HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1989/11/20CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL
® NOVEMBER 20, 1989
4:30 P.M. - MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOLLOW-UP TEAMBUILDING
-------------------------------------
AGENDA SESSION
7:00 P.M.
1. Consideration of Request for a Minor Subdivision for
Willard Doty, 3049 Bronson Drive, Planning Case No.
280-89
2. Consideration of Request for a Minor Subdivise Nofor
Vernon Hall, 2186 Bronson Drive, Planning
281-89
ion
ermit
3. Consideration
Hauck, 2332est for a Wetland Sherwood Road, PlanningtCaseP
forJerryNo.
284-89
4. Consideration of Rezoning Request from
r mR-1 to PlanningRCaseor
Donald Anderson, 8280 Long
272-89
5. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Street Light
Petition, 8419 Spring Lake Road (Information to be
provided Monday evening.)
6. Consideration of Proposed Ordinance No. 482 Regulating
Pigeons
7. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Cigarette
Vending Machines
8. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding
Redevelopment
9. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Silver Lake
Road Crosswalk
10. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Modified
City Hall Office Hours
11. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding MSA Computer
Hardware and Software
12. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Work Program
and Report on External Contacts
13. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Service
Awards
AGENDA
PAGE TWO
NOVEMBER 20, 1989
r
14. Discussion of Future Locations of Edgewood Community
Center Programs and Services
15. Continued Discussion of Possible Community Center
16. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding City Survey
17. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Requested
1990 Budget Additions
18. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Budget
Transfers
19. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Skating Rink
Hours - Activities
20. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Purchase of
Personal Computer
21. Report and Continued Discussion on Organized Collection
(report to be handed out Monday evening)
22. Update or. Police Negotiations
29. Third Quarter 1989 Department Head Reports
- Police Chief Ramacher
- Public Works Director Minetor
- Finance Director Brager
- Parks, Recreation and Forestry Director Saarion
( featured department )
•
0
t
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPR M.�
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
special
October 130, 1989
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
--------------------------------
The Mounds View City council was called 1. Call to order
to order by Mayor Sue Hankner at 4:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Hankner, Council- 2. Roll Call
members Quick, Paone, Wuori, Blanchard
ALSO PClerk-Administrator Pauley,
Public Vlorks Director Minetur, Finance
Director Brager, police Chief Ramacher,
and Parks, Recreation and Forestry
Director Saarion
Bill Franke representing E+erest Development
Ltd. appeared before the Council to rt
special consideration for Council approval
of documents necessary to allow for the sale
of Buildings A, F, and u in Mounds View Business
Park. Mr. Franke relemena coethecumentsContract for
namely, a FirsL SupP
Private elvicerrtificate. Clerk- Agreement,rdinaion
and EstoppppAdministrator
Pauley reviewed the timeline in which the C1eY
has had the opportunity to evaluate the documents
and outlined the fact that the legal counsel
advising the City on tar. increment items,
Mr. Robert Dieke, has been involved in the review
process.
r with Mr. Franke
After discussing the request furlh e
tratorand Clerk-AdminascumentspeybelattachedCtton the minutesd
that the final o
for future reference.
Motion/Second: Paone/Quick to authorize
the si f the First Supplement to the
Contract for Private Redevelpmenrtificate,
nation Agreement, and Estoppel
by the Mayor and Clerk-Administratc ntin-
gent upon approval by the Mayor,
Administrator, Legal Counsel Bob Die ce,
City Attorney MarkXarney, an staff is
Director Don BragL
directed to briny the item before the
Council should agreement not be achieved
among the aforementioned individuals.
3.
Authorize
signing of
First
supple-
ment to the
Contract for
Private Re-
development,
Subordina-
tion Agree-
ment ana
Estoppel
Certificate
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
PAGE TWO
OCTOBER 30, 1989
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Meeting adjourned at 6:13 p.m. 4. Adjournment
Res ectfully itted,
Donald F. P. eye
Clerk-Admin st ator
DFP/MJS
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Planner Hren
DATE: November 16, 1989
SUBJECT: WILL8ARD BRONSON DRIVE,TY MINOR UBDIVISION O
PLANNING CASE
049NO. 280-89
Mr. Willard Doty has applied for a minor subdivision for property
he owns at 3049 Bronson Drive. The proposed lots each meet the
minimum lot area and width requirements as outlined in the
subdivision ordinance. The Planni:ig Commission has reviewed the
request and has recommended approval to the City Council of the
minor subdivision.
Staff is looking for direction on this request as to the
appropriate resolution to prepare.
MM11/BAC
STAFF
REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW DATE: October 18, 1989
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 3 (Agenda Meeting)
CASE NUMBER: 280-89
APPLICANT: Willard Doty
REPORT PREPARED BY: City Planner Hren
PROPOSED REQUEST: Applicant Requests a Minor Subdivision
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3049 Bronson Drive
Mr. Willard Doty
has applied for
a minor subdivision of the
property he owns
at 3049 Bronson
Drive.
Required
Proposed
Requirement Met
Minimum Lot Area
(interior)
11,000 SF
19,102 SF
Yes
(corner)
12,500 SF
19,102 SF
Yes
Minimum Lot Width
(interior)
75 feet
120 feet
Yes
(corner)
100 feet
120 feet
Yes
It appears that the proposed subdivision is in conformance with
the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision ordinance with regard to
minimum lot area and lot width. The survey is subject to the
recommendations of the City Engineer which are outlined in the
attached memorandum from the City Engineer dated October 11,
1989. This subdivision is subject to the park dedication fees
which are required as part of all subdivisions. The park
dedication fee will be approximately $100 for this proposal.
Staff is looking for direction from the Planning Commission with
regard to the appropriate resolution to prepare for this
request.
kRMH / BAC
APPLICANT:
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
PLANNING APPLICATION
Interest in Property (Check Appropriate Blank):
Date 47 P i
Phone 7y 533
Owner of Record _ Lessee, Operator, Manager
Contractor for Deed Owner _ Agreement to Purchase
Other (Explain)
Documentary evidence of applicant's interest in the property may be required
before final City action on thisrequesst.
PROPERTY: Address/General Location '? Q 7`/!
9 (3 i?LaYti�d b y
Legal Owner: Name/Andress 4 C-� "tee
Present Use (Check Appropriate Blank).
Undeveloped/Vacant _ Apartment
Singl a Famil y Dwell ing _ Business Esabl ishment •
_ Duplex Dwelling _ Industrial Establishment
_ Mul tipl a Dwell my (3-6 units)
Other (explain)
Property Classification: Abstract , Torrens
REQUEST: (Explain) N/A Cf
I hereby aecl are that the above statements are true.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: f bl )
TOTAL
DEPOSIT
Subdivision, Major
S1U05
($150)
(575) ia3-
Subdivision, Minor
51U0
(550)
Rezoning
Conditional Use
$100
_
(S50)
Variance
Code Appeal
$75
5100
(S50)
($5U)
Alteration Permit
S15U
($5U)
Plan Review
s1UU
($50)
Uther
(S5U)
BASE *(Base Fees are Non -Re unaa e
FEES
TOTAL FEES PAID /oa 0e�
Date Paid 05" o ff9
Receipt Number _0_,I 6 1
Park Fund Dedication
Date Paid
Receipt Number
Aadt'l Fees Paid
Date Paid
Receipt Number
I �L
•
_
♦t
a ,
11 MYYb YwYy
YOYY PYJM
1
I I WrM
Y.YbY Y I.YrYL
sly
1 I
I I
%♦ 1 Y• W N v
.
L'
/______ I Ilu•l
ma
I' � .[. 1•o-rw
SASE �/-: 280-s`i
WtcL4ZD Dory
30/4 BFotjSOAJ DR•
RESOLUTION NO. 270-89
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE MINOR SUBDIVISION
REQUEST BY WILLARD DOTY, 3049 BRONSON DRIVE,
PLANNING CASE NO. 280-89
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed
minor subdivision request by Willard Doty for the property
located at 3049 Bronson Drive, legally known as Spring Lake Park
Knolls, west one-half of Lots 61 and 62, as shown on the
Certificate of Survey dated April 27, 1987; and
WHEREAS, each of the proposed lots meet the minimum lot
area and width requirements as outlined in the zoning and
subdivision ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the City Engineer have been
complied with.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning
Commission of the City of Mounds View recommends to the City r ,
Council approval of the requested minor subdivision contingent \.J
upon:
1. This resolution and the Certificate of Survey be
recorded with Ramsey County within sixty (60) days of
final adoption.
2. The applicant pay the park dedication fee of $100.00.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
directs Staff to forward this resolution to the City Council
prior to approval of the minutes.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Adopted this 15th day of November, 1989.
Chairman
City Planner
ALlllpolll[SENGlNCERlNG, lNC. 'NOIw+^� +r\nN+llp olnvrxvl
mnlxxn
CerltficAte of Survey for I YY/( Ayo Dory-
..... SYa Nr In�1
Aeeon Irn kr�M
0.ax• MWNIw Grwr 011ut In1r• INgO pinup} brtx 4brlq pr.xlx
bxlu Ir•Ixt1 (bntlx iry e! IIrQ hxtn IlrraW of Arfw be1wP Lnxl Ilwr—Amrr helnP eM Urllh/ 4wwp GnN Ilwr _
I _ - /9a. as -
- /59. /8
.p
A
•—�f� iron p10rIVIM[II{ �nnmd.
1
•i
i
Wl/csr 2 o . Lo;
SPRIAAC )!!2K ArAIOU5 Apo
AmeX cwnl
y
n `rnblx u11;41' Yle a vl IW x rtp t n• `uMrN 11 x r Wn M q Ibxt
•N Id/ IItnW Gd /v[els Wr tM An rl t3 eta M
ML•nsu, 1
fIPr1 n1e z.2lq el �I/%�IL 1.0., l�
N57f17 ududltVNLpl1 IIp wr,
Lrylrll\Ir'INI 1[1 rn[Ir rrr[rrrl /
1 fwn.Yr, l.1nY. Allurrl.r, Ir[. ,Ile LI[Inr 1•. (I
A
r.
I; -el
ex
Z
�
W
-------
ioad \�
1'
' us G•Y/
Q
w
o
edee ,
n
of '
;'
I
us
o >
^
li
IQ
I
�GL
L
'i:elw9 Frbne
a .!
e
I
I '
31
fit,\ pSr
eO
o
a
m BRONSON DRIVE
_CampaNa
SUWWN EMOINEERINft INC. '":..1i "--' `• Y1111� -- , ••n,•
Certifieate of Survey for: WILLARD DOTY__,
..... ..._I58.68...._
1 u,
,
w w I 61
o f cEL lV:IN I, 5 I o
PPR H I
��z q o
g I
I
NOTES:
Else current owners of Parcel 1 me I Willard C. t Ernestine G.Doty. They reside at, 3049 Bronson Drive, Mounds view, Minn. 55117.
• Denotes iron monument found
O Denotes iron monument net
O.H E Denotes over head electric lines
O.H.T. Denote, over head telephone lines
Area of parcel 11 19,071 Square Peet-D.139 Acres
Legal description Parcel I, The -set one half or I.ot fi1.sr,mr. IAN:
PAAa KNOLLS, Bemsey County, Minnesota.
I hnrehr ecru p tlut this eurver, plan or report was pre P,rq-, Is,or uuder ,e> direct enpervle less and that I ee n dula ticenee,l
Lend Barveyer uuder the Lew. of the State of Mlnnesols.
ru
Slenml Ihis A0t dnr of
'Berl M nrrle, 1.5------
Nlnn, nena IIn. Inn 10
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Planner Hren
DATE: November 16, 1989
SUBJECT: VERNON HALL MINOR SUBDIVISION REQUEST,
2186 BRONSON DRIVE, PLANNING CASE NO. 281-89
Mr. Vernon Hall has applied for a minor subdivision for property
he owns at 2186 Bronson Drive. The proposed lots each meet the
minimum lot area and width requirements in the R-1, Single
Family Residential District. The Planning Commission has
reviewed the request and has recommended approval to the City
Council of the minor subdivision.
Staff is looking for direction on this request as to the
appropriate resolution to prepare.
MMH/BAC
Is
STAFF
REPORT o� Founds �ew.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW DATE: October 18, 1989
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 2 (Agenda Meeting)
CASE NUMBER: 281-89
APPLICANT: Vernon L. Hall
REPORT PREPARED BY: City planner Firen
PROPOSED REQUEST: Applicant Requests a Minor Subdivision
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 2186 Bronson Drive
Mr. Vernon Hall has applied for a minor subdi
Property he owns at 2186 Bronson Drive. vision for the
Reouired Proposed Require_ ment Met
Minimum Lot Area
(corner) 12,500 SF 13,360 SF
(interior) 11,000 SF 11760 SF Yes
Minimum Lot Width , Yes
(corner) 100 feet 84 feet*
(interior) 75 feet 140 feet Yes
Yes
*Section 40.04, Subd. C(3), indicates that a platted lot or
parcel of land of record on or prior to May 9, 1960, which does
not meet the requirements of this Code as to area, width, or
other open space may, if it is properly zoned, be utilized for
single family detached dwelling purposes provided the
measurements of such area with their open space are within 70
percent of the requirement under the terms of this Code, but said
lot or parcel shall not be more intensively developed. Such
existing lots that fall within 70 percent of the requirements and
have lot widths less than required by this Cote shall be
permitted to have side yard setbacks in the same percentage
proportion as the lot width reaches the requirement of this
Code. In no case shall the side yard setback be less than five
feet.
4-
STAFF REPORT r /
VERNON L. HALT SEPTEMBER 18, 1989
---------------------------------- PAGE 2
It appears that the proposed minor subdivision is in conformance •
with the minimum lot area and width requira-ments as outlined in
the Zoning Code. In order for the proposal to be totally in
conformance with the subdivision ordinance, easements must be
added to the Certificate of Survey as outlined in the City
Engineer's memorandum dated October 11, 1989.
The site survey indicates there are two sheds that would be
located on Parcel B. The Zoning Ordinance does not allow an
accessory use on a lot without a principal use, therefore, should
the City approve of the subdivision, both sheds must be removed
from Parcel B. In the past with this same type of subdivision
request with one of the Lots having accessory buildings, the
Planning Commission has given the applicant one year to remove
the shed(s) or at the time plans are submitted for a new building, which ever comes first,
This minor subdivision is subject to the park dedication fees
which are required for all subdivisions in the City. The fee
will be approximately $100. This fee is to be paid in full at
the time the applicant is given a certified copy of the
resolution for recording with the County. Recording of this
resolution must take place within sixty days of final approval
with the City.
MMH/BAC
Q
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
PLANNING APPLIICAATTION
P�CANT: Name ve�4Pv u N 14 l 1 Date
( Phonelf q,5e4o
Address Sd
Interest in Property (Check Appropriate Blank):
Owner of Record
— Contractor for Deed Owner — Lessee, Operator, Manager
— Other (Explain) — Agreement to Purchase
:OPERTY:
Documentary evidence of applicant's interest in the property may be required
before final City action on this request.
Present Use (Check Appropriate Bl ank):
Undevelopea/Vacant
Singl e Family Dwell l ing — Apartment
— Duplex Dwelling _ Business Esablishment
— Multiple Dwelling (3-6 units) — Industrial Establishment
— Other (explain)
Property Classification: C rt
orrens
_WEST:
(Expl din
hereby aecl are that the above statements are true.
sign lure
-
:JR OFFICE USE ONLY:
----------------------------------------
TOTAL BASE *(Base Fees are Non -Refundable)
DEPOSIT FEES
Subdivision, Major S25U (5150)
Subdivision, Minor Rezoning ,S1OO S•1U0 ((150 S �a TOTAL FEES PAID )Oo.d(,
Date Paia _
Conditional Use S5U Receipt Plumber
Variance S 75 (S5U)
(S5U}•
Code Appeal $100
Alteration Permit (S5U Park Puna Dedication S15U
-Wn Review (550) Date Paid
�L�er SIUU P Receipt Plumber
(550)
Aaat'l Fees ?aid
Data Paid
Raceidt Number
CEkfIFICATE OF SURVEY
For: Vel-,7o,7 //a//
2186 Bronson Ave.
Moundsview, MN
PARCEL A
The east 84 feet of Lot 1, Block 1,
LAMBERT ADDITION, Ramsey County,
Minnesota, except the south 140
feet thereof. Subject to a public
utility easement over the west 5
feet and the south 5 feet thereof.
PARCEL B
The South 140 feet of the east 34
feet of Lot 1, Block 1, LAMBERT
ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Subject to a pudic utility
easement over the north 5 feet, the
South 5 feet and the west 5 feet
thereof.
BRONSON AVENUE
{u --84-- -5�r�e
I ...Its •-- I
13,360 s.f.
� I I
c to
r =I ^
el, tP,n� V
4 M N Yj1tG ; N
\3 II I
I I ti
\• I G 1j !LG
PARCEL
w \ tl eo,teA t m p
a A I P
N I
lOr 7oropes tr %u,sro- UZ7
�^ E,.rl j11,760 s.f.
s sM,J
I..s
x
4 � ty trifling
° Ilia
t
" PARCEL ;
h y
3 I; B
sgbo bd
Soulh hi,e. of At Soul{, 140 fret of I-cf I
SCALE i Inch=-R-Feet o Denotes Iron I Becrings sham areon on assumed datum. Jab No. ,7 4 Book Z7 Poge
We hereby certify that this is a true and correct roprenentation of a survey of the E.G. RUD &SONS, INC.
boundaries of the above described land and of The location of all buildings, it any,
thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. LAND SURVEYORS
7 "/ E.G. RUD a SONS, INC. 9560 Lexington Avenue N.
3/
Doled ,ms Z`` doy of ✓°'�� � t9_ -� �;,;/" Circle Pines, Minnesota 55014
by r'-t---r�G r'-' ...[ss�/ Telephone: 7665556
Minn. nag. No.
to'N
r RESOLUTION NO. 271-89 �j1�Yvt� s
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE MINOR SUBDIVISION
REQUEST BY VERNON HALL, 2186 BRONSON DRIVE,
PLANNING CASE NO. 281-89
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed
minor subdivision request by Vernon Hall for the property located
at 2186 Bronson Drive, legally known as Lambert's Addition, east
84 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, as shown on the proposed Certificate
of Survey dated September 28, 1989, with revisions dated October
25, 1989; and
WHEREAS, each of the proposed Lots meet the minimum lot
area and width requirements as outlined in the zoning and
subdivision ordinances.
Section 40.04, Subd. C(3), indicates that a platted lot or
parcel of land of record on or prior to May 9, 1960, which
does not meet the requirements of this Code as to area,
width, or other open space may, if it is properly zoned,
be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes
provided the measurements of such area with their open
space are within 70 percent of the requirement under the
terms of this Code, but said lot or parcel shall not be
more intensively developed. Such existing lots that fall
within 70 percent of the requirements and have Lot widths
less than required by this Code shall be permitted to have
side yard setbacks in the same percentage proportion as
the Lot width reaches the requirements of this Code. In
no case shall the side yard setback be less than five
feet.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning
Commission of the City of Mounds View recommends to the City
Council approval of the requested minor subdivision contingent
upon:
1. This resolution and Certificate of Survey dated
September 28, 1989, be recorded with Ramsey County
within sixty (60) days of final adoption.
The applicant pay the park dedication fee of $100.00.
RESOLUTION NO. 271-89
PAGE TWO
.BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Plannir.9 Commission
directs Staff to forward this resolution.to the City Council
Prior to approval of the minutes.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Adopted this 1st day of November, 1989.
airman
City Planner
x
W
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Planner Hren
DATE: November 16, 1989
SUBJECT: JERRY AND JAN HAUCK, WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT,
2332 SHERWOOD ROAD, PLANNING CASE NO. 284-89
Mr. and Mrs. Hauck have applied for a wetlana alteration permit
to construct an addition onto their home at the property they
own at 2332 Sherwood Road. The property is located within the
100 foot buffer zone of a wetland and, therefore, requires a
wetland alteration permit to construct the addition.
Please find enclosed a staff memorandum regarding this request.
Staff is looking for direction as to the appropriate resolution
to prepare regarding this request.
MMH/BAC
ice,.
I. .
,^ MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Planner Hren/Engineering Aide Gamble
DATE: November 16, 1989
SUBJECT: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT REQUEST BY JAN AND
JERRY HAUCK, 2332 SHERWOOD ROAD, PLANNING CASE
NO. 284-89
The applicant's have requested a wetland alteration permit to
construct a three -season porch and room addition (located below
the porch) to their house at 2332 Sherwood Road. The property is
zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. Where the deck is shown on
the site plan is the location of the proposed addition. The deck
has been removed and would be replaced with the three -season
porch and room addition. The majority of the property is located
within a wetland buffer zone, but is not within the wetland
itself. An existing deck lies on the proposed addition site
which is located within a wetland buffer zone.
Section 48.05, Subd. 5(c), of the Wetland Zoning Ordinance
indicates that all structures shall be set back at least 100 feet
from the wetland. However, Section 48.06, Subd. 4(c), allows for
minor development in a buffer zone with a wetland alteration
permit. Due to the existance of the neck already, the addition
of a three -season porch Would not add any impact to the wetland.
The proposed addition is in compliance with Section 40.05, Suba.
C, of the Zoning Code, and meets all height limitations and
minimum lot area and width restrictions as outlined in the Zoning
Code.
MMH/TJG:BAC
IL
w - )ari E JERRY Nava i
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW o
PLANNINGAPPLICATION
Date
AI�PLICANT: Name �AIJ'��y f RuCL Phone
meLICANT: Name
Address 23;2 "��n1A'OO17 IZn —
Interest in Property (Check Appropriate Blank):
X Owner of Record Lessee, Operator, Manager
Y Contractor for Deed Owner _ Agreement to Purchase
—Other (Explain)_,_,
Documentary evidence of applicant's interest in the property may be required
before final City action on this request.
PROPERTY: Address/General Locaticn SA Ml' ftS /�BOUE
Legal Owner: Name/Address SAME q 5 rrBO U �'
Present Use (Check Appropriate Blank):
Undeveloped/Vacant Apartment
Single Family Dwelling _ Business Esablishment
_ Duplex Dwell ing _ Industrial Establ ishment
Mul tipl a Dwell ing (3-6 units)
Other (explain)
Property Classification: Abstract Torrens
REQUEST:
I hereby declare that the above statements are true. v ure�
----------------------------------------------------------------
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
TOTAL BASE *(Base Fees are Non -Refundable)
DEPOSIT FEES
Subdivision, Major $25U ($15U) TOTAL FEES PAID /so .a-V
Subdivision, Minor $IUD ($15) Date Paid J
Rezoning sluo (S50) Receipt Number
Conditional Use S1UO ($50)
Variance $75 ($5U) Park Fund Dedication
Code Appeal Ap (S50) —° pate Paid
-'+O 1 ' teration Permit 315U ($5U) Receipt Number
!an Review u (S50)
Uther. ($5U)
ptldt'1 Fees Paid
Dat= Pa'o
Receipt NnmDer
r
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Planner Hren
DATE: November 16, 1989
SUBJECT: DONALD ANDERSON REZONING REQUEST, 8280 LONG LAKE
ROAD, PLANNING CASE NO. 272-89
Mr. Donald Anderson has applied for a rezoning of property he
owns at 8280 Long Lake Road from R-1, Single Family Residential,
to R-2, Single and Two Family Residential District, to allow for
the construction of a two-family structure on the lot.
Please find enclosed a staff report regarding this issue and an
analysis of this request. The Planning Commission has reviewed
the request and has adopted a formal policy that addresses R-2
zoning districts. The Planning Commission has recommended denial
of the rezoning request based on the policy that they have
established and adopted on November 1, 1989.
Please find enclosed the Planning Commission resolution that
recommends denial of the request.
Staff is looking for direction as to the appropriate resolution
to prepare regarding this request.
MMH/BAC
w,:
i
STAFF
cif ��ounds�e�
REPORT YRY R._I 5
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW DATE: July 19, 1989
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 4 (Agenda Meeting)
CASE NUMBER: 272-89
APPLICANT: Donald Anderson
REPORT PREPARED BY: City Planner Hren
PROPOSED REQUEST: Applicant requests a rezoning
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 8280 Long Lake Road
Mr. Donald Anderson has applied for a rezoning of property he
owns at 8280 Long Lake Road in Mounds View. The applicant
proposes to rezone the property from R-1 to R-2 to allow the
construction of a two-family structure on the lot. Currently the
Lot is vacant and located near the intersection of Long Lake Road
and Ardan Avenue across from the composting site.
All proposed rezonings are evaluated against the evaluated
criteria outlined in Section 40.25, Subd. A(5), which are as
follows:
a. Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan.
b. The geopgrahical area involved.
c. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the
area in which it is proposed.
d. The character of the surrounding area.
e. The demonstrated need for such use.
The Mounds View Comprehensive Plan indicates that the area should
be low density residential which includes two-family structures.
It is not anticipated that the surrounding home values would
depreciate due to a two-family structure on this site. This,
however, would require further research in order to determine
the exact effect.
The site is located in the north part of :Mounds View in a
predominately single family residential district. The Ramsey
County composting site is also located near the site in question.
Long Lake Road is considered a collector street according to the
transportation plans as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan.
a w0
I"
n67
�e2
ema
e,Y etos
SOW
COUNTY POLO
&bar Ysw
Avg
PF
8�2
8211
v
eon
7101 - r. -
7e69
lea
)ee9
nm
705
760,9
7m
7Tj1
nM
TTW
mi
ML
MP
H
R
nH
•y 2
L,Y
A
ti
l
STAFF REPORT
DONALD ANDERSON
JULY 19, 1989
PAGE TWO
The lot, however, is not located on the periphery of a
residential block but rather it is in the middle of the block or
acting as a buffer from any non -compatible use.
A critical issue in all proposed rezonings is the compatability
of the potential uses with the surrounding existing and intended
uses of the area.
The minimum lot requirements for an R-2 District are as follows:
Required Proposed Requirement Met
Minimum Lot Area 12,500 SF 27,600 SF Yes
Minimum Lot Width 100 FT 102 FT Yes
SUMMARY
The proposed use in in compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan.
The lot has enough area and width to accommodate a two-family
structure.
. The site is on a collector street.
• The site is not on the periphery of a single family area.
• There are no other two-family units in this area.
Please provide some direction to Staff as to your desire
regarding this request. Please find attached some pictures for
an example of the proposed type of building that the applicant
has submitted.
MMH/BAC
00
ti
iAI I tMw .W Mwl Qi Al ! P P P
11 wr •i 4' 1 � � p�/I '
wl
e
_a — — 3
k16
ji
}i 1
19-
— :o r 4.
� N.• PWtp. I __
I r
Donald Anderson
8280 Long Lake Road
Planning Case No. 272-89
June 28, 1989
to I have submitted two nictures of doubles which will be similar
be newsto wiYJ9 wish sh to build at 8280 Long Lake Pcad. Anilding will
side out for.less rentt�F.ea smrkein bne side and rent the other
Of rounds as we 'ill be travel, t tenant take cars
Owners unit to be la. � in he winter.
across the street, picture'¢3 is 3230 Long
;4 is t
Lake pond, a 10
Costs o ill be anpro;dmateiy u135,100 to-151,100 including
Yce l
if we out a house en the property we will build an 1140 sq,
ft. rambler, value including lot Aj,000. The area doesn't
have over �90r100 on t;:e hones, nest are 50 - 380,700.
Thanks
MW
11
�9sy
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEN
PLANNING APPLICATION
Date
Address
�, /4 , >i- 7ep/ a77k,
Interest in Property (Check Appropriate Blank): V
Owner of Record Lessee, Operator, Manager
_ Contractor for Deed Owner _ Agreement to Purchase
Other (Explain)
Documentary evidence of applicant's interest in the property may be required
before final City action on this request.
Address/General Location
Legal C%vner: Name/
Present Use (Check Appropriate Blank):
Undevelopea/vacant Apartment
_
_ Single Family Dwelling Business Esabiishment
_ Duplex Dwelling — Industrial Establishment
Multiple Dwelling (3-6 units) -
- Other (explain)
Property „ assification: Abstract Torrens
tE,UESi: (Explain) Q A,., / • n
hereby declare that
the above
statements are true.
V/ , / I
-------------- - ------------------------------------------------------
�R OFFICE USE ONLY:
sr ature
------------------
TOTAL
BASE *(Base Fees
are Non-Refunaabl e)
DEPOSIT
FEES
Subdivision, Minor
SIUO
(3150)
RezoniSuDdiVnsian, Minor
g
S1UO
S100
(S50)
(S5U)
ERe=me
4M:
Conditional Use
31U0
_�<
(S5U)
Variance
S75
(55U)
Ciae appeal
oration Permit
SIOO
3150
(55U)
(55U)
Park Fund Dedication
?ran Review
3IUU
(55D)
Date Paid
Receipt Number
Uther
(S5u)
Aaat'l Fees ?aid
Ds:e Da':
Rccdldt llGGcer
jftw
01
tip► 4 CL41, It FIFI
q'i p
J .
m` n-Al s .c
,.,... ��'� • ,t 1 Ali ti V
N{
t � $
4
y _
�� ♦ .`v.. . N .•4 F Sayfk
elk
ti
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 272-89
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE REZONING REQUEST
BY DONALD L. ANDERSON FOR PROPERTY HE OWNS AT
8280 LONG LAKE ROAD, PLANNING CASE NO. 272-89
WHEREAS, Mr. Donald L. Anderson has requested a rezoning
of property he owns at 8280 Long Lake Road, legally known as
Greenwood Terrace, Lot 1, Block 5, from R-1, Single Family
Residential to R-2, Single and Two Family Residential; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has taken into
consideration Section 40.25 of the Zoning ordinance which
includes the following:
a. Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan.
b. The geographical area involved.
c. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate
the area in which it is proposed.
d. The character of the surrounding area.
e. The demonstrated need for such use.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has taken into
consideration Resolution No. 273-89, R-2 Zoning Policy; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the
property is not considered to be on the periphery of the single
family neighborhood as outlined per Planning Commission
Resolution No. 273-89 (R-2 Zoning Policy).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning
Commission of the City of Mounds View recommends to the City
Council denial of the requested rezoning.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
directs Staff to forward this resolution to the City Council
prior rn approval of the minutes.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Adopted this 1st day of November, 1989.
Chairman
City Planner
RESOLUTION NO. 273-89
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY
REGARDING R-2 ZONING DISTRICT
WHEREAS, this resolution establishes Planning Commission
Policy regarding R-2, Single and Two Family Residential, Zoning
Districts; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that R-2
Districts are considered low density residential; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning
Commission has established the policy as herein setforth:
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
a. The R-2 District on the periphery of single family
neighborhoods.
b. The R-2 District is on a collector or minor arterial
street as designate,t in the Comprehensive Plan.
c. No conversion of existing single family structures
that would create a two-family structure be allowed.
Adopted this 1st day of November, 1989.
Chairman
City P annex
,u.
, NNw, ,rrWWWM
i to • I III \\` R
I "I" L
j
i ww, To
, � IpI �•.., .. M1 M .� \J�
rl I p +.r s
r.
r f. :
Streets, Functional Classification
i V
Local street
r
,
�— Collector street K
Minor arterial
M Principal arterial
El o�
Areas of major road improvement n ..l n �in�% .,,�.ry NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CON SULTANTSINC. . r U
STREETS AND PARKING
The City of Mounds View has developed as a largely automobile oriented community.
However, the facilities which have developed to facilitate auto movement through-
out the community exhibit numerous deficiencies. The first s!ep in attempting to
address and correct these deficiencies is the classification of streets within the
community according to function. The map on page illustrates the proposed
classifications based upon standards and criteria established by the Metropolitan
Council. The shaded areas on the map refer to the two planning districts where
major access to development should be provided by a ring road. The precise align-
ment of both ring roads has not been determined as this task should be closely
coordinated with landowners during development stage planning.
PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS
The City is presently served by two principal arterials - Interstate 35W, located on
the eastern border of the community, and old Highway 10. These elements of the
transportation system provide residents of Mounds View with regional level accessi-
bility, serving long trips at high speeds. Although interstate 35W will continue to
serve the community in this regard, as noted on the map, it is anticipated that new
Highway 10, which is a controlled access expressway, will replace old Highway 10
in providing regional level accessibility. Furthermore, as discussed in the Lord
Use Plan, the City should work cooperatively with the Highway Department to ensure
that as plans are developed for new Highway 10, no interchange is planned for Red
Oak Drive. With a connection point at 35W on Mounds View's eastern border and
an interchange of close proximity in Blaine to the northwest, little need exists for
additional access to northern Mounds View. The originally proposed Red Oak Drive
interchange not only violates limited access distance policies, but as well, creates
an extremely disruptive traffic focusing situation on Red Oak Drive, given its
established residential development character.
INTERMEDIATE ARTERIALS
There are no existing or proposed intermediate arterials within Mounds View.
MINOR ARTERIALS
Minor Arterials are intended to provide access to principal arterials, intermediate
arterials, other minor arterials and collectors. At the present, Silver Lake Rood
and County Road I are the only minor arterials within the community. As a conse-
quence of the new Highway 10 extension, old Highway 10 will be down-
graded to a minor arterial . With respect to both the present functioning and
future minor arterial function of old Highway 10, it should be noted that due to
m
ORDINANCE NO. 482
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF MOUNDS VIEW BY
AMENDING CHAPTER 91, ENTITLED, "ANIMALS"
SECTION I. Chapter 91.03 of the Mounds View Municipal
Code shall be amended to read as follows:
91.03, Subdivision 1, (3) "Animal" - Any mammal of the
rodent family, including but not necessarily limited to,
rabbits, hares, and hamsters, and any fowl including but not
necessarily limited to chickens, pigeons (other than racin
or carrier as regulated by Chapter 91.04 of this Code ,
SECTION II. Chapter 91.04 of the Mounds View Municipal
Code shall be amended by renumbering it to 91.05.
SECTION III. Chapter 91 is hereby amended by adding the
following:
91.05 Racing and Carrier Pigeons
Subdivision I. Definitions.
(1) "Carrier pigeons" means homing and racingpigeons
which have the name of the owner stamped upon the wing or
tail, or are banded upon the leg with name or initials of
the owner or with an ldentlflcatlnn nr
2) "
a
"Loft" - A structure in which the carrier
are housed.
4) "Keep" providing food, water, and
(5) "Private Property" means_a11 premises ou
ate individuals, including all structures lc
eon, front yards, side yards and back Yards.
Subdivision 2. Permit. No
two carrier or racing pigeons on
without first obtaining a hermit
4
wi
than
Alp
ORDINANCE No. 482
PAGE TWO
(2)
A site elan showin cnc ����- -
(a) the evert and the location size and type
of all structures for the housinu
pigeons.
The maximum number of i eons to be �t on
(b) he premises at any one time.
_- __.., -, of all
2remi*—*
APPllcations for a license shall be investi ated b
be referred to City
the Police De artment to determine com liance With
this subdivision and shall then
Council which shall li
alhave Yiee
ThelCouncilshallto
pant or den te
conduct a ublicrheChantero40the s ecial use Permit
as rovided for
(3) The annual license fee for the kee in of i eons
shall be established b
resolution of ehe Cit
Council.
Subdivision 3. Permitted Number*
ar anv one time o
. . _ e r.nf t.
Subd
(2)
�l
•
11
ORDINANCE NO. 482
PAGE THREE
(3)
(4) All grains and foods stored for the use of the
pigeons shall be kept in rodent free containers.
Subdivision 5. Complaints. Upon written complaint t
the City and verification that the keeping of pigeon:
the licensed Proaerty is a nuisance, such licFncn ma.
reVOKeo by the Council if deemed advis
Subdivision 6
SECTION IV. This ordinance shall take effect thirty
(30) days from and after the date of its publication.
Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on
this day of , 1989.
Read and passed by the City Council of the the City of
Mounds View on this day of , 1989.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Mayor
Clerk -Administrator
memo TO: 0AYOR AND CITY COUNCI
FROM: CLERK -ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: OCTOBER 30, 1989
SUBJECT: CIGARETTE VENDING MACHINES
Pursuant to your direction at the October 23, 1989 Council
Meeting, staff has conducted a survey of all public
buildings in the City of Mounds View to determine the
location and number of cigarette vending machines . The
investigation has revealed the followinl number of machines. following and
Donatelles
Perkins
1
machine
Loose Ends
1
machine
R. J. Riches
3
machines
Mermaid Lounge
1
machine
Robert's off 10
3
machines
Mounds View Inn
1
machine
Pink Flower
1
machine
Town's Edge Mobile Home Trailer Park 1 machine
Community Building that is empty and 1 machine
has not been used for one year.
As you may know, the ordinance adopted by the City of White
Bear Lake and being considered by the cities of St. Paul,
Minneapolis and Shoreview call for the regulation of vending
machines in public buildings which are accessible to
minors. In the case of the bar area at the Mermaid, Loose
Ends, Robert's Off 10 and the bar area at Donatelles, this
would not be the case. I hope that the above information
adequately responds to your request. Should your require
any additional information, please do not hesitate to let me
know.
DFP/MJS
4_
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCI
FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRATO
DATE: OCTOBER 2, 1989
SUBJECT: REDEVELOPMENT
During the time that I have been with the City, the issue of
redevelopment has frequently been raised but never discussed
in depth nor has specific direction been given by the
Council to staff. The purpose of this memo is to first
review the various redevelopment options available to the
City and then to seek direction on how the Council wishes
staff to address this issue, if that is your desire.
Over the last two decades redevelopment has changed
dramatically in the United States, both in the level of
national commitment and the manner in which it occurs. The
loss of the massive infusion of federal dollars has required
that cities be more selective and less aggressive in their
redevelopment efforts.
Currently, redevelopment takes three basic forms. The first
is redevelopment where monies are made available through
grants or loans to fix up buildings and make them more
habitable or return them to a habitable state after being
abandoned. In Ramsey County there are seven different grant
or loan programs available to single family residential
homeowners to assist in the rehabilitation of their homes.
The number of grants or loans for multi -family or rental
property owners is limited, however, aggressive enforcement
of our housing code has helped us to avoid some of the
horror stories reported in the center cities.
Rehabilitation of commercial or industrial buildings,
although not unheard of, is something government has gotten
into only recently and then only on a limited basis and at
the local level.
The second form of redevelopment is selective or site
specific clearance. In this case, properties are acquired
and buildings cleared to allow for new construction. The
new construction is usually for an already approved project
or in the case of housing, to allow for the construction of
new homes to spur the revitalizaiton of a deteriorating
neighborhood. Except for a small amount of Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds available through
Ramsey County, the sole source of funds for this type of
activity is tax increment (TIF) money either issued directly
for the project or surplus increments from a previously
funded project in the same district.
' The third form of redevelopment, and one that has become
less popular over the years, is what I would call "scorch
Y
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL r
OCTOBER 2, 1989
PAGE TWO
the earth" or non -selective clearance. This type of
clearance is usually speculative in nature in that the
property is acquired and buildings cleared without having a
project waiting to begin construction. Currently, no state
or federal funds are available for this type of clearance
nor can TIF monies be used for it. Any city in Minnesota
wishing to perform this type of clearance at this time must
do so with purely local funds.
Once a city has decided they wish to undertake redevelopment
in their community, they must not only decide what type, but
also the level of government involvement. Government
involvement in redevelopment can be indirect or direct.
Indirect involvement can take the form of identifying
properties or areas eligible for redevelopment assistance
from public or private agencies, usually limited to single
family housing or prime for private redevelopment and market
programs or property in the hope of spurring redevelopment.
Direct involvement in redevelopment can take various forms
including acquisition and clearance, aggressive housing code
enforcement, direct marketing of loans and grants to
eligible property owners, acquisiton, rehabilitation, and
resale of properties, or funding of the effort using CDBG or
TIF funds.
Finally, a City designed to undertake redevelopment must
also determine whether they wish to limit their efforts
to residential (single or multi family), commercial, or
industrial properties and focus on areas or neighborhoods or
the entire city. Now that Mounds View is nearly 100%
developed, the issue of redevelopment moves to the
forefront. Prior to commencing a redevelopment program, if
that is your desire, I would like to suggest that the
Council and staff go through a three -step process with the
first step being determining whether or not you wish to
undertake such a program, type, level of involvement, and
area(s) of the City. Once that direction is given, staff
will identify the program options and funding sources
available and request Council direction as the second step.
The third step would be to recommend a specific implementa-
tion plan or plans for the programs selected by the Council.
If it is the desire of this Council to direct the establish-
ment of a redevelopment program for Mounds View, I would
request your concensus direction on the following questions.
1. What type of redevelopment do you wish to undertake? �
Rehabilitation, selective clearance, or
non -selective clearance?
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 2, 1989
PAGE THREE
2. Do you wish to have direct or indirect involvement
in the redevelopment process?
3. What area(s) of the City do you wish to target for
redevelopment?
After receiving your direction in response to these three
questions staff will begin to develop program and funding
options for your consideration.
DFP/MJS
r
Memo To :Mayor and City Council Members
From :Ric Minetor, City Engineer/Director of Public Works
Date :November 9, 1989 F+6M'
Subject :Proposed Crosswalk on Silver Lake Road
I have received a request from Ms. Elaine Graham for
consideration of a crosswalk on Silver Lake Road. I had
Previously discussed this with Council and the consensus was not
to pursue the issue. Ms. Graham has canvassed her neighborhood
and has requested this item be reconsidered at an agenda session.
My comments are unchanged from my previous memo (attached).
�11
E
Memo To :Mayor and City Council Members
From :Ric Minetor, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Date :June 28, 1989
Subject :Proposed Crosswalk on silver Lake Road
at Woodcrest Park
A resident han requester; a : rosswal!: across Silver Lake Road to
serve Woodcrest Park and the neighborhood to the west. Silver
Lake Road is a Ramsey County road; the County follows guidelines
for crosswalks. Normally, they prefer to see sidewalk or pathways
on each side of the road at the crosswalk. There are no sidewalks
along Silver Lake Road and the entrance to Woodcrest Park is off
Woodcrest to the east.
lie have 2 options: We could request the County to place the
crosswalk to align with Woodcrest Drive to the east realizing
that the pathway along Silver Lake Road is currently unimproved
and may require a slight variance from their policy.
Alternatively, we could request the crosswalk to align with
Woodcrest Drive to the west and we would need to construct a 4
small bridge over the ditch on the east side of Silver Lake Road.
I recommend the first option. I further recommend we consider
providing an ag-lime pathway from the intersection with Woodcrest
to the west and the crosswalk location, this would be
approximately 200 feet in length. Material costs for this would
be approximately $150; labor and equipment costs would be
approximately $400. Costs for a small bridge would undoubtedly be
significantly higher.
4F'
t
khr, 2ed IgSR
Ela�r1� Cn%�
z�cAad '
%r 1 �,� ! 'lS� l� Gl/' GU�eks .DG'� � � C� lz�'Tc.✓1
G /I Lv1CS c 9c7%zJ %Iki il���rl 5. GUcZn-7e�G :a6
CL)v J � C -
ii /1 CUt�12 L{'1 fL JU'u2 �lllcf G- C(iDG���C'Lt ✓Ykr
0
' a.e a nUMkJ-1quo
w l (� LV t� Liz M daw)
✓Li a lc�lZ� a c',?v�uCc�2K , Wl&-,K(5) tie
1 uJ 2rc( �u tGt � = � C '
y'u �('� LL+S �i'1 l t Y /10 ld T.LM' G) ou ic, �y J lcllu ,
/
tx
lU2eSe�:l�J, ct tiu C'��� �Stil2ef �,� �
7S
ate iv-,
h' - 7 CLr2-� .:.%1C'/J G'r! S �LY,r' ��; L �� (J/t% f !i'•'l-.
a)D 1%l o'P pqayem.
�rlC�t�
L
v
FAi
I
•� J
�L
i:�
arc
�1 - 165- /Lt)
C<�Clcf'aZ �.1i�)1 �icul�/Y) Z80ct LCarl�l�sT ,�s-. 3Ch ��te.
�EC.ey 57,�(1UP 29L�- u,'cbCG�si �'•• �•
Jt . t �n�a
JJl c�C Corn, �e�
ZS 3Z
I'Jo6D Gzc-5 M .
La Yon-f
rr l
ab`ya
ujootxei-P�',J7'
N6s. P4-r I �- Y�
r, l
7;v 71 1� 7071 KAaII *'Op DP.
wv e � '\
5w4,
.,V
ram: T w.u.
1*6 S La.er
��ti� Ct ��
v
-Z�27N /D
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CLERK -ADMINISTRATOR DON PAULE
DATE: OCTOBER 18, 1989
SUBJECT: MODIFIED CITY HALL OFFICE HOURS
Over the last several months on an extremely infrequent
basis the Department Head Team has been discussing the idea
of modifying the City Hall office hours for summer months to
be open earlier in the morning and/or later in the evening
to provide greater service to the residents of Mounds View
who currently find our office hours inconvenient as they
conflict with their working hours. In September, Ric
Minetor submitted a memo to me that was reviewed by the
Department Head Team, copy attached, discussing some options
that he and his staff had developed regarding the
possibility of alternative office hours. The Department
Head Team discussed this memo and felt that the issue is of
enough importance that we wished to refer it to the City
Council for further direction.
Essentially, it is the desire of the Management Team to
determine whether or not the City Council wishes to consider
alternative office hours. If so, the Management Team needs
authorization to discuss the matter with our individual
^ staffs as well as having a City Hall staff meeting to
determine whether or not City Fall staff are receptive to
our idea.
I would like to re-emphasize that the purpose for discussing
this issue on the part of the staff is to determine whether
or not it is feasible to extend our office hours in a manner
that would be more convenient that our current hours. We
are open to any ideas and options in this area and are
seeking Council direction at this time.
D: P/MJS
Memo To :Don Pauley, Clerk -Administrator
From :Ric Minetor, City Engineer/Director of Public Works
Date :September 6, 1939
Subject :Summer. Work Hours
I have discussed the concept of extended hours/variable starting
time with Barb, Jim, and Michelle. The various strategies
considered included a 4 - 10 hour day week with City Hall being
closed Friday; 4 - 10 hour day week with half the staff having
Monday off and the other half having Friday off; and 4 - 9 hour
days plus an 8 hvir day Every other Friday. If half the staff has
Monday off and ha L the staff has Friday off, we will only have 3
dayz a week with a full staff. There was concern expressed that
this would severely hamper efficiency and could cause great
inconvenience when someone was sick on Mondays or Fridays. The
preference was to have City Hall closed on Fridays; however, it
was recognized that this option may not be popular with Council.
The next best scheme was felt to be the 4 - 9 hour days with
rotating Fridays off.
Under this concept, City Hall would be open either from 8:00 a.m.
to 5:30 p.m. or from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. On Fridays City Hall
would close an hour earlier than the rest of the week. Half the
staff would be off every other Friday. A variation would be to
have City Hall open only half days on Friday. This would allow
the entire staff to be here at all times, allow for later hours
Monday thru Thursday, and allow the staff to have every Friday
afternoon off.
I favor the 9 hour days with every other Friday off. The Fridays
worked would be 8 hour days. The only problem I foresee is the
receptionist would be off every other Friday; the balance of the
office staff would have to handle phones on her Fridays off. I
really do not believe this is a major detriment to this concept.
This 5/4 work week could possibly be extended to all year, not
just during summer. City Hall would be open later in the day and
be more accessible to residents, I think staff would like the
extra day off, and there would be a saving of break time. Each
employee would work 80 hours, but breaks would amount to 4 1/2
hours in a two week period versus the 5 hours per two week period
currently.
I suggest that the management team review this proposal.
MEMORANDUM
Memo To :Mayor and City Council Members
From :Ric Minetor, Director of Public works/City Engineer
Date :November 2, 1989��
Subject :M S A Computer Hardware and Software
I have received the price list and reimbursement allowances for
the City Engineer's computer network hardware and software. Pie
previously discussed the Staters offer to reimburse up to 60; of
the cost of a computer for MSA work. This will likely be a
requirement in the future for MSA project scheduling and cost
tracking. The hardware and software recommended totals $8,193;
with the State reimbursing 60% of this cost ($4,915.80). I would
recommend the printer upgrade to a HP Laserjet printer ($1,095)
and the dual asynchronous adapter upgrade ($159). The City's cost
would be $4,531. In addition to the cost of the computer hardware
and software, a desk and printer stand would be required. This
will cost approximately $1,000 additional.
The majority of this could be offset by the building permit
surcharge rebate we received from the State. This would cover
$4,052.15. The remaining $1,478.85 could be covered by additional
building permit receipts above that budgeted.
If the Council concurs with this purchase, the State needs a
Purchase Order prior to November 30, 1989 for this budget year or
Prior to February 15, 1989 for budget year 1990. I recommend
purchase in this budget year.
_25�2w�
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CLERK -ADMINISTRATOR
) V
DATE: OCTOBER 9, 1989
SUBJECT: SERVICE AWARDS
As you know, the City currently provides a pin to each
employee after having worked for the City 5, 10, 15 and 25
years. Although these pins are appreciated by staff and
worn by many with great pride, I have continued to look for
other forms of recognition or appreciation for employees
continuing service with the City. Recently I was approached
by a salesman handling what is known as the "Amagift
Albums". These albums are essentially a catalog of gifts
that can be ordered by an individual who has received a gift
certificate from someone. While employed in the private
sector my employers used this type of a system to recognize
employees for service as well as for Christmas gifts and it
is my understanding that several cities in the Metropolitan
Area, including Richfield, provide these gifts to their
employees as awards for anniversaries recognizing length of
service. The gift certificates and albums range from a
price of $9.99 to $500 per gift item.
Although I am not suggesting that this be the system the
City uses to recognize length of service by our employees
besides the City pin, I thought that the Council would be
interested in looking at it and considering the possibility
of such an award. Should the Council decide to do some-
thing like this and place a value of say $10.00, $15.00,
$20.00, $25.00, $30.00 and $40.00 for 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and
30 years of service respectively between now and the year
2000 the cost to the City would average $150.00 per year
with the highest year being 1997 at $285.00.
I will bring the Amagift Album to the October 16 Agenda
Session and simply request that we discuss the philosophy of
providing an award to employees for length of service
besides the current practice of providing service pins and,
if it is your desire to look into this matter, direction
regarding dollar value and type of gifts you would be
interested in providing.
DFP/MJS
1
1 »> /ol
�TTO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
r ,,OM: CLERK -ADMINISTRATOR PAULEY
DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 1989
SUBJECT: CITY SURVEY QUESTIONS
To aid in the discussion scheduled for the November 20th Agenda Session
on the referenced subject matter, staff has taken the liberty to prepare
a list of possible survey questions for your consideration. These
questions are in a very basic form and will need to be formatted by
Decision Resources for the survey.
I have broken down the questions into the four areas which I understand
to be the Council's current direction. Your direction on these
questions and any others you might wish to have asked will be forwarded
to Decisinn Resources for preParati_.. of _ draft survey document for
your consideration.
A. BASIC DEMOGRAPHIC AND GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Approximately how long have you lived in Mounds View?
2. City or State of prior residence?
3. Two reasons for moving to Mounds View.
4. How long do you expect to live in Mounds View?
5. How would you rate the quality of life in Mounds View?
6. Over the next 5 years, do you expect the quality of life in
Mounds View to decline, remain the same, or improve?
7. What do you like most and least about living in Mounds View?
B. How much pride do you take in Mounds View as a place to live?
9. If it were needed to maintain City services at the current
level, would you favor or oppose an increase in property taxes?
10. How do you feel about Mounds View property taxes?
11. For each dollar of property tax you pay, what percentage goes
to Mounds Vicw?
12. Should the City preserve wetlands or allow development?
a. Would you favor or oppose a property tax increase to permit
the purchase and preservation of wetlands?
13. What is your principal source of information about the City?
14. Are you satisfied with the level of information?
15. Do you currently receive the Bulletin?
16. Do you currently receive the Focus?
17. Do you receive the City Newsletter?
a. Do ycu read it?
b. Do you keep it for future reference?
c. Are there any changes in the format or coverage you would
like to see?
18. Do you own or rent?
19. Any persons over 65; school age children; pre-school children?
20. What is your age?
21. What is Your marital status?
22. Occupation of head of household?
23. Do both spouses work?
24. Level of income?
25. Sex (by observation)
26. Would you say the City has changed for the better or worse in
recent years.
27. How much do you know about the work of the Mayor and Council?
28. Do you approve or disapprove of the job the Mayor and Council
are doing?
29. Have you or a family member had contact with City staff during
the past year?
30. How would you rate the job performance of City staff?
B. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
1. If the City were to attract more development, what kind would
you prefer?
2. What do you think of the pace of commercial and industrial
development?
3. Are there any areas of the City where you would favor
redevelopment?
4. What type(s) of development would you most favor along Highway
10 between Co. Rd. I and Spring Lake Park?
The Highway 10 frontage west of Co. Rd. I is almost single lot
ownership. In order to spur quality development in this area, the
combining of lots into larger sites might be necessary. In order to be
sure that the development meets the desires of the community, the City
may need to be involved in the purchase of these individual lots.
5. Would you support the active involvement of the City, both
financially and in the expenditure of staff time, in putting
together large development sites?
6. Would you support the City's use of their condemnation authority
to accomplish the purchase of single parcels in order to create
larger development sites?
7. What is the location of your principal retail shopping area?
8. How much of your retail purchases do you make in Mounds View?
9. Were you aware that the City has a community land use plan
called the "Comprehensive Plan"?
10. Do you approve or disapprove of the zoning and land use
decisions made by the City?
11. Do you feel that Mounds View residents have an adequate
opportunity for input into the zoning and land use decision
making process?
17. How important is it that Mounds View expands its employment
base?
13. How important is it that Mounds View provide more shopping
opportunities?
14. Should the City's first priority in attracting economic
development be increasing lobs or expanding the property tax
base?
15. Do you favor or oppose providing development incentives such as
tax breaks and zoning exceptions to attract new industrial or
commercial developments?
16. Do you tend to shop closer to where you live or where you work?
17. Should the City implement design and landscaping standards for
businesses in the community?
a. Should such standards be adopted and maintained even if some
businesses would not move to Mounds View because of the
higher cost to conform?
18. Do you think that the pace of development has been too rapid or
not fast enough?
19. Does the development across the City seem well planned for the
future of Mounds View?
C. PARKS DEVELOPMENT
bd 1. How would you rate the parks and recreation facilities in Mounds
View?
2. How do you spend your leisure time in indoor or outdoor
activities?
3. Do you participate in organized or unorganized recreation
activities? What ones?
4. Have you or a household member participated in a City sponsored �r
recreational program in the past year? Please name some.
a. How do you feel about registration fees?
b. Would you pay more to help pay for higher costs?
5. How often did you use Mounds View parks and recreation
facilities in the last year?
6. Would you favor or oopose a bond issue to upgrade and complete
the park system?
7. Rate the components of each City park separately.
S. How would you rate the maintenance and upkeep of City parks?
9. Would you support an increase in parks maintenance?
10. Would you be willing to pay additional property taxes to
provide for additional parks maintenance.
11. What is the park of your choice? Why?
12. How do you use parks now?
13. What would make you use them more?
14. Should the City build a trail system to connect the parks?:
15. Would you prefer a walking trail or a combination bike and
walking trail?
16. What do you think is most important to have in the parks?
17. Did you attend last September's "Festival In The Park"?
18. What do you like or dislike about the Festival?
19. How do you like the date and time of the Festival?
20. Do you use City picnic areas?
21. Do you think that more picnic areas are needed?
22. What do you think is the greatest need in Mounds View parks
right now?
23. Are you familiar with Silver View Park?
24. Do you use it and in what way?
25. What would you like to see as improvements to Silver View park?
26. Silver View Park currently has a pathway that does not extend
around one of the 3 legs of the pond. Would you prefer to leave
the trail as is or have it encompass the entire pond area?
27. Would you prefer the path be constructed of woodchips or
asphalt?
28. Would you prefer the path be restricted to walking only or a
combination bike and walking path?
29. What kind of outdoor winter recreational activities do you
enjoy?
30. What kind of outdoor summer recreational activities do you
enjoy?
31. What kind of indoor recreational activities do you enjoy?
32. What time is best for you to participate in recreation
activities?
a. Evening, morning, afternoon, weekdays or weekends?
33. Do you prefer one time programs or activities meeting 6 to 10
weeks?
34. Do you or members of your household belong to a private health
club, athletic club, or country club?
a. What activities do you participate n?
35. Approximately how many hours per week do you or members of your
is
household spend involved in leisure recreation interests.
36. Compared to 5 years ago, are you spending more or less time
using Mounds View recreation facilities? Why?
37. During the next 5 years do you expect to spend more or less time
using Mounds View recreation facilities? Why?
38. To what extent do the following considerations limit your
use of or participation in Mounds View facilities and programs?
a. Amount of time available for leisure.
b. Availability of transportation.
c. Travel distance.
d. Cost of the activity.
e. Cost of the equipment.
f. Availability of the facilities.
g. Personal health.
h. Having the skills to participate.
i. Dislike of organized activities.
j. Safety of facilities/personal safety.
k. Supervision of the activity.
1. Availability of daycare.
m. School boundaries.
n. Hours that facilities are open.
• o. Maintenance of facilities.
P. Ease of access to facilities.
q. Availability of information about facilities and programs.
r
39. How likely would you use each of the listed facilities if it
were made available in Mounds View? r
a. Community fitness center
b. Senior citizen center
c. Golf course
d. Wildlife preserve
e. Community band shell
f. Community -wide trail system
40. How important to you are the following improvements or additions
to the park system?
a. Additional athletic fields
b. Improved athletic fields
C. Improved and/or enlarged trail system.
d. Park supervision and police survaillance
e. Golf course
f. Community fitness center
41. Now such 1-1culd you be willing to pay in additional property
taxes to support the facilties and programs listed?
a. Developing existing parks
b. Trail system
C. Golf course
e. Fitness center
42. What recreation programs should the City be adding or expanding? i
a. Adult athletic leagues
b. After school programs
c. pre-school programs
d. Junior/senior high school programs
e. Senior citizen programs
43. Do you enjoy being a spectator or player of recreational sports?
44. What would you like to do at Silver View Park that you currently
cannot do because of lack of facilities?
E. COMMUNITY CENTER
this
There would be artypof 1 then arrative questions
an oenngc mmunitycenter and
reminding the p
d services outside if theCity-
the
possible relocation of programs an
1. Do you or anyone in your household partcipate in any sponsored
or organized senior citizen programs?
2. Do you feel that daycare and latchkey needs are being met by
current providers in the City?
center, what types v
3, If Mounds View were t thinkl are mostnity
important to include?
of facilities do you
4. Are there any particular activities or• programs and services
a community center should offer to serve your needs and those
of members of your household?
S. Do you favor or oppose the construction of a community center
in Mounds View?
!'1 6. Do you favor or oppose the inclusion of the following facilities
in a community center?
a. Arts and crafts room for class and instructional programs.
b. Gymnasium
c. Sauna and whirlpool
d. Senior Citizen Center for drop -in and organized activities.
e. Teen Center for drop -in and organized activities.
f. Nursery school/daycare area
g. Large community room for banquets, parties and other rental
purposes.
h. Small community rooms for organization meetings.
7. If a community center contained the features you most favored,
how much more likely would you be to support its construction?
Narrative relating that no decisions have been made and that only
discussions are occurring at this time. A bond issue requiring voter
approval would be necessary to tuna construction of a community cneter
with the bonds being paid for by increased property taxes. If a
community center cost $3 million it would result in an increase in
property taxes on an average $80,000 home by about $__ per year for
years.
8. Would you favor or oppose that bond referendum?
9. The City might be able to identify other funds to reduce the
cost to the taxpayers. How much would you be willing to pay in
additional property taxes?
If a community cente- were built, the City could subsidize its operation
with tax revenue and keep user fees low or increase fees to make the
facility more self-sufficient.
10. Should the City subsidize the cost of operations to keep fees
low or increase fees?
11. How likely would you be to use a nursery school program if
provided?
12. Should the City's priority be the building of a community
center, improvement and expansion of existing parks and
recreational facilities, or both?
T0: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 7/ C,,,2
FROM: CLERK -ADMINISTRATOR PAULE
TE: NOVEMBER 16, 1989
SUBJECT: 1990 BUDGET ADDITIONS
At the November 6th Agenda Session, Councilmember Quick asked that Mike
Ulrich provide a proposal for the addition of a mower to cut tall
grasses and inaccessible areas and any other equipment Mike felt should
be included in the budget. Attached for your information is a memo from
Mike listing several pieces of equipment inncluding a rough cut mower.
In talking to Mike about these items, I learned that except for the
rough cut mower, the other pieces of equipment are necessary to expand
the infant turf management program begun at Silver View Park's
hallfields this past fall. The 1990 budget does not include the
purchase of such materials as seed, fertilizer, black dirt, etc. needed
to make these pieces of equipment operational and to begin establishing
good turf. Also, since Silver View has the only sprinkled balifields,
establishment of better turf at the other fields and parks would be
difficult, if not impossible.
It would be my suggestion that if the City Council wishes to begin an
aggressive turf establishment and management program in our parks, that
a detailed proposal and program be presented which would itemize the
improvements needed at each park, the capital equipment required to
implement the program, and a proposed implementation schedule for the
ogram. With that information, the Council could establish a program
:ginning in 1991 based upon a complete understanding of the financial
and manpower impacts.
The second attached memo is from Michelle Hren requesting that the City
budget for and contract out the preparation of rewrites of the Zoning,
Subdivision and Sign Codes due to her current workload. Michelle
suggests that the City consider contracting out the entire job with
supervision and oversight by the City at an estimated cost of $21,000 to
$30,000 or hiring temporary people to do the research, drafting, and
typing.
Michelle's points are well taken that these projects take a great deal
Of time for both herself and Barb when they are already fully occupied
with their normal duties. If the Council does choose to move forward on
organized collection Michelle will be given the responsibility to
develop the RFP and contract documents, public information pieces, and
coordinate the startup of the program. Should you also choose to begin
a detailed study on a Community Center for purposes of a bond
referendum, I would want Michelle to jointly work with Mary Saarion due
to her planning skills. All of these projects plus our day-to-day
planning activities require a great deal of her time and would limit
her ability to commit time to these Code updates.
My reaction to Michelle's proposal is that if funds can be identified,
'` a best option would be to contract the work out. 1 have come to this
inclusion for the the following reasons.
1. The research of a consultant would be limited to familiarizing
themselves with the community where a temporary would need to do
that as well as research other zoning codes.
r
2. A consultant usually has several staff members who can be drawn
upon to assist in a project and the equipment needed to present
a finished product. The hiring of temporary help would require
the purchase or leasing of additional equipment and daily
supervision.
3. The use of a consultant could allow the updating of each code
simultaneously where a temporary would likely only be able to
work on one at a time.
Should you be in favor of Mike's request for equipment and Michelle's
for consultant services, Don Srager and I will assist you in identifying
possible fund sources fog• these items. Staff will await your direction
or. these matters.
C
n
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Public Works Foreman Ulric
DATE: November 1.4, 1989
SUBJECT: Possible additions to the 1990 Parks Budget
The following is a list of equipment needed for effective
turf maintenance that was overlooked in the 1990 budget. As you
all Know. we have implemenLed an introductory turf management
program, mainly at Silver View Park. The need for equipment to
contli:ue to establish and maintain our initial investment is
impairaLive. I beleivw that the addition of the following
equipment will establish a first class park and athletic -
facility. This equipment could __sv greatly improve the turf
areas in our neighborhood parks providing more enjoyable
recreational facilities.
1) Areator, $3,500.00 This implement removes small plugs
of turf and diposits them back on top of the grass, thus reducing
compaction of the soil and allowing moisture and nutreints to
l penetrate to the roots of the plants.
2) Slit Seeder, $3,650.00 This type of seeder slices
existing turf and drops new seed into the soil maximizing soil to
seed contact which greatly increases the germination percentage.
3) Fertilizer Spreader, $2,000.00 This spreader
broadcasts granular fertilizer to enrich soil conditions to
an optimun enviornment for growth after areatation and seeding
4) Rough Cut Mower, $4,000.00 This type of mower would be
utilized to maintain aesthestically pleasing boulevards and areas
surrounding parklands and walking paths, which are currently done
by hand or not at all.
This iz the list of equipment needed to _ccemplish the typo
of turf desired. The total prico amounts to $13,150.00. Obvi•cusly
since this is a late request, we would greatly appreciate any of
the equipment accepted. Whatever equipment that may be purchased -
this year would reduce what would be needed next year. There also
needs to be .an Increase la the turf management budget to provide
ne__csary raw materials needed :-u an effective program.
wcul3 like to thank you f.,r hearing me out, and for any
Lhind Lhat 4Culd be provided.
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator Pauley
^ FROM: City Planner Hren
DATE: November 15, 1989
SUBJECT: 1990 BUDGET
I am sure you can empathize with me the frusr.ration of enforcing
out-of-date codes.
With the upcoming completion of a draft of the Comprehensive Plan
update it may be appropriate to start the update of the other
development control codes. The sign code, zoning code and
subdivision codes are all in need uodafing, -'-,--a have a greater
urgency then others.
Undertaking the update of at least two of the Codes (zoning and
sign) at this time for a completion date at or about the same
time as the adoption of the Coaprehensive Plan and lifting of the
Highway 10 moratorium district would be the best possible
situation for the City for ultimate control on development,
Particularly on the west end of Highway 10.
Judging from the time table the Comprehensive Plan has been on
for quite some time now, It would be impossible for me to achieve
the 'best' possible situation. I would propose that the City
consider hiring a consultant(s) to draft the documents and do the
research and have the City oversee the project (i.e., managing,
editing, clarifying, etc.). I realize that sending these
projects out to consultants costs money. I would estimate that
the update of the codes would cost approximately:
Zoning $10,000 to 16,000
Sign $3,000 to 4,000
Subdivision $8,000 to 10,000
to ,
These figures depend on how much work the consultants would
actually do (i.e., typing, meeting times, presentations,
materials, etc.).
A second option to having these Codes drafted is to hire
temporary help. This person would do the research and drafting
of the documents. This option also involves the expense of
additional supplies for one temporary person. There is also the
additional typing load consideration for a limited time period
(1 - 2 years). There is also the consideration of available
office space and where would this person be located at City Hall
with access to a phone.
Clerk -Administrator Pauley
November 15, 1989
® Page 2
nue
o work
permits, Realistically, by the time tNothe
Option three is to have the City Planner COntldby t e ti othe a
these updates as time p
codes are completed it would be time for an uP
major rework but a general up
FP to determine a closer cost
e.
Out
The City
may wac,t to send
afRthis is a possible op
tion
estimate for each code updatethis further.
niaase let me know if you want to discuss
MMH�BAC
TO: Mayor & Council41, �)
FROM: Don Brager, Finance Director - Treasurer
DATE: November 15, 1989
SUBJECT: Budget Transfers
Several purchases and projects which were approved in 1983 and
intended to be funded by the 1988 budget were not delivered
or completed until 1989. Fund balance was designated for
committed contracts for these purchases and projects as they
could not, under generally accepted accounting principles, be
considered expenses of 1988 because either goods were not
delivered or services contracted for were not performed in
1988. As a consequence they are considered to be 1989 expenses.
Due to the substantial amount of these purchases and contracts
the departments that they have been charged to will be
subetantially over hudaet. The manner in which most governmental
units have dealt with this situation is to modify the current
year's budget in the amount of the expenses. Staff proposes that
this be done. The purchases and projects and budget transfers
required are listed below.
1) Office divider walls were purchased for the clerical staff
from American Office Products in the amount of $10,224 and were
charged to 100-4190-703 City Hall, Equipment. Staff recommends
that this Equipment budget be increased by that amount and that
under budgeted revenues the appropriation of fund balance
account be increased by a like amount to offset the expenditure
budget increase and thus maintain a balanced budget.
2) In the 1988 budget $5,000 of the Parks budget for capital
expenditures was to be used for the Silver View Park irrigation
system. Staff recommends that this amount be transferred from
the General Fund to the Park Improvement Fund as the cost of the
system was charged to that fund.
3) The replacement of the existing water system controls with
new more efficient controls was approved in December 1988. Final
payment to the contractor was made in October 1989. Total
project costs were $64,630. Staff recommends that the budget of
account 700-4121-703 be increased by this amount to cover the
costs of the project and that the appropriation of retained
earnings revenue account be increased by a like amount.
4) The contract for the rebuilding of the pump and motor of well
number 3 was approved in December 1988. The project was
completed in the summer of 1989 at a cost of s10,557. Staff
recommends that the budget of account 700-4121-513 be increased
by the cost of the project and that the appropriation of
retained earnings revenue account be increased by a like amount.
RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to prepare a resolution authorizing
the above budget transfers and to place it on the Consent .agenda
for the next Council Meeting.
r
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
FROM: MARY SAARION, DIRECTOR
PARKS, RECREATION AND FORESTRY
DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 1989
SUBJECT: SKATING RINK HOURS - ACTIVITIES
Staff proposes a change in warming house hours. In the past few years, late hour
attendance has declined. The 8:00 - 9:00 p.m. or 8:00 - 10:00 p.m. timeslot has not
been practical. The high school is out of classes at 2:00 p.m. and the two grade
schools at 3:00 p.m. Staff proposes to open warming houses at 3:00 p.m. and close
at 8:00 p.m. on weeknights, Monday - Thursday. Suite Fr,uny Z .110-, a =•��• Wig••••
closing hours could be extended to 9:00 p.m. Saturday hours would be from
9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and Sunday from 1:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. The changes are
shown below:
PAST HOURS
M - Th 4:00 - 9:00 p.m.
F 4:00 - 10:00 P.M.
Sa 9:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.
Su 1:00 - 9:00 P.M.
PROPOSED HOURS
M - Th 3:00 - 8:00 p.m.
F 3:00 - 9:00 p.m.
Sa 9:00 a.m. - 9:00 P.M.
Su 1:00 - 8:00 p.m.
The time change would not alter the number of hours of operation and therefore,
would not alter the budget.
During this day and age of youth abductions and foul play, staff wishes to encourage
public safety by discouraging children from being out in neighborhoods in hours of
darkness. Therefore, providing more skating time during daylight hours encourages
the option for daylight skating rather than skating during hours of darkness. This
time change is basically considering grade school ages. It is observed that most high
school students come to skating rinks via car transportation.
Another change that the Park and Recreation Commission has requested is the
expanded purpose of warming houses. It was requested that warming houses serve as
mini -meeting places for youth activity such as a game of chess, parchessi or cribbage,
or perhaps some art projects or simple group games. Warming house attendants
would serve as supervisors, perhaps provide a greater activity leadership role, and
equipment monitor.
Staff wishes to hear your thoughts and direction regarding these proposed changes.
MS/SL
r
TO: Mayor & Council
FROM: Don Brager, Finance Director
c
DATE: November 1, 1989
SUBJECT: Purchase of Personal Computer
The purchase of a personal computer and software for the
Accounting Clerk was included in the 1989 Budget. The amount
budgeted was 36,000. A personal computer was purchased for
$1,493 which resulted in the purchase being under budget by
S4,507. This savings was due to the purchase of a p c clone
rather than a dame brand model and by not purchasing a as one that was not being used by Parks & Recreation couldbe
used instead of purchasing a new one. In addition 32,500 that
was budgeted for investment analysis software has not been
expended. Thus, $7,007 is available for further expenditure.
Staff proposes to use those unexpended funds to purchase a
new personal computer and a laser printer for the Finance
Director.
The present personal computer used by the Finance Director
is a %T model, which is the first model of personal computer
to be put on the market with a hard disk drive. It has a
processor that is three generations old compared to models being
sold today. As a consequence it has very slow processing speeds
and is not well suited to large financial models, such as the
City budget. A personal computer with an 80386 prooessor is
needed to efficiently process financial data. In addition a
laser printer is proposed to produce better quality graphics for
the budget and other financial documents and presentations.
Staff obtained quotes from three firms on the personal computer.
They are as follows:
1) 2eos International $3,807.00
2) Wahl & Wahl 3,924.00
3) Northgate Computer Systems 3,374.00
Staff recommends purchase of the computer from Norhtgate
Computer Systems.
Staff has also obtained three quotes on a Hewlitt-Packard
Laseriet IIP printer. This is a new model and is considered a
personal Laser printer as compared to their previous models
which are more heavy duty and designed for intense use by
word processing personnel. The quotes obtained are as follows:
1)
2)
Wahl
Dodd
& Wahl
Technical Supply
S1,162 .00
3)
Entre
Computer Systems
1,162.00
1,049.00
Staff recommends the purchase of the printer from Entre Computer r
Systems.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the purchase of a personal computer
from Northgate Computer Systems in the amount of $3,374.00 and
the purchase of a laser printer from Entre Computer Systems in
the amount of $1,049.00 for the Finance Director to be charged
to account 100-4190-703 City hall, Equipment.
DB/hs
11
i