construction of either an indoor or outdoor swimming pool without first having submitted plans and specifications to the buidling inspector for review and approval. 58.05. PERMITS. Upon approval a permit shall be issued to the applicant upon payment of the required permit fee as established by resolution of the City Council. 58.06 SUPERVISON. Every swimming pool shall be under the supervision of a capable adult or any individual holding a current life-saving certificate. i 58.07 58.07 LOCATION. Any outdoor swimming pool, its fencing or barriers, its pumps, filters, heating units, or any other noise making mechanical equipment, as well as the use of said pool, shall be solely located on an authorized premises so as not to constitute an attractive, public, or private nuisance. Swimming pools shall be located on property in a manner so as to comply with all applicable provisions of Chapter 40 of this code. 58.08 GENERAL PROVISIONS. (1) Pools shall not be located within any utility easement. (2) All pool lighting shall be directed towards the pool. (3) Pool water drained through thc Municipal Sanitary of thc municipal in3pcctor.into any municipal sanitary sewer shall be metered through a City approved metering device capable of recording actual volume in gallons and accurate to plus/minus 5 percent. Draining of pool water into any other municipal facility shall require a permit from the Director of Public Works. (4) Filling of any swimming pool with water obtained from the municipal water system shall be through either a metered faucet or through a metered hydrant adapter provided and operated by the City. The hydrant meter will record the volume used and the homeowner will be charged $25 plus the quantity of water at the current rates. 58.09 PENALTY. Any person violating this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRATOR DATE: MAY 22, 1990 SUBJECT: PROPOSED RESPONSES TO 1990 SURVEY RESULTS Staff has reviewed and discussed the results of the 1990 City Survey in an effort to develop a proposed set of responses. In some cases, e.g. Precinct 2's dissatisfaction with level of information on City, staff was unable to develop a specific response due to the lack of detailed reasons for the results. We have listed out by principal subject matter the responses we propose and would request Council direction. 1. Public Information/City Newsletter - Clearly there are groups of residents dissatisfied with the level of information they receive about the City. In two cases, these groups are made up of people (Precinct 2 and 6- 10 year residents) who are the largest readers of the City Newsletter. Suggested responses are, • a. More in-depth and timely information in the City Newsletter about property taxes, in particular, the City's share. b. "Did You Know?" articles in the City Newsletter on property taxes and the value of specific services provided by the City. c. Expanded efforts to report on current and future issues of importance in the Newsletter. d. A city brochure for new residents. e. Expanded efforts to reach out to apartment dwellers, particularly with recreation program information. f. An evaluation of the current City Newsletter delivery system be conducted on a random basis. g. Survey Precinct 3 residents using a return mail survey form to more accurately measure the level Newsletter readership and, if low, the reasons. 2 . Recycling - Continue efforts to provide recycling IIIcontainers as a means to encourage greater participation. The stated desire for more frequent MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL • FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRATOR DATE: MAY 22, 1990 SUBJECT: PROPOSED RESPONSES TO 1990 SURVEY RESULTS Staff has reviewed and discussed the results of the 1990 City Survey in an effort to develop a proposed set of responses. In some cases, e.g. Precinct 2 's dissatisfaction with level of information on City, staff was unable to develop a specific response due to the lack of detailed reasons for the results. We have listed out by principal subject matter the responses we propose and would request Council direction. 1. Public Information/City Newsletter - Clearly there are groups of residents dissatisfied with the level of information they receive about the City. In two cases, these groups are made up of people (Precinct 2 and 6- 10 year residents) who are the largest readers of the City Newsletter. Suggested responses are, a. More in-depth and timely information in the City Newsletter about property taxes, in particular, the City's share. b. "Did You Know?" articles in the City Newsletter on property taxes and the value of specific services provided by the City. c. Expanded efforts to report on current and future issues of importance in the Newsletter. d. A city brochure for new residents. e. Expanded efforts to reach out to apartment dwellers, particularly with recreation program information. f. An evaluation of the current City Newsletter delivery system be conducted on a random basis. g. Survey Precinct 3 residents using a return mail survey form to more accurately measure the level Newsletter readership and, if low, the reasons. 2 . Recycling - Continue efforts to provide recycling containers as a means to encourage greater • participation. The stated desire for more frequent MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MAY 22, 1990 PAGE TWO recycling pickups was addressed with the recent Code change. 3. Snowplowing - Review snowplowing practices in Precinct 1 to see what changes can be made to reduce level of dissatisfaction. 4. Planning/Redevelopment - a. Increase effort to publicize Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update through newspaper and Newsletter articles. b. Continue efforts to encourage redevelopment along T.H. 10. Financial assistance should continue to be offered and condemnation should be avoided when possible. c . As part of the Zoning, Subdivision and Sign Code updates, the feasibility of implementing landscape and design standards should be evaluated. • 5. Park and Recreation a. Discussion of a possible Park Improvement Bond Referendum for November, 1990 should continue with a focus on establishing a desired level of funding and identifying specific projects for some or all of the revenues. b. Efforts to improve parks maintenance should be continued. c. Continue to move towards adopting a Master Plan for Silver View Park. 6 . Community Center - Pending a Council decision to proceed with this matter, staff proposes no further efforts. Your direction on each of these proposed responses would be appreciated. DFP/mjs • A LA0434.-- MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCI 411 FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRATO' '.��j;/�� 0i, DATE: JULY 12, 1990 SUBJECT: ANOKA COUNTY-BLAINE AIRPORT LETTER Approximately two weeks ago I provided you with the a copy of the attached letter to Steve Keefe of the Metropolitan Council and Jeff Hamiel of the Metropolitan Airports Commission regarding the Anoka County-Blaine Airport. I have not received any indication from any Councilmembers as to any changes desired in this letter. I will be bringing the original of this letter to the July 16th Agenda Session with a request for your signatures should no changes be desired. DFP\mjs • • • K • • ` .41Ittp C ii S VieW I ► RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA GATEWAY TO THE NORTH 2401 HIGHWAY 10 MOUNDS VIEW, MINN. 55112 784-3055 FAX: 784-3462 June 29, 1990 Mr. Steve Keefe, Chair Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Mr. Jeffrey W. Hamiel Executive Director Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28th Avenue South West Terminal Area Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Gentlemen: • Since the settlement of the City of Mounds View's lawsuit in July of 1988 to prevent the upgrading of the Anoka County- Blaine Airport, several improvement project have been • completed in conformance with the agreement. We would like to thank both of your agencies for complying with the settlement which provides for the continued use of the Airport as a minor status facility. It has come to our attention through the local news media that improvements proposed by the Regional Reliever Airport Study restate our opposition to any expansion of the Airport beyond minor use status or improvements not provided for in the settlement agreement. We are also concerned that the current operating conditions at the Airport are unsafe and that neither of your agencies have taken decisive action to address these concerns. The existence of unsafe operations is not only a threat to pilots, but also to our residents who are experiencing increasing overflights at low attitudes and in crowded traffic pattern conditions . • *printed on recycled paper - JUNE 29, 1990 PAGE TWO It would be appreciated if you would adivse us of your specific intentions with respect to future development of the Airport and how you intend to address our safety concerns. Very truly yours, CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW Sue Hankner Mayor • Councilmember Quick Councilmember Blanchard Councilmember Wuori Councilmember Paone cc: Senator Steve Novak Representative Dick Pellow Representative Linda Runbeck Cities of Blaine, Shoreview, Circle Pines, Lexington and North Oaks Minneapolist Star St. Paul Dispatch New Brighton Bulletin FOCUS s 411 MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNC FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRAT" 10 DATE: JULY 12, 1990 SUBJECT: PROPOSED 1991 ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES DUES INCREASE Attached please find a copy of a letter I received from Larry Bakken, President of the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities once again advising the City of the proposal to increase annual membership dues to this organization. As you recall you previously directed staff to send a letter to Mr. Bakken, which has been done, advising him of the City's lack of support for this proposal. I am aware that at least one other city, New Brighton, has approved the proposed dues increase. In his letter, Mr. Bakken advises that the issue will be put to a vote of the membership of the AMM at a special membership meeting on Thursday, September 6th. A two-thirds majority of those present and voting is required for approval of this dues increase. I would encourage a member of the City Council to • be present at this September 6th meeting to voice the concerns of the City of Mounds View and vote on behalf of the City. DFP\mjs • tit � .p • `WI- 1-90 (i) UD 4.1 vED CiTy OF MOM association of ©� i et�yg�r`A metropolitan municipalitiesp July 2, 1990 TO: Donald F. Pauley - Clerk-Admin. RE: 1991 DUES FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES (AMM) The AMM Board, in accordance with the By-Laws, is responsible for establishing the Annual Budget and Work Program and setting the corresponding membership dues rate. The process for 1991 is more complicated due to the impact of the recommendations contained in the final report of the Mission and Membership Services Task Force which you recently received under separate cover. The Board voted at the June 28th Board Meeting to recommend implementation of the major Mission Task Force recommendations. Implementing the major Task Force • recommendations, including the additional staff person has a total cost of about $38, 000 which would result in a 19% dues increase for member cities over the 1990 dues paid. Consequently, the 1991 AMM dues for Mounds View based on this decision would be $3,319 and I would ask you to us that amount when preparing your 1991 budget. The Board recognizes that this is a large increase but believes it is essential for several reasons detailed in said report including the following: 1. The need for the AMM to become more proactive and visible in helping set the metropolitan agenda. We need to be 'there' to represent the AMM member cities adequately at the Council. We need to have a staff person there 12-15 hours per week. Increased responsibilities at the legislature have made it impossible for our small staff to maintain that kind of commitment. 2 . The AMM also needs to increase its presence at the State Legislature. The AMM has been 'spread to thin' with the number of policy issues involved and with outstate groups promoting tax policies detrimental to the collective interests of metropolitan area cities, the AMM staff needs to increase the amount of time it can spend 'one-on-one' promoting AMM policy positions. We also need to hold metropolitan legislators more accountable to the AMM agenda. 183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227-4008 { • 3 . If the AMM is to achieve the status of being recognized as the organization that speaks and represents the collective interests of metropolitan area cities, it is important that the association increase its visibility in the eyes of the Legislature, City Officials, the general public and the Metropolitan Council. An enhanced public relations system must be implemented and this cannot be done effectively without an additional staff person. A dues increase of such magnitude however, requires membership approval and there will be a special AMM Membership Meeting on Thursday evening September 6, 1990 to vote on this matter. (a two/thirds majority of those present and voting is required for approval) . It is intended that the new staff person would handle a lot of the enhanced communications and public relations effort thereby 'freeing-up' the Director of Legislative Affairs and the Executive Director for more 'one-on-one' contact at both the metro and state levels. A back-up budget based on a work program and staffing level similar to our 1990 level of activity and effort has also been prepared in case the 19% dues increase is not approved at the membership meeting. The dues for Mounds View to support the back-up budget would not exceed $2,915 which represents a 4.5% increase over the 1990 dues. The Board appreciates your continued support of the AMM efforts and strongly "Indorses the enhanced work program and resultant increase in dues. Do ot hesitate to call me or our Executive Director, Vern Peterson should you have questions. We would also encourage you to make plans now to assure that your city has representation at the September 6th. meeting to vote the will of your city. Thank you. Sincerely, r 40!' - r :- AI' n, 're 'dent As •. ation of Metropolitan Municipalities • -2- kli:- /0 IIITO: Mayor & Council FROM: Don Brager, Finance Director - Treasurer DATE: July 11, 1990 SUBJECT: Participation in the Local Government Information Systems(LOGIS) Health Care Group The LOGIS Health Care Group is a consotium of governmental units that have joined together to cooperatively provide employee benefit programs to its members. At the present time approximately 5,000 employees of various governmental units, mostly in Hennepin County, are served by the Group. Membership ' in the group is open to any governmental unit in the State of Minnesota and there are no membership fees. I strongly urge the City of Mounds View to consider membership in this group. The advantages of membership in the Group are diversity of employee benefit options and cost. By serving a large number of employees the Group is able to offer many more benefit plans to employees than the City of Mounds View is able to offer. Currently the Group offers three health benefits plans, a dental plan, life insurance, and short time disability insurance. Cost III of the plans offered is an important consideration also. For example, Group Health is offered at a cost which is $10 per employee per month less than our plan from Group Health. Other plans are also competitively priced. Should the City wish to become a member of the Group an application should be submitted now with a Council resolution that authorizes the City's membership. If accepted health benefits coverage would become effective January 1, 1990. RECOMMENDATION: Elect to become a member of the LOGIS Health Care Group. Direct staff to prepare a resolution authorizing membership in the LOGIS Health Care Group. DB/hs C: \deptadm\health