AGENDA COUNCIL WORKSESSION BURNSVILLE CITY COUNCIL

Transcription

AGENDA
COUNCIL WORKSESSION
BURNSVILLE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
6:30 p.m.
1)
Pleasant View Memorial Gardens Cemetery - Sketch Plan Review
6:30 p.m.
2)
Southwest Burnsville Study – Scoping Meeting
6:40 p.m.
3)
Ice Skating Surface in Nicollet Commons Park
7:10 p.m.
4)
Sidewalk/Trail Snow Removal and Contract Plowing
7:30 p.m.
5)
Outdoor Storage – Particularly at Gas Stations
8:00 p.m.
6)
National League of Cities Prescription Discount Program
8:15 p.m.
7)
Round Table
8:25 p.m.
x
City Policy on Yard Frontage for Multi-Family Property Street Assessments
x
Appoint Liaison to Chamber of Commerce Local Government Affairs
Committee
x
Special Worksession Schedule
x
Reports on Advisory Boards & External Organizations
“The City of Burnsville does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, sexual preference,
disability or any other basis protected by law in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs, activities,
or services.” To obtain this information in alternative forms such as Braille, large print, audio tape or qualified readers, please
contact the City of Burnsville. Telephone (952) 895-4490; TDD: (952) 895-4567.
CITY OF BURNSVILLE
COUNCIL WORKSESSION AGENDA BACKGROUND
Meeting Date
Item number
04/14/2009
1
PRESENTERS
Chris Slania, Planner
ITEM
Sketch Plan Review for Pleasant View Memorial Gardens Cemetery
POLICY DECISION/ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED
No action is needed. Staff will give a presentation and request feedback.
FACTS
The site is located in the northwest corner of Hwy 13 and Portland Avenue South, directly south of the recently
approved self storage facility. Minnesota Cemeteries Corp owns +/- 1.1 acres they feel is excess land to the
future operation of the cemetery. The site is zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential) and designated for
Cemetery in the Comprehensive Plan as is the balance of the cemetery.
Woof Dah! Dog Daycare is interested in developing the site for a new freestanding building and relocation of
the business within Burnsville. The concept plan includes an access drive off of the private roadway to the self
storage facility was well as a stormwater pond in the southwest corner. The building has not been fully designed
although the architecture would be of high quality masonry or precast design. The anticipated building height is
16 - 18 feet.
Woof Dah! proposes a 2,000 sq. ft. exterior play area for the dogs be screened from the cemetery by the building
on two sides to reduce any visual or audio impact. The design would also provide a solid screen wall along the
south side of the building to limit views and noise into or out of the area. The screen wall would be
architecturally pleasing constructed out of solid timber or a precast panel and integrated into the appearance of
the balance of the building.
The rezoning of the site from R-1 to I-1 would allow dog care/kenneling as a Conditional Use. Any future
application would also need to include a Comprehensive Plan amendment from Cemetery to Industrial Park and
platting the parcel into a separate lot from the balance of the cemetery.
Historically, the Council has given direction that the future development on this site have a minimal traffic
impact and design / land use consistent with the B-1 District (Office Business) or I-1 District uses. This is a
unique use not previously discussed with the Council. The recently approved self storage project has minimal
traffic impacts and the design is aesthetically comparable to the neighborhood. The attached memo and color
site plan provide additional detail on the Woof Dah! business, building and site design.
ISSUES
There are no issues. The business owner and staff are seeking feedback and comments on the concept.
ATTACHMENTS
Memo from Hagen Christensen Architects
Location Photo (color 8.5x11)
Proposed Site Plan (color 11x17)
CS
g:\agenda\worksession backgrounds\2009\04-14\1 - pleasant view sketch plan\1 - pleasant view background_4_14.docx
Hagen, Christensen & McIlwain
Architects
Memorandum
Chris Slania
City of Burnsville Planning
To:
Subject:
Proposed Woof Dah! facility
From:
Jerry Hagen
Date:
April 3, 2009
Comm. No:
0920
Copies To:
File
Chris
Per your request here are some talking points for the proposed new Woof Dah! Facility located off of
Highway 13 and Portland Avenue (NW Corner):
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
The new facility will accommodate dogs for daycare and substantially fewer dogs for
overnight boarding.
Woof Dah! presently operates in Burnsville and is looking to expand its operations.
Dogs are pre-screened before they are taken in (ie excessive barkers are not accepted).
The new facility will be staffed whenever there are dogs being cared for, 24 hours per day.
The facility has highly trained professional staff which keeps the dogs supervised, occupied,
busy and happy. Very little barking.
The new building will be constructed of masonry/decorative precast/glass/wood.
Maximum height of the building will be 16 to 18 feet. Roof top equipment will be screened to
look as part of the building.
The outdoor dog play area will be screened from both directions and will be accomplished
with a solid timber fence to a height of 8 feet. Just as Wood Dah! doesn’t want to have
barking dogs disturbing the adjacent properties, they don’t want the dogs to have exterior
stimuli to excite them to bark.
The outside play area has been located away from the cemetery property and will also be
buffered by the building. In fact the building will serve as a buffer between the cemetery and
the active areas of the building.
The site will accommodate all water run off with a landscaped/planted retention pond which
will serve to buffer the building from the cemetery to the west.
The site will be naturally landscaped to utilize prairie grasses and plant materials which are
native to the area. Screening to the west (Cemetery) will be with evergreens for year around
foliage. The use of native species and materials will reduce maintenance cost as well.
Ph 612-904-1332
4201 Cedar Avenue south
Fax 612-904-7366
Minneapolis, MN 55407
SOLD
CITY OF BURNSVILLE
Meeting Date 04/14/2009
Item number
2
PRESENTER
Jenni Faulkner, Community Development Director
Deb Garross, Planner
ITEM
SW Burnsville Study – Scoping Meeting
Provide staff with direction on how to proceed with the review of the 1990 Southwest Public Services
Study “SW Study.”
FACTS & ISSUES
Residents of SW Burnsville submitted a petition during the public hearing for the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan Update requesting the City to:
x
x
x
Discard the Southwest Public Services Study
Remove all diagrams, figures and references in the Comprehensive Plan which support 1-acre
minimum lot development, excepting properties which have access to sewer and water as of 01/01/09.
Establish practices to support “sustainable development indefinitely” on at least 2 acre lot sizes,
excluding steep slopes and wetlands, with secondary drain field sites, and to maintain those land
restrictions regardless of subsequent access to municipal sewer and water services
The City Council adopted the draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan as written. At that time, the City Council
concurred with the residents that there was merit to review the 1990 SW Public Services Study to affirm
the current policies and/or consider modifications the 1990 Study based on updated information, plans
and current environmental laws. Direction was given to add to 2009 Governance Agenda.
Over the years, the City has conducted numerous planning studies to identify policies, zoning and
development standards for SW Burnsville. The City has also responded to issues raised by residents of the
SW Burnsville neighborhood by initiating task forces, promoting neighborhood participation with
workshops, surveys, resident review of and participation in the development of ordinances related to
septic systems/wells, roadways, zoning standards and the development of the City’s current street and
public utility extension policy for SW Burnsville. To assist the Council, a map showing the boundary of
the SW Area is attached. Staff developed the SW Burnsville Planning Activities Continuum (attached) to
provide a synopsis of all previous planning efforts, studies and processes associated with SW Burnsville
that have occurred to date.
Prior to 1990 a number of issues surfaced as development proposals were considered in SW Burnsville
including discrepancies between platted and traveled roads, easements, steep topography that made
construction of roads within platted right-of-way difficult, a number of failing septic systems were
identified (no formal testing required at the time) and residents opposed rezoning and subsequent
development of smaller lots with utilities. To address these matters, the City undertook the SW Study
which was ultimately incorporated into the 1990 Comprehensive Plan Update and is attached.
COUNCIL WORKSESSION BACKGROUND
April 14, 2009
Page 2
The SW Study provided a summary of the problems and issues associated with development, individual
sewage disposal systems, and the need to correct platting and boundary survey errors that had occurred
over time. The SW Study established a master roadway plan to complete the circulation gaps that were
created when not all of the roads in the original 1915 subdivision were installed. An Official Master Plan
was prepared based upon the study findings that anticipated development with utilities at a 2 – 2 ½ acre
lot density (Figure 8) and at a 1-acre density (Figure 9). The purpose of the Official Master Plan is to
provide guidance for future development to ensure urban roads and utility services can be installed at a
future date if petitioned or required for environmental/pollution concerns. The 1990 and subsequent
Comprehensive Plans specify that “this shall become the guide for reviewing and approving future
subdivisions within the study area.” The City Council approved a minor amendment to the Study in 1994
and incorporated an updated street graphic.
The SW Study accomplished the following:
x
x
x
x
x
Documented nature and extent of inaccuracies in legal descriptions, surveys and plats
Established new standards for ISTS – lot size, periodic inspection, maintenance, etc.
Adopted an Official Master Plan for Future Streets (assuming both 1 acre and 2 acre lot density).
The Official Master Plan coordinated with designs for future public infrastructure systems (sanitary
sewer, storm sewer, and water) to serve the area
City reaffirmed policy that it would not extend public sewer and water services into the SW Area
unless it is requested by a majority of the property owners, or it is necessary to solve a public health
emergency
With regard to lot area standards, the policy to establish the 1 acre minimum lot size standard for
unsewered residential development was identified in the City’s first Comprehensive Plan in 1964. At that
time, it was thought that 1 acre was the minimum lot size required to support septic systems. The 1979
Comprehensive Plan Update established the SW 513 acres of land in Burnsville as the R1A district and
affirmed that the area should be subject to the 1 acre minimum lot size and 200’ foot lot width standards.
The 1 acre standard has been in effect for over 40 years.
The 1990 Comprehensive Plan established the 2 acre minimum lot size for development of unsewered
residential lots. It was around this time that the MPCA began to require larger sites with soil and slope
characteristics conducive to provide sufficient area for secondary septic sites should the initial system fail.
In 1992, the SW Public Services study was incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. This established
that lots in the R1A district could be 1 acre in size provided that they were connected to public sewer and
water. Lots with septic systems required a minimum of 2 acres of dry buildable area. These standards
have been in effect for nearly 17 years. These development standards are unique for SW Burnsville. The
development density cannot exceed 1 unit per net acre of land in the R1A zone. In the R1, Single Family
Residential zone, up to 4 units per acre (10,000 s.f. minimum lot size), may be developed with public
utilities.
Utility and street assessment policies differ for SW Burnsville than for other areas of the City as well. In
areas of Burnsville other than the R1A district, the City can initiate utility and road projects and assess
benefitting property owners. For SW Burnsville, the City can initiate only road improvement projects for
collector streets, not local streets. Also, the policy for SW Burnsville stipulates that the City will not
initiate sanitary sewer and water utility extensions into the SW Area unless the City documents a
significant threat to the public health resulting from the continued use of on-site private septic systems or
April 14, 2009
Page 3
wells. Sanitary sewer and water utilities may be extended only if the developer pays the full cost of the
project, including all assessments; the developer may extend remote utilities to the site provided they pay
in full for the extension without cost to the landowners adjacent to the extension. The policy allows for
adjacent land owners to connect to utilities if they choose to however, they are required to pay the full
cost of the connections. Policy No. 5.035 Street and Utility Improvements in the SW Area is attached for
reference.
Since the adoption of the SW Study, a number of plats, waivers of subdivision and development of vacant
parcels have occurred and new laws such as the 1991 Wetlands Conservation Act and updated Shoreland
Management regulations have gone into effect. The City has also completed a number of environmental
plans which may have impacts on development within the SW Study area. Some of these plans include:
Natural Resources Management Plan, Water Resources Management Plan, Comprehensive Wetland
Protection and Management Plan, updated utility and road plans associated with Chateau Highlands and
Forest Park Heights, improvement projects to County Road 5, and recently Judicial Road and 155th Street.
In addition, today the City has access to more detailed topography, land cover, soils and other information
that is now available in geographic information system (GIS) format.
The current street and utility improvements policy for SW Burnsville has been in effect since 1996 and
has worked well for the past 12 years. The development standards and policy are a compromise to allow
development to occur for those who want to develop their properties without cost implications to those
residents who do not want to further develop.
GOVERNANCE PROCESS OPTIONS & TIMELINE
The issues raised by the 2008 resident petition were extensively reviewed via a 1.5+ year planning effort
in 1993/1994 that included community workshops, the creation of the SW Task Force and SW property
owner review and input. This effort resulted in a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment in 1994
where the Task Force recommended the City limit development in SW Burnsville to unsewered lots with
a minimum of 2 acres. The City Council at that time accepted the Task Force Report but did not concur
with this recommendation. The primary result of the Task Force effort led to ordinance changes to require
well water testing, an ordinance to provide for 2 acre unsewered lots and 1 acre lots with sewer for the
R1A district and an amendment to the 1990 Comprehensive Plan to incorporate a revised roadway layout
to the SW Study.
Now that the Council has received additional history and information about SW Burnsville, staff seeks
further direction from the Council for how to proceed.
1. Does the Council want to further study SW Burnsville or are the existing policies adequate?
2. If the Council desires to further study SW Burnsville what should the parameters of the study be?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Update technical information (est. cost $40K)
Review ordinances and policies to determine if still relevant (est. cost $20K)
Consider implications of implementing resident’s petition (est. cost $20K)
Conduct an independent survey of residents (est. cost. $20K)
Consult to conduct detailed site work including soils data, wetland delineations etc. (est. cost
$100K)
April 14, 2009
Page 4
3. Establish a Task Force similar to the 1993 process (est. cost. $80K) and/or proceed through
Governance
Based on the extensive study and public participation processes of the past, should Council choose to
study the matter further, staff suggests that the Council consider item 2a/b and review under the
governance model. Under this option staff could prepare a white paper consisting of the 1990 SW Study
and updates to the technical data to add new plats/projects and GIS environmental data. The governance
process would include a review of the white paper, engaging the public to review the updates and then
provide public comments and expert testimony. The process would culminate in a discussion whereby
the City Council would determine if the current policies regarding SW Burnsville remain valid and/or
provide direction to staff to develop a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, ordinance and/or policy
revisions to reflect changes or new policy direction(s). A tentative schedule could be as follows:
2009 TENTATIVE GOVERNANCE SCHEDULE
APRIL/MAY
White Paper Prepared by Staff (1990 SW Study + Updates)
JUNE
White Paper Distributed to Council
JULY
Governance Meeting 1 - White Paper / Technical Info Presentation
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
Governance Meeting 2 - Receive Public Comments/Expert Testimony
Governance Meeting 3 - City Council Policy Discussion & Direction
(Note: cost estimates and timeline are based on current staffing levels and could change
pending future budget decisions)
ATTACHMENTS
SW Study Boundary Map
Policy No. 5.035
SW Burnsville Planning Activities Continuum
Southwest Public Services Study (Appendix A, 1990 Comprehensive Plan Update)
DG g/planning/case file folders/2009/Pending Applications/CC Report – SW BV Study – Scoping Meeting
KelleherPark
JudiciialRd.
MurphyyHanrehan
nParkReserve
Loop
Park
Alcana Ln.
Judicial
Park
Horshoe Lk.
Orchard
GardensPark
Gardens
Park
SWStudyBoundary
150th St.W.
POLICY NUMBER
5.035
STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SOUTHWEST AREA
I.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR POLICY
The Burnsville 1990 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix A, states that all future subdivisions
within the Southwest Public Services Study Area (Southwest Area) are to be consistent with
the Official Master Plan, shown as Figures 8 and 9 in the Appendix. The Comprehensive Plan
also states in the Appendix that sanitary sewer will not be extended into the Southwest
Area unless it is requested by a majority of the property owners, or a public health condition
necessitates an extension. The phrases "majority of property owners" and "public health
condition" are not defined in the Appendix. Also, the Appendix does not specify when storm
sewer and water should be extended into the area, how improvements would be financed,
whether all improvements would need to be extensions of existing improvements, and what
road standards would be required for new and extended public streets. Many property
owners in the Southwest Area are concerned about the assessable costs of these
improvements.
II.
POLICY
A.
The City will not initiate sanitary sewer and water utility extensions into the
Southwest Area unless the City documents a significant threat to the public health resulting
from the continued use of on-site private septic systems or wells. Sanitary sewer and water
utilities may be extended into the Southwest Area without a documented public health
condition only under the following circumstances and terms:
1)
The developer of a new subdivision may extend utilities within the development,
pursuant to the Subdivision Regulations found in Title 11, Burnsville City Code (Title
11), with or without a public improvement project petition, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes Chapter 429 (MS.429) and City Policy 5.010, STANDARD SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY (Policy 5.010), provided that the utility extensions
occur completely within the developer's property and that the developer pays the full
cost of the project, including all assessments.
2)
The developer may extend remote utilities to the site provided that the developer
pays in full for the extension without cost to the landowners adjacent to the
extension. As a part of the extension project, an adjacent landowner may connect to
the utilities by paying the full cost of the connection, including a connection fee
payable to the City. An adjacent landowner may also pay the full cost of the
installation of a service stub for future use. No connection fee would be due to the
City until the stub is used.
3)
Following the completion of the extension, adjacent landowners who choose to
connect to the utilities must pay for the full cost of the connection, including the City
connection fee. For a period of ten years following the completion of the extension,
the City will reimburse the developer a percentage of each connection fee collected.
The connection fee and reimbursement percentage will be established in the
development contract between the developer and the City for the extension project.
The developer is not entitled to either a reimbursement of any connection fees
collected after the ten year period, or a reimbursement of any project construction
costs.
Policy No. 5.035
Page 2
4)
Homeowners may extend utilities to their property without additional development
pursuant to the terms and conditions of Sections II (A) (1) and (2) of this policy,
except that the cost of such extension will be on a per unit basis rather than on a
frontage basis. Homeowners will pay one unit charge for every existing and
developable lot within their property. A developable lot is a lot that could be created
from the homeowners' property in compliance with all applicable zoning and
subdivision requirements.
5)
Any existing street that is disturbed by the utility construction must be repaired to a
new condition at its existing standard, as a part of the utility improvement project.
B.
Street and storm water utility extensions and improvements must be either
petitioned for and installed pursuant to MS 429, or installed pursuant to Title 11. The City
will not initiate extension and improvement projects, except for improvement projects for
collector level roads. All street and storm water extensions and improvements must meet
the following standards:
1)
All street extensions must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan provisions for
the Southwest Area, and must be located within existing right-of-way and right-ofway dedicated by the petitioner or developer.
2)
The cost of street and storm water utility extensions must be paid in full by the
petitioner or developer without cost to the landowners adjacent to the extension.
3)
All new subdivisions must have full urban City standard permanent streets, City
standard temporary streets, or an alternative approved by the City Engineer, at the
option of the developer. The City Council may approve the use of gravel streets for
extensions of existing gravel streets.
4)
Petitions under the terms of MS 429 for the reconstruction of gravel and City
standard temporary streets must include a request for either City standard
temporary streets, full urban City standard permanent streets, or an alternative
approved by the City Engineer. The City will not participate in the cost of street
reconstruction as outlined in City Policy Number 5.030, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE,
RECONSTRUCTION & REHABILITATION OF CITY STREETS, unless the street is an
existing full urban City standard permanent street that was installed at the property
owner's expense.
5)
All new subdivisions must include a storm water management system that is
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan.
III.
PROCEDURE
A.
All petitioners and developers should consult with the City Engineer prior to filing a
petition or development application.
B.
The City Engineer will recommend the appropriate process for the proposed
improvements, and will assist the petitioner or developer in that process.
C.
Improvement projects that include petitions may proceed in accordance with the
terms of MS.429 and the assessment provisions of Policy 5.010 and City Policy Number
5.020,
Policy No. 5.035
Page 3
STANDARD ASSESSMENT RATES, only after the City Engineer has determined that the
petition includes the required number of signatures of all affected property owners.
D.
The City Engineer will coordinate the improvement process with the development
review process established under City Policy Number 5.260, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMITTEE PROCESS, if applicable.
IV.
RESPONSIBILITY
The City Engineer supervises all public improvement projects in the City and is responsible
for the terms and provisions of this policy.
V.
AUTHORITY
Administrative implementation of policy, Title 11, and MS 429.
Submitted by:
Reviewed by:
Charles Ahl
Gregory J. Konat
Date:
Date:
May 30, 1996
May 30, 1996
SWBURNSVILLEPLANNINGACTIVITIESCONTINUUM
1965
1965City’s1stCompPlan
x Focusongrowthmanagement,orderly(sewered)developmentfromnorthtosouth
x SupporteduseofbothR1A(1acre)&R1B(20,000sq.ft.lots)as“holdingzones”untilutilitieswereavailable
x SupportedrezoningtoR1whenpublicutilitieswereprovided
x LimitedmentionofSWAreaspecifically,therewerenopolicystatementstargetedtoSWArea
1979
1979CompPlanUpdate
x Identified513acresasR1A
x Mostrestrictiveresidentialzoningdistrict–requires1acreminimumlotsizeand200’lotwidth
x Sanitarysewernotavailabletomajorityofareaduetoseverityoftopography
x Developersmustsubmitdetailedsoilanalysisthatsewagegeneratedcanbeadequatelyhandled
x AreasthatcanbeseweredexpectedtodevelopasR1C(11,000sq.ft.lotswith85’lotwidth)
x Eventualneedtoservicethisareaanticipatedandsanitarysewersystemdesignedtoaccommodateflowsfromthisarea.
x DakotaCountySoilConservationDistrictsoilsmapping–soillimitationsforISTS
x ISTSOrdinance–requirepumper/haulerstobelicensed&maintenanceofISTSsubjecttoissuanceofapermit,inspectionsevery2
years
1986
1986CompPlanAmendment
x Figure22,SpecialAreaStudiesMapanddescriptionofSWAreaPublicServicesStudyIdentified
x Muchoflandplattedaslongagoas1915(BehnamInvestmentCompany’sMN.OrchardGardens)
x DiscrepanciesbetweenprivateownershiplinesandtheactuallocationsofeasementsandplattedROW
x ThisStudyistobeageneralplanfordevelopmentinSWArea
x Study to include a major street system for future development of the area and a plan for serving the area with public utilities.
Establishadditionalplattingrequirementstocorrecttheproblemsthatexistinareaasitcontinuestodevelopandcomplywitha
generalplanfortheentirearea.
SWAreaPublicServicesStudy
x Studydocumentednatureandextentofinaccuraciesinlegaldescriptions,surveysandplatsinSWArea
x EstablishednewstandardsforISTS–lotsize,periodicinspection,maintenanceetc.
x AdoptedaMasterPlanforfuturestreets&utilities(assumingboth1acreand2acrelotdensity)
x Cityreaffirmedpolicyofrespondingtopetitionsfortheextensionofpublicimprovements
x Consultantstudyfoundfailingsepticsystemsandsomepollution
1988- 1989
1990
IndividualSepticTreatmentSystem(ISTS)OrdinanceAdopted(Ord.374)
x ChangedminimumlotsizeinR1Afrom1acreto2acresofdrybuildablearea
x Ordinanceneededbecause1acrelotsizewastoosmalltoaccommodate2ndsystemsiterequiredbyMPCA.
x 5acrelotsizeproposedbystaff–neighborsobjectedbecausetheycouldnotfurthersubdividelots–ordinancerevisedtoestablish
soilcharacteristicsneededforsepticsystems(Dry,Buildable–nowetlands,slopesover18%orroadrow)
x EstablishedinspectionandaccessstandardsanddatestobringsepticsystemsintocompliancewithMPCARule7080
x OrdinanceneededtoaddresspollutioncausedbyunregulatedISTSsystems
x Cost of installing public utilities to fully service area may be more expensive and fail to provide a special benefit to meet legal
standingtoassesstheprojectcosts.
x UnregulatedISTScouldresultinspreadofdisease,healthandecologicalhazards,potentialtocompromiseaquifersandcitydrinking
watersupply
ISTSOrdinanceAmendment–AssistHomeowners(Ord.406)
x Followinginputfromhomeowners,ISTSordinancewasamendedtoallowhomeownerstopersonallyinstall,construct,alter,extend,
repairormaintainanISTSprovidedworkisdesignedbypersonlicensedbyDakotaCounty.
x HomeownersrequiredtoexecuteawaiverofliabilityholdingCity/CountyharmlessfromeffectsofISTSwork
1991
1992
1990CompPlanUpdateAdopted
x SWPublicServicesStudyformallyincorporatedintoCompPlanasAppendixA
x EstablishedOfficialMasterPlanforultimateroadway,publicutilitieswith1acreand2+acredesignconcepts
x City affirmed it will not extend sanitary sewer unless it is requested by a majority of property owners, or is necessary to solve a
publichealthemergency
1993CompPlanUpdate
x Woods Estates 8th Addn. plat submitted, recommended for denial by Planning Commission because not consistent with SW Area
Study
x HighlandWoodsplatfiled–PCrecommendedapprovaloftheplatbutnostreetextensionsuntilaroadwaystudywascompleted
x CityreceivingpetitionsfordevelopmentinSWBVtodeveloppropertycontrarytotheapprovedroadwayplansin1990SWStudy
x Numerousresidentsattendedmeetingsandsubmittedpetitions
x Residentissuesre:propertiesbeingassessedforunwantedimprovements
x July 22, 1993 City Council holds joint Workshop with PC and residents of SW Burnsville to consider establishing a more
comprehensivedevelopmentpolicyandframeworkforthearea–34issuesidentified
x CouncilestablishedacitizenTaskForcefromresidentsofSWBVwhorepresenteddifferentareas/opinions
x August16,1993CityCouncilmodified1990SWPublicServicesPlantoaddFigureA1(RevisedDevelopmentMasterRoadwayPlan)
Ordinance500Approved–AllowingLawfulLotsofRecordlessthan2acrestobedevelopedwithISTSw/outavariance
x Cityhadissued8variancesbetweenJuly1990–July1993forexistinglotsofrecordwithlessthan2acrestoinstallsepticsystems.
x Issue,Ordinance374created2acredrybuildablelotsizestandardbutthisprecludedexistinglotsofrecordfrombeingdeveloped
withoutvariance.
x Ordinancerequiredamendmenttoeliminateneedforvariancetodevelopalegallynonconforminglotofrecord.
x ThisordinanceestablishedthatlotsthatwerelawfullyexistingasofJuly2,1990maybedevelopwith1singlefamilyhomewithout
varianceprovidedtheproposedISTScouldmeetallothersepticsystemstandardsoftheCityCode.
1993
SWBURNSVILLEPLANNINGACTIVITIESCONTINUUM
1994
1994CompPlanUpdate–TaskForce(1.5yearprocess)
x As a followup to the Community Workshop held 7/23/93, a Task Force made up of 14 SW BV residents and a chair member
establishedtoreviewthe33issuesthatwerecompiledasaresultoftheWorkshop
x TaskForcemetbimonthlyoverseveralmonths,metwithstafftoreviewroads,parksandinfrastructuremaintenanceissues
x TaskForcesubmittedaproposedAddendumandrequesttoamendtheCompPlan275copiesofAddendummailedtoallresidents
ofSWBurnsville
x TaskForcerecommendedCitylimitdevelopmentofSWBurnsvilleto2acre,unseweredlots.
x 12594CouncilacceptedTaskForcereport(Addendum1)butdidnottakeTaskForcerecommendation–directiontostaffto
1)PrepareordinancerequiringwellwatertestingasrecommendedbyTaskForce
2)ConsiderredefiningR1Azoningtorequire2acreunseweredlotsand1acreseweredlots
3)ModifyCompPlantoclarifypolicyonutilityextensionstorequirethattheybecontiguoustodevelopmentwithutilities
x Items2and3tobescheduledforafutureCouncilWorksession
12395CityCouncilWorksession–UtilityExtensionPolicyClarificationNeededforSWArea
x Policyneededtoclarify1990CompPlanregardingwhenandhowutilityextensionswouldbepermittedtoSWArea
x Owners fear prodevelopment property owners may petition city for utilities that would pass by antidevelopment properties
resultinginheavyspecialassessmentstoresidentswhodonotwantpublicutilities
x NeedtodefineCompPlanreferencesto“majorityofpropertyowners”and“publichealth”
x Needtoestablishwhowouldpayforutility/roadextensionsandwhenpaymentisdue
x 1990Studydidnotspecificallystatethatutilityextensionsshouldbecontiguousand“leapfrog”developmentisnotbeallowed
x Councildirectedstafftoformulateautilityextensionpolicyforfutureconsideration
x PolicydraftedandsenttoallownersinSWBurnsvilleforreview/comment
x Councilsupportiveofsewered1acrelotswith200feetoffrontageanddirectedstafftoproceedtoamendtheR1Azone
7395CityCouncil–Discussion&Directionre:R1AOrdinanceChanges&DraftUtilityExtensionPolicy
x Exploreoptionstoassistownersincostofwellwatertesting
x Reconsider%ofaffectedareaforpublicimprovementspetitionintheproposedpolicy
x ClarifyCity’spositionon“leapfrog”developmentsinpolicy
x Reconsidermaximumdollaramountandclarifythescopeofworkforcontestedspecialassessments
x Clarifywhenfullurbanstandardstreetsarerequired
x AddlanguagetoproposedordinancetoencourageuseofPUDforflexibilityindevelopments
1995
82195CityCouncilAdoptsOrd.581
x Established1acrelotareaand120’lotwidthforseweredsinglefamilylotsinR1A
x AllresidentiallotswithISTSneed2acresdrybuildableareawith200feetoflotwidth
x Alllotslessthan1acreinR1aiflawfullyexistedon7/2/90buildablewithISTSprovidedcompliantwithallotherCityCodestandards
x ISTSinspectionsandaccessrequiredalongwith5yeartestingofwellsrequired
x PUDprovisionsadded–Allowforaveragenetlotarea,exclusiveofanyrequiredROWdedication,utilizing1acredensity.Smaller
lotsallowedprovidedPUDincludesfindingsthatthedevelopmentissensitivetotheuniqueandvaluablenaturalcharacteristicsof
thesite
121195CityCouncilWorksession
x DraftutilityextensionpolicyforSWAreareviewed–additionalworkneeded
x Draftpolicysetsforthprovisionstoguiderequestedextensionsofutilitiesandroadways
x ReiteratesCouncil’spositionCitywillnotinitiateextensionsexceptforadocumentedhealthemergency
x Sanitarysewer/watermaybeextendedonlythroughpetitionprocessordeveloperprojectthatinvolvesnootherlandownersandno
assessments
x Streetportionofpolicyspecifiesroadstandardstobeusedfornewandreconstructedstreets
x Policyalsorequiresnewsubdivisionstoincludeappropriatestormwaterfacilities
1996
121895CityCouncilMeeting
x Policyrevisedtoaddresscornerlotassessmentcalculations
x Policyrevisedtoallowdevelopersoptionofusinggravelstreetsfornewsubdivisionsw/outpublicsewer&water
x Clarifiednewsubdivisionsmustaddressstormwatermanagement
x Added provisions to clarify responsibilities for payment of roadway extensions and to clarify % of approval needed for street
improvementprojects
x NoownerwillbeforcedtodedicateROWfordevelopmentofsomeoneelse’sproperty
x PolicysenttoBurnsvilleAssociationofSWHomeowners
53096CityCouncilMeeting–PolicyNo.5.035Adopted“Street&UtilityImprovementsintheSWArea
x City will not initiate sanitary sewer & water utility extensions into SW Area unless city documents significant threat to the public
healthresultingfromthecontinueduseofISTSorwells.
x SanitarysewerandwatermaybeextendedintoSWBurnsvillewithoutadocumentedpublichealthcondition
1. Developer of new subdivision may extend utilities within development pursuant to MS. 429 provided utility extensions occur
completelywithindeveloper’spropertyanddeveloperpaysfullcostoftheprojectincludingallassessments
2. Developer may extend remote utilities to the site provided he pays in full for the extensions w/out cost to the landowners
adjacent to the extension. As part of project adjacent owner may connect to utilities by paying full costs of connection no
connectionfeeduetocityuntilstubisused
3. Following completion of project adjacent landowners may connect by paying full cost of connection – for period 10 years
following completion, city will reimburse developer a % of each connection fee collected per the established development
contract.
4. Homeownersmayextendutilitiestotheirpropertywithoutadditionaldevelopmentexceptcostsofextensionswillbeonaper
unitbasisratherthanafrontagebasis.Oneunitchargeforeveryexistinganddevelopablelotwithinpropertywillneedtobe
paid.
x StreetandstormwaterutilityextensionsmustbeeitherpetitionedperMS429orinstalledpertheSubdivisionOrdinance.Citywill
notinitiateextensionandimprovementsexceptforcollectorlevelroads.
1. AllstreetextensionsmustbeconsistentwithCompPlanandlocatedinexistingROWorROWdedicatedbydeveloper
2. Costofstreetandstormwaterutilitytobepaidinfullbythepetitionerordeveloper.
3. All new subdivisions must have either full urban City standard permanent streets, city standard temporary streets or an
alternativeapprovedbytheCityEngineer–gravelstreetsmaybeapprovedbyCouncilforextensionsofexistinggravelstreets
4. PetitionsunderMS429forreconstructionofgravelandcitystandardtemp.streetsmustincluderequestforeitherCitystandard
temporarystreets,fullurbanstandardpermanentstreetsoranalternativeapprovedbyCityEngineer.
5. Allnewsubdivisionsmustincludeastormwatermanagementsystem
CITY OF BURNSVILLE
Meeting Date
Item number
04/14/2009____
3________
PRESENTER
Tom Hansen, Deputy City Manager
J.J. Ryan, Recreation Supervisor
ITEM
Ice Skating Surface in Nicollet Commons Park
Review and discuss ice skating concepts for Nicollet Commons Park and provide the Burnsville Foundation
with direction on moving ahead with the project.
FACTS AND ISSUES
The concept of an ice skating surface at Nicollet Commons Park was discussed at Council’s All-day Retreat.
At that time staff was directed to work with the Burnsville Foundation to research the project. The Burnsville
Foundation and staff have completed some of the necessary research regarding the idea and would like to obtain
Council’s direction on the possibility of pursuing the project further. Members of the Foundation will be
present at the Worksession to share their vision of the project with the Council.
In the fall of 2008 the Burnsville Foundation approached city staff with the idea of creating an outdoor skating
area in Nicollet Commons Park. It was the general consensus that by creating an outdoor skating area, the park
and the Heart of the City will have added value and become a winter destination. The goal would be to have
the skating area open from the winter lighting event through mid-February.
The main issues identified with the project include:
x
Skate changing area – Currently there is not a warming house in the park. The original plan included a
construction trailer style warming house. This would not be aesthetically pleasing. Other alternatives
discussed include a cabin, a tent with temporary propane heaters, or wrapping the arbor with a fabric
so that it could be used as a wind screen. Again, temporary propane heaters would be on site, but
people would be sitting outside while changing their skates.
x
Signage – The Burnsville Foundation will be seeking sponsorship money to fund this project. They
would like to be able to “sell” the ice and\or the dasher boards around the rink. To accomplish this task
would require an ordinance amendment. This would be similar to the amendment created to allow
signage on the outfield fences at Alimagnet, Sue Fischer and Lac Lavon parks.
x
Funding – The Burnsville Foundation has agreed to fund the necessary capital expenditures including:
relocating obelisks, synthetic ice surface or refrigeration system, dasher boards, temporary heaters and a
warming house or wind screen. Additionally, they have agreed to cover five years of operating costs
including lighting, heating, snow removal, ice surface cleaning, and annual maintenance in their
fundraising.
Costs are estimated as follows:
Capital Cost
Annual Operating Cost
TOTAL
ARTIFICIAL ICE
$35,000 – $75.000
$5,200 – $10,000
$40,200 – $85,000
x
Obelisks – Currently two obelisks, vertically depicting the history of Burnsville, sit on the west side of
the central park area. These obelisks were intended to frame a performance space and the steps leading
up to the Performing Arts Center. Unfortunately, most performances choose to use the arbor as the
stage area. The obelisks then create an obstructed view for individuals watching performances from the
west side of the park. Taking down the obelisks as part of this project would solve the sightline issue
and free up additional space for a larger skating surface. The cost to disassemble and reset the obelisks
in a new location could be as high as $10,000. Staff would assist the Foundation to find less expensive
alternatives if Council wanted to move ahead with the proposal. Some options for relocating the
obelisks within the park will be presented for Council consideration. Disassembling the obelisks and
storing them until a later date is another option.
x
The Foundation would like to explore the possibility of either a synthetic ice surface or real ice
refrigerated system options. This is considered important to their fundraising campaign.
ATTACHMENTS
x
JR
REFRIGERATED ICE
$84,000 – $115,000
$8,000 – $15,000
$92,000 – $130,000
Sketch of Nicollet Commons Park with skating surface
CITY OF BURNSVILLE
Meeting Date
Item number
04/14/2009
4
PRESENTER:
Bud Osmundson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
ITEM
Report on two Snowplowing issues:
A) Sidewalk & Trail Snowplowing
B) Contract Street Snowplowing
A. SIDEWALK & TRAIL SNOWPLOWING
Staff presented a report to the City Council at a workshop on October 14, 2008 regarding sidewalk
snowplowing. The agenda background for that workshop is attached for your review. I will also send you the
Power Point presentation from that meeting via email.
At that October Worksession, staff presented options for the Council to consider. The direction received was
for staff to review the details for the City to reduce sidewalk snowplowing and require property owners to plow
their own sidewalks and to come back to the Council with a plan for the 2009-2010 snow season. Council
recommended that the City continue to plow “trails”. Council also wanted staff to emphasize communication to
the property owners on this change in policy, if it is enacted, including the business community and the use of
block captains.
As stated the attached 10-14-08 Worksession Background contains the detailed information regarding the
snowplowing of sidewalks, so there is no need to repeat it here. Since October, Staff has been compiling
information and designing a plan to reduce City involvement with sidewalk snowplowing.
Some facts to be considered by the Council in its deliberation:
1. Since the October workshop, the City received about 8-10 inquiries/comments regarding the possible
change in City provided sidewalk snowplowing. Most were concerned about having to plow a back or
side lot sidewalk if the City did not do it. This is the most difficult issue to address in a new plan.
2. The current ordinance (8-1-1) requiring residents to plow their sidewalks was enacted in 1965. A
policy modifying the sidewalk snowplowing ordinance was enacted in 1988. It is unknown how many
miles of sidewalk the city had in 1965, but there were 80 miles in 1988 and 130 miles today.
3. Any reduction in sidewalk snowplowing by the City is a service level reduction. Due to the hiring
freeze enacted in December, the Public Works department personnel used in all snowplowing
operations is down 3 FTE’s.
4. The budget amendment plan Council was provided on March 12 included a cut of $130,000 in
equipment purchasing which is sidewalk snowplowing equipment. If Council decides to NOT reduce
the level of service, that amount will need to be reinstated and made up in budget cuts in other areas.
We cannot continue the present sidewalk plowing operation with the existing equipment at today’s
standards for time of plowing.
The map showing the proposed and recommended sidewalk/trail snowplowing plan will be reviewed in detail at
the worksession. It includes the following:
1. Staff is recommending that the mileage of sidewalks/trails to be plowed by city forces be reduced from
130 miles to about 50. This includes about 13 miles of “off road” trails in the parks. It also includes
most 8-10 ft. wide bituminous trails within the city and county right of way and the “loop” around the
City described in the Master Trail Plan. It also includes that only one side of the proposed
sidewalk/trail plow routes are cleared of snow.
Options to consider include:
x Require all sidewalks/trails other than those plowed by the City to be plowed by the property
owners.
x Do NOT require property owners to plow any other sidewalks/trails than those plowed by the
City.
x Require all sidewalks/trails to be plowed except those that fall in the following categories:
o The sidewalks on the “other” side of the street from those plowed by the City.
o The sidewalks/trails that are in side-yards or backyards. This will take considerable
judgment to determine which should be required to be plowed by the property owner.
2. Staff is recommending that the ordinance/policy reflect a 72 hour period after a snow event for the City
and/or the property owners to remove snow from the designated sidewalks/trails.
3. Even with this significant change in mileage plowed, the aforementioned park trails will be the last
trails plowed which is an additional service level reduction. This is based on the premise that the
proposed reduced plan for trails and sidewalks in the rights of way are of a higher priority than the
trails within parks. If Council believes otherwise, it will change the way staff approaches the plowing
of all sidewalks/trails.
4. The $130,000 in budget savings is defined by not replacing two sidewalk plows in 2009 which would
have cost $250,000. Staff is proposing purchasing an additional pickup and plow at a cost of $60,000
plus a skid steer with appropriate equipment at $60,000 for the total savings of $130,000 ($250 - $120).
(Some combination of equipment will need to be purchased if not exactly a skid steer and pickup.)
5. The present Sidewalk Snow Removal policy, No. 5.160, requires an annual review by the Public Works
Department of all sidewalks/trails that are plowed. Over the years due to special requests the City has
ended up plowing 98% of all the sidewalks in the City. This review process may need to become a
much more formal process so that all parties including staff, property owners, and the Council, are
aware of the consequences of adding more miles of sidewalk snow plowing. A map can be produced
showing which streets will be plowed by the City and which will be required to be plowed by the
property owners. Some existing sidewalks may not be required to be plowed.
6. In any case the City ordinance and policies will need to be modified to reflect Council decisions. Staff
will bring back the changes at a regular meeting in May or June for Council consideration. Any
changes also need to reflect that the City plows sidewalks/trails to a “passable” condition and not to
bare pavement.
7. At that same time a communication plan reflecting the changes will be brought forward.
Staff strongly recommends that the Council adopt the reduced sidewalk/trail plan described. It will take
considerable effort in communications and the Council may be open for criticism in the first year of
implementation. However, most people that we have talked to understand the budget situation and realize a
reduction in services may be necessary.
B. CONTRACT STREET SNOWPLOWING
The City currently completes its street snowplowing through a combination of City personnel and equipment
plus the use of a local contractor utilizing his personnel and equipment. The contractor is paid for each
snowplow event which can vary annually, but this contract costs the City about $150,000 per year. The City
completes 11 street plow routes totaling 152 miles and the contractor plows 5 routes totaling 73 miles covering
the City’s 225 miles of streets. (This makes it sound simple, but with 4 lane roads, some equipment with and
without salting equipment, available equipment and number of personnel, and the type of snow/ice falling, it is
much more complex.) The contract has been rising at least 5% per year.
Presently, the Streets Division of the Public Works department is in charge of the street and sidewalk
snowplowing operation. The Streets Superintendent utilizes all of the available members of the Streets
Division, and most of the Utilities Division, to perform the street plowing operations and some City parking
lots. Sidewalk plowing is completed by one Street Division personnel and two from the Forestry/HOC
Division. Personnel from Parks and the Fleet Mechanics back up the street plowing operation. The Utilities
Division must maintain water and sanitary sewer system operations and the Fleet Mechanics must maintain all
City equipment during a snow event. Consequently these divisions cannot be stripped of all of their personnel
for snow plowing operations. The Parks Division personnel is utilized plowing parks trails, some City parking
lots, and in ice rink maintenance. The remaining two personnel in the Forestry/HOC Division complete snow
removal operations in the HOC including 125th Street, 126th Street, 1st Avenue, the parking ramp, the parking
deck and all sidewalks.
Staff has investigated taking over the contractor’s routes based on the premise that clearing the streets of ice
and snow is a higher priority than clearing sidewalks, trails, and maintaining ice skating rinks. If Council
disagrees with this premise then the following discussion should not be considered.
An analysis was completed looking at City forces taking over the contractor street plow routes. The attached
spreadsheet shows that the City could save at least $500,000 over the next 10 years by doing so. This is based
on a slight reduction in the current level of service in the first year or two until the bugs are worked out of the
operation, but staff believes in the long term City personnel can deliver much better service. This is due in part
to the fact that ice and snow fighting technology is changing to more use of liquid deicing requiring special
equipment which contractors will not invest in. Also, taking over the contractor routes will require the use of
Parks Division personnel which will delay the service provided for ice skating rinks. The following steps could
be implemented to take over the contractor routes:
1. If the sidewalk snowplowing operation is reduced, it will provide two more personnel to use in street
snow plow operations on the first day of an event.
2. The City could utilize one tandem and one single axel dump truck (that were scheduled for trade in this
year) only for snow plowing operations and work them into the equipment replacement program in the
future.
3. The City could purchase one used plow truck from another city or vendor at a cost of about $40,000
this year and then work it into the equipment replacement program.
4. Improving efficiency in the use of the City heavy equipment (two loaders and one grader), plus a
tandem in the contractor’s areas will assist in reducing the number of total routes by one.
5. Utilizing the additional 1-ton pickup with plow for cul-de-sacs prior to use on trails.
6. Possibly contracting with the City of Lakeville to plow the 3.3 miles of streets in the Maple Island area.
Currently there are streets in this area that are plowed by whichever agency’s equipment arrives first
and can be a duplication of street plowing efforts. Payment could be made directly to Lakeville for the
services provided or through a combination of cash plus trading other services, such as street sweeping,
with them.
With the savings as shown even with an initial slight reduction in services, this proposal is strongly
recommended.
Attachments: October 14, 2008 Workession background
Burnsville City Code 8-1-1
Sidewalk Snow Removal Policy No. 516
Sidewalk plow map
Spreadsheet - Eliminating contract plowing
CITY OF BURNSVILLE
Meeting Date
Item number
10/14/2008
4
PRESENTER:
Bud Osmundson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
ITEM
Report on Sidewalk & Trail Snowplowing.
FACTS AND ISSUES
A. Mileage and Priorities:
The City has about 136 miles of sidewalks and trails that are plowed in the snow season. The responsibility to
plow is divided between public works divisions as follows:
x
x
x
Streets
Parks
HOC
117 miles
15 miles
4 miles
Most of this mileage is 4 and 5 foot wide concrete sidewalks. The Parks mileage is 8 – 10 ft. bituminous trails
and the HOC is mainly a combination of paver bricks and colored concrete sidewalk.
The Streets division’s main responsibility is to clear the streets first with trails and sidewalks adjacent to streets
are a second priority. The Parks division’s 15 miles of trails are internal park trails which are done prior to
clearing and maintaining ice rinks. The sidewalks and trails adjacent to the street system and internally in the
parks rarely have deicer applications performed on them. The HOC division plows many of their walkways
with special equipment, plus the ramp (and new parking deck & lot). The HOC is also held to a higher service
level; the walks are plowed many more times for each snow event and deicer is periodically applied.
In sidewalk plowing, the first priority is to clear sidewalks used by children walking to school. The second
priority is for residents walking to commuter bus stops. All other walks are plowed after that.
B. Equipment:
The Streets division uses 3 specialized heavy duty sidewalk plow units; the brand name is “Trackless”. They
are considered “state of the art” for sidewalk snow removal. Most of the time they are equipped with V-plows,
but when the snow is deep, snow blowers are attached. Because of the nature of these machines and the uneven
sidewalks, operators really cannot perform more than an 8 hour shift.
Parks uses a variety of pickups, skid steer loaders, and tractors and mowers with broom attachments to clear the
trails and parking lots. They do have two snow blowers for tractors for large plow events.
The HOC crew uses pickups and specialized plastic plows edges that do not harm the pavers.
Two of the Trackless machines are scheduled to be replaced in 2010. At this time the cost to replace one of
these machines is estimated to be $125,000 in 2010. The third Trackless is to be replaced in 2012.
Council Worksession Item No. 4
October 14, 2008
Page 2
C. Personnel:
The Streets division utilizes all of its personnel and most of the Utilities division to perform the street ice and
snow removal. Two persons from Parks and the Mechanics are back up street plow personnel. The sidewalk
plowing performed under the direction of the Street Superintendent is completed by one Street person and two
from the Forestry division.
D. Timing:
In a perfect snow event, which is the first snowfall event of the year consisting of a 2 – 3 inch snowfall on a
weekday with all of the snow falling before 4 am and with a full crew, the sidewalk snow plowing can be
completed in an 8 to 10 hour shift. Most of the time that is not the case with snow events! With V-plows
attached to the Trackless machines the priority sidewalk routes are normally plowed the first day of an event
with the remaining sidewalks plowed the second day. If snow blowers are required when the snow becomes
deep, then it can take up to five days to plow all the sidewalks.
If snow events happen one after another, the priority routes for sidewalks are plowed first after every event,
which means the second and third priority routes do not get plowed for some time. Equipment breakdowns,
vacationing or ill personnel, and the priority of keeping the streets clean first, all add to the timing of sidewalk
snow plowing.
E. Existing Ordinances and Policies:
The City has an ordinance (8-1-1) that requires property owners to clear ice or snow from public sidewalks.
The City also has a Sidewalk Snow Removal Policy (5.16) dated 1988 which authorizes the Public Works
Department to prioritize the sidewalks plowed by the City. It doesn’t require that all walks within the City
should be plowed. It also states that these priority sidewalks will be plowed “when personnel become available
after street snow and ice control is accomplished.” It emphasizes that if winter conditions become so severe
that it is virtually impossible to plow the priority walks, the only areas that will be plowed are immediately
adjacent to schools.
This policy needs to be updated and the ordinance possibly modified. What has happened over the years is that
a number of sidewalks and trails have been added to the snowplow list, not only as areas of the city developed,
but at the request of residents. We have definitely moved away from a hard and fast sidewalk plowing policy in
an effort to provide a higher service level.
F. Miscellaneous Items:
1. Currently the City is plowing most of the trails and sidewalks in the City. Most of the service is good
to very good, with some being “just OK”. Do we want to improve the service level and can we afford
to? By eliminating some sidewalks from the list, the remaining walks will get a higher level of service
with the present personnel forces and equipment.
2. Bituminous trails that are 10 feet wide are much easier to maintain and have less ice spots than 4 – 5 ft.
concrete walks for reasons including: 1) pickup plows can move larger amounts of snow faster; 2) the
ability of sun light to hit the wider surface; 3) the dark color retains and absorbs heat better getting rid
of ice. We currently plow all the 8-10 ft. trails adjacent to the streets with our Trackless machines
which only open up a 5 ft. wide area.
3. We are currently adding about 1.5 miles of trail in the construction of the Northeast Connector Trail
plus about 1.5 additional miles of trail along CH 42 with the reconstruction project. (There was a trail
only on the north side of CH 42 prior to the project. Now there will be trails on both sides.)
October 14, 2008
Page 3
4. Last snow season we had 6 snow events in about 10 days beginning on December 23 causing the 2nd
and 3rd priority sidewalks to be plowed minimally during this time. This is due to less available
personnel on holidays (trying to accommodate everyone fairly) and trying to keep the first priority
walks plowed. When walks are used prior to plowing, it is extremely difficult to get the snow/ice
pack off the concrete for the rest of the season.
5. The cost of the Trackless machines is getting to a point where other options need to be considered
including complete changing of service levels and policies; alternative equipment and the associated
service levels; and contracting sidewalk or other snowplowing services. With limited personnel and
time allotments, the speed of the Trackless machines is the deciding factor as the plow machine of
choice.
6. The cost to replace the Trackless machines is extreme for a machine with limited uses for other tasks
throughout the year. For the cost of one Trackless, two pickups fully decked out with proper plows
and equipment could be purchased, which will be used much more the rest of the year.
7. Conversion of some of the city’s 5 ft. walks to 10 ft. trails could be accomplished at a cost of $50 - $60
a foot. This would allow the City to use pickups instead of trackless machines for snow plowing. A
main point of discussion for this idea is the “Loop” discussed in the Trail Master Plan as a future goal.
We discussed a segment of Burnsville Parkway two years ago along with the street rehabilitation
project with the Council and its cost was a deciding factor. For example, a 1.1 mile replacement on
Burnsville Parkway is estimated to cost about $300,000. The total Burnsville Loop is about 11.5
miles so it would cost about $3.6 million to convert sidewalk on one side of the Loop to 10 ft. wide
bituminous trail.
8. The labor costs the City spends on snowplowing sidewalks and trails (dependent on weather
conditions) is between $30,000 and $40,000. The City also budgets about $20,000 for sod repair
caused by sidewalk plows.
G. Options for Service
Sidewalk and trail plowing is a very complex task that involves many personnel and expensive equipment. At
the workshop staff will present the Council with a continuum of service levels and the corresponding degree of
cost and tradeoffs in other services. Below are a number of service options that need to be considered by the
Council as it addresses this issue:
1. The extremes on both ends of City provided sidewalk plowing are:
x to provide no City service except on City owned property and require all property owners to
remove snow and ice (ordinance in place).
x to continue to provide City plowing of all sidewalks/trails and improve the service delivered.
2. Provide sidewalk plowing service in a combination of the following:
x Enforce existing ordinance requirements
x Plow just collector streets
x Plow just around schools - variable radius
x Plow one side of streets where we currently plow both sides
x Eliminate some sidewalks from our priority list
x Eliminate plowing internal park trails
x Plow only select internal park trails
x Plow just the Burnsville Trail loop
x Plow the HOC and the CH 42 Business district
October 14, 2008
Page 4
3. An easy change which will improve our service level slightly for a segment of our sidewalk/trail
system is to have the parks department use their pickup plows to plow 16 miles of 8-10 ft.
bituminous trails that is currently being plowed by the Trackless machines. The impact will be in
the timing of the maintenance of the “non-staffed pleasure rinks” which will be delayed. The trails
will be plowed to their maximum width and more easily gain the power of sunlight.
Attachments: Burnsville City Code 8-1-1
Sidewalk Snow Removal Policy No. 5.16
Map of plowed sidewalk/trails
HCO
Sterling Codifiers, Inc.
Page 1 of 1
Chapter 1
REMOVAL OF SNOW AND ICE
8-1-1: ACCUMULATION PROHIBITED:
No owner or occupant of any building in front of which, or adjacent to where a sidewalk has been
constructed for the use of the public shall allow any accumulation of ice or snow to remain upon said
sidewalk longer than twelve (12) hours after said ice and snow has ceased to be deposited thereon.
(Ord. 58; 12-6-65)
8-1-2: INTERFERING WITH REMOVAL:
No person shall park any vehicle upon any avenue or street or any area in the Village in such a
manner as to interfere with snow removal or street maintenance of the said streets and highways.
If an owner or operator permits his vehicle to be parked in violation of this Section, the Police
Department is hereby authorized to remove or cause this vehicle to be removed and upon conviction,
a fine shall be levied upon the owner or operator of such vehicle together with actual towing costs and
storage costs, which costs shall be determined by actual costs involved. (Ord. 21; 1-29-63)
http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/getBookData.php?id=&chapter_id=22171&keywords=
4/10/2009
POLICY NUMBER
5.160
SIDEWALK SNOW REMOVAL
I.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR POLICY
Despite the provisions of Ordinance 8-1-1 which places responsibility for snow removal on
the adjacent property owner, the City needs a coordinated and timely policy for removal of
snow on high priority sidewalks. The City has approximately 80 miles of 4 and 5-foot wide
sidewalks. Many of the walks are located along undeveloped property, adjoining corner lots
or on sides of lots, which have no access to the public street. The walks typically are only
along collector and thoroughfare streets.
The sidewalk system is maintained to provide a safe location for pedestrians including the
elderly, school children, etc., to get to and from schools, places of business and so forth.
Because of the demand for the use of the sidewalks and because of the widely varying
conditions of the property on which they exist, it is in the public interest that the City
provides plowing of these walks.
II.
POLICY
Each year the Public Works Department prepares a map clearly identifying the location of all
the sidewalks within the City. This map is reviewed to identify and prioritize the walks that
are used for the following purposes: School access; churches access; bus route access; and
shopping access. In developing the map, the Public Works Department works in conjunction
with the various school districts.
The Public Works Department Maintenance Division plows the priority sidewalks identified
above when personnel become available after street snow and ice control is accomplished. If
winter conditions become so severe that it is virtually impossible to plow the priority walks,
sidewalk plowing is discontinued except for the areas immediately adjacent to schools.
III.
PROCEDURE
1.
The Public Works Department annually maps and identifies the priority sidewalks.
2.
The Maintenance Division of the Public Works Department plows priority sidewalks
when the street system has been sufficiently cleared of snow and ice so that
personnel is available to operate the sidewalk snow plows.
3.
Under heavy snowfall conditions, which prohibit sidewalk snow plowing, the Public
Works Department discontinues sidewalk snow plowing except in those areas
immediately adjacent to public schools.
IV.
RESPONSIBILITY
The Public Works Department, Maintenance Division, monitors the sidewalk conditions to
determine the timing and priority of sidewalks to be cleared.
V.
AUTHORITY
Administrative implementation of policy.
Reference: Ordinance, City Code 8-1-1
Submitted by:
Reviewed by:
C. A. Siggerud
Linda M. Barton
Date: December 19, 1988
Date: December 19, 1988
Burnsville Plowed Sidewalks & Trails
Plowed Sidewalks & Trails
Material
Bituminous
Concrete
Heart of the City
Sidewalk Less Than 5' Wide
John
Metcalf
Jr. High
E
EA
AG
GA
AN
N
Sioux Trail
Elementary
School
William Byrne
Elementary
School
Burnsville Sr.
High School
Gideon Pond
Elementary School
SS AVA
AVA G
GE
E
Vista View
Elementary
School
Sky Oaks
Elementary Joseph
Nicollet
School
Jr. High
Edward
Neill
Elementary
School
A
A PP PP L
LE
E
VA
VA L
LL
LE
EY
Y
Echo Park
Elementary
School
City of Burnsville
100 Civic Center Parkway
www.ci.burnsville.mn.us or www.burnsville.org
Phone: (952) 895-4400 Fax: (952) 895-4404
0
L
LA
AK
KE
EV
V II L
LL
LE
E
Wednesday, March 12, 2008 7:37:57 AM
M:\Users\Departments\Engineering\City Maps\trail_plowed_system.mxd
1,050
2,100
4,200
Feet
53
53
27
CumulativeCosts
CumulativeNetSavings
55
350
7
12
7
225
251
0
405
165
2011
199
376
26
7
12
7
0
575
170
2012
118
632
8
14
9
225
256
0
750
175
2013
267
663
31
8
14
9
0
930
180
2014
193
922
9
15
10
225
259
0
1115
185
2015
349
956
34
9
15
10
0
1305
190
2016
507
993
37
10
16
11
0
1500
195
2017
Notes:
1)BasedonusingParksorMechanicspersonneltooperateadditionaltruckscausingadelayiniceskatingrinkmaintenance,
butdoesnotincludeaddedlaborcosts.ThepersonnelwouldbeworkingfortheCityanywayperformingothertasksthatwould
nowbeslightlydelayedabout10timesperyear.
141
99
46
6
5
2
240
0
25
6
10
5
40
80
CumulativeSavings
160
2010
Costs
PurchaseUsedTruck
PurchaseBrineEqpmt.
Lakevillecontract
AddedOT
AddedBrkdns/Fuel
NewTruckPurchase
TotalCosts
80
2009
Savings
SnowplowContract
Year
(AmountsareinThousands)
EliminateContractPlowing
StreetSnowPlowing
670
1030
37
10
16
11
0
1700
200
2018
Meeting Date
Item number
CITY OF BURNSVILLE
COUNCIL WORK SESSION BACKGROUND
04/14/2009
5
PRESENTERS
Jenni Faulkner, Community Development Director
Chris Slania, Planner
ITEM
Exterior Storage specifically at Motor Fuel Stations
Provide staff with direction on the current ordinance regarding exterior storage.
FACTS
At the All Day Work Session the Council included exterior storage for gas stations for worksession discussion as
part of their 2009 Work Plan. Pursuant to the current language in the ordinance: All goods for sale by a motor fuel
station convenience store other than petroleum based products required for the operation and maintenance of
motor vehicles shall be displayed within the principal motor fuel station structure. The provision allows fuel
stations to display oil, antifreeze and windshield washer fluid outside but does not apply to pop, salt, or ice
machines. This language has been part of the motor fuel station criteria since 1992 when the City last reviewed this
section of the ordinance.
Pursuant to the ordinance the land use of a motor fuel station requires a Conditional Use Permit or approval of a
Planned Unit Development. Regardless of the specific business or land use outdoor sales or storage in the B-3
(General Business) or B-4 (Highway Business) Zoning Districts requires a Conditional Use Permit. No outdoor
sales or storage is permitted in the B-1 (Office Business) or B-2 (Neighborhood Business) Zoning Districts.
Staff surveyed Burnsville’s market cities to provide additional reference regarding exterior storage in other
communities. Attached is a brief outline of ordinance requirements from other communities in the metro area. Of
the eleven communities contacted four require a CUP for exterior storage and seven allow it as a permitted use
within specific parameters and conditions. A summary is below:
CUP Required
Apple Valley
Lakeville
Minnetonka
*Brooklyn Park
Permitted with Parameters
Bloomington
Coon Rapids
Eagan
Edina
Eden Prairie
Inver Grove Heights
Plymouth
*In Brooklyn Park food and beverage vending machines, ice machines and propane exchanges are
permitted outside.
There are a number of options to consider in association with amending the ordinance such as processing outdoor
storage as part of the fuel station CUP; requiring a separate permit for the exterior storage; limiting the size,
location, and setbacks for products; limit exterior storage to enclosed machines and limiting the type of
merchandise allowed outside.
1
The correlation between the ordinance criteria and staff enforcement is also important. The ability to prohibit or
allow exterior storage and display on a broad approach helps manage the staff time and resource on enforcement
action. There may be other land uses and businesses that have or want similar outdoor storage such as home
improvement and grocery stores or pharmacies. The ordinance provides consistency between fuel stations and
other retail uses by requiring a CUP for all permanent outdoor storage and sales.
ISSUES
In 2008 the City Council heard from an owner of a motor fuel station (in a B-3 District) requesting exterior storage
of an ice freezer. The business was directed to work with staff on pursuing a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor
storage subject to the current ordinance. No CUP has been applied for. The City has had very limited requests of
this type in recent years.
The ordinance does allow for outdoor display with a CUP. Should the Council consideration amending the
ordinances the following are areas for discussion:
x
x
x
x
Maintaining Consistency with all uses (fuel stations, home improvement, grocery stores, pharmacies)
Enforcement – the more parameters or criteria placed on the use the more time consuming enforcement can
be (all or nothing approach)
Aesthetics / Safety – the City has worked hard to maintain a visibly pleasing community while providing
screening, buffers and display free sidewalks
Police and Security – the Police Department addresses calls for service based on the priority level of the
call. Should theft of outdoor products occur it will be prioritized with other needs at that time.
Staff is seeking feedback and direction on the current ordinance.
ATTACHMENT
Current Burnsville Ordinance
Market City Exterior Storage Survey
CS
g:\agenda\worksession backgrounds\2009\04-14\5 - gas station outdoor storage\5 - gas station exterior storage background.docx
2
BURNSVILLE CODE ON MOTOR FUEL STATION OUTDOOR STORAGE
10-19-1:
(G)
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS IN ALL
BUSINESS DISTRICTS:
Outdoor Storage: There shall be no outdoor storage of either materials or products, except
through the issuance of a conditional use permit where permitted in the underlying zoning
district.
10-19-3:
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS IN B-2 AND
B-3 DISTRICTS:
(A)
Motor fuel stations shall be subject to the following standards:
1.
The total height of any overhead canopy or weather protection shall not exceed twenty
feet (20') in height.
2.
Open storage of motor vehicles shall not be permitted for a period of more than fortyeight (48) hours and then only if it is screened.
3.
No sales or rental or motor vehicles or trailers or campers shall be permitted.
4.
All goods for sale by a motor fuel station convenience store other than petroleum based
products required for the operation and maintenance of motor vehicles shall be displayed within
the principal motor fuel station structure.
Bloomington
Apple Valley
City
No
CUP
Required?
Yes
Outdoor sale or storage of motorized vehicles;
Outdoor storage of damaged vehicles;
Outdoor research or testing facilities;
Outdoor sales as principal use or as accessory to principal use of the property;
Outdoor sales for rental shop;
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(c)
1
In business districts, displays of merchandise extended more than five feet into the
setback area or more than five feet in front of the existing building, if such building
abuts against or extends into the required setback area, shall be construed to be an
encroachment on the setback requirements and it is unlawful for the owner or occupant
to permit such encroachments except: merchandise may be displayed on service
station pump islands and where motor vehicles, new or used, are lawfully sold on the
premises, they may be stored or displayed in off-street parking areas. Displays of
merchandise shall not reduce the off-street parking area required by this Chapter.
Section 19.50. EXTERIOR STORAGE.
Motor fuel sales either as principal use or accessory use;
(A)
Within any GB general business district, no structure or land shall be used for the following
uses or uses deemed similar by the City Council, except by conditional use permit:
(D)
All goods offered for sale on the motor fuel station site, other than those generally
required for the operation and maintenance of motor vehicles, shall be stored, sold and
displayed within a building.
Motor fuel stations shall be subject to the following standards:
§ 155.356 MOTOR FUEL STATION DESIGN.
Outdoor Storage
Brooklyn Park
Yes
2
(7)
Conditional Use Permits for outdoor sales, display, or storage may be revoked by
the City Council if the activity has ceased for over 12 calendar months or if violations to any of
the above regulations have been documented and were not corrected in a timely manner as
determined by the City Manager.
(6)
In the I district. The outdoor sales, display and storage of goods may be
accessory to a larger industrial use and limited to those products typically manufactured or
sold within the primary building.
(5)
Area(s) must not be used for the storage of junk vehicles, trash, debris or other
nuisance items as defined elsewhere in the City Code.
(4)
The proprietor of the business must keep a copy of the Conditional Use Permit
on the premises and demonstrate compliance with the permit upon inspection.
(3)
The area(s) designated may not be permitted in the required setback from
residential districts or public rights-of-way.
(2)
The area(s) designated may not be located in the required parking areas, block
sidewalks, or interfere with public safety.
(1)
Except for seasonal greenhouses, the area(s) designated must be surrounded by
a permanent opaque fence constructed of materials that enhance the site and comply with all
other sections of the City Code.
(B)
Outdoor sales, display and storage and seasonal greenhouses. The Conditional Use
Permit may reflect the location, extent, content and allowable time period of the outdoor
sales, display, and storage of goods, including the location, appearance and size of any
seasonal greenhouse. The Conditional Use Permit must also comply with the following:
Coon Rapids
Brooklyn Park
No
Exterior food and beverage machines, ice machines, and propane tank exchanges.
Must be adjacent to and project no further than five feet from the primary
3
ii. 10 foot minimum setback from property lines; and
i. restricted to the rear or side yards only;
(1) materials and equipment directly related to site maintenance and safety provided they are
stored and completely screened in an enclosure constructed of materials similar to and
compatible with the principal structure subject to an approved site plan and subject to the
following:
11-1854 Outdoor Storage. In the Office, Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial,
General Commercial and Regional Shopping Districts, outdoor storage is prohibited with the
following exceptions:
11-1800 General District Standards
(6)
Exterior food and beverage vending machines, ice machines, and propane tank
exchanges must be in good repair at all times.
(5)
In addition to subsections (1) through (4) above, propane tank exchanges in the
Planned Unit Development (PUD), Planned Community Development District (PCDD), and
Town Center (TC) Zoning Districts may be approved through the conditional use permit
process as described in § 152.035.
(4)
In addition to subsections (1) through (3) above, propane tank exchanges must
be located within a metal cabinet painted to blend into the building. The cabinet, not to
exceed 52 cubic feet, must receive a permit from the Fire Chief.
(3)
Where sidewalks are present, a minimum access width of four feet must be
provided and may not be blocked by the vending machines or containers.
(2)
building.
(1)
Must be in conjunction with approved fuel or vehicle service businesses and
convenience or full-service grocery or variety goods store.
(D)
850.07 General Requirements Applicable to all Districts Except as Otherwise Stated.
No
Edina
4
C. Outdoor storage or displays may take place on lots in the Planned Commercial District in
accordance with Subsection 850.16.
Subd. 17 Outdoor Storage. All materials, supplies, finished or semi-finished products,
motor vehicles, trailers and all equipment shall be stored within a completely enclosed
building except:
C. Performance standards and noncompliance.
1. Standards for outdoor display. Outdoor display of merchandise or goods offered for sale,
rent or lease shall be permitted only in the neighborhood business (NB), general business
(GB) and community shopping center (CSC) zoning districts, subject to the following
requirements:
a. The display area shall not exceed 60 square feet.
b. The display area shall be located immediately adjacent to the principal structure and only
on the side of the building which contains a main entrance.
c. The display area shall not extend more than five feet out from the building and shall not
exceed four feet in height.
d. The display area shall not take up required parking spaces or landscaping areas of the
principal use.
e. The display items shall consist solely of products sold or distributed within the principal
structure by the occupant thereof.
No
(3) shopping cart corrals shown on an approved site plan and used for the temporary storage
of carts.
(2) items available for active sales covering no more than 20 square feet.
iii. cannot impact emergency access, traffic flow, parking or sidewalk access.
Eagan
Coon Rapids
Eden Prairie
Edina
No
5
(b) Permanent outdoor display area. Merchandise or equipment may be displayed and offered
for sale, rental or lease within, but outside the confines of that part of the completely enclosed
building, of which it is a part ("permanent outdoor display area") for a combined time period
of sixty (60) days or greater of a calendar year provided:
(1) The building of which the permanent outdoor display area is a part does not exceed the
base area ratio or floor area ratio permitted in the Commercial District.
(2) Material or equipment must be screened from public roads and adjacent land uses with a
wall of the building.
(3) The permanent outdoor display area may not encompass an area greater than six percent
(6%) of the base area of the completely enclosed building.
2. In all Commercial Districts, all materials, supplies, merchandise or other similar matter
shall be stored within a completely enclosed building, except merchandise or equipment
offered for sale, rental or lease displayed in accordance with the following limitations:
Subd . 4 . 11 -22 Performance Standards
J. Outside Storage and Displays.
SECTION 11.03. ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICT, SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
7. No merchandise shall be displayed for sale outside a building except in that area within four
feet of the building or within pump islands used for dispensing motor fuels.
P. Automobile Service Centers and Gas Station Standards.
Subd. 12.
Special Requirements. In addition to the general requirements described in
Subsection 850.07, the following special requirements shall apply:
Section 850.16 - Planned Commercial District (PCD).
No
Yes
Inver Grove Heights
Lakeville
6
c. Conditional Use Permit: Outdoor sales and services may be further restricted or
prohibited as a term in a conditional use permit.
b. Nonconformance: Outdoor sales and services that do not conform to the specific
performance standards of this subsection O shall be defined as nonconforming uses
regulated by chapter 15 of this title.
a. Areas Designated: Areas for outdoor sales and services shall be clearly indicated on
the site plan and reviewed at the time of application for a conditional use permit. No
outdoor sales or services shall be allowed outside of those areas so designated on the
approved site plan without approval of an amended conditional use permit.
1. Site Plan:
O. Outside Sales And Service: Outside sales and service shall be allowed on a limited basis,
provided that:
11-37-3: MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL SALES, NOT INCLUDING TRUCK STOPS OR
AUTOMOBILE REPAIR:
Subd. 9. Exterior Storage. All exterior storage and equipment in “B” and “I” Districts shall
be screened with the following exceptions:
1. Retail merchandise displayed in front of the structure.
2. Materials and equipment being used for construction on the premises.
3. Merchandise located on service station pump islands.
4. In "B-3" districts all materials and goods shall be screened except those being sold, and in
"I-2" districts pursuant to Section 515.90, Subd. 9. (Ord. 855;12/11/95)
515.90 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Lakeville
7
c. Freezers for ice products may only be located at the front of the building subject to
the area and location requirements of subsections O2 and O3 of this section, or when
used for storage purposes only shall be located in a side or rear yard and screened
from view from adjacent properties or the public right of way with materials consistent
with the principal building.
b. Propane sales limited to twenty (20) pound capacity tanks may be located outside
provided the propane tanks are secured in a locker and meet all state uniform building
and fire codes.
a. Public phones, compressed air service or automobile vacuum areas may encroach
into a required yard as long as they do not interrupt on site traffic circulation, do not
occupy required parking stalls, and are not located in a yard abutting residentially
zoned property.
4. Uses: Outdoor services shall be limited to the following uses:
c. Required Parking: The outdoor sales area shall be included in the calculations for
parking spaces required for the use by chapter 19 of this title.
b. Height: The height of sales displays shall not obstruct any window or otherwise
impair a clear view of the pump islands from the cashier station within the building. In
no case shall the sales display exceed five feet (5') in height.
a. Area: The area devoted to outdoor sales shall not exceed five percent (5%) of the
gross floor area of the principal building or two hundred (200) square feet, whichever is
less.
3. Outdoor Sales:
2. Location: Except as regulated by subsection O4a of this section, outdoor sales and
services shall be located upon a concrete or asphalt surface adjacent to the principal
building and shall not encroach into any required principal building setback, required
parking stall, drive aisle, or pedestrian sidewalk required by subsection M of this section,
or otherwise impede vehicle and pedestrian circulation.
By Permit
Yes
Subd. 5. Outdoor display (permanent) of seasonal or convenience items (e.g., windshield
washer fluid, softener salt, etc.) as an accessory use in association with an allowed principal
use provided that:
(a) The area so occupied shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the gross floor area of the
principal building or 100 square feet, whichever is less.
(b) No display of merchandise shall occur within the required front, rear, or side yards.
(c) Such outdoor display of merchandise shall be limited to the area of customer entrances or
within pump islands.
(d) Such outdoor display of merchandise shall not exceed five (5) feet in height.
(e) Such outdoor display area shall be included in the calculations for parking spaces required
for the use and shall not occupy space required for parking as regulated by Section 21135 of
this Chapter, except as may be exempted for cause by the Zoning Administrator.
21455.11. USES BY ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT: Subject to applicable provisions of this
Section, performance standards established by this Chapter, and processing requirements of
Section 21025, the following are uses allowed in a C-1 District by administrative permit as
may be issued by the Zoning Administrator:
4. Conditional Uses.
Within the B-2 district, no structure or land shall be used for the following except by
conditional use permit and in conformance with the standards specified in section 300.21 of
this ordinance:
a) outside storage, display, sales or servicing;
Within the city’s commercial districts, outdoor storage is allowed only as a conditional use.
8
g:\agenda\worksession backgrounds\2009\04-14\gas station outdoor storage\motor fuel outdoor storage survey.docx
Plymouth
Minnetonka
CITY OF BURNSVILLE
Meeting Date
Item Number
04/14/2009
6 ___
PRESENTER
Bridget Dalrymple, Special Projects Coordinator
ITEM
National League of Cities Prescription Discount Program
FACTS
The National League of Cities (NLC) prescription discount card program was discussed at the February
2009 Worksession. Council had some additional questions and directed staff to bring back additional
information.
Council had questions or concerns about:
x
Endorsing a single discount card program and any liability in doing so.
The City Attorney had no hesitation or concern with liability and did not feel this was unfairly endorsing
one program over another. He talked with LMC General Counsel Tom Grundhoefer who also consulted
with the League of Minnesota Cities Member Services Director Kevin Frazell. Neither of them expressed
any concerns with proceeding. Joel continued that if the LMC determines in the next few weeks that
further risk management practices should be implemented, such as additional disclaimers or waivers, the
city can implement the practices prior to making the cards available.
x
Council inquired about similar programs
Other discount prescription drug card programs are available. Caremark, the company administering this
program, is one of the largest prescription benefit plan administrators in the country. Other prescription
benefit administrators offer similar prescription discount cards including Benefit Builders Healthtran,
United Networks of America and Your Rx Card. Some programs are sponsored by the pharmaceutical
companies themselves such as Together Rx Access. Others require a monthly or annual fee. This ranges
from $45.00 to $50.00 annually. Other prescription discount programs are offered under other names but
are still administered by Caremark such as Rx Savings Plus. Some, including People Prescription Plan, is
closed and no longer accepting requests to join.
This program is not exclusionary. Because there is no contract or legal agreement to sign with Caremark
or NLC, the City could offer other cards (or residents could obtain other cards) through other discount
prescription programs.
As discussed previously, CVS is not the only pharmacy where the card can be used. A variety of
pharmacies participate in this program through Caremark. Their profit margin on the prescription may
not be as large when the discount card is used, but the pharmacy may make money on additional
purchases with increased traffic.
x
Council asked staff to talk with participating cities regarding the NLC program.
Currently NLC has roughly fifty member cities participating in the prescription card program and another
fifty in the planning phase. There are two cities in Minnesota participating at this time: Robbinsdale and
Crystal. Staff contacted the following cities and provided their responses here:
Northglenn, CO – Launched January 10th and are already second in usage. Staff has been conducting
weekly conference calls with Caremark personnel in addition to internal meetings with Communications
and IT. A resolution was signed to proceed with the program. Staff found that schools and school nurses
were particularly receptive to the program and asked for cards to hand out directly. They find the
monthly report from NLC and Caremark very informative.
Athens, TN – “The 19th marks the first month of the program. I just received our first report yesterday
which reflected that from January 19 through January 31st, 42 prescriptions had been submitted for a
savings of almost $700. I was pretty impressed with that – Athens is a small city and I hope that the
citizens will continue to use the cards.”
“The process was very easy. NLC provided all of the news releases, the cards, the posters, etc. I made
calls to all of the pharmacies and asked if I could bring the material to them. All but one was very
positive about the program. Our local newspaper was very cooperative as was our local radio stations.
An article was printed before the launch date and on launch date – complete with pictures of local
pharmacists promoting the program. I have also placed the cards at our Senior Citizens Center and a
medical clinic that sees individuals with no insurance. We hope this might give them some relief as
well.”
“We have had not experienced any negative feedback or problems. I would definitely encourage you to
join the program.”
West Hollywood, CA – “The program is up and running. Cards have recently been distributed to
pharmacies and at local City buildings (Sheriff's, City Hall, Library, Parks, etc.). We've put the word out
in some ways and people have started contacting us to get cards and such. A big City newsletter will be
sent to all of our residents in the next couple of weeks that includes an article about the program (so we
expect many more people to inquire about the program and get cards).”
“NLC has been very helpful and responsive. It's an easy program for people to use and is explained well
in the materials, so......I think it's a good thing and we'll see what happens in the coming months in terms
of the number of folks who are utilizing the program.”
Greenbelt, MD – “It was not difficult. We determined the locations for dispersal including pharmacies,
schools, libraries and etc. We also sent the cards home in the backpacks of children in all of schools. We
dispersed 5000 cards to date.”
BD
CITY OF BURNSVILLE
Meeting Date
Item number
04/14/2009
7
ROUND TABLE ITEMS
¾ City Policy on Yard Frontage for Multi-Family Property Street Assessments
Staff is being questioned on the assessment policy as it pertains to certain apartment buildings in
the Vista View area. The property owner is requesting that all of the particulars of R-1 zoning be
utilized when calculating his assessments. His property is currently zoned R-1 as a nonconforming use, but the taxes on the property are calculated at the apartment rate by the County.
Staff would normally assess his property as a multi-family or R-3 zone property. We have already
offered to assess all of the property footage at the R-1 rate versus the R-3 rate, a difference of
about $10 per foot. The property owner wants to have the short side/1/2 the long side calculated
for his property.
The Assessment policy under section III talks about “zones” but is not meant to reflect actual
zoning for planning purposes. For instance there is a category of “All Other Zones” which is used
for commercial, industrial, schools and churches. Schools and churches do not have special
zoning in Burnsville, but can be placed in different actual zoning districts. R-3 has been utilized
for all multi-family housing. Per the Assessment Policy, the R-3 and All Other Zones are
assessed at a higher rate since they generate much more traffic than a single family residential
home.
Staff will provide and verbal overview of the issue. We recommend that the property owner be
assessed at least at the R-1 rate for all of his footage.
¾ Appoint Liaison to Chamber of Commerce Local Government Affairs Committee
The Chamber of Commerce has requested the Council appoint a liaison to their Local
Government Affairs Committee.
¾ Special Worksession Schedule
Staff is requesting the Council schedule Special Worksessions for the following items:
x Budget Meeting
x City Manager’s Annual Performance Evaluation
x Advisory Board Interviews
¾ Reports on Advisory Boards and External Organizations
ATTACHMENTS
Advisory Board Listing
/mb
ADVISORY BOARDS AND EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS
ELIZABETH KAUTZ
Regional Agencies
City Commissions/Committees/Community Interests
Minnesota Valley Transit Authority
Municipal Legislative Commission
Suburban Transit Authority
Regional Council of Mayors
Cedar Avenue Corridor Advisory Committee
Dakota Communication Center Board of Directors
Planning Commission
THE GARAGE Advisory Committee
International Festival Board
CHARLIE CRICHTON
Regional Agencies
AMM Policy Committee-Municipal Revenue
LMC Policy Committee-Improving the Fiscal Futures
Suburban Rate Authority
Fire Muster Board
Multi-Family Housing Managers
DAN KEALEY
Regional Agencies
AMM Policy Committee-Metropolitan Agencies
LMC Policy Committee-Improving Service Delivery
I-35W Solutions Alliance
Burnsville Medical Alliance
Parks & Natural Resources Commission
Watershed Management Organizations
DAN GUSTAFSON
Regional Agencies
LMC Policy Committee-Improving Local Economics
I-35W Solutions Alliance
Metropolitan Transportation Advisory Board (TAB)
Economic Development Commission
MARY SHERRY
Regional Agencies
AMM Policy Committee-Housing & Econ Dev
LMC Policy Committee-Improving Local Economics
Burnsville Community Foundation
BV Convention & Visitors Bureau Advisory Board
Multi-Family Housing Managers, Alternate
LACA Board of Directors
ALL – Ad Hoc Committees

AGENDA COUNCIL WORKSESSION BURNSVILLE CITY COUNCIL

Transcription

Similar documents

Burnsville SmART Initiative

iCentera 3.0 Sales Edition

Job Title: SolidWorks Mechanical Designer, Contract (3+ Mo

Former Best Buy

Tuesday, November 11 SCE 302 4:00

Ods Lloyd Flanders April 24

Thank You!

%o*M,l `

LUXURY HOMES - Hughes Design Associates