Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 07-18 CCPCITY OF GEM LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA X8. a'ULY 1994 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Emeott at p. ATTENDANCE: Emeott. Birkebak McPhillips Igo _Nielsen _Nordstrom _Magnuson _Gardner OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR: June, 1994 Council Meeting PRESENTATIONS FROM FLOOR: COMMITTEE REPORTS PLANNING COMMISSION: Gardner 1) MEETING MINUTES 2) PERMITS & VARIANCES 3) OFFMN ROAD FILLING :3.) TOUSLEY FORD DEVELOPMENT: Magnuson a) Tousley Joint Powers Agreement with Vadnais Heights for water supply. 4) VADNAIS HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT OF COUNTY E a) Roberts Property./Vadnais Heights Meeting b) Fontana Development/Target Store i) Recommendation for Council Resolution To VH.oppos.ing.. 5) I-35E CORRIDOR STUDY COMMITTEE: Lloyd Nielsen a) Status Report RECYCLING COMMITTEE: Nielsen 1) June. Recycling Report: Attached. OLD BUSINESS.: LAW ENFORCEMENT: Magnuson 1) CONTRACT AMENDMENT -INSURANCE: Magnuson PROSECUTION MATTERS: FIRE & PARAMEDIC: FIRE INSPECTIONS: Magnuson 1) FUTURE FUNDING a) ordinance Requirements b) Fee Schedule TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT: Magnuson STREET MAINTENANCE. Magnuson 1) Road repair Estimate (T.A. Schif.sky) 21 Road Maintenance Plan (T.A. Schif.sky) CITY ENGINEER: Emeott 1) Engineers review for sealing/top coating. SEPTIC SYSTEMS: Emeott 1) SEPTIC INSPECTIONS.: Magnuson a) Date Base status:. b) Inspection status. SEWER: Emeott SIGN INSPECTIONS: Emeott CITY WATER: Magnuson' RAMSEY COUNTY CONSOLIDATION EFFORTS: Emeott/Magnuson 1) COUNTY ROAD TURNBACKS a) County Road "F": Realignment i) Property Acquisition/Distribution b) Road Closures, i) Scheuneman Road (north of Hwy 61) ii) Hoffman:Road. (south intersection with Hwy :.61) OTHER OLD BUSINESS: 1 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 18 JULY 1994 NEW BUSINESS RAMSEY COUNTY PROPERTY TAXATION: Magnuson 1) PROPERTY VALUATION REPORT CITY INSPECTION: Emeott; Gardner;. Arend OTHER NEW BUSINESS.: TREASURER'S REPORT: JULY ACCOUNT BALANCES': GENERAL FUND: $ PARKS & PLAYGROUND FUND ENGINEERING FUND: $ SEWER FUND: $ PAYMENT OF BILLS: $ NEXT MEETING: Magnuson The August Meeting of the Gem Lake 'City: Council will be held on 1.5 August 19'94 at 7a.0 pm. ADJOURNMENT: Emectt at p.m. NOTES: 2 CITY OF GEM LAKE 1369 County Road "E" East TELEPHONE: (612) 426-6443 Paul :l R. E,neott, Mayor Frederic Magnuson, City Clerk Gem Lake, MN 55110-5231 FACSIMILE: (612) 426-6444 Richard Nordstrom, Treasurer Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Docken 4140 Otter Lake Road Gem Lake, MN 55110 RE: VARIANCE NO. 9401 VARIANCE FROM GEM LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 43 Dear . Mr. & Mrs. Docken; 21 June 1994' Pursuant to the recommendation of the Gem lake Planning Commission dated 13 June 1994 and theapproval of the Gem Lake City Council attheir regular meeting on 20June 1994, you are hereby granted a variancefrom Gem. Lake Zoning Ordinance No. 43 as follows, - 'VARIANCE: A variance: from Section 10.5, paragraph.I of six (6'0'9feet reducing the side set -hack of fifleen.(15'0' to nine (9'0') for construction of a south facing attached double garage to be not closer than nine. (9'0'2 of theside properly line. Said construction shall he subject to allother conditions of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Codes and may commence upon issuance of appropriate building permits. If' you have additional questions, please contact Mr. Jima Arend, Gem Lake Building Inspector at 731-4313. Regards, CITY OF GEM LAKE Frederic C. Magnuson • City Clerk cc: J. Arend; Building Inspector D. Gardner., Planning Commission CITY OF GEM LAKE 1369 County Road "E" East TELEPHONE:. (612) 426-6443 Paul R. Enteott, Mayor Frederic Magnuson, City Clerk Gent Lake, MN 55110-5231 FACSIMILE: (612) 426-6444 Richard Nordstrom, Treasurer Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Franz,. 4020 Scheuneman Road Gem Lake, MN 55110 RE: VARIANCE NO. 9402, GEM LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 43 SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 9401 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Franz, 21 June 1994 Pursuant: to. the recommendation. of the Germ lake Planning Commission dated 13 June 1994 and the approval of the Gem Lake City Council at their regular ineeting on 20 June .1994; you are hereby granted. a: variance f •arit •Gera Lake Zoning Ordinance Na 43 as follows: VARIANCE: A variance froth Section 4.5 paragraph 5 of the Gem. Lake Zoning Ordinance which defines the maximum allowable square footage for an out building,said variance allowing for construction of a twenty-four (24'0") by thirty-two (32'0'2 additionto existing detachedgat-agewith totalsquare footage not to :exceed sixteen -hundred sixty:four (1,664 sf) square feet, Said construction shall he .subject toall other conditions of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Codes and may commence upon issuance of appropriate building permits. If you haveadditional questions, please contact M. Jinn Arendd, Gem. Lake Building Inspector .at 731-4313. Regards, CITY OF GEM LAKE Frederic C. Magnuson City Clerk cc: J. Arend, Building Inspector D. Gardner, Planning Commission CITY OF GEM LAKE 1369 County Road "E" East TELEPHONE: (612) 426-6443 Frederic Magnuson, City Clerk �■�nr Paul R. Emeon, Mayor Gem Lake, MN 55110-5231 FACSIMILE: (612) 426-.64.94 Richard Nordstrom, Treasurer. Mr. .& Mrs. Arthur- Birkeland 3542 Hoff nan Road Gent. Lake, MN 55110 RE: Filling: Of Land .At 3542 Hoffman. Road Permit File #SL1SE9402. DOC Dear Mr. & Mrs: Birkeland, 21 June 1994 Pursuant to action taken by the Gem Lake City Council at it's regular meeting on 20 June 1994 relative to your Application .For Consideration Of Zoning Request to allow deposit ofan unspecified quantity of clean f ll; be advised as follows: CONSIDERATIONS 1) Filling commenced as early as September, 1993 without issuance of appropriate permits from the City of Gem Lake thus violating Sections 4.10(1), 5.6(1-3), and 5,8(1-2). of Gem Lake Zoning Ordinance No• 43. 2) Fill used was extracted, from areas unknown without issuance; of any statement of their origin and content including, but not limited to, potential unknown contaminants which may representa danger to long-term public health. 3) The amount of said unspecified fill has not been stated. ACTION REQUIRED 4) All filling of your property and site workrelated thereto. as identified on your above referencedapplication shall cease immediately. Correspondence from the legal jurisdictions) (cg city, town, etc.). from which the materials used for flliizg were taken stating: contents of the materials and listing any and all potential contaminants to thesatisfactlon of the Geis: Lake Planning Cornniission. and City Council Correspondence from the contractor who removed the materials used for,flling from the point(s) of origin stating the origin(s) of the materials, namingthe carrier(s) who removed .said materials fromthe point(s) of origin,. stating that only materials identified in 5) above wery delivered by the carrier(s), and stating the quantity of materials removed from each .of the points) of origin. 7) Correspondence front the carrier stating the date of frst delivery to your she and the total quantity of materials delivered toyour siiefrorn each of the point(s) of origin of said materials. By means of action taken by the City Council, you are hereby r'equir'ed to comply with items 4) through 7) above: Item 4) is effective. immediately Items 5) through 7) areto be delivered to the Zoning Administrator or the chairman of the Gem Lake Planning Commission as soon as possible. Upon receipt, the Planning Commission will review saidrepreser?lations and, f found to be satisfactory, will follow the course of action as described in Ordinance. No. 43 for issuance of a.SPecial Use Permit. As significantquantities of f ll have already been delivered tothe site, the Planning Cornmission`andlor the City Council may at their sole discretion in consideration of public health and ,safety and asa condition of approval, require additional verification offal content such as soil boring and analysis by an accredited testing laboratory or other similar action. 21 June 1994 Mr. & Mrs: Arthur Birkeland Permit File MUSE9402.DOC When considering final recommendations related to your Application, the. Planning Coininission and the City Council will determine what, if any, additional requirements it may require as wellas what penalties: as provided for in Section5.9(1) of Ordinance No..43 may beappropriate as a result of the violation of the Ordinance. If you haveany questions, they .should be directed to Mr. David Gardner, Chairman, Gem .Lake Planning Commission or Mr. Jim Arend, Gem Lake Zoning Administrator. On Behalf. Of CITY OF GEM LAKE Frederic C. Magnuson City Clerk cc.' J. Arend,Zoning Administrator D. Gardner, Planning Commission City Council 2 CITY OF GEM LAKE 1369 County Road "E" East TELEPHONE: (612) 426-6.443 Paul R. Etneoft, Mayor Frederic Magnuson, City. Clerk Gem Luke, MN 551.19-523.1 FACSIMILE: (612) 426-6444 Richard :Nordstrom, Treasurer Mr, Vince Johnson 7716 Major Avenue North Brooklyn Park; MN 55443 RE: Filling Qf Land At 3524 Hoffman Road Permit File 4SUSE9404,11OC Dear Mr, Johnson, 21 June 1994 Pursuant to action taken by the Gem Lake City Council at it's regular meeting on 20 June. 1994 relative to your Application For Consideration Of Zoning Request to allow deposit of an unspecified quantity of clean ./711, be advised as follows: CONSIDERATIONS 1) Filling commenced as early as September, 1993 without issuance of appropriate permits.from the City of Gem Lake thus violating: Sections 4,10(1), 5.6(1-3)., and 5.8(1-2) of Gem Lake Zoning Ordinance No. 43.. 2) Fill used was extracted font areas unknown without issuance of any statement of their origin and content including, but not limited to, potential unknown contaminants which may represent a danger to long-term public health. 3) Theamount of said unspecified fill has not been stated. ACTION REQUIRED 4) All filling .ofyour :properly and site work related thereto as identified on your above referenced application shall cease iniinediately. 5j Correspondence from the legal jurisdictions) (eg city, town, etc) from which the materials used for filling were taken stating contents of the materialsand listing any and all potential contaminants to the .satisfaction of the Gem Lake Planning Commission and City Council 6} Correspondence fi•am the contractor who removed the materials used for filling frontthe point(s) of origin statingthe origins) of the materials; namingthe carriers) whoremoved said materials fromthe point(s) of origin, stating then only materialsidentified in 5) above weredelivered by the .carrter(s), andstating the quantity of materials removed from each of :the point(s) of origin. 7) Correspondence from the carrier stating the date of first delivery to your site and the total quantity of materials delivered to your site from each of the point(s) of origin of .said materials. By means: of action taken by the City Council, you are hereby required to comply with items 4) through 7) above. Item 4) is effective.. immediately. Items 5) through 7) are to be delivered to the Zoning Administrator or the chairman of the Gem Lake Planning Commission as soon as possible Upon receipt, the Planning Commission will review said representations and,if found to be satisfactory, will followthe course of action as described to ordinance No, 43 for issuance of a Special Use Permit. As significant quantities of fill have alreadybeen delivered to the site, the Planning Commission and/or the City Council may at their sole discretion in consideration of public health and safely and as a .condition of approval,require additional verification offal content such as soil boring and analysis by an accredited testing: laboratoryor other similar action. 1 21 June 1994 Mr. Vince Johnson Permit File #5USE9404.DGC When consideringfinalreeoinmendations related .to yourApplication, the Planning Commission and the City Council will determine what, if. any, additional requirements itmay require as well as whatpenalties as provided far .in Section 59(1) of.Ordinance No. 43 may he appropriate as a result of the vialation:of the Ordinance: .If youhave any.. questions; they should be directed to Mr. David Gardner; Chairman; Gem Lake Planning Commission or Mr. ,Iinz Arend, Gem Lake Zoning. Administrator. On Behalf Of CITY OF GEM LAKE Frederic 'C. Magnuson. City Clerk cc.. .I.; Arend, Zoning Administrator .D. Gardner;: Planning Commission City Council JUL- 1-94 FRI 15:32 E S E C 0 FAX MESSAGE 1+612+560+0i 09 P.01 ESECO-Electric Sales Enterprises Co P.O. BOX 29224 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55429 PKo Ti6121_560-2778 FAX 1-612-560-0709 PAGE } OF ICI PAGES FiKOMM :....,YUU'.GE JOHNSON TO: Fred9rie Magnuson _ BATE July 1, 1994 COMPANY: City QS Gem La]s.e REFERENCE: Pormit File #SUSE9404.DOC MESSAGE: In reference -to filling of land at , 574 Hoffman _Rod and the attached actions of the city council at their previous meeting, I respectfully request a copy of the nuinutee of the meeting of June 20, 1994 in which the attached actions were forwarded to me as per Pages II and III. Page IV is a response from the Cbntractural people that have been responsible for the fill confi€ureation. My conversations with Bob Noble indicated that a permit would be ld that thectcld in units of 400 yards or more. I have beer. �• property we have will take 400 yards or less. This is the parameters of "why" there was no permit. Eecauee of the "traffic" thru the rotertYwith in fill fact you will indicate find th t only ar�truck load mini alamount for our P p is actually deposited on our property. Your�:prOmpt reply to this request would be appreciated, 1(./ " VINCENT K. LIMN , Personal Repreeefntative 7716 Major Ave. o. Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 JUL- 1-94 PR I 1 c: 34 E S E C 0 1+612+560+0703 F'.04 CC•I447ItsAcir'aFt June 24, 1994 TO Ray Wlaschin RLW Trucking 9627 West 122nd St. Hugo, MN 55O38-,12Q Landfill Material Deaf' Mr. Wla►schin, I understand there has been some concern regarding possible contamination of off haul material being transported by RLW Tnicking, AU of the materials being excavated by KENKO, Inc. (and transported by RLW Tr icki g) is being removed front streets in the city of Saint Paul in eoruiec:tion with the Grand/St, Albanz Sturm Sewer Separation Poiizet. None of iliv streets being removed are anywhere near gasoline stations or other possible «cturees of contamination. To date, neither myself nor any other itilr?O, Inc. employee has noied any possible rontanntation of the material being hauled oli site. I laiardoto material is usually identifiable as having strong odors and/or visual film or "rainbow" effects. None of the material excavated has shown these characteristics. Also, during the denim phase of this project, extensive research was done on subsurface conditions by dziltins test holes throughout the project. The drillers did not note the presence of any contam.in;.uita, which they are required to report. i have seen no evidence of any contaminated material being excavated or removed from this project. Also, I have not seen any dueurnentatiun of possible contamination which would warrant further investigation or testing. If you n.cd any atfditional infi rrnat'ion regarding this matter, please contact me al 222-5896. Suwet cl John Zvh Project E - aer KENKO, Inc. CORPORATE OFFICE - 1694 - 91st Avenue N.E - Nis Minnesota 554-19 - (612) 786-6510 - Fax (612) 7$6-660 SOUT1iWESTERN DIVISION - 16415 Addison Road, Suite 308 - ❑ana% Texas 75248 - (214) 931-9494 - Fax (214) 931-5474 WESTERN DIVJSION - Post Office Box 831 - Calimesa, CAUifarnia 9232o - (714) 795-2568 - Fax (714) 795-1840 T _ CITY OF GEM LAKE 1369 .County Road "E" East. TELEPHONE: (612) 426-6443 Paul .R..Enieott, . Mayor Frederic Magnuson, City Clerk Gent Lake, MN 55110-5231 FACSIMILE: (612) 426-6444 Richard Nordstrom, Treasurer Mr. R. M Hansen 2720 North Dale Street, Apt. 4214 Roseville, MN 55113 RE: Filling Of Land At 3538 Hoffman Road Permit File #SUSE9401DOC Dear Air. Hansen, 27 June 1994 Pursuant to action taken by the Gem Lake City Council at it's regular meeting on 20 June 1994 relative to your Application For Consideration .Of Zoning Request to.. allow.. deposit of an unspecified quantity of clean fill, be advised as follows- CONSIDER1ITIONS 1) Filling commenced asearly as September, 1993 without issuance of appropriate permits from the City of Gem Lake thus violating Sections 4.10(1), 5.6(1-3), and 5.8(1-2) of Gem Lake Zoning Ordinance No. 43. 2) Fill .used was exlracted, f -ono areas unknown without issuance of any statement of their- origin and content including but not limited to, potential unknown contaminants.wvhich niayrepresent a clanger to long-term public health, 3) The amount of said unspecified fill hasnot been stated ACTION REQUIRED 4) All filling of your property and site work related thereto as identified on your above referenced application. shall: cease immediately. Correspondence from the legal jurisdiction(S) (eg city, town, etc)from which the materials used for filling were: taken: stating. contents of the materials and listing anyand all potential. containinants to the.satisfaction of the Get): Lake Planning Coniniission and City Council 6} Correspondence from the contractor who, removed the materials rued for filling from the point(s) of origin stating the origin(s} of the materials, namingthe carrier(s) who removed said materials f -om the point(s) of origin, slating that only materials identified in 5) above were delivered by the carrier(s), and stating the quantity of materials removed from each of the point()) of origin. 7) Correspondence f-om the carrierstating the date of first deliveiy to your site and the total quantity of materials delivered to your site from each of the point(s) of origin of said materials. By meansof aclion taken by the City Council you are hereby required to comply with items 4) through 7) above. Item 4) is effective immediately. Items 5) through 7) are to be delivered to the Zoning Administrator or the chairman of the Gem Lake Planning Commission as soon as possible. Upon receipt, the Planning Commission will review said representations and if foundto be satisfactory, will follow the course of action as described in ordinance .No. 43 for issuance of a Special Use Permit. As signrfcant.quantities of fill have already been deliveredto the site, the Planning Commission andlor the City Council may at their sole discretion in consideration of public health and safety and as a condition of approval; require additional verification:offihl content such as soil boring and analys is by an accredited testing laboratory or other similar action. 21 June 1994 Mr. R. M. Hansen Permit File #SUSE9403.DOC When consider-ingftnal recommendations related toyour Application, the Planning Commission and the City Council will determine what, • flatly, additional requirements .it may require as well as what penalties as provided. for in Section 5,9(1) of `Ordinance No, 43 may beappropriate as a result ❑f the violation of the Ordinance, If you have any questions.: they should be directed to Mr. David Gardner; Chairman, Gem Lake Planning Commission or Mr. Jim Arend, Gem Lake Zoning Administrator, On Behalf Of CITY OF GEM LAKE Frederic C. Magnuson City Clerk cc: J Arend, Zoning Administrator D. Gardner, .Planning Commission City Council 2. 11/41 ( t r c i1' \ Yi z-i 5 ctj C'.`CK Gtm ti4 V t 4 v �r it/\ a V1 4 Y 0-2- k} i''t`-trle x"t e. *t. 61. V i- °LA. lx.i r�.i it.: ri Richard M. Hansen 2720 N. DALE, 41214 ROSEVILLE, MN 55113 \L 2. 1 e- c1 [] t.1 L Ic V) 5 I 114 k CL I. co 5 it JO, t7.5e„ W z t h. q e- (T " C 7 i? 4. M ki a t-i1 rc t �i ) 1i L ( CL j C t .. AcIrn i 5-tr a to 1-1 trz i i 0 a�. June 30, 1994.. Mr. Bill Short I-35E PMT Chair White Bear Township 1281 Hammond Road White Bear Lake, MN 55110 Dear Mr. Short:: 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE, 200 SEH CENTER, ST PAUL, MN 55110 612.490.2000 800 325-2055 ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING - ENVIRONMENTAL • TRANSPORTATION RE: Metro Council I-35E Corridor Study SEH No. A-METR03354.00 Much of the June 14th meeting of the project management team for the I-35E Corridor Study was devoted to MnDOT's letter of curie 8 1994. The main concern of MnDOT relative tothe draft of the I-35E report was the lack of prominence of land use comments within the report. Their letter offered a number of suggestions. The PMT considered and agreed to some of the suggestions and modified or developed others. As we agreed, we are not able to modify the report to reflect their desired changes, republish the entire report and then hold public meetings. We are assuming that after the public meetings, and after the comments of the various councils and boards, that we will again have some modifications which would require another publishing of the report. We agreed at the meeting that we will revise some of the sections and provide copies of those major revisions to the PMT for their review. These sections are attached for your review and comments. We are asking that you and other members of the PMT review and submit any comments, findings or conclusions to. SEH. If you have any questions, please .free .to call me. Respectfully submitted,. Glen Van Wormer,Manager Transportation Department kam c: I-35E Corridor Project Management Team. Members: Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council Lloyd Nielson, Gem Lake Tom Watson, North Oaks Gerry Urban, Vadnais Heights. Jim Robinson, White Bear Lake Dan Soler, Ramsey County Cyrus Knutson, MnDOT Metro District Ruth Ann Sobnowski, MriDOT Metro District SHORT E'LLIOTt HENDRICKSON INC. MINNEAPOLIS, MN. ST CLOUD, MN CHIPPEWA FALLS, WI MADISON, WI (Pg. 4 and 5) Findings and Recommendations The study of the balance ofland uses and roadway system capacity; concluded with a number of --findings and`°, recommendations that can be;summarized in three areas; General A probable level of development within the current designations of the communities Comprehensive Land Use Plans can Abe accommodated with varying levels of improvements to the highway and local street systems. * A Travel Management Organization (TMO) will be needed to ensure that the moderate land use development trends are maintained and an ultimate balance is achieved between the land uses and roadway system capacity. There will be a need to periodically monitor the corridor development and traffic volume characteristics and to update the study model accordingly. Land Use * Probable land use is :based on: comprehensive plans, ex sting trends 7and specific'proposals: Roadway 'modifications; are necess:-` -` prdbable deela merit' ` and;; °road improvements a0dand land use'>must; still be coordinated- carefully within the •scope- of;this study and: fmdings. * It will not be economically or environmentally. feasible to improve the roadway system to accommodate the traffic. generated if all land develops to the maximum intensities as. allowed in the Comprehensive Land Use Plans. Roadway System. * The overall land use mix of residential, commercial and industrial developments in the corridor will tend to encourage shorter trip lengths. Improvements will be needed to the local street system to accommodate this travel and to protect the. metro highway system from undesirable ramp to ramp trips. between adjacent interchanges. * Through commuter trips using I-35E will continue to grow as development north of the study area proceeds in areas such as Hugo, , Lino Lakes, and Forest Lake. * I-35E is experiencing a peak hour "spreading" trend which has been observed throughout the Twin Cities area. The percentage of traffic in the peak hour has been found to be decreasing slightly while the period of high traffic has become more prolonged as drivers adjust schedules to avoid congestion, This trend of peak hour spreading is expected to continue into the. future. * Access to I-35E- and 1-694 will be more difficult during peak hours as most ramps are equipped with metering devices. The Minnesota ADepartment of Transportation (MnIDOT) improvement program has scheduled the installation of ramp meters on the I-35E on -ramps at CR-E, the southbound I-35E on -ramp from TH-96, and all 1-694 on -ramps in the study area during the next 3-5 years. * Travel. Demand Management (TDM) strategies such as. . staggered work hours, transit and increased. carpooling can be most effective. if implemented by major employers in the area. The measures will help maintain volume levels below capacity, but their overall impact on the overall corridor traffic levels will be relatively minor. TDM. can have its mast .significant impact on local street intersections which are sensitive to the fluctuations of local . trip • making.. The evaluation of the roadway system necessary to support the probable level of land. development identified a number of recommended improvements from major highway construction to relatively inexpensive intersection modifications such as adding turn lanes. It is difficult to prioritize between these widely differing types of recommendations which span varying lengths of time for implementation, have unique. funding needs and require different levels of agency involvement. Priorities are easier to assign if the roadway improvements are grouped into similar categories. The improvements were found to naturally fall into the following. categories; l) Major New Improvements, 2) Planned and/or Programmed, 3) Short. Term Improvements, and 4) Other Issue Areas. Recommended improvement projects within these categories were prioritized and individual implementation strategies were developed. (Page 13 and 14) LAND USE DATABASE Future Land Use Scenarios The principal guide in the formulation of future land use development scenarios is the comprehensive land use plans of the individual cities. Discussion was required with the respective city staffs since some plans needed updating or special circumstances might have limited the intensities or land use types originally envisioned. The amount of future developable land was estimated by overlaying the study area parcel base mapwith the NWI wetlands and protected waters area designations. City staff members were consulted regarding each available land parcel. Using the Comprehensive Plans as a guide, estimates were made concerning the type of use, potential intensity and general expected phasing of the development. Two future development scenarios were examined; * A probable growth scenario * A higher aggressive growth scenario With few exceptions, the types of uses for the two scenarios were both allowed under. the current Comprehensive Plans. The probable growth scenario was developed assuming a "probable" outcome based on recent development proposals, discussions with property owners and overall trends of development densities which have typically occurred elsewhere in the study area. For example, in a high density, multiple -family residential zone, a City may allow up to 15 dwellings per acre, but may be actually experiencing development densities of only 7 dwelling units per acre. The probable growth scenario was based on a;parcel 'by ;parcel or block by block analysis of land use, .both 'existmg . and future: ,ITlie land' use was discussed with the planning staff; of: the ;co munity rn an .effort :to' determine tt e.' most likely use of the property given recent development proposals and current trends within the community. Where a specific proposal had beenrmadeand was possible under the comprehensive plan, that specific land use was included in the probable growth scenario. The high growth scenario addresses the maximum levels of development allowed by the existing zoning. The land use combinations analyzed were consistent with the Cities' zoning and comprehensive planning, but the assumptions were chosen to produce a higher level of trip generation relative to the other permitted land uses for. that parcel. It is very unlikely that maximum levels of development will occur on all undeveloped parcels since the intensities would most likely average out over time. This scenario was introduced to examine "worst case" type traffic volumes. Tables 2 and 3 compare the overall intensities of existing development to the probable and high future land use scenarios, while Exhibit 4 shows the locations of the future projected land use types in the corridor. (Page 43) When comparing the two potential locations, it appears that the Hammond Road interchange would havemore benefits than would the County Road H-2 location. This is primarily due to the proximity of the interchanges to the existing and future developments. Also, as the distance of separation between the new interchange and the TH-96 interchange increases, the number of trips using I-35E for local movements increases. Based on the computer modeling, an interchange at County Road H-2 attracts many more ramp to ramp trips frorn TH-96 that properly belong on the local street system. From a straight spacing standpoint, the County Road H-2 would fit better with the overall system since it is more centrally located between the existing interchanges at TH-96 and County Road J. Hammond Road would meet current interchange spacing guidelines at slightly more than I mile from TH-96. There are some drawbacks to introducing a new access. to I-35E: The propensity to travel between adjacent interchanges on I-35E is a drawback of introducing another access to I-35E. Ramp metering adjustments would probably be needed to increase delays for these types of trips to encourage them to use the local street system. Due to the perceived time savings, ramp to ramp movements will. be difficult to eliminate entirely even for the Hammond Road interchange. • A new interchange would not replace the need to improve the. TH-- 96 ramps. and turn lanes on the bridge. * An interchange would most likely induce an accelerated development of adjacent land parcels, possibly at higher intensities than if the additional access to I-35E was not provided. It must be recognized that the "probable" land use around -the new interchange should be continued unless a supplemental study shows that the additional traffic generated can: be absorbed by the proposed road system in the entire area, including the I-35E. and 1-694 interchange area. * The new access would mix traffic from different types of land uses between the North Oaks residential uses and White Bear Township industrial uses. While it appears that this situation would operate satisfactorily, the issue is of a concern to North. Oaks residents. The approval process for a new interchange in the metropolitan area is, both thorough and lengthy. Metropolitan agencies, such as Mn/DOT and Metropolitan Council, require documentation of the need and of the impact on the metropolitan system. Interchange evaluation criteria in the Metropolitan Guide Plan currently requires interchange crossroads to be minor arterial streets, which neither Hammond Road nor County RoadH2 are. Funding of the interchange will fall primarily on local sources. Unless --<there is a - -significant; improvement to the metropolitan freeway :system, it s ,.unlikely thatMn/DOT 'will be a willing contributor of funds to :the project. (Page 44) Directional interchanges or an overpass without ramps were considered. An overpass would probably not be viable since it would serve only approximately 2,000 3,000 ADT. A directional interchange to the south would work in either location, although traffic from north would be higher at the Hammond Road location. It appears that there would be relatively little benefit in phasing a directional interchange initially since there are enough trips using the facility from both north and south. Other options were considered such as the completion of the County Road J interchange to the north. County Road J currently is a half diamond interchange to the south. Due to the travel times and proximity of the land use development patterns, the computer modeling predicts that the propensity will be to use TH-96 over County Road J for trips originating north of the project area. Should approval be obtained from the Federal and State agencies for a new I-35E interchange, the project would most likely receive a very low priority for future funding. The MnIDOT Metro District's Goals for priorities are: 1. Preserve the existing transportation system and enhance safety 2. Manage and protect the existing transportation system 3. Address existing and forecasted system needs for expansion or new alignments of the transportation system. Finally, with the priorities as stated, local funding sources would need to provide most if not all of the resources for construction. A Major -concern> preceeding any new interchange is -thepotential for inducing additional trips; onto the `metropolitan .freeway `system. Very thorough documentation of the routings` oftrips; in the area must`;be:done to‘ -show that there will be an overall positive impact by the new interchange and that: additional trips will not be added to critical segments on the metro highway system. (Page 52 - 54) Plan Adoption and Implementation The implementation process for the recommended improvements has many facets since the process involves a number of agencies for reviewing, approving and funding both development projects and roadway improvement projects. The success of the implementation depends on a considerable amount of cooperation and coordination between these agencies. The Cities, Township, County and MnIDOT need to support the corridor plan as part of their review processes of future development proposals and land use designation changes within the corridor. Future funding priorities and regional consistency determinations can be strongly influenced if the PMT members consistently support the roadway improvement plans and restrict land use to :that : shown>;tn;;, the;;'= :robable , land ; use ;fscenario. It is recommended that the PMT should be continued and possibly reorganized as a Transportation Management Organization (TMO). The primary responsibilities would be to maintain a process similar to the 3-C planning program encouraged by the Federal Highway Administration for many years. The 3-Cs stand for a process which is: * Continuing * Cooperative * Comprehensive The local review and planning processes need to be updated to be consistent with the corridor study findings. Each separate jurisdiction needs to review the corridor study with their planning and policy members and then formally adopt the study. Mn/DOT support could be documented through some type of letter of intent from the agency. The corridor study should` be presented to the Metropolitan Council's Technical Advisory Committee and if possible adopted by and incorporated into the regional Transportation Development Guide / Policy Plan. Once the study has been adopted, the Cities and Township can revise and amend their Comprehensive Land Use and Thoroughfare Plans and the County can update their Transportation Plan. Comprehensive Plan amendment requests should be relatively easy to implement by the Met Council since they would be consistent with the Development Guide / Policy Plan. A critical element of the implementation portion of the plan is to retain the trip generation rates as calculated for the probable land use scenario. Data is available on a parcel by parcel or block by block 'basis in Appendix B. Deviation should be permitted only after careful study of the impact of the changes and after review by other members by the project management team. As time progresses, many changes will occur that may affect the assumptions and findings of this study. There is a critical need to maintain a continual process of on- going monitoring and review of the study components. Trip generation rates, traffic growth trends, intersection operations, and actual versus planned development intensities all require some periodic review. To guarantee that the roadway capacity is adequate for the land uses, there needs to be encouragement for local businesses to implement TDM strategies and then an ability to verify their effectiveness. For these reasons, the Project. Management Team needs to continue to meet and strategize on an on -going basis. If the above responsibilities were taken on, the. PMT would essentially become a Transportation Management Organization for the corridor area. In its implementation role, the PMT could establish "triggering criteria" which would identify when changed conditions were of a significant magnitude that the corridor study assumptions needed to be revisited and possibly revised_ Criteria which should be considered are: * Land use development patterns such as use types, intensities or phasing. become different than those assumed by the moderate land use scenario. Trip generation changes - findings that certain land uses are producing more trips per day or. during the peak hours than originally assumed. • Actual roadway or intersection operations which. are degrading. below established Levels of Service. For example, the PMT could use LCS D as a criteria since this is the point beyond which some type of mitigation is required.. • Observed travel patterns do not match those predicted by the transportation model. The PMT should continue to meet to keep abreast of changes occurring in the corridor area. The PMP is an excellent vehicle to provide communication between agencies, discuss changes in trends and disc ss developments which do not trigger a specific meeting. It is suggested that quarterly meetings be held as a -minimum. It will important to keep the corridor plan up to date. The schedule of when the update is needed will be determined by when changes occur that may affect the original study assumptions. Although the schedule should be flexible, it is. recommended that a brief review of the study assumptions be made annually and an update of the model and background data be accomplished about every 2 years. The more pro -active the PMT can become, the more likely the upgrading of the major roadway facilities can occur in a timely manner. Actions could be taken to: The PMT could also continue the investigation of funding alternatives and assist in supporting improvement efforts within the corridor. Opportunities such as railroad abandonment would also be continually monitored by the committee. Project schedules could actually be accelerated through local PMT initiatives by performing many of the initial environmental evaluations and. preliminary design studies needed by the MnJDOT and Ramsey County. As other corridor task forces have done, the PMT could identify areas needed for future rights -of -way many years in advance of a project, and then these areas could be protected by official mapping actions and possibly acquisition through the Metropolitan Council's Right of Way Acquisition Loan Fund (RALF). This type-ofprOiactive:assistance;:an i cv ripareher s ve plaiinirig epnsistent with -the guidelines of ISTEA ;and Swith=the policies,o .:Mn/DOfT ;and. MetrD oL taxi gauncil ,:'TheRe . Ion0rats ``artatfo1m ravem04:-Pry ram T17 "should. reco nize.tliat- r: ` t es s :come` *—i coordi fated- alanced study rather°thaaa single -source requestwhichisImportantAin establishing priorities foir*limited"funding Other Changes Throughout the report, the word "roderate land use" will be changed to "probable land use" and the definitions added as needed. Specific suggestions from MnJDOT will also be made and includes some of the following: On table 1, the Trunk Highway 96 upgrading will be changed from "programmed" to "proposed" for 1994 95. A note will be added to the Trunk Highway 96 bridge widening to indicate that the responsible agency.will be "local initiative; MnJDOT and Met Council and review and approval agencies." A second note will be added to Table 2 indicating that "moderate growth is in addition to existing," and that "high growth is in addition to existing and moderate growth." A note will be added to Table 3 indicating that it is "based on probable growth scenario." There may also be additional opportunities to make reference to the parcel by parcel land use information which is available in. Appendix B, and to the desirability of comparing any development proposed in the communities to that assumed in the probable land use scenario and as shown in Appendix B. McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050.25rd Avenue:North, Piyrno.uth, Minnesota.55447 July 5, 1994 Mr. Frederic C. Magnuson, Clerk City of Gem Lake 1369 East. County Rd E East. Gem Lake, MN 55110-5231 Telephone Engineers 612/476-6010 Planners 612/476-8532 FAX Surveyors SUBJECT: City of Vadnais Heights, Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment Bikeway/Trails Plan MFRA #10750 Dear Mr. Magnuson: The attached Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment has been prepared and adopted by the City of Vadnais Heights. Consistent with "Metropolitan Council's Guideline for Reviewing Local Comprehensive Plan Amendments" (January 1994) a copy has been 'forwarded toall adjacent governmental units for review and. comment. If youwish to comment on the proposed amendment, please submit your comments to the City of. Vadnais Heights and the Metropolitan Council within 45 days of receiving the proposed amendment. Pleaseaddress comments to:. TAG : pry Enclosure Mr. Gerry Urban, City Administrator City of Vadnais Heights 687 East County Road F Vadnais Heights, Minnesota 55127-7099 and Ms. Lynda Voge, Referrals Coordinator Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street. St, Paul, Minnesota 55107 Kindest regards, McC. S FRANK RO9' ASSOCIATEy INC. Theresa A. Greenfield; Planner An: Equal Opportunity Employer INFORMATION SUBMISSION FOR MAJOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS This summary worksheet must be filled out and submitted to the Metropolitan Council with a copy of each proposed major comprehensive plan amendment. A major comprehensive plan amendment is defined as: 1. A complete revision, update or rewrite of an existing comprehensive plan, in its entirety. 2. A major plan revision, update, rewrite or addition to a chapter or element of an existing comprehensive plan. 3. An amendment triggered by a proposed development that requires an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as defined in Minnesota Rules 1989, Parts 4410.4300-.4400, and is inconsistent with the existing comprehensive plan; or 4. A change (land trade or addition) in the urban service area involving 40 acres or more. Please be as specific as possible; attach additional explanatory materials if necessary. If a staff report was prepared for the Planning Commission or City Council,please attach it as well. Send plan amendments to: Lynda Voge, Referrals Coordinator, Metropolitan Council, Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1634. I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Sponsoring Governmental Unit Vadnais Heights Name of Local Contact Person Marty Walsh Address 687 E. County Road F, Vadnais Heights, Minnesota 55127 Telephone 429-5343 Name of Preparer (if different from contact person) Theresa Greenfield, MFRA, 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth,. Minnesota 55447 Date of Preparation July 1994 B. Name of Amendment Bikeways/Trails Plan Description/Summary The Bikeways/Trails Plan is a comprehensive plan containing policies, plans and guidelines for trails C. D. Vadnais Heights. Please attach the following: 1. Five copies of the proposed amendment 2. A city-wide map, showing the location of See trail plan maps 1, 2 and 3. 3. The current plan map(s), indicating amendment. N/A. 4. The proposed plan map(s), indicating amendment. N/A. What is the official local status of the (Check one or more as appropriate). X Acted upon by Planning November 23, 1993 the proposed change. area(s) affected by area(s) affected by proposed amendment? Commission (if applicable) on X Approved by governing body, contingent upon Metropolitan Council_ review, on June 7, 1994 Considered, but not approved by governing body, on Other E. Indicate what adjacent local governmental units affected by th. change have been sent copies ❑f the plan amendment and the date(s) copies were sent to them. Notification of affected adjacent governmental units is required for major plan amendments. The following adjacent local govermental units have been forwarded copies of this plan: Shoreview, North ❑aks, White Bear Township, City of White Bear Lake, Gem Lake, Maplewood, and Little Cananda. Because ❑f the comprehensive nature ❑f most major plan amendments, a summary checklist is attached, to help ensure that the amendment is complete for Council review and to determine whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the metropolitan systems plan or other chapters of the Metropolitan ]Development Guide. Please indicate whether the amendment affects the following factors. Where it does, the materials submitted must fully address the issue(s). II. IMPACT ON REGIONAL SYSTEMS A. Wastewater Treatment. Change in City's Year 2000/2010 flow projections. X No/Not Applicable Yes. What will be the net change? How were these calculated? 2. Community discharges interceptor.. X No/Not Applicable more than one metropolitan. Yes. Indicate which interceptor will be affected by the amendment and what will be the net changes in. flows? B. Transportation 1. Relationship to Council policies regarding metropolitan. highways. X No/Not Applicable Yes 2. Change in typeand intensity of land uses at interchanges and other locations within a quarter -mile of the metropolitan highway system? X No/Not Applicable. Yes 3. Impact on existing trip generation. X No/Not. Applicable Yes 4. Capacity of road network to accommodate planned land use(s), including metropolitan interchanges. X No/Not Applicable Yes 5. Impact on transit and parking strategies. X No/Not Applicable Yes'. 6. Does the proposed amendment contain any changes to the functional classification of roadways? These changes require. Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) review. X No Yes. Describe which roadways C. Aviation 1. Impact on regional airspace. X No/Not Applicable. Yes 2. Impact on airport search area. X. No/Not Applicable Yes 3. Consistency with guidelines for land use compatibility with aircraft noise. X No/Not Applicable Yes 4. Consistency with the long-term comprehensive plan for an airport in the vicinity of the community or proposed development. X No/Not Applicable Yes D. Recreation ❑pen Space 1. Impact on existing or future federal,state or regional. recreational facilities. X. No/Not Applicable Yes III.. IMPACT ON METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK A. Land Use 1. Describe the following, as appropriate: a. b. c. d. e. f. Size of affected area in acres City-wide Existing land use(s) Proposed land use(s) Number of residential dwelling units and types involved Proposed density Proposed square footage of commercial, industrial or public buildings Change in the City's population, household or employment forecats for the Year 2000, or any additional local staging contained in the original plan. X No/Not Applicable Yes C. Change in urban service area boundary ❑f the community. X. No/Not Applicable Yes D. Change in the timing and staging of development within the urban service area. X No/Not. Applicable Yes IV. IMPACT ON HOUSING A. Impact on the supply and affordability of housing types necessary to serve persons at different stages in the life cycle. X No/Not Applicable Yes S. Impact on the supply and affordability of housing types necessary to serve persons at varying income levels. X No/Not Applicable Yes C. Impact on the community's numerical. objectives for low an moderate -income, •modest -cost market rate, and middel and upper -- income housing units. X No/Not Applicable Yes V. WATER RESOURCES A. Does the plan. amendment affect a Minnesota. Department of Natural Resouces or U.S. Army. Corps of Engineers protected wetland? If yes, describe type of wetland affected and .show location on a mpa.. X. No. Yes. B. Will thewetland be protected? N/A No. Explain why not. Yes. Describe how. C. Will the plan amendment result in runoff which affects the quality of any surface water body? If yes, identify which ones.. N/A Into. Yes. D. Will the water body be protected? N/A No. Explain why not. Yes. Describe how. VI. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM A. Change in zoning, subdivision, on -site ordinances or other official controls. X No/Not Applicable, Yes. Bikeways/ Trails Plan for May 5, 1994 Vadnais Heights Trails Commission. VADNAIS HEIGHTS BIKEWAY/TRAILS PLAN Wray 5, 199 Table of Contents Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 II. TRAIL TYPES/OBJECTIVES 3 YTl. STANDARDS 4 IV. PRIORITY SYSTEM 5 V. PRIORITY SYSTEM - TRAIL DESCRIPTION VI. IMPLEMENTATION 8 VII. BIKEWAY/TRAIL SYSTEM 9 VIII. TRAILS AND PATHWAYS MAINTENANCE 9 IX. SUMMARY 10 APPENDICES Appendix A - Off -Road Bituminous Trail 11 Appendix B - .Off -Road Concrete Trail 12 Appendix C - On -Roadway Trail 13 Appendix D - Off -Road Estimated Trail Cost 14 Appendix E - Trail Impact Study Results 17 MAPS Map 1- Existing Trails 18 Map 2 - Proposed Trails. 19 Map 3 - Comprehensive Trail System 20 May 5, 1994 ACKNOWLEDGE3NEN'r$ Trail Commission Members: Tony Poeschel, Chairperson (1991-1993) Greg Brandt Thomas. Becknell Bob Hellen (Chairperson) Anna Newton Richard Ducharme Ron Zimmerman Mike Taugner Park and Recreation Commission Liaisons:. Tom Cheesebrow Jim Moore Mark Ahlstrom Marty Walsh Planning Commission. Liaisons: Ed Haddon Connie Sagstetter Public Works Liaison: Joe Momsen City Council Liaisons: Sue Banovetz Sherry Broecker Special thanks to the above for their contributions to this report. Report preparation by Bob Hellen and Tony Poeschel. 2 May 5; 1994 VADNAIS HEIGHTS BIKEWAY/TRAILS PLAN May 5. 1994 Table_of Contents Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 II. TRAIL TYPES/OBJECTIVES 3 III. STANDARDS 4 IV. PRIORITY SYSTEM 5 V. PRIORITY SYSTEM - TRAIL DESCRIPTION 6 VI. IMPLEMENTATION 8 VII. BIKEWAY/TRAIL SYSTEM 9 VIM TRAILS AND PATHWAYS MAINTENANCE 9 IX. SUMMARY 10 APPENDICES Appendix A - Off -Road Bituminous Trail 11 Appendix B - Off -Road Concrete Trail 12 Appendix C - On -Roadway Trail 13 Appendix D - Off Road Estimated Trail Cost 14 Appendix E - Trail Impact Study Results 17 MAPS Map 1. - Existing Trails 18 Map 2.-Proposed Trails 19 Map 3.- Comprehensive Trail System 20 1 May 5, 1994 VADNAIS HEIGHTS BIKEWAY/TRAILS PLAN May. 5. 1994 L INTRODUCTION The Vadnais Heights. City Council, at its June 4, 1991 meeting created an. Ad -Hoc Committee to evaluate existing trails and to recommend a comprehensive.. bikeway/trail system. As part of this process the. following was taken into consideration: a. existing city bikeway/trails plan and existingtrail/pathways/sidewalks in the City; b. Ramsey County's plans; c. MNIfOT's long range plans in area; d. connection with adjacent communities trails and plans;. e. potential opportunities.with. St. Paul Water Utility or other public land in Vadnais Heights; f. potential connection of destination points, public parks and open spaces; g. the preservation of natural habitat, publicparks, open spaces, .etc.;. h. public safety. The primary purpose of the Bikeway/Trails Plan contained herein is to provide a comprehensive and consolidated document regarding policiesand plans for trails in the City:. of Vadnais Heights. This Bikewayfrrails Plan will provide City Council, commissions, staff and developers with guidelines for achieving a trails system which will serve both destination and leisure oriented users. TRAIL TYPES/OBJECTIVES All of the trails identified herein are for walking and jogging. Most of the trails are also for non -motorized biking and skating. Through a deliberate planning/mapping procedure, thecity of Vadnais Heights will be. able to provide a comprehensive trail system for both destination and leisure purposes. The intent is to provide a system of interconnecting trails that will allow both the recreational user and bicycle commuter to be able to travel throughout the city. The system will also provide access to trail systems in the surrounding communities. 3 May 5, 3.994 For purposes of the Trails Plan contained here in, the various kinds of trails are classified as. Regional Trails, Community Trails and Neighborhood Trails: A. Regional Trails Regional Trails are those identified and managed by pubiic agencies such as. County Highway and County Parks Departments. These trails serve to interconnect communities and provide access to regional destination points (i.e. regional parks, open spaces, community centers, schools, etc.) Regional trails act as collectors from community trails and provide safe linkageto state trails. Possible examples in our city would be the Highway 96 corridor, Centerville Road, and development of the railroad on the eastern edge of the city. B. Community Trails These, are trails identified and managed by local government agencies. Community Trails connect business areas, residential developments, and parks. Community trails provide safe destination oriented travel. Examplesin our city are Koehler Road, McMenemy Street and County Road F. C. Neighborhood Trails These are trails identified and managed by local government agencies or area residents. Neighborhood trails are locatedwithin the confines of a specific development area or park area. They provide a safe Inkage to community trails. Examples in our city are Lily Pond Trail and Thornhill Lane. IIL STANDARDS This Commission developed standards for on -road and off -road bikeway/trails for consistency, safety and ease of maintenance (snow removal). Proposed off -road width of 8 feet wide and on -road width of 6 feet meet these concerns. See Appendices A, B and C for trail specifications. 4 May 5, 1994 IY, PRIORITY SYSTEM In order th prioritize the proposed trails objectively, a rating: system was devised. Thisapproach focuses on providing safe access to the Vadnais Heights EIementary School, other destination points and park facilities.. Each trailwas assigned points according to the following categories: Coda Descrjvtion Points ?pinta. M Major Trail Artery m Minor Trail Artery C City Center R Recreational T Trail. Connection P Park Connection S Traffic Safety D Destination Trail E School Destination H Housing density Unimproved County Categories Road Shoulder Trail # (2 points) (1 point) (1 point) (1 point) (1 point) (1. point) (1 point) (1 point) (1 point) (1 point) (1 point) Trail Area 8 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 .3 3 M M M M M M M M M M M C C T T T P P S S S S I] E D D E H Al B2 B3 County Road E Arcade Street Selland Avenue/Edgerton Street Centerville Road B4 CountyRoad D T S D E U B5 Koehler Road T T P S S D C6. C7 Clover Ave)Stockdale Road/Edgerton Street County Road FfRice Street C T T T P S D C8. Greenhaven Drive F S S D D C9 C10 m m m m R T T T T T T P P P P S S S S S. S D D E D D U .C11 C12 D13 D14 E15 E1S Highway 96 - South Side - WBL Shoreview Labore Road (North & South Section). McMenemy Street Stockdale Right of Way to Centerville Rd Edgerton Right of Way - Stockdale to Cty Rd F North Oak Drive/CIover Avenue Meadawood Lane/Commerce Court Thornhill Lane T P S D E17 Vadnais Boulevard .R m T T P P S S S D EIS - F19 F20 F21 Wolters Boulevard Community Park Boardwalk/Trail Labore Rd Extension to White Bear Parkway Lake Vadnais - West R T P F22. Marigold Trail 5 May 5, 1994 Yz PRIORITY,LYRTFAM - TRAIL DESCRIPTION Al County Road E: Off -road trail from Centerville Road to Labore Road along north and south side. New bridge over 35E will have a pedestrian access on the south side only. Off road along south side only from Labore Road to Refitcity border.. On -road.. shoulders from Lahore Road. to East city border (need Gem Lake cooperation)..Destination points include Vadnais Heights Elementary School, fire station (civic area), City Center, many retail businesses, and other businesses. B2 Arcade. StreetlBelland AvenueiEdgerton. Street: Off -road on east/south side from County Rd E to Edgerton andeast side of Edgerton to County Road D. On -road shoulders from County Road E to Berwood Avenue. Berwood Park, fire station (civic area), City Center and retail businesses are destination points. B3 Centerville Road: Needs improved on -road shoulders from Goose Lake Roadarea to HWY. 96. This road will have increased traffic with retail businesses opening up. An off -road bituminous trail should be developed on west side from Edgerton to HWY. 96. This will connect with the existing pathway on the west side of Centerville Road at HWY 96. Destination paints along this trail include, retail businesses on the north and south ends, Bridgewood Park, Vadnais Heights Elementary School, and Christ the Servant Lutheran Church. B4 County Road D: Needs on -road shoulders from Edgerton to Lahore Road. With high density of residents in the area, an off - road trail from Edgerton to Labore Road is necessary. Destination point includes a retail area. B5 Koehler Road:. Off -road from Mc- -enemy Street to Edgerton Street on south side only and from Edgerton Street to Centerville Rr d on the north side only. On -road shoulders from McMenemy Street to CenterviIIe Road. Vadnais Heights Elementary School destination point. MTC Bus route. C6 Clover Ave/Stockdale Road/Edgerton Street: Off road on east side from County Rd F to Koehler Road. On -road shoulders from County Rd. F to Koehler Road. Destinationpoints includefire station, city hall, and Community Park. C7 County Road FfRice.Street: On -road widening of shoulders on County Rd F from Rice Street to McMenemy to match those east of McMenemy Street. Off -road trail on the north side. of County Road F from Rice Street to Centerville Road and east side of Rice Street from. County Rd F to. Gramsie Road. Wetlands area needs special handling. Destination points include businesses, future extension of Community Park, Shoreview trail system, Lake Vadnais and Sucker Lake areas. C8 Greenhaven Drive: Off -road on east/north side. from HWY. 96 to Centerville Road. This road was off -set for development of a sidewalk. This road is heavily utilized due to the .many homes in the area. It provides a safe route to Morningside, Westfield, Bridgewood and Heritage Parks. C9 Highway 96: Off -road south side of Highway 96 along north city border. (Possible state trail) 6 May 5, 1994 C10 Labore Road (North and South section): (N)On-read shoulders from Goose Lake Road to County Rd E (need Gem Lake cooperation). Destination points include area businesses and access to City Center area. (S)On-road: shoulders from HWY. 694 bridge to County Rd D. Off -road between. bridge decks on west side. Connects past Lahore project to future paved shoulders m Little Canada. C11 McMeneiy Street: Off -road on west side from Koehler Road to HWY. 96. On -road shoulders from Koehler Road to County Rd F. Destination pointsinclude business areas, Community Park and Lily Pond park. MTC bus route. C12 Stockdale Right of Way to Centerville Road:: Off road connectionon road easement running from Stockdale Road to Centerville Road to provide access to the Vadnais Heights Elementary School. D13 Edgerton .Right of Way: Off -road extension of Edgerton Street from intersection with Stockdale Road north along easement to County Road F. Alleviates some traffic on Clover. D14 North Oak Drive/Clover Avenue: Off -road from Thornhill Lane to North Oak Drive. On -road shoulders from east end of North Oak Drive then along Clover Avenue to County Rd F. Destination points include area businesses, city hall, and Community and Bridgewood. parks. E15 Meadowood Lane/Commerce Court: Stripe existing shoulders from McMenemy Street to White Oak Drive. Provide rail crossing to connect Commerce. Court with Westfield Lane. Provide rail crossing to connect Meadowood Lane to. Lily Pond Park trail, E16 Thornhill Lane: Off -road on west side from County Road F to Bridgewood Park Trail connection at. north end of the new Harstad development. Possible future expansion north of off -road trail to connect with Heritage Park. (Shown. as Thornhill on map.) Bridgewood Park trail connection. E17 Vadnais Boulevard: South side of Vadnais Boulevard from Centerville Road to Little Canada border. Destination pointsinclude future park and business area. EIS Wolters Boulevard: Off -road on north side from Labore Road to HWY. 61. On -road shoulders from Labore Road to .HWY. 61. Destination points include businesses and Wolters. park. F19. Community Park Boardwalk/Trail Off -road trails within park area. Connect. new Proposed parkon northeast quadrant of County Road F and McMenemy Street to existing Community Park. Utilize. Suter Land split. Connect with off road trail to Lily Pond Park along thenorth side of Lily Pond Lane. F20 Lahore Rd Extension to White Bear Parkway: Establish connecting link between Labore Road by Goose Lake Road to White Bear Parkway. F21 Lake Vadnais - West:. Discuss the possibility of converting the road between lakes into one-way vehicle traffic (Water Utility excluded) and the other lane for trail use. (subject to St Paul Board of Water Commissioners approval). 7 May 5, 1994 F22 Marigold Trail: Off -road trail from 'Caitlin Drive to end of Marigold Lane. Boardwalk is needed for portions of this trail. The above twenty two trails represent trails with greatest priority (Grouped by rank A.8 Points). Additional small trail connections andnew development opportunities have beendiscussed by the Trails Commission. These will be handled as the opportunity arises. Several potential trails involve private property. Discussions with the St. Paul Board of Water Commissioners and. H.E. Fuller will need to be. pursued before these areascan be utilized by the public. YL IMPLEJ17ENTATI9N:. The implementation of the Vadnais Heights Trail Plan is dependent on capital dollar allocations. These allocations will be coordinated with city, county and state road improvement projects that impact any identified trail areas. Some previous city projectshave been used to arrive at an estimate for what some of the off -road trail costs might be. These are referenced in Appendix D. In order to quslify for some of the funding sources that are available, this Trails Plan must first be incorporated into the City Comprehensive Plan. Thetime framefor development of these trails will be dictated by the funding timetable. Currently there area number of potential funding sources for trails. These include trail declication fees, community development grants (state and federal), Metropolitan Council, STP (Surface Transportation Program), ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act), Community block development (state), LCMR (Legislative Commission for Minnesota Resource), foundations, bond referendum, tax increment financing, budgeted county road shoulder improvements, utility tax, user fees or permits, charitable gambling, private donations, gas tax (state), safety improvements (MNDot), general taxes, and: assessments. Given that there are a number of projects within the city infrastructure that rely onthesame city funding sources, this commission will work with the various departments inthe city to solicit their input and to make them aware of the proposed trail plan. When possible, it is the intent of this commission to obtain funding from sources that, will not result in an additional burden to the taxpayer. The following is a breakdown of implementation strategies for the various trail types. A. Regional Trails In general, the city of Vadnais Heights is notresponsible for acquisition or development of these trails. This commission willwork with the various regionalagencies to keep them informed of our proposed trails plansand provide input where appropriate. 8. Community Trails The city of Vadnais Heights is responsible for acquisition and development of these trails. This commission will work with the city and their pavement management plan to insure designated trails are included in resurfacing projects. This is imperative when it is necessary to widen a shoulder to provide the required room for bicycle traffic. In some cases it may also make sense to try and coordinate off -road trail development with nearby road improvement activities to keep costs and disruptions to a minimum. 8 May 5, 1994 Where the conditions meet funding criteria and where the city is in agreement with the planned on -road trail, thetrail developmentwill be included as part of the road improvement activity. Off -road trails will involve more scrutiny due to the additional funding that might be required. Complete funding accountability will need to be reviewed and approved prior to any trail development: of this type. When roadway systems are designated on state or county right of way, City officials should make every effort to pursue cost -sharing options. C. Neighborhood Trails In new developments, the developer is responsible for acquisition and development of sidewalks and trails. This is best handled by incorporating any sidewalks and trails into the development plans prior to the start of construction. Incases where the trail will beputin after the initial constructionphase, the acquisition of the required land should be worked out with all appropriate parties who have property abutting the proposed: trail :site. 3ELL alliZWAYLLEAUt n T_EM Maps included in the Appendix show existing trails, proposed trails, and the comprehensive trail system. EXISTING TRAILS (Map 1): This map shows the on -road and off -road trails that exist as of the summer of 1993. Some trails may still be under construction. PROPOSED TRAILS (Map 2): This map shows the proposed trails as either on -road or off -road. Trail numbers are included to correspondwith the priority system trail descriptions. COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL SYSTEM (Map 3): This map is a combination of existing trails and proposed trails. City parks are marked with a P, destination points are marked with a D, City Center areas are marked with a C, and connection points to other communities are shown asextensions of the marked trails into the neighboring community atthe appropriate locations. Vill. TRAMS .A Fop PATHWAYS INAINTENAVCE A Trail maintenance program may include the following maintenance operations: repairs to trail surface, sweeping, snow removal, sod repair, seal coating, mowing, striping and signage. The level of maintenance service is determined by local officials representing their community. Subsequently, each municipality will have varying .levels of trail and- pathway maintenance. Standard trail widths will help to reduce the number and the types of vehicles required to maintain trails. Vadnais. Heights currently has several pick-ups with 8' plows, a 5' sweeper, and 6' and 4' snow blowers. Cities with several miles of trails and walkways have specialized pieces of equipment which are primarily used for snow removal from trails and pathways. These vehicles are narrow four-wheel drive units that can 9 May 5, 1994 easily maneuver on walkways atefficient speeds. Equipped with either a "V" plow or snow blower, a specialized maintenance unit such as a "Bombardier" has good winter maintenance capabilities. TL SUMMARY The. City has an active Trails/Pathways commission. The City Councii's decision to create thiscommission is recognitionof the citizen's demand for trails. Trailways should be considered an integral component to the City's comprehensive plan. The development of the bike/trail system will provide a safe.. and pleasant alternative transportation mode toparks, employment centers, neighborhoods and other points of destination throughout the city. Also as the 1989 Decision Resource Ltd. survey has shown walking, running, biking and skating are considered important leisure time pursuits. In addition, trailways should be considered as a transportation system allowing accessibility, convenience and safety for motorists, walkers and bikers. 10 May 5,.1994 Appendix A CURB LINE 2" - 2341 BITUMINOUS SURFACE 5" CL 5 AGGREGATE BASE COMPACTED SUBGRADE OFF -ROAD BITUMINOUS TRAIL 11 May 5, 1994 Appendix C VARIABLE 12' LANE PAINT STRIPE 8' PREFERRED NW- 6' MINIMUM • x------; �.U\5.\���rl\t\\lam\t�t1ti AecIARAtile6e,O " Orb i Ltd - S 99439" i7r:9 _ea CONCRETE CURB BITUMINOUS SURFACE GRAVEL BASE ON -ROADWAY TRAIL -4111— SLOPE 13 May 5,1994 Appendix D OFF -ROAD ESTIMATED TRAIL COST Most off -road trails will be a bituminous surface. Bituminous construction cost for an 8 foot trail is $.70 per sq. foot = $5.60per lineal foot. This includes 6 inch gravel base and a 2 inch thickbituminous overlay. For ,concrete off -road trailsthe recent Lahore Road construction serves as an example. Construction cost of this. 8 foot wide sidewalk was $1.50 per sq. foot = $12 per lineal foot. This includes 4 inch gravel base and 4 inch thick concrete. This doesnot include grading, .excavation, turf establishment, easements, hydrant adjustment, thickened concrete through driveways, and curb ramps. Engineeringcosts for sidewalks generally run high because of the need to fit into adjacent properties and roadways. It can be seen that the easiestand least expensive trailway to construct is black topping the existing shoulder along theprimary streets. The next expensive is gravel trails followed by off -road bituminous trails and the most expensive is off road concrete trails. BITUMINOUS ,STREET FOOTAGE DOLLARS Al County Road E: Centerville Road to Tracks 620 3,472 Tracks to Lahore. Road 4,028 22,557. Labore Road to Hwy. 61 3,908 21,885 B2 Arcade Street: County Road E to Berwood Ave 3,000 16,800 Berwood Ave to Belland. Ave 1,095 6,132 Belland Ave: Arcade to Edgerton 2,677 14,991 Edgerton Street: Belland to County. Rd.D 1,058 5,925 B3 Centerville Road: Edgerton to PDQ South entrance B4 County Road D: Edgerton to Labore Road B5 Koehler Road: McMenemy to Centerville Road 14,443 80,881 4,544 25,446 4,705 26;348 C6 Clover/Stockdale: County Road F 3,372 18,832 to Edgerton Edgerton: Stockdale to Koehler Rd 1,258 7,045 C7 County Road F: McMenemy to 4,028 22,557 Bridgewater C8 Greenhaven Drive: Hwy. 96 to 7,455 41,748 Centerville 14. May 5, .1994 OFF -ROAD ESTIMATED TRAIL COST (Continued) BITUMINOUS STREET FOOTAGE DOLLARS* C9 Highway 96 South Side: White Bear to Shoreview 13,200 73,920 C10 Labore Road: Between West Bridge 217 684 Decks (4.5 feet wide) C 11 McMenemy Street: Hwy. 96 to County Road F 5,187 29,047 County Road F to Koehler Road 3,918 21,941 C12 Stockdale Right of Way to Centerville Rd: 1,139 6,378 D13 Edgerton Right of Way: Stockdale to County Road F D14 North Oak Drive/Clover Ave: North Oak Drive to Thornhill Lane 2,447 13,703 488 2,733 E15 Meadowood Lane: Cul de sac to Lily Pond Trail 467 Commerce Court: Commerce Court to Westfield Lane 245 2,615 1,372 E16 Thornhill Lane: Greenhaven to Heritage 1,244 6,966 Heritage to County Road: F 1,630 9,128 E17 Vadnais Boulevard: Edgerton Street to Little Canada. Line 2,95916,570 E18 Wolters. Boulevard: Lahore Road to Highway 61 4,207 23,559 F19 Community Park Trail: 3200 17,920 Boardwalk section 950 unknown F20 Labore Rd Extension to White Bear Parkway: 2,984 16,710 15 May.5, 1994 Appendix E TRAIL IMPACT STUDY RESULTS The Trail Commission is aware of concerns Vadnais Heights residents may have about trails in their community. A survey of 101 midwest community Park and Recreation Departments found "that trails within a .community have a far stronger positive impact than negative. Good design, signage and enforcement of animal control regulations from the start will keep the trails from being misused?'" Specifically this survey found: 1). There was NOT a significant increase in problems when trail systems INTERCONNECT. 2) Half of the respondents mentioned PET PROBLEMS as increasing in trail areas (presumably dog droppings). 3) LITTER wasthe second biggest problem yet only 13% reported an increase in litter. 4) Incidents of VANDALISM, THEFT, TRESPASSING and ACCIDENTS actually decreased once trails were in place. 5) PROPERTY VALUES. have typically increased, particularly within a block or two of the trail. * A Survey on the Impact of Community Trail Systems, March 28, 1992; Prior Lake Minnesota 17 May 5, 1994 on, or NW!! OAKS. SOONER LANE RF:V15E11 MAY 1994[ 11 arr fX LIMO cANAOA .irr1 eru an' O *for MAN fAA'j c1a: City of Vidn Mhalecotal RR- BEAR f[7NNPP IM!!Bw LAKE arr M'GEI LANE r dry cr wAeuraGp AIKEWAYSITRAILS PLAN MAP 2 RROPOSED 9IKEWAYSfRAILS 1=liwmn ON STREET OFF STREET ra • a1140 xa CITY OF GEM LAKE RESOLUTION NO 94 09 WHEREAS , the. City of Gem Lake contracts with the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department for Law Enforcement Services in the City; and WHEREAS, Ramsey County has requested an amendment to said contract allowing the purchase of alternative insurance for the contract cities through the Minnesota County Insurance Trust via a Joint Powers Agreement with a term of three (3) years; and WHEREAS, said amendment will significantly .insurance costs for law enforcement provided to the contract cities; and WHEREAS, said reduction in costs is consistent with the City of Gem Lake guidelines for providing all government services to the community .a t the lowest possible cost and, therefore, is in the best interest of the business and residential citizens of Gem Lake. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Gem Lake does hereby empower the Mayor and City Clerk to. execute the aforementioned Amendment To Contract on behalf of the citizens of the City of Gem Lake allowing Ramsey County, on the City's behalf, to enter into a Joint. Powers. Agreement with the Minnesota County Insurance Trust for the purpose of purchasing insurance for the Contract Cities. Resolution No. 9409 is ❑ffered by Councilmember McPhillips and supported by Councilmember Igo was unanimously adopted by the following vote: Page z of 2 CITY OF GEM LAKE RESOLUTION NO. 94-09 AYES Roland Birkebak City Councilmember Clare Nielsen City Councilmember John McPhillips City Councilmember Patrick Igo City Councilmember NAYS ABSTENTIONS. Roland Birkebak Roland Birkebak City Councilmember City Councilmember Clare Nielsen Clare Nielsen City Councilmember City Councilmember John McPhillips John McPhillips City Councilmember City Councilmember Patrick Igo Patrick Igo City Councilmember City Councilmember Paul Emeott Paul Emeott Paul Emeo.tt Mayor Mayor Mayor ATTEST: Frederic C. Magnuson, City Clerk Date Page 2 ❑f 2 J: %6g. Q4 Z 6124266444 FRIT: I1p5H_SOi Commissioners, has caused this Amendment to be signed by the Chair and Chief Clerk of said Board on the day of 19 By: COUNTY OF RAMSEY Hal Norgard, Chair Board of County Commissioners By: Bonnie jackelen, Chief Clerk Board of County Commissioners APPROVAL RECOMMENDED: Patricia M. Moen Sheriff of Ramsey County APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant Ramsey County Attorney INSURANCE APPROVED: Risk Manager Revenue Estimated $ Account No. e° 8. 44 et;_ : a E 1 24 ,t -44 FRIT Np•3iwv5414 FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES WHEREAS, the parties entered into an agreement for the provision of law enforcement services by COUNTY for MUNICIPALITY commencing January 1, 1993; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the agreement as follows; 1. Paragraph II. 5. is amended to read as follows: 5. The COUNTY agrees to maintain, during the term of this Agreement, automobile, general liability, workers' compensation, and professional liability insurance in amounts deemed appropriate by the COUNTY through its Risk Manager. The COUNTY shall name the MUNICIPALITY as an additional insured on these policies except for the workers' compensation policy. The MUNICIPALITY agrees to pay, as a part of the actual cost as provided in Section IV. below, a pro rata share of insurance costs. These costs shall include the costs for any assessments and credits for any dividends by participating in any insurance pools or trusts. By electing to participate in a pool or trust, the MUNICIPALITY agrees to remain in the pool or trust as required by pool or trust bylaws and/or agreements. The COUNTY may elect to self -insure all of any portion of these risks. If the COUNTY cannot obtain insurance and/or elects to self -insure, the MUNICIPALITY shall pay a pro rata share of the costs of self-insurance. insurance costs as they relate to insurance coverage shall include premiums and deductibles. Costs of self-insurance shall include reserves, claims and damage payments, and administrative costs required to maintain self-insurance. 2. Except as modified herein, all other provisions of the agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, duly adopted by its (1'Iy 4,'(c flri dt , by resolution C i'Se (Qune.,' ( has caused this Amendment to be signed by its �%rr - r and , 7�, c'Irr� and the seal of the MUNICIPALITY to be affixed hereto on the ,'t day of kin 19_ err and the County of Ramsey, by resolution of its Board of County CITY OF GEM LAKE 'i'REASUEhE_k' S REPORT ..tEPUR'l' FOR THE PERIQD. EiEU1FthING r 9VTHRuUGH 7Ia! 95 ACCUUNT NAME: General Fund Checking #2t39-:280b 11 Balance From Total Receipte Payments Interest /a. �x1 $ 6SG. ec Total Disbursements Payment ($ Sank Charges Halarice As Of C1 ss` /. 7/ ) 71 / f Checks ClU standing 4f ACCOUNT HAME : Sewer Fund Balance From Total Receipts Payments Interest Total Disbursements Payments Bank Charges (. $ $ ‘c3) a, 5 k c5/m'•.:. 66; 797. 26 Checking #289-23.55811 Balance As Of 7,42195 Checks Outstanding CITES: is :ar-d .Nor rom, City. Treasurer CITY OF GEM LAKE CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT :CLAIMS: APPROVED:BYSIGNATURES DATE OF: APPROVAL;,;.. Patrick ]go Roland Birkebak Clare Nielsen John McPhillips Paul Emeott Frederic Magnuson. )),/)(2__ DATE 1 / ! DATE DATE 1 .1 DATE 7 1 9 DATE 7 / Fy DATE -7I jl ,CL;4iM#:..:::O:.ATE:::.::: [::,:'.:.::::.:.:.:.::.i: :RAID TO :;::;::.'.r::..:: :.DESCRIPTION :OF::. CLAIM .:.;.:.:::,::::AMOUNT , ..::. ;::FUND:' : ::.,'FUND.:: S 1102 18-Jul-94 Metropolitan Waste Control AUG94 Sewer Service Charges 509,00 509,00 G 4041 18-Jul-94 City Of: White Bear Lake JUL94: Fire & Paramedic 640.50 640.50 G 4042 18-Jul-94 Ramsey County JUL94: Law Enforcement 3,676,00 3,676.00 G 4043 18-Jul-94 Northern States Power JUN94: Street Lighting 59.18 59.18 G 4044 18-Jul-94 Wynne's Rubbish & Recycling JUN94: Recycling Collection 160,00 160.00 G 4045 18-Jul-94 ONeill,Burke,O'Neill at al. JUN94: Tousley Water.Jolnt Powers 120.25 120.25 G 4046 18-Jul-94 FREDERIC C. MAGNUSON TOTAL FOR JUNE, 1994 206.45 G 4046 18-Jul-94 Frederic C. Magnuson JUL94: Telephone. Service + Fax Line 42.93 G 4046 IS-Jul-94 Frederic C. Magnuson JUN94: Long Distance Telephone 8.50 G 4046 18-Jul-94 Frederic C. Magnuson JUN94: Council Copies 34.81 G: 4046 18-Jul-94 Frederic C. Magnuson JUN94: Planning Commission Copies 28.00 G 4046 18 Jul-94 Frederic C. Laser Printer Cartridge 63.13 G 4046 18-Jul-94 Frederic C. Magnuson JUN94: 52.miles @.$0.29 15:OS G 4046 IS-Jul-94 Frederic C. Magnuson 2 Council Minute Books 14.00 G 4047 18-Jul-94 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 2nd QTFl94 SocSec&M'carelMcaid 361.50 G 4047 18-Jul-94 Internal Revenue. Service. Employee Paid Soc Sec 146.49 G 4047 18-Jul-94 Internal Revenue Service City Paid Soc Sec 146.49 G 4047 18-Jul-94 Internal Revenue Service Employee Paid M'carelM'caid 34.26 G 4047 18-Jul-94 Internal Revenue Service City Paid M'care/M'caid 34.26 G 4048 IS-Jul--94 Internal Revenue Service Accounting Adjustment 16.00 16,00 ALL IS-Jul-94 JULY 1994.SUMMARY TOTAL. FOR JULY, 1994 $5,748.88 $5,239.88:. $509.00 8.33% Of Budget. Monthly % Annual Budget 4.64% 4.88% 3.09% ALL 18-Jul-94 YEAR-TO-DATE 1994 SUMMARY TOTAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 1994 $42;493.36 $38,192.36 $4,301.00 58.33% Of Year Completed % Annual Budget 34.30% 35.55% 26.15% ALL 18-Jul-94 VERSUS ANNUAL BUDGET Annual Budget.$Under/($Over) $29,769,39 $24,474.56 $5,294,83 58.33% Of Year Completed Annual Budget %Under/ -%Over 24.03% 22-78% 32.19% DTE: Revised 25 July 1994 To ADD #G 4048 To. IRS & Correct Total CITY OF GEM LAKE CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT 18-Jul--94 Patrick Igo Roland Birkebak Clare Nielsen John McPhillips Paul Emeott Frederic Magnuson CLAIMS APPROVED BY SIGNATURES��� DATE OF APPROVAL 7- - ���� DATE 1 ! ticsL CV 211)2 DATE 7 / 1 C ! DATE ! I a DATE 7 1 /K,9 r _-dgid DATE 7 I1II fit DATE I 1 CLAIM# DATE PAID TO DESCRIPTION OF CLAIM $ AMOUNT GENERAL FUND SEWER FUND S 1102 18-Jul-94 Metropolitan Waste Control AUG94 Sewer Service Charges 509.00 509.00 G 4041 18-Jul-94 City Of White Bear Lake JUL94: Fire & Paramedic 640.50 640.50 G 4042 18-Jul-94 Ramsey County JUL94: Law Enforcement 3,676.00 3,676.00 G 4043 18-Jul-94 Northern States Power JUN94: Street Lighting 59.18 59.18 G 4044 18-Jul-94 Wynne's Rubbish & Recycling JUN94: Recycling Collection 160.00 160.00 G 4045 18-Jul-94 ONeill,Burke,O'Neill at al JUN94: Tousley Water Joint Powers 120.25 120.25 G 4046 18-Jul-94 FREDERIC C. MAGNUSON TOTAL FOR JUNE, 1994 192.45 G 4046 18-Jul-94 Frederic C. Magnuson JUL94: Telephone Service + Fax Line 42.93 G 4046 18-Jul-94 Frederic C. Magnuson JUN94: Long Distance Telephone 8.50 G 4046 18-Jul-94 Frederic C. Magnuson JUN94: Council Copies 34.81 G 4046 18-Jul-94 Frederic C. Magnuson JUN94: Planning Commission Copies 28.00 G 4046 18-Jul-94 Frederic C. Magnuson Laser Printer Cartridge 63.13 G 4046 18-Jul-94 Frederic C. Magnuson JUN94: 52 miles @ $0.29 15.08 G 4046 18-Jul-94 Frederic C. Magnuson 2 Council Minute Books 14.00 G 4047 18-Jul-94 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 2nd QTR94 SocSec & M'care/Mcaid 361.50 G 4047 18-Jul-94 Internal Revenue Service Employee Paid Soc Sec 146.49 G 4047 18-Jul-94 Internal Revenue Service City Paid Soc Sec 146.49 G 4047 18-Jul-94 Internal Revenue Service Employee Paid M'care/M'caid 34.26 G 4047 18-Jul-94 Internal Revenue Service City Paid M'care&M'caid 34.26 ALL 18-Jul-94 JULY 1994 SUMMARY TOTAL FOR JULY, 1994 $5,718.88 $5,223.88 $509.00 8.33% Of Budget Monthly % Annual Budget 4.62% 4.86% 3.09% ALL 18-Jul--94 YEAR-TO-DATE 1994 SUMMARY TOTAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 1994 $42,463.36 $38,176.36 $4,301.00 58.33% Of Year Completed % Annual Budget 34.28% 35.54% 26.15% ALL 18-Jui-94 VERSUS ANNUAL BUDGET Annual Budget $Under/($Over) $29,799.39 $24,490,56 $5,294.83 58.33% Of Year Completed Annual Budget %Under/ -%Over 24.06% 22.80% 32.19% ffi F4,6 n r,v. 11-4 Metropolitan Council AA Adirocating regional.econarnic, societal and environmental issues and solutions June 31, 1994 Frederic C. Magnuson Clerk City Of Gem. Lake 1369 County Road E East Gem Lake, MN 55110 Dear Mr. Magnuson: The Metropolitan Council staff has prepared a preliminarypopulation and household estimate (April 1, 1993) for your community. Enclosed for your review is a 1993 worksheet which includes 1990 Census background. data. The estimates are used by the Council tomonitor population: and household change in the region. We striveto provide estimates That are accurate and that treat each municipality consistently. If you have questions about the estimates, please contact Kathy Johnson al 29.1.6332. If you prefer to submit written comments, please direct these to Ms. Johnson as well.. We would Iike in send. lhe estimates to the State Department. of Revenue by' mid -July for use.in-their local aids formulas..If you have questions about how local aids are. calculated, please address them to. Rich Gardner, Minnesota Department of Revenue, 296-3155. If possible, we'd like to finalize the numbers before submitting them. to the Department of Revenue. To.•do so, we need to hear from you by.July S; 1994: Thank you for your prompt alteration to this matter. S.ineerely, Dottie Rietow Chair DRIkj. Enclosure 31ea0s Pcrk.(Antrc. ..231l Fa33 Filth 31. t?T61, hlinnnsota 55103.1624 612 201,6359 Fax 291-6556 T151).291-6%4 4, Equal ppporrunaay.Employer .141 ETRO 'O.LITAN COUNCIL. PROVISIONAL POPULATION ESTIMATE AE'RIL I, 1993. 'City or Township: Gent I.aite 1993 Iiausiing Uni s Housing By•Type. 1990 Census Housing Units I993 Estimated Completed IIodsing Units 19.93 .Estimated Occupied Ilouseholtl5 • 51ng1e-Fani ily 140 145 .142: ivlultifattiily (incl: Townhouse) 3 2 2 Mobile Home 0 0 0 TOTAL A' 143 14'1 144 HOUSEHOLD ESTIMATE 1990.Census Households 1.40 /993 Household Estimate. 144 POPULATION. ESTIMATE 1990'Census Total Population 439 1990 Group Qtrarters.Populaiion rl 1.J90 Population. in Households 428 1993. Population Estimate 446 1993 •Group Quarters Population l 1 19.93 Population in Households 435 PERSONS PER (HOUSEHOLD 1990.Census Pcrsons.par Household . 3.06 1993 Persons per Household 3.02 All numbers 1 rums el -April 1 of•each year: ' This total.includes 1 twits.listcd in "other" housing in the 1990 Census data. Ihe Ccnsus.dclites these uiiits as Litnse not fittiral; the defined housing categories, suet[ as houscboals, railroari tars, campers and vans. 5ince no informttlioii un "other" units is..available between censuses; for purpnses:pf 1993 pepulation .snd household estimation, these units have • • ben allocated to the single. and multiple family categories. This was done Rased Art persons per "otter" hoitschoht.and the ratio of single -Family .to mta[tifnmily housing in.the jurisdiction: CITY OF GEM LAKE 1369 Comity Road "E Exist TELEPHONE: (612) 426 6443 Paul R. Emeott,..Mayor Frederic .Magnuson, City Clerk Gem Lake, MN 55110 523.1 FACSIMILE: (612) 426-6444 Richard Nordstrom, Treasurer Mr. Reggie Edwards RAMSEY COUNTY Office Of The County Manager 250 Court House 150 West Kellogg Boulevard Saint. Paid, MN 55102 RE: Strategic Planning Comments Dear Mr, Edwards, 29 June 1994. Regarding your fax transmission of 28 June 94 and notwithstanding the veryshorttirne:given to prepare a statement, please accept the following as wheal believe :to he.representative of the feelings of both the Gent Lake City Council and the: Gein Lake Planning Comrnission: As you have provided no time for development of this statement by the aforementioned :bodies, I have takenit upon inyself to prepare what I believe is pertinent. THOROUGHFARES. Presuming Ramsey County Roadway Turnhacks are completed as proposed, we ai-e concerned as follows, COUNTY "E"; Already heavilycongested, the proposedopening of Wal-Mart in Vadnais Heights: at 1 35E and County..E combined with a proposal tobuild a Target Store (opposed by Gem Lake by City Council Resolution) adjacent the Wal-Mart will increase daily trips to in excess of 45,000 cars. Vadnais Heights proposal to develop the southside of County E will enhance the problem: As a :dominantly residential cornrmtnity dedicated to the quality of residential life in our City, Gem Lake proposes County E from Highway 61 to Centerville Road become a .'parkway" rather thrift the "trunk highway" itappears to be' currently. We feel the addition of deeper setbacks, significant: landscaping requirements, bike and pedestrian pathways, . and a 35 MPH speed .limit would be appropriate to protect our residential environment, LaBORE ROAD: LaBore Road will also be adversely affected by Vadnais Heights aggressivedevelopment posture and siniilar 4-lane parkway action is requested here from County E to the northern city limits. GOOSE LAKE ROAD: Shnilarly affected by Vadnais Height's as well as- White Bear Township development. While we :realte this is an extension of County T; speeds along this road are .regularly exceeded by significant r ates:.The i oadway itself is inpoor condition and pedestrian/biketraffic is ohlinipresent. We oppose: any attempt to widen Goose Lake Road to 4 lanes, but do feel the additton:of a. pedestriarnlbike path would :be appropriateand certainly a reduction in speed. TRANSIT Gein Lake residents have elected to live in the area due to it's remote feeling. We don't believe transit issues affect the city at this time. 1 RAMSEY COUNTY Mr. Reggie Edwards 29 June 1994 SERVICE DELIVERY As the bulkof land to be developed within the City is large residential parcels, excluding the commercial area at Noffrnan Corners (County E & Highway 61) and since no major development is planned or being pursued, .we find no need for additional service delivery at this time LOCATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES With the exception of the significant number of overhead electric, telephone and cableutilities, we also find no probleminthis area. Placing overhead transmission: cables underground might be desirable in most areas to: pr-event storm interruption.. of services. Most of our cityemploys individual septic systems and has:. their own wells. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT With the exception of possible redevelopment of the Hoffman Corners business area in Gem Lake to upgrade businesses and facilities, we oppose any significant commercial development in the area as .we fed itwill adversely affect the quality residential environment we have developed, fought for over time.; and continue to nurture through thoughtful planning and restrictive actions. Residents of Gene Lake enjoy a quality of life and neighborhood that, f believe, needs tobe protected For f rrther comments, please contact Mr. Paul t2, Emeott /Mayor) 'or' Mr. David Gardner {Chairman, Gem Lake Planning Conwiission}. Regards; CITY OF GEM LAKE. Frederic C. Magnuson City Clerk cc: P. Enieou D. Gardner 2 RRMSEY. CTY MANAGER TEL Jun 28'94 14:40 N❑.009 pool INk RAMSEY COUNTY ❑fflce of the County Manager Terry Schutten, COtnty Manager 250 Court House t 6 crest Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, MN 65102 To: City Managers From: Reggie Edwards • Ramsey Couauty Manager's Office Re: Strategic Planning Process To1:612-266-8000 Fax: 612-206-80139 Dear City Manager. We will soon begin our endeavor to create a vision for the County's strategic plan. I will be focusing on the following arras within the county's strategic plan: thoroughfares. transit. service delivery (as it relates to development), location of public utilities. and economic development. In an effort to create some literature for review by all committee members prior to our first meeting there is a need for input from each of you cone erniag your city. I am asking you to provide me with one separate paragraph addressing e h of the five subjects/Issues previously stated. These paragraph combined should equate to no more than two typed pages, Please, limit all parsgrapbs to a maximum ofseveu sentences (rem rrnberwe are only familiars ping Individuals with what t2 happening within your city). This is a qui'-k turn around request so I will need you or delegate sortieone to fax to me your five paragraphs by Friday .7uly 1. You nauy fax me at (812i 266-S039. Thank you, for your attention and erpcdtency in this matter. If you have any questlpnM, you may contact me by phone at (6121 266.5024. Regal Is Role Edwards Ramsey County Manager's Office Miane )ta'h First Home Rule County pranW‘' vF kky:;NJ "AT..il.. !i.iri +r. r riir p.;c: h CITY OF GEM LAKE 1369 County Road WE East TELEPHONE: (612) 426-6443 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION Gem Lake, MN 55110-5231 FACSIMILE: (612) 426-6444 DATE: TO: TIME: RE: 29 June 1994 Paul R. Emeott 9:25 am Central Time Ramsey County Strategic Planning This transmittal is to contain 04 page(s), including this cover page. Please verify the number of pages you receive and call the telephone number listed above if transmission problems have occurred. COMMENTS Paul, Page 2 of this transmission was received by FAX yesterday requesting a response by 01 July. As we won't have a chance to meet prior to responding, I prepared a response enclosed as pages 3 & 4. Please review and make appropriate comments today if possible. I also faxed a copy to Dave Gardner requesting his input. Thank You, CITY OF GEM LAKE FreSic C.JMagnuson, City Clerk CITY OF GEM LAKE, RAMSEY, MINNESOTA RECYCLING REPORT I 9 9 4 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. SERVICE AREA 2. REPORT PERIOD 3. CONTRACTOR 4_ # HOUSEHOLDS 5. MONTHLY DATA Gem Lake, Ramsey, Minnesota 01 January, 1994.- 31 December, 1994 Wynne's Rubbish & Recycling, Inc. 140 Single Family, 0 Multi - Family, 435 Residents See. Below 1994 MONTHLY DATA Jan94: Feb94> Mar-=94:.: Apr-94 May-94:::; Jun94 Jul-94 Aug-94<.: Sep-94 Oct-94 Nov94; Dec94 PAPER 1,050 1,250. 1,100 1,300 1,250 1,100 :METAL_ 250 225 200 250 200 200 GLASS: 800 750 750 1,000 1,100 700 TOTAL • 2,100 2,225 2,050 2,550 2,550 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 STOPS 80 84 82 91 92 82. 0 0 0 0 0 0 $160.00 160.00 160.00. 160.00 160.00 160.00 SERVICE FREQUENCY';`` PER. MONTH 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 st: WED: 53 49 42 43 45 43 .3rd WED 27 35 40 48 47 39 ANNUAL TOTALS 7,050 Pounds 1,325 Pounds 5,100 Pounds 1:3,475 Pounds 3.525 Tons. 0.663. Tons 2.550 Tons 6.738 Tons 511 Stops • $960.00 Y-T-D 2.0 Stops 275 Stops 236. Stops MONTHLY: AVERAGES.::..: 1,175 Pounds 221 Pounds 850 Pounds 1.,123 Pounds 0.588 Tons 0.110 Tons 4.425 Tons 0.561 Tons 43 Stops $160.00 Y-T-D 6,725 Pounds 1,475 Pounds 4,5.75 Pounds 12,775 Pounds 3.363 Tons 0.738 Tons 2.288 Tons 6.388 Tons 520 Stops $960.00 Y-T-D 275 Stops 245 Stops ACTUAL CHANGE: vs 1993 TOTALS 325 Pounds (150) Pounds 525 Pounds 700 Pounds 0.163 Tons (0.075) Tons 0.263 Tons 0:350 Tons (9) Stops $0.00 0 Stops (9) Stops 0/0 CHANGE 4.8% -10.20/0 11..50/0 5.5% -1..7% 0.00/0 0.0% -3.70/0 Clare A. Nielsen, Recycling Coordinator Aug-94 T - PATRICIA M. MOEN RAMSEY COUNTY SHERIFF George W. Katseres, Chief Deputy 14 W. Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, Minnesota 55102-1648 Telephone: (612) 298-4451 Telefacsimile: (612) 292-7398 To: City Administrators (Seven Coi?.Cities) From: Commander Jerry Bergero Subject: Traffic Deputy Statistics for 993 Date: June 20, 1994 The following information was determined by using actual fine information for the period October 1993 thru March 1994 and taking the average fine per ticket by city. Using this average fine number we multiplied by the number of tickets written by the traffic deputy in each city. The average fine per ticket varies slightly for each city and the figure for a particular city was used to compute 1993 revenue for that city. This is still only an estimate but it is more accurate than we could previously provide. Average Fine Amount / Ticket by City Arden Hills $35.14 Gem Lake $33.55 Little Canada $37.96 North Oaks $32.33 Shoreview $39.04 Vadnais Heights $34.73 White Bear Township $23.30 These averages are based on 81.72 % of the tags issued being dispositioned out by the Court for this 6 month period. ADULT DETENTION DIVISION (612) 292-6050 • CIVIL PROCESS {612) 292.6030 • PATROL DIVISION (612) 481.1317 • WARRANTS (612) 298-4893 s City # Tags 1993 Est. Fine Amt Arden Hills 221 Gem Lake 141 Little Canada 303 North Oaks 89 Shoreview 463 Vadnais Heights 168 White Bear Town 216 Totals 1601 $ 7,765.94 $ 4,730.55 $11, 5.01. 88 $ 2,877.37 $18,075.52 $ 5,834.64 $ 5,032.80 $55.,.818.70 Cities Share $3,882.97 $2.,365.28 $5,750.94 $1,438.69 $9 ,. 0 3.7 . 7 6 $2,917.32 $2,516.40 $27,909.35 1 'I r 1 r 1 r ; ; . ti /l 7t1 1 11-1 ll ri ✓ e 1. r>C1 i r i ), . -lrM OFFICE ARNE H. CARLSON GOVERNOR CERTIFICATE OF COMMENDATION In recognition of your successful efforts as a partner in a partnership nominated for the 1994 Partnership Minnesota Cooperative Public Service Award; this commendation is presented to: City of Gem Lake of the partnership Ramsey County Suburban Law Enforcement Services Contract Group with the appreciation and respect of the people of Minnesota. ir.ririri4rri� IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of Minnesota to be affixed at the State Capitol this seventeenth day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ninety-four, and of the State the one hundred and thirty-fifth. GOVERNOR [AFSCME] u.++Lsx. RAMSEI' COUNTY Risk Management 1020 Government Center West 50 West Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55102 July 11, 1994 Fritz Magnuson City of Gem Lake 1369 County Road E Gem Lake, MN 55110-5231 RE: Agreement With Ramsey County Sheriff's Department Dear Fritz: Tel: 612-266-2920 Fax: 612-266-2934 Here are three copies of the contract amendment. This amendment allows the County to enter into a JPA with the MN County In- surance Trust to purchase insurance for the contract cities exposures. As part of the JPA, the County is to remain in pool for a minimum of 3 years or until the exposure no longer exists if prior to 3 years. The cities are the recipients of any dividends from this program along with any assessments that are made. Once the council has approved these changes, please forward to my attention. Sincerely, Georgeann Schulte Risk Manager Enclosures 94711/ b Risk Management 1020 Government Center West 50 West Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, MN 65102 (612) 266-2927 Georgina Schulte Risk Manager Fax: (612) 266-2934 Minnesota's First Home Rule County printed on recycled paper with a minimum of 10%pos4mnsurner coil lent