1999-07-13 AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 13, AT 7:30 P.M.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:00 P.M.
HRA MEETING - SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
7:30 P.M.
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed
from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
7:30 P.M. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
APPROVE AGENDA.
*CONSENT AGENDA
*A.
*B.
*C.
*D.
PAGE
APPROVE MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 1999, REGULAR MEETING. 2400-2408
APPROVE MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 1999, REGULAR MEETING. 2409-2416
APPROVE MINUTES OF JUNE 29, 1999, SPECIAL MEETING. 2417-2421
SET PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE HALSTEAD
PLACE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA (PDA) TO CHANGE
THE CURRENT USE OF AN R-1 MOBILE HOME PARK TO AN
R-1 PDA AND R-3 PDA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT,
LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY ZONING
DISTRICT, LOTS 1, 2, 3, HALSTEAD HEIGHTS,
PID #22~117-24 43 0007, P & X CASE #99-28.
(SUGGESTED DATE:~ JULY 27, 1999) ..................... 2422
~'~ 10-°i6~ 2396
*F,.
*F.
SET PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER TIlE APPROVAL OF
THE HALSTEAD PLACE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT AREA (PDA) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
A SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED AND DETACHED HOME
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED WITHIN THE R- 1 SINGLE FAMILY
ZONING DISTRICT, LOTS 1, 2, 3, HALSTEAD HEIGHTS,
PID//22-117-24 43 0007, P & X CASE//99-25.
(SUGGESTED DATE: -JULY 2,, 19~9) .....................
CASE//99-27: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE VARIANCES;
FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS; TO
CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED 24 X 24 GARAGE AND
A 16 X 20 SCREEN PORCH AT 4873 CUMBERLAND RD;
BLOCK 1, LOT 24, ARDEN; MELODY OLSEN,
PID# 24-117-24 44 0021 ...........................
PAYMENT REQUEST #2 - MOTION - AUDITOR'S ROAD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - KUSSKE CONSTRUCTION
$80,024.49 .....................................
PAYMENT OF BILLS .............................
2423
2424-2437
2438-2442
2443-2471
PUBLIC HEARING: CASE# 99-21: RESOLUTION FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; TO ALLOW FOR UTILIZING
EXISTING SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THE WESTONKA SENIOR
CENTER, WESTONKA HEALTHY COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVE,
PROVIDE TWO ROOMS FOR THE HEAD START PROGRAM, AND
BUILD A MEMORIAL GARDEN; 2451 FAIRVIEW LN; TRACTS A - G,
INCLUSIVE, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY # 739 & THAT PART OF
BLOCK 2, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D; ST. JOHN'S CHURCH,
PID #'S 24-117-24 12 0014 & 24-117-24 12 0058 ................ 2472-2514
PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE REVISION SECTION 350:420:
REPEALING OF CITY CODE SECTION 350:420, SUBDIVISION
9 & 10 PERTAINING TO NON-CONFORMING USES TO BE REPLACED
BY NEW LANGUAGE .............................. 2515-2540
PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION TO ASSIGN
THE CITY'S CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE FROM
TRIAX MIDWEST ASSOCIATES, L.P. TO MEDIACOM LLC.
HEARING WILL FOCUS ON THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED AND
THE QUALIFICATIONS OF MEDIACOM LLC ................ 2541-2542
2397
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT
ON THE AGENDA.
8. DISCUSSION: COUNTY ROAD 15 REALIGNMENT:
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT HENNEPIN COUNTY
ADJUST THEIR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP)
TIMING FOR THE REALIGNMENT OF COUNTY ROAD
15 FROM 2002 TO 2001.
B. RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT HENNEPIN COUNTY
~'?''3'/'--' CONDUCT A PARKING STUDY FOR COUNTY ROAD 110
BETWEEN AUDITOR'S ROAD AND LYNWOOD BLVD.
(THESE ITEMS WILL BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY EVENING.
BRUCE IS WAITING FOR INFORMATION FROM HENNEPIN
COUNTY.)
DISCUSSION: REVIEW OF CONTRACT FOR LOST LAKE GREENWAY
PLAN PREPARATION .................................. 2543-2545
10. DISCUSSION: MINNETRISTA SEWER & WATER AGREEMENT
(There will probably be additional information handed out at
&.c/'~~ Tuesday evening's meeting because there will be another
C.' meeting with MINNETRISTA on Tuesday afternoon at 3:00 P.M. at
Mound City Hall.) ................................ 2546-2548
11.
DISCUSSION: CONFIGURATION OF PEMBROKE
MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK ............................ 2549-2578
RESOLUTION OPPOSING TAXATION WITHOUT PUBLIC CONSENT
FOR A NEW BASEBALL STADIUM IN HENNEPIN COUNTY ...... 2579-2581
13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: WOODLAND POINT LITIGATION.
14. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
Financial report for June, as prepared by Gino Businaro,
Finance Director .................................. 2582-2583
B. Quarterly report from Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager .......... 2584
Latest information from HENNEPIN County on their Tobacco
Ordinance ...................................... 2585-2596
2398
15.
Do
E.
F.
G.
Ho
L.M.C.D. mailing~ ................................
Letter from Bruce Chamberlain regarding Dakota Rail .........
DCAC Minutes - June 17, 1999 ........................
Letter from NSP regarding remotely read electric and gas meters for
residential and commercial customers ....................
Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) mailing ..................
Planning Commission Draft Minutes 6-28-99 ...............
REVISED CALENDAR FOR JULY.
REMINDERS:
A.
Co
Do
2597-2604
2605-2620
2621-2627
2628-2629
2630-2647
2648-2650
........................ 2651
COFFEE & DONUTS WITH BUSINESSES -
THURSDAY - JULY 15, 1999
7:30 A.M. - 9:00 A.M.
MOUND CITY HALL .................................. 2652
CITY REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 27, 1999
START TIME - 6:00 P.M ........................... 2653-2654
CITY COUNCIL SPONSORED EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION LUNCH -
FRIDAY, JULY 31, 1999- 11:00 A.M. TO 1:00 P.M.
CITY HALL
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING - AUGUST 3, 1999,
7:30 P.M.
2399
Draft Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council
dune 8, 1999
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 8, 1999
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular
session on Tuesday, June 8, 1999, at 7:48 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341
Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown,
Mark Hanus, Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, Acting
City Manager Fran Clark, City Engineer John Cameron, Police Chief Len Harrell, Building
Official don Sutherland, and Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon.
Those present from the public were: Amy Steele, 2352 Driftwood Lane; Robert Wroda,
2316 Fairview Lane; John Costello, Lakeshore Weekly News
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. She indicated
that they had come from a closed executive session and thanked the audience for their
patience in the meeting starting late. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be
routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate
discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event
the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
Brown asked that item B be pulled from the Consent Agenda. Hanus asked that items A
and D be pulled also.
Brown added item K to the Consent Agenda which was a letter from the Minnesota
House of Representatives regarding the Mound Masonic Lodge #320. Ahrens added item
L, a public heating notice for the Triax License for Media Com. Clark added item M, a
application for a transient merchant license for a garden market stand on Lynwood and
Commerce Boulevard in the parking lot.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to approved the Regular
and Consent Agendas except items A, B and D. Motion carried 5-0.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 25, 1999 REGULAR
MEETING.
MOTION
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
Draft Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council
June 8, 1999
Eo
Fo
Wo
Xo
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A JOINT
COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND
HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE URBAN HENNEPIN
COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM IN
FY 2000-2002.
MOTION
Ahrens, IIanus, unanimously.
MOTION TO INCREASE MERIT PAY INCENTIVE FROM 1 ½ % TO 2% OF
OPERATING PROFITS FROM 1998, FOR LIQUOR STORE MANAGER,
JOEL KRUMM.
MOTION
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
MOTION PAYMENT REQUEST NUMBER 1 - AUDITOR'S ROAD STREET
IMPROVEMENT - $71,918.80.
MOTION
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER #1 FRO AUDITOR'S ROAD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. AN INCREASE OF $2M145,00 TO THE
CONTRACT.
MOTION
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE PAYMENT OF BILLS.
MOTION
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
RECEIVE INFORMATION FROM STEVEN SMITH, STATE OF
MINNESOTA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REGARDING MOUND
MASONIC LODGE #320.
MOTION
Ahrens, ltanus, unanimously.
MOTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR TRIAX LICENSE, MEDIA
COM.
MOTION
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
Y. MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR TRANSIENT MERCHANT
LICENSE FOR GARDEN MARKET ON THE CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND
COMMERCE BOULEVARD IN THE PARKING LOT FOR APPLICANT
CRAIG J. GILB.
MOTION
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
Discussion of item A - Mound City Council Meeting Minutes, May 11, 1999.
Hanus stated that on page 2013 of the packet, that he did not answer the question from
Weycker regarding the impact on the Roanoke area. He is not sure who she was asking,
but he did not answer.
On page 2017, paragraph 2, Hanus was referring to a hypothetical situation. Thus, strike the
following:
"Hanus has a problem in that one rarer was broken and needed fixing."
Also, on page 2017, second to the last paragraph, the Mayor was referring to a hypothetical
question and the following should be struck:
"The Mayor discussed her boat house and the issues she has with snow."
Hanus stated that wherever "Don Schervern" appeared, his last name should be "Scherven."
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to approve May 11, 1999 City
Council Minutes as amended. Motion carried 4-1. (Weycker voting nay.)
Discussion of item B - Mound City Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes, May 18, 1999.
On page 2023, paragraph 6, the third sentence, Hanus indicated that the Mayor was discussing the
meeting with Minnetrista. Also, the Chief of Police's name is spelled "Harrell" not "Harnell."
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown to approve May 18, 1999
Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes as amended. Motion carried 5-0.
Discussion of item D - City of Mound, City Council Special Meeting Notice and Public Hearing
Notice.
This meeting is being called to conduct a public hearing on the submission and filing of an
application for a Minnesota Investment Grant from the Minnesota Department of Trade and
Economic Development. Clark stated that this was proposed to be a facility to cut and package
labels to be located in Mound. The anticipated traffic increase will be three trucks a day through
Mound. The facility will employ up to 50 people. Six are being moved in from out of state. The
other employees are anticipated to be hired locally at around $10 per hour.
ACT, Inc. is locating this facility here in conjunction with a loan/grant from the State of
Minnesota. The special meeting needs to take place prior to the end of June, so that the
application can be completed by then. At that same time, the City Council will consider approval
of an operations permit for ACT II, Inc. at 5330 Shoreline Drive.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to set the Public Hearing date as
Tuesday, June 29, 1999 at 5 p.m. Motion carried 5-0.
Ahrens asked the Mayor to asked if the issue on the Albrecht Dock needed to be added to the
agenda. She indicated she would like it to be.
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown to added the Albrecht Dock issue as
agenda item number 8. Motion carried 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #99-22, PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER FINAL PLAT,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES FOR THE LYNMORE
SUBDMSION TWIN HOME PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN THE R-2 ZONING
DISTRICT, LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, AT 4901 SHORELINE
DRIVE, PID #13-17-24 44 0032.
Gordon indicated that this applicant has submitted a final plat for the Lynmore. The preliminary
plat was approved by Resolution #98-72 in June of 1998. Council approval of the final plat is
being sought at this time. The road and utility improvements to Norwood are completed except
for the final street surface planned after the development is completed. At the time of the
preliminary plat approval, a conditional use permit and variances were also approved that will
regulate the development and use of the property.
Staffreconunends approval of the Lynmore Final Plat with the following conditions:
The Final Plat drawing labeled as Exhibit A is hereby incorporated into this Resolution and all
improvements shall be as shown on the plans or as modified under approval of the City
Engineer. The location of all dwelling shall be only as provided on the City's zoning
regulations, or as modified by official action of the City Council; and any inconsistent dwelling
location in the final plat shall be ignored.
The Homeowner's Association documents shall be prepared and submitted with the Final Plat
and incorporated into final plat resolution.
Draft Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council
June 8, 1999
The plat shall be filed with Hennepin County within one hundred and eighty (180) days of the
City Council approving the final plat. If the plat is not filed within that time period, it shall
become null and void.
A Homeowner's Association shall be established for all lots within the subdivision and
provided prior to the Final Plat approval. Ail of these documents shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Attorney.
Prior to any occupancy the applicant shall secure Certificates of Occupancy from the Building
Official. Certificates of Occupancy will not be issued from homes in the subdivision until
utilities and access servicing the homes are approved by the City Engineer, Public Works
Superintendent and Building Official.
A revised grading and drainage plan must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer if
the grading and drainage will change from the previously approved plan.
The Developer shall be responsible for the installation of private utilities, such as telephone,
electric and natural gas services. The required utilities shall not be installed until the
boulevard or utility easements have been graded. Ail such utilities shall be installed
underground.
Weycker asked about the language in the covenants regarding park land on pages 2113 and 2119.
The attorney indicated there wasn't a need to be concerned about this at this time. The covenants
included were a "boiler plate" model and would be modified to include the future homeowner's of
this plat.
The public heating was opened at 8:05 p.m.
Dave Moore, one of the two owners of this property addressed the council. He indicated that the
covenants were actually from the Spring Plat. There actually would not be a homeowner's
management company, so he suggested changing this language. Thus, in items #2 and ~, of the
conditions to the resolution, the language would read:
"Covenants, Conditions and Resolution" in lieu of"The Homeowner's Association".
Hanus asked how the covenants would be enforced. Dean indicated that they would be attached
to the deed.
Mr. Moore indicated that the regulations had the intent to give the owners some freedom on the
property such as adding gardens, etc.
He also indicated that the city had waived the park fees since the lots were lots of record prior to
filing the preliminary plat.
Draft Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council
June 8. 1999
The public hearing was closed at 8:17 p.m.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown to approve Resolution #99-XX
which authorized the final plat for Lynmore, Lots 1-6, Block 1, A replat of
Lots 1-6, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit A with language changes as indicated
above to conditions 2 and 4. Motion carried 5-0.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE PARTIAL PAYMENT REQUEST #1 AND CHANGE
ORDER #1 IN THE AMOUNTS OF $16,483.64 AND ADD $15,488.75 RESPECTIVELY -
NORWOOD LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
Cameron indicated that on page 2023 of the packet, there was a letter to Clark with the partial
payment and change order request. He indicated that the project was done except for the sealing
of the bituminous. He further indicated that on this project "anything that could go wrong, went
wrong."
One the used the developer's drawings and because of the wet conditions had to add two
additional inches of material and bring in some granular material. Second, the utility connection
was 6" in diameter and they needed an eight inch. The City's records were wrong on this item.
Finally, on the south end, they lost the street when they started. They needed to replace part of
the street on Bartlett.
The project had already been assessed. A special assessment is being proposed. He
recommended that the difference be assessed ~A to the City and the other half to the street in front
of the development.
Dean indicated that the ordinances allow for this, however, two issues need to be looked at prior
to decisions. One was the agreement between the developer and the City to see if it precludes
such payment. The second is a consideration of if the city is reaching the point where the
assessable costs to the lots are greater than the benefit to the owners. He requested time to
research and report back at a later point. The bottom line, he indicated is that they should
approve the payment of the costs and the City cover at this point.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown to pay the bill of $16,483.64 as
submitted. Motion carried 5-0.
At this point, the Mayor returned to missed agenda item number four and asked if there were any
community members wishing to address the council. There were none.
REVIEW AND APPROVED DRAFT AGREEMENT WITH ROD PLAZA REGARDING
PEMBROKE MULTIPLE DOCK.
Weycker requested a map be presented along with this agreement. She asked where the north
property line was. It is 25 feet beyond the light pole to the south. She also indicated that she
Draft Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council
dune 8, 1999
believed that Phelps common was actually park land. Dean indicated that Phelps Common did
exist. Ahrens indicated that it is a street per the legal lot descriptions. It is a privately dedicated
street abutting the lake.
Weycker asked why they were entering into an agreement with Plaza and not the other neighbor
on the other side. Hanus stated that the dock was not going in front of his lot. Dean indicated
that the key point was item #9 in the agreement.
MOTION by Brown to accept the agreement.
The Mayor had a concern that items 1, 2 and 3 tie up the property for a long time. Hanus stated
that nothing indicated the City needed to abide by this. In fact, he stated, this has already be
watered down significantly. All they are saying is that the dock cannot go beyond the 143 foot
mark without another agreement. Mayor Meisel asked if the attorney had reviewed the
agreement. Yes, he had.
Weycker asked why this type of agreement wasn't done with all the multiple docks. Again, Dean
indicated that the key to this agreement was statement #9. Hanus stated that there was only one
other multiple dock that did not fit within the 30 feet and that was Devon.
Weycker was concerned that if this was adopted, it could become a standard for all multiple
docks. Dean indicated this was up to the council.
Weycker was further concerned that other docks would be placed in front of Plaza's property.
Hanus indicated that the intention was to only restrict commons abutted docks. Ahrens asked if
they could add an item that would state there would only be one other dock and that of the
abutters further south along this property. She stated the purpose of the multiple docks was to
stop the installation of docks of non-abutters.
Hanus proposed adding the following to condition number one on page 2131'
"... and further that it will not place any additional dock locations on that portion of Devon
Commons that lies between the extended lot line south of the 143 foot mark."
Dean indicated that condition number two already states that the City agrees that it will keep and
abide by the agreement and not place any additional dock locations on that portion of Devon
Commons.
The purpose of multiple docks was to free up congestion and move people closer to the lake
access.
Dean stated that the purpose of this agreement was with the Plaza property and that other actions
were beyond the scope of this agreement. Mayor Meisel stated that any additional docks would
require Council action anyway. .
Draft Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council
June 8, 1999
Weycker recalled that when this pilot was put into place, the residents were told they could go
back to the original sites. Hanus does not remember this condition. Ahrens indicated the pilot
program was for only one season, but the City Council later acted upon that motion to make it
permanent.
MOTION by l:[anus, seconded by Ahrens to adopt the agreement with the
amendment to condition number one. Motion carried 4-1 (Weycker
opposed.)
ADD-ON AGENDA ITEM - ALBRECHT DOCK ADJUSTMENT
Mayor Meisel indicated that the letter given to Council members was an informational letter to
inform them that the dock that the City was purchasing from Albrecht does have some bad
racking. However, the Council's recommendation to pay Albrecht what they City would be
reimbursed still stands. Albrecht can sell this on his own should he chose and attempt to get a
higher price. However, from the City, he will get what we are reimbursed.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS/MISCELLANEOUS
Clark covered the Committee of the Whole meeting and why the bonus amount was raised from 1
~A% to 2%. This represented the difference between what his high salary point would be and his
current salary because of the outstanding job he has done. This is a one time bonus.
Hanus stated that he was concerned over mid year (prior to budget setting time) changes in salary.
Clark indicated this was a one time thing with the intention of raising moral and opening
communications. Brown asked if it would set a precedence for others.
Mayor Meisel indicated this would take care of the liquor store manager, but she did understand
the mid year issue. Hanus stated that if they could expand the liquor store, this would also benefit
the manager. Mayor Meisel indicated there were other options to show and give credit.
Clark indicated that she will process the paperwork for the 2% bonus and communicate the other
information to others.
Other information included in packets:
Notice from Association of Metropolitan Municipalities, regarding amendments made to
the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Act this session.
B. EDC Minutes of May 20, 1999.
C. DCAC Minutes of May 20, 1999.
Draft Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council
June 8, 1999
Reminders of meetings on June 22, 1999 at 6 p.m., June 15, 1999 at 5 p.m., and June 29, 1999 at
5 p.m. were made. Dean also mentioned the 6 p.m. Executive session held earlier this evening on
Woodland Point negotiations.
MOTION by Brown, second by Weycker to adjourn this meeting. Motion
carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
9
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 22, 1999
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular
session on Tuesday, June 22, 1999, at 7:35 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood
Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark
Hanus, Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: Acting City Manager Fran Clark, City
Attorney John Dean, Public Works Director John Cameron, Assistant City Planner: Loren
Gordon, and the following interested citizens: Sharon McMenamamy Cook, 5211 Shoreline
Drive; Ken and Kirk Geadelmann, 1709 Baywood Lane, John Timber, 6049 Ridgewood
Road, Diane and Tom Harmon, 4347 Wilshire Boulevard, Scot A McKenzie, 5251 Bartlett
Boulevard, Gene Abegglen, 2040 Arbor Lane, Lorrie Ham, The Laker, Amy Cuchese,
Lakeshore Weekly, David Hanus, 2715 Halstead Lane, Gino Businaro, Finance Director,
City of Mound.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of
Allegiance was recited.
*Consent Agenda: ~ill items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the
Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed
from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
APPROVE AGENDA
Hanus asked to add item 8I regarding SRA Matters.
Ahrens added a discussion item on Pembroke Multiple Dock (7A). She indicated that a
violation exists already.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Brown to approve the Regular Agenda, as
amended. The vote was 5-0 in favor. Motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA
CASE 3 99-19: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE; FRONT YARD, SIDE
YARD SETBACK, HARDCOVER; TO CONSTRUCT A 2~° STORY DECK ABOVE
EXISTING PATIO AT 1709 BAYWOOD LANE; BLOCK 4, LOT 3, REPLAT OF
HARRISON SHORES, KIRK GEADELMANN, PID # 13-117-24 21 0086.
MOTION
Hanus, Brown, unanimously.
Ge
He
CASE # 99-20: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE; LAKESIDE, SIDE
YARD~ AND HARDCOVER SETBACKS TO CONSTRUCT A SCREEN PORCH
AND A 2~° STORY OVER THE PROPOSED SCREEN PORCH AT 2072
SHOREWOOD LANE BLOCK 1, LOTS 13 AND 14, SHADYWOOD POINT; STEVE
HICKS, PID # 18-117-23 31 0006.
MOTION
Hanus, Brown, unanimously.
CASE # 99-23: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE; LAKESIDE AND
SIDE YARD SETBACKS; TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING LAKESIDE DECK
AND SIDE YARD DECK AT 1969 LAKESHORE LANE; BLOCK 11, LOT 3,
SHADYWOOD POINT; THOMAS RAMOND, PID # 18-117-23 23 0049.
MOTION
Hanus, Brown, unanimously.
CASE # 99-24: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO YARD SETBACK
AND HARDCOVER; TO CONSTRUCT A 2s~ STORYADDITION OVER EXISTING
STRUCTURE AT 2040 ARBOR LANE; LOT 9, SUBDMSION SKARP LINDQUIST
RAVEN, LOT 1 AND 32, GENE AND GRETCHEN ABEGGLEN, PID # 13-117-24
41 0038.
MOTION
Hanus, Brown, unanimously.
CASE # 99-08: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE; FRONT AND SIDE
YARD SETBACKS; TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE WITH A 2~ STORY
HABITABLE SPACE AT 6049 RIDGEWOOD ROAD; BLOCK 6, LOTS 22 AND 23,
THE HIGHLANDS; JOHN TIMBERG, PID # 23-117-24 34 0003.
MOTION
Hanus, Brown, unanimously.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF AFl'ER THE FACT QUASI PUBLIC FUNCTION
SIGN PERMIT FOR WESTONKA HOCKEY ASSOCIATION.
MOTION
Hanus, Brown, unanimously.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT FOR BASS RED
MAN FISHING TOURNAMENT - WEIGH-IN ONLY AT MOUND BAY PARK -
SUNDAY SEPTEMBER 19, 1999.
MOTION
Hanus, Brown, unanimously.
Je
MOTION TO SET THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(SUGGESTED DATE FOR BOTH: JULY 13, 1999)
CASE # 99-21: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; TO ALLOW FOR
UTILIZING EXISTING SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THE WESTONKA
SENIOR CENTER, WE STONKA HEALTHY COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVE,
PROVIDE TWO ROOMS FOR THE HEAD START PROGRAM, AND BUILD
A MEMORIAL GARDEN; 2451 FAIRVIEW LAND; TRACTS A-G INCLUSIVE,
REGISTERED LAND SURVEY # 739 AND THAT PART OF BLOCK 2,
SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D; ST. JOHN'S CHURCH, PID # 24-117-24 12 0014
AND 24-117-24 12 0058.
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 350:420: REPEALING OF CITY
CODE SECTION 350:420, SUBDIVISION 9 AND 10 PERTAINING TO NON-
CONFORMING USES TO BE REPLACED BY NEW LANGUAGE.
MOTION
Hanus, Brown, unanimously.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING A SIX MONTH EXTENSION OF THE JUNE 30,
1999 DUE DATE FOR REVIEW OF THE CITY OF MOUND COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN FOR CONSISTENCYWITH AMENDED METROPOLITAN COUNCIL POLICY
PLAN. 2267-2268.
MOTION
Hanus, Brown, unanimously.
Mo
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY OF
MOUND ON THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF THE MODIFICATION TO THE
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR TOWN SQUARE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND
THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF (TIF) TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. 1-2 THEREIN AND THE PROPOSED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
PLAN THEREFOR. SUGGESTED DATE: AUGUST 24, 1999.
MOTION
Hanus, Brown, unanimously.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
Scot McKenzie, 5251 Bartlett Boulevard, stated that he wanted some satisfaction from the
Police regarding complaints he has made regarding his personal property. Recently when
his neighbor had blocked his driveway, his wife asked them to move the car. They called
the police and subsequently, he believes he was blamed for the incident. 'q'hey don't listen
3
to us regarding the easement on our property. Hennepin County has requested that nothing
further be done with the driveway until they made a judgment."
Mayor Meisel stated she would bring the comments to the Chief of Police's attention. She
asked if Mr. McKenzie would like to speak with the Chief of Police.
Brown explained the procedure when a police call is received. They respond to the call or
complaint and later do the paperwork that reflects the incident.
Clark asked if it was a personal issue between the neighbor and the McKenzie's. Mr.
McKenzie stated that it may get there and that he had gone to court with the previous
neighbor. Both Mayor Meisel and Clark indicated they would speak with the Chief of
Police.
DISCUSSION: WATER AND SEWER AGREEMENT WITH MINNETRISTA - WARA
PROJECT -SOUTH SHORE SAUNDERS LAKE.
Cameron reported that he met with two City Council members from Minnetrista and, their
building official. They have been doing research that we were not aware of such as
providing their own small water system in two - three years for an additional 110 units.
They are asking for a reduction in the connection fee to the Mound water system since they
will not need water from Mound after a couple of years. Our connection fee included
pricing for capital improvements that would be necessary if they established "permanent"
connections onto our water system.
The sewer is currently maintained by Mound but staff would like to turn over the
maintenance to the Metropolitan Council and then we would not provide the sewer line to
them. Minnetrista would like one rate for both sewer and water rather than separate rates.
Mound's financial director is working on this.
Mayor Meisel indicated that anticipated construction calls for 3-4 models in the Spring of
2000 and by year end, 10 homes. Over the next three years, an additional 60 units are
projected.
Brown asked why in his experience, did "everyone want something from us and were not
willing to let us recoup our expenses." Meisel indicated that this was not the case. They
were trying to justify the cost of connection to their City Council and constituents. She
agrees that the cost can be confusing. She believes they should/would have looked at their
well system sooner if they had anticipated additional development. Now they have decided
to look into this.
Cameron indicated that the sewer connection fees would be up in the air until a decision
from the Metropolitan Council was received. He indicated that it gets complicated when
the trailer homes are added into the picture. There needs to be some sort of agreement
decided upon there.
Hanus asked where the composting situation was. Clark indicated they had approval
contingent on approval from MnDOT and the Watershed District. Mayor Meisel indicated
that she feels pretty good about those approvals.
She asked for a motion to delay/table this request until the next City Council meeting and
more information is received.
Ahrens stated that she agreed with Hanus that the recycling center needed to be operational
before Mound serviced this development with water and sewer. Mound has requested in
the past for land to operate the center themselves and Minnetrista has refused. Mound
residents have been paying for recycling services that they are not receiving. She is unsure
how they can guarantee a private business operating the center. She feels that fees will
increase since it is a private business and they had no guarantee that the business would not
go away in one year and they would be "stuck" again with no services.
She asked Cameron for the justification in reducing the connection fees for temporary
services. He indicated the connection fees were based on projected capital improvements
that would no longer be needed if the connection was temporary.
Hanus asked if there was a way they could put a contingency on the water and sewer
connections regarding the recycling center.
Brown questioned what would happen should they not build their own facility. Cameron
indicated that was covered in the agreement and that the additional fees would be recovered
over a longer period of time. Brown further asked how the maintenance would be covered
for the period they were connected. Cameron indicated those charges were covered in the
usage fees and that the only cost would be in getting the water there and that was covered
in the charges. Cameron feels the reduction in the connection fee is adjusted property and
will be fine with the contingency if they do not connect.
Ahrens asked what the probability of Metropolitan Council taking over the sewer line was.
Cameron felt it is very unlikely.
Weycker asked about the adjustments that would be needed in water pressure and if that
could be changed again once Minnetrista provided their own system.
Hanus indicated he was back to the original suggestion of annexing the property.
Jay Peterson, 2667 Halstead Lane, indicated that he lived in the neighborhood affected by
this development. He was concerned about the increase traffic impact to the west
neighborhood and that the road will not support the increase. He feels the City has played
its "last trump card" if we provide water to the north side. Mayor Meisel indicated that in
connecting sewer and water to WARA, there are no guarantees to serve the north side {or
development.
Hanus asked Dean if the City had any authority over development outside the City that is
accessed through roads that run through our city. Dean indicated that streets are public
property than anyone can use. When they are overused, the issue becomes a marketing one.
It would be tough to put limitations on development outside the City limits. But input
regarding road decisions can be made. Dean indicated they could not limit development
based on the roads. As long as the road is an open one, anyone could use. The question
of whether or not the road could be made into a dead end one came up. Dean indicated
he was not sure if this could be done.
Hanus assured Mr. Peterson that the City Council was very aware of the limitations of the
roads in his area. Peterson stated that the water may be the only "trump card." Hanus
stated that approval has only been given to South Saunders Lake and that the Council had
not approved North Saunders lake development. Cameron agreed indicating that they could
only add so many homes to the system.
Mayor Meisel indicated that Minnetrista could still put in holding tanks and have their own
sewer systems. Cameron doesn't' think the lots are big enough. However, this property
is within MUSA line limits and Minnetfista could reroute and add to their own system.
Mr. Peterson asked if the agreement could stipulate no development would be served in the
North Saunder's Lake area.
The biggest issue against development is the railroad tracks. Mayor Meisel has been told
once the railroad repairs one part of the tracks they have to repair all. Therefore, it is not
in their benefit to improve the railroad tracks in this area. Hanus indicated that if the
railroad track becomes a trail and the trestles are removed, it may not be an issue. Meisel
indicated that it was hard to shut down railroads in Minnesota.
Mr. Peterson asked the City Council to direct the attorney to look into dead ending or cul-
de-sacing the roads, in particular the west edge border intersection with Halstead Lane.
They need some ability to influence the development of additional homes. Clark indicated
that this road would be top in the Comprehensive Plan to improve with a more major road.
The Mayor asked Dean to look into the possibility of changing the road configuration.
MOTION made by Meisel, seconded by Weycker to table this discussion until July
29m. The vote was 5-0 in favor. Motion carried.
DATE FOR COOKOUT
Brown indicated that "thank you" was said far to seldom and suggested that the Council give
City employees a cookout over their lunch period as a way of saying thanks for their work.
It could be over the lunch hour on a Friday after the July 4th holiday and employees could
6
444
participate if they chose. This way, the Council was not asking them to stay after hours.
He offered to cook. Mayor Meisel indicated that she would bring potato salad.
Hamburgers and brats were decided upon. The date for the cookout is July 30th from 11:00
to 1:00. Setup will begin at 10:30. Council members were asked to be there if at all
possible to help.
DATE FOR COFFEE AND ROLLS
This is to set up a time for coffee and rolls and conversation between the Council and the
business owners and is a followup to an earlier coffee and rolls session. It was suggested
that this be after the July 13'~ HRA meeting looking at the TIF district. Time is needed to
send out invitations. After much discussion, this date was set for July 15t~ at 7:30 a.m.
providing the EDC meeting could be pulled up to July 8th. If the EDC could not be pulled
up, July 14t~ was set as an alternative date. Clark will contact the EDC.
PEMBROKE MULTIPLE DOCK
Ahrens stated that one of the site holders is parking in a space not designated to him or on
the approved plan. He has moved the equipment to make this site. This is encroaching on
the agreement with Plaza and is making problems for the sailboat egress. Weycker indicated
that his boat was longer than it was last year and that he understood he would be receiving
the same space as last year (thinking it would be an end spot). He has received the same
slip, but it is no longer an end slip.
Suggestions were made to move him to the Centerview site and move a person from there
to Pembroke. Ahrens stated that he first had to register the correct size of his boat with
the City. Per Fackler, LMCD rules do not allow boats to hang out more than 4 feet from
the dock. She would like staff to figure out why this person did not raise this issue
previously when the commons was discussed.
Brown stated that he "either went to where he is assigned or parks at a marina."
Hanus suggested that staff be given time to work the issue out. Ahrens stated that was
fine, but her concern is people feeling they can just move their slips on their own. She
doesn't feel the City should pay to reconfigure.
Brown had some discussion regarding the scheduled "re-look" at this situation in October.
The Mayor indicated this would move forward in August.
INFORMATION
Clark gave the City Council an u_A~te regarding the crosswalk (page 2020 in packet). It
is going to cost $22,000 and th~ not pay anything. She saw a sign that caught her
7
eye on a yellow blinking light pole. Brown asked about additional red lights to stop the
traffic for pedestrians. This is a county road and thus, under their jurisdiction.
COW meetings and dates. Dean stated that this was an ordinance and if changing, the
meeting needed to be given a three day notice in advance of the meeting. He suggested the
COW be added as a regular meeting so notice would not be needed.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Brown to cancel the July COW meeting.
The vote was 5-0 in favor. Motion carried.
The August COW meeting date would be set later.
Hanus discussed his participation on the SRA Commission. He discussed the issue of
buried underground NSP lines and the proposed options for recovering the cost. He asked
for the council's opinion. The second issue he discussed was electric deregulation. He
received direction from the Council.
Brown asked about raising council salaries in response to the information shared in the
packet regarding other cities' pay. He suggested this be looked at the next election time.
A discussion ensued among council members. Discussion centered around the number of
special meetings and the time commitment required from council members. It was felt that
it was more than other cities.
The Mayor suggested that rather than a per diem for meetings, perhaps they should look
at special meetings and allowing additional salary for these. Hanus asked if the budget
would be set for a certain number of meetings and once spent there would be no more
meetings. Ahrens stated that maybe if it was budgeted, they would think twice about
special meetings and executive sessions.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Brown to adjourn. The vote was 5-0 in
favor. Motion carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
8
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 1999
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in a specia.
June 29, 1999, at 5:00 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said
Those present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark .ah
Weycker. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, Acting City Manager Fran Clm. Jsistant
City Planner Bruce Chamberlain, Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Finance Director Gino Businano
and City Engineer John Cameron.
The Mayor opened the meeting at 5:06 p.m. and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of
Allegiance was recited.
PUBLIC HEARING: REGARDING SUBMISSION OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, MINNESOTA INVESTMENT FUND GRANT
FOR THE CITY OF MOUND/ACT, INC.
Clark introduced Jodi Dalvey of ACT II to the City Council members and City Attorney Dean. Clark
stated there were two items to look at, one was a resolution between the City of Mound to enter into the
necessary agreements to implement the project for ACT II, and authorizing the Mayor and Acting City
Manager to execute these documents. The second item to consider if approval to this resolution is granted
is an operations permit for ACT II.
This is a company out of Eau Claim, Wisconsin that deals with coated paper. Under private label, they
coat paper as in labels and other paper requiring coating (such as Avery). The proposed operation in
Mound would be cutting and packaging. There will be no coating in Mound except a small research lab.
Anticipated traffic from this is three trucks a day.
The required public hearing notices have been set. Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 5:12 p.m.
Jodi Dalvey represented ACT II of 2500 Shadywood Road and 3431 Hogar Street, Eau Claire, Wisconsin
(corporate headquarters). She further described the business they would operate in Mound.
Mayor Meisel asked if there was to be any selling from the Mound facility. Ms Dalvey indicated that she
personally does 90% of the sales and would office three days a week at Mound. She also indicated that she
would be on the road one week out of five. The Mayor asked how the paper was sold, i.e., tonnage or to
smaller companies. Ms Dalvey indicated that 85% of their revenues were to companies that were $1 billion
and larger such as Office Max. They package those companies' brands.
Mayor Meisel asked how many anticipated employees would be housed in Mound. Approximately 50
employees would be at the Mound facility. They have relocated two from New York in senior positions.
The other employees would be locally hired.
Hanus asked if they used commercial carrier to ship by or if they had their own fleet of trucks. Ms Dalvey
indicated that for the most part contracts were used, however, they were looking at 1-2 trucks between Eau
Draft Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council
June 29, 1999
Claire and here. I4anus asked about storage of trailers on the site. §ome trucks may wait over night at the
facility a the most. This would only be one truck at a time, however.
Weycker asked if there would be nighttime deliveries. The operation of the business is eventually going to
be three shifts, but deliveries would only be scheduled from 5 a.m. to 5 p.m. unless there was an
emergency.
Weycker asked what those shifts of operation would be. Right now, the operation has two shifts from 5
a.m. until 5 p.m. and 5 p.m. until 5 a.m. Eventually, the three shit'ts would be the typical from 7 a.m. until
3 p.m., 3 p.m. until 11 p.m., and 11 p.m. until 3 a.m.
Brown thanked ACT II for locating in Mound.
The Mayor asked if there was a signed lease for the facilities they were locating into. Ms. Dalvey stated
they had signed the lease prepared by United Properties and were waiting for United Properties to sign it.
The Mayor closed the public heating at 5:17 p.m.
Dean reviewed the resolution to be signed. This resolution would give Mound the legal authority to apply
for financial assistance from the State of Minnesota Economic and Trade Department for funding of this
project on behalf of the City of Mound.
MOTION BY HANUS, SECONDED BY AHRENS, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND ACTING CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUCH
AGREEMENTS THEREOF, AS ARE NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE PROJECT
(S) ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT (ACT II). MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
MOTION BY HANUS, SECONDED BY AHRENS, TO ISSUE AN OPERATIONS
PERMIT FOR AMERICAN COATING TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (ACT II) AT 5330
SHORELINE DRIVE. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
WATER AND SEWAGE AGREEMENT WITH MINNETRISTA - WARA PROJECT - SOUTH
SAUNDERS LAKE.
Cameron introduced the agreement proposed between the City of Minnetrista and Mound. Dean reviewed
the agreement which was the same as the Council previously had reviewed except for Section 5 that
outlines the connection fees for both sewer and water. The proposed hook up charge for sewer has not
changed. Water is still potentially $1800/unit broken down to $680 initially (upon issuance of the building
permit) and then if not converted to a Minnetrista served water system by the end of three years would be
$160/unit/year for the following seven years.
WARA Development has a three to four year construction schedule that will eventually contain 64 units.
Sixty are shown on the enclosed packet map and the small piece of acreage in the Outlot is believed to be
the site of the additional four units. This small piece of land is beyond the MUSA line.
Cameron was asked about Metropolitan Council taking over the sewer line. Cameron does not see this
happening since the Council has increased their criteria to hook up on the main line to 1800 units.
Therefore, Mound will have to serve sewer for this project. The connection fee's purpose is for capital
improvement. The regularly billed user fees fund any operating and maintenance costs and is paid by
Minnetrista.
Draft Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council
June 29, 1999
Alu-em asked for a more detailed breakdown of the costs. Businano indicated that fight now it was broken
down to approximately 60% for Metropolitan Council's fees, 30% from maintenance and 10% for
personnel cost.
Cameron feels that the connection fee is fair at $500/unit. The sewer system will stay with Mound and not
go to Minnetrista if the City Council approves this resolution. He will be attending another meeting with
Minnetrista on the Thursday coming up.
He stated that Minnetrista has approved the compost site contingent on approval of two permits, one from
MnDOT and the second one from the Watershed District. He suggested that if the Council was
comfortable with the resolution, that they sign it contingent upon the approval of these two permits to keep
the compost site tied to serving this development in Minnetrista.
Ahrens asked Cameron if Minnetrista was planning their own water for a long period of time. Cameron
stated that he was only aware of it recently. The Mayor stated that Minnetrista was looking at private
wells if necessary originally for this development.
She doesn't feel good about holding the compost site contingency upon giving this development water and
sewer connections. But she understands the need for Mound to have a compost site available. She feels it
is a tough thing to tell the developer this. Hanus stated it was the right thing to do, however.
Ahrens stated her feelings of a lack of sincerity on the part of Minnetrista regarding the compost site. She
feels that Mound has been sincere regarding the water and sewer connections. The Mayor recognized this.
Ahrens stated that if Mound had their own land, they would open up this compost site, however, a large
enough parcel is not available within Mound.
Hanus stated that he felt he had two options. One was to vote with a contingency on the compost site
opening for business and some guarantee of it staying in business or vote against the resolution. He doesn't
care whom the guarantee is between. For example, it could be between the City of Mound and the compost
site owners or between the City of Mound and the City of Minnetrista.
Mayor asked Hanus if he was looking at something like a "first option to buy" type lease. Hanus stated
that it could be that Mirmetrista would guarantee some land for Mound to operate a compost site if this one
closed.
Dean stated that the lease piece was fairly easy to do. If the operator or tenant were in default, we would
receive notice to take over. The second option is not as likely (Minnetrista giving Mound the opportunity to
mn the compost site if it defaulted) since it hasn't been done before and that it hasn't worked in the past
and would require lots of negotiation.
Hanus stated that now, however, Mound had something that Minnetrista wanted and he felt it was the right
time to offer that option. Dean stated that this certainly could be put into the resolution as an option.
Ahrens stated that the company proposed to operate the compost site is a "for profit" company. She is not
sure she wanted to be in the position of taking over the lease and having to charge Mound residents a higher
fee. She would rather get three acres to operate their own compost site elsewhere. Dean stated that another
issue could be taking over any other contamination that might happen and the risks associated with that
when they were not regulating that.
Draft Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council
June 29, 1999
Brown stated that he feels Mound has been open and honest with Minnetrista and he feels that all he hears
is a "give-me" attitude. The Mayor stated that he hasn't been around to hear this from Minnetrista, but
rather had heard it discussed from previous issues. However, she sated they do need the compost site and
need to move forward with this issue and not keep debating it.
Weycker stated that the reason Minnetrista changed their mind about looking at their own system is that
two additional developers have indicated an interest in developing near by lands. This would be additional
43 units. She also stated that Minnetrista is serving some Mound residents with their lif~ station with
normal usage fees, no maintenance fees built in.
Ahrens stated that what is fair is fair. However, she is asking for a sincere attitude from Minnetrista. We
will be serving 65 homes valued at over one-half million dollars each. She personally has no problem with
the contingency. Hanus stated that all he wanted to do is make sure there is protection of the compost site.
Dean stated they could add a contingency making sure the compost site was operational prior to hook up of
water and sewer from Mound.
There was some discussion over the map attached to this packer and what was included in the area
Minnctrista expected to be served by Mound. Exhibit A to the resolution is unclear. Hanus asked that the
number of units to be served be indicated also and the geographic area it encompasses.
Dean suggested the contingencies be that the compost site is opened for business and that in the case of
default, a compost site be available in Minnetrista for Mound residents and that Minnetrista take over the
operations of the site or make land available for Mound and identify that land now prior to hookup of water
and sewer.
Hanus stated that the property to be served by Mound be identified as "South Saunders Lake and be limited
to 64 units.
Dean also suggested that in Section 5, the amount of $160 per year be added.
MOTION BY HANUS, SECONDED BY BROWN, TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT
TO PROVIDE WATER AND SEWER TO THE WARA DEVELOPMENT, SOUTH
SAUNDERS LAKE, A MAXIMUM OF 64 UNITS, SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE
CONDITIONS. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
INFORMATION
Hanus stated that the Planning Commission has referred streamlining back to the City Council and asked
for a joint meeting to discuss the issue. This will be on the July 13~ agenda. The Mayor indicated that she
feels a joint meeting between the Planning Commission and the Council would be beneficial, however the
July 13~ meeting is pretty full already. She suggested an alternative date. After discussion, July 27a' at 6
p.m., was decided upon for a joint meeting. The Planning Commission could attend the July 13~ meeting if
they wanted.
The Purchase Agreement has been submitted to the school district. The School District is considering two
offers ahead of theirs reported Chamberlain. If they are unsuccessful in obtaining this property, the city
should contact the successful bidders for an option on a piece of this property that is big enough for the
proposed post office site. This would not be an ideal location, however.
Draft Meeting Minutes - Mound City Council
June 29, 1999
Chamberlain stated that they would only need a small portion (about 1/5 of the buildable land) of this site
for the post office in response to questions asked. If they cannot obtain this, the alternative site of Langdon
would need to be looked at again.
Hanus is concerned over contacting another owner; he feels the price would be too high. Brown asked if
the other bidders were aware that the City would not fund the purchase of this site with TIF dollars.
Clark covered another FYI item that was given to the Council members from a previous executive session
(except Weycker). The changes and agreement is to be made public tomorrow, she stated.
MOTION BY AHRENS, SECONDED BY BROWN, TO ADJOURN THIS SPECIAL
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
CASE #99-28
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE
HALSTEAD PLACE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA (PDA) TO CHANGE THE CURRENT
USE OF AN R-1 MOBILE HOME PARK TO AN R-1 PDA AND R-3 PDA RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT,
LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT,
LOTS 1-2-3, HALSTEAD HEIGHTS
PID # 22-117-24 43 0007
P & Z 99-28
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July
27, 1999 to consider the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the Halstead
Place Planned Development Area (PDA) to change the current use of an R-1 Mobile Home
Park to an R-1 PDA and R-3 PDA residential development located within the R-1 Single
Family Zoning District.
All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the
opportunity to be heard at this meeting.~ ~etary
Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on July 13, 1999,
Published in the Laker, July 17, 1999.
pr~nted on recycled paper
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
CASE #99-25
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF THE HALSTEAD PLACE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA (PDA) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY
ATTACHED AND DETACHED HOME DEVELOPMENT LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 SINGLE
FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT,
LOTS 1-2-3, HALSTEAD HEIGHTS,
PID # 22-117-24 43 0007,
P & Z CASE 99-25
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July
27, 1999 to consider the approval of the Halstead Place Preliminary Plat for a planned
development area for construction of a Single Family attached and detached home
development located within the R-1 Single Family Zoning District.
':...-.." . ...... ~_-~0~ · -..__~..~
All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the
opportunity to be heard at.this meeting. ~~/?
Secretary
~',._ECLs.~n q u ~ s~, ~n~ng
Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on July 13, 1999
Published in the Laker, July 17, 1999
prmled on recycled paper
July
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES
TO CONSTRUCT A NON CONFORMING ATTACHED GARAGE AND A CONFORMING
SCREENED PORCH ON AN EXISTING DECK
AT 4873 CUMBERLAND ROAD,
BLOCK 1, LOT 24, ARDEN
PID 24-117-24 44 0021,
P & Z CASE #99-27
37730
WHEREAS, the applicant, Melody Olsen, has applied for a front yard and side yard
setback variances to construct a non conforming attached garage and a conforming screen~l'ed
porch on an existing deck at 4873 Cumberland Road; and,
WHEREAS, the following lists the requested setbacks:
Front Yard
Side Yard
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
29.8' 30' .2'
4' ,,¢'
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning
District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, 30 feet
front yard setback, and other required setbacks as listed above for lot of record; and,
WHEREAS, hardcover on this site is conforming; and,
WHEREAS, the property is an odd shaped lot, with the rear lot line being approximately
one-half the width of the frontage of the lot; and,
July 13, 1999
4873 Cumber/and Rd - O/sen
Page 2
WHEREAS, the proposed garage has a minimal impact on the adjoining City property; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant made the same request previously and was approved as
described in Resolution # 95-61. The projects were, however, never started and thus voiding the
Resolution one (1) year after it's adoption date; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request ~ind recommend approval
of the variance recommended by staff; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a front yard and side yard setback variances listed below as
recommended by the Planning Commission in order to construct a non conforming
attached garage and a screened porch on an existing deck.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Front Yard 29.8' 30' .2'
Side Yard 4' ,8" ~
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420,
Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming
structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the
owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of non conforming attached garage and a conforming screened porch on an
existing deck.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated on the
Certificate of Survey, Coffin & Gronberg, Inc.:
LOT 24, BLOCK 1, ARDEN, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
o
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk.
July 13, 1999
4873 Cumberland Rd - Olsen
Page 3
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember ,
Councilmember.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
and seconded by
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Attest: City Clerk
I
Mayor
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
I'nl
l ln
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: July 12 1999
SUBJECT: Variance Request
OWNER: Melody Olsen
CASE NUMBER: 99-27
HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5
LOCATION: 4873 Cumberland Road
ZONING: Residential District R-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to build a 24 feet by 24 feet attached
garage and a screen porch on an existing deck. The associated variance request is listed below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Front yard 29.8 fi 30 fi .2 fi
Side yard 4 fi
This variance request is the same as was approved in 1995 by resolution #95-61, but the projects
were never completed. Conditions on the property have not changed since that time. The lot is
wider in the front than the rear causing the side lot line to angle back and constrain building
setbacks. The property to the west is City park land and has no improvements. Hardcover will
remain below required minimums as proposed.
COMMENTS: The property does not have a garage so the proposal is an improvement to the
property. There does appear to be a practical difficulty in placing a typical sized garage on the
property because of its shape. It has not impact on the adjacent City park land.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the variances as requested.
2 2q
123 North Third Street, Suite I00, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
JUN 1
CITY OF MOUND
Application Fee: $1 OO.O0
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
~City Planner b'~L/?~ /
~ ' DNR
Engineer Other
~ublic Works
SUBJECT Address
PROPERTY Lot
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
APPLICANT
Block
Subdivision
PID# q-Il-/ AO,-OI
ZONING DISTRICTR~~ R-lA R-2 R-3
Address
Phone (H>
Name ~
B-1
'-Plat #
B-2 B-3
(IF OTHER Address
THAN Phone (H) (W) (M)
OWNER)
1. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ()~Xyes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s), of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
(Rev. 12-30-98)
Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
Variance Application, P. 2
o
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No,J~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: REQUIRED
REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard: ((~NS EW
Side Yard: ~ S,F,"W
Side Yard: ( N S
Rear Yard: ( N S E W
Lakeside: ( N S E W
· (NSEW
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
ft. '.~. ~;. ft.
ft. ~..:~ ft.
ft. /--/..ft'
ft. ~ ~ ft.
ft. -- ft.
ft. ft.
ft. I ~. ~ ft.
sq ft i ~,¢~sq ft
.~.~'sq ft .~l~q~ sq ft
· 2.. ft.
· '7 ft.
(~ ft.
--'- ft.
ft.
ft.
-- ft.
---' sq ft
-- sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of
the uses permitted in that zoning district?
too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
too small ( ) drainage ~existing situation
too shallow ~ shape (') other: specify
Variance Application, P. 3
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the
land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No-~). If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as tl~e relocation of a road?
Yes (), No ~;;~. If yes, explain:
o
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property
described in this petition? Yes (:~ No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly
affected?
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Applicants Signature
(Rev. I2-30-98)
(~~-~. Date
/)~.~ J_~~ Date
June 15, 1999
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this letter asking you for your help. After living in my home for 26 years, I am
anxiously awaiting the approval of my vadance for building a long awaited garage.
However, on May 16~, I fell off a ladder while cleaning out the gutters and fractured a
vertebra and damaged my lower back. My son who is in the military in Germany, wants
to come home to help me out with the physical constru~on so I do not injure myself more
by doing the heavy work. However, the Army is only granting him leave time from July
23r~ to August 6u~.
Upon approval of my Variance from the Planning Commission meeting on July 12t~, I
would greatly appreciate a quick turnaround for approval on the July 13t~ City Council
meeting. This will enable me to have things ready for my son's help for the heavy
construction of my garage dudng the time he is home.
Thank you,
4873 Cumberland Road
Mound, MN 55364
472-1590
RESOLUTION #95-61
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION AT
4873 CUMBERLAND ROAD
LOT 24, BLOCK 1, ARDEN, PID 24-117-24 ~.~. OO21
P&Z CASE #95-21
WHEREAS, the owner, Melody Olsen, has applied for a variance to allow
construction a garage addition that will be nonconforming to the required 10 foot side
yard setback, and to recognize the existing nonconforming front yard setback of 29.8
feet to the dwelling, and;
WHEREAS, a conforming screened porch is also proposed to be constructed
on top of the existing deck, and;
WHEREAS, hardcover on this site is conforming, and;
WHEREAS, this property is a lot-of-record in the R-1 single family zone which
requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 30 feet, and a side
yard setbacks of 8 and 10 feet, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant has considered purchasing the adjoining property
from the City in order to alleviate the side yard variance, however, this could be a time
consuming process, and;
WHEREAS, the property is an odd shaped lot, with the rear lot line being
approximately one-half the width of the frontage of the lot; and
WHEREAS, the proposed garage has a minimal impact on the' adjoining City
property, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval as it is a reasonable use of the property and the
nonconforming setback has a minimal impact.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE I'F RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a 6 foot side yard '~etback variance to allow
construction of a garage addition, and does recognize'the existing
nonconforming front yard setback of 29.8 feet.
140
Resolution 95-61
Page 2
June 27, 1935
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section
350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express
understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to
all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:¢20.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by
the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the
property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land'
Construction of a 24' x 24' garage addition, and a screened
porch over an existing 16' x 20' deck.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lot 24, Block 1, Arden.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of
Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section
462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this
property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with
Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for
the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been
filed with the City Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jessen and
seconded by Counciimember Ahrens.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen, Jessen and Polston.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None
Mayor
141
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
OWNER'S NAME: ~ ~_.1 L3 g ~j ~. O
LOT AREA I /) (,)-7cj. 7~/ SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots)
LOT AREA
SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I C/r~c~.?t~ I
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
x -
X =
-TOTAL HOUSE .........................
DETACHED BLDGS X =
(GARAGE/SHED) X --
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
X =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a X =
pervious surface under are X
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
TOTAL DECK ..........................
X =
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ...............................
PREPARED BY~,/?'~' ~ ~ .... ,; ,," ,-' ' :- ~
0
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
MELODY OLSON
IN LOTS 20,21,22,23, AND 24, BLOCK 1, ARDEN
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
o: denotes iron marker
All hearings are based upon an assumed datum.
EXISTING LEGAL OESCRIPTION:
Lot'24, 8lock I, ARDEN.
PROPOSEO PROPERTY TO BE AOOEO:
Those parts of Late 20,21,22 and '23, eloc~ 1, ARDEN, which lie ea%terly of a line
drwan sou~h parallel with the East line. of Lot 24,'.said Block 1, from.the Nbrthwest
corner-of said.Lot 24.
This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property,
and the location of an existing house, shed, and driveway ther&on. It does
not purport to show any other Improvements or encroachments.
1 Iwreb¥ cerlil}. Ihs! fids s,rvey was prepart~I by me or ,nder my direcl super-.
vlshm. ~nd I~l I am a d,ly r~lsle~ ~vll E~in~er and La~ Surveyor under
Ihe LlWS ~d Ihe S~le of Min~ola.
oa~ I0
Ion'No,
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
5341
SITE
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION
OWNER
CONTRACTOR
CITY OF MOUND
Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472.-0620
Subject Address ~"~_~) ~""~.~ .~L
Business Name,q'ennan, ~ ~-~,C~ '~[~' ~ ~ ~
The applicant is: ~owner __contractor __tenant
Lot ~-q Block
Subdivision ~.~ ~ PID~
Contact Person
Address
Phone (H) (W)
ARCHITECT Name
&/OR Address
ENGINEER Phone (H)
Plat #
(M)
Ucense #
(M)
(W} (M)
CHANGE OF FROM:
USE TO:
OF WORK: ~ .~c--(.,~/__~ VALUE APPROVED:
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING.
PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED VVITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED
FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED.
TIM E L~MiTS ON BUILDING COMPLETION. ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAIN ED FOR N EVV CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS, REM ODELIN G, AND ALTERATIONS
T'O ThE r-XT~:RiCRS OF ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. THE PERSON
OBTAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETION. A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE CITY
COUNCIL MAY EXTEND THE TiME FOR COMPLETION UPON WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE PERMITTEE. ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF TH E PERMITTEE PREVENTED COMPLETION OF THE WORK FOR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED.THE EXTENSION SHALL BE REQUESTED
NOT LESS THAN THIRTY (301 BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD.
I HERESY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING
THiS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WH ETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE
PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION.
PRINT APP[[ICANT'S N~/IE---
//////////////////////////////////////////////~/~~///~~~////~/~//////////~~~~~~//~/~/~~//////////////////////~/~///~/////////////////////////////////////////////
(OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMMENTS:
CONSTRUCTION TYPE:
OCCUPANCY GROUP / PlY:
MAX OCCUPANT LOAD
BLDG SIZE (SQ FT) # STORIES
FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED?
# UN[TS YES / NO
RECEIVED BY ! DATE; : ':: PLANS CHECKED BY~ : : APPROVED By/DATE: ':
ZONING
CITY ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS
ASSESSING
COPIED APPROVED
SURVEY ON FILE~
LOT OF RECORD ~Y~
YARD
ItOUSE .........
FRONT
FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
CITY OF MOUND
~0
NO
DIRECTION
(.N)s E W
N S E W
N S~..~W
s
N(_ E
N S E W
- ZONING INFORMATION SIIEET
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
~ ~ :LO,O00/60) BZ 7,SO0/O
~-~.A 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80
R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60
. R2 14,000/80
R3 ZEE ORD. I1 30,000/100
REQUIRED I EXISTING/PROPOSED
10' OR 30'
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
LOT WIDTIt:
LOT DEPTH:
VARIANCE
,q
GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACIIED BUILDINGS
N S E W
FRONT
N S E W
FRONT
SIDE N S E W
SIDE N S E W
REAR N S E W
LAKE N S E W
TOP OF BI.UFF
4' OR6'
4' OR6'
4'
50'
10' OR 30'
'Fhis Zoning Information Sheel only ~nll ~;S a ~rtion o[ Ute requircmenB outlined in d~c City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For ~t~er info~ation, contact ~e City of Mound
r-. >.
!
Jul. 8. 1§9§ 8:46AM McCOMB$
FRANK ROOS
~ng~ee~ng
No. ]47§'"'P, 2/2;
· Plann~g · Survey~g
July S, 1999
Ms. Fran Clark, Acting City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUB3ECT:
City ofMound
Auditors"RoadStreetlmprovemen~
SAP 145-108-02
MFRA#9968
Dear Fran:
Enclosed is Kusske Constmction's Payment Request No. 2 for work completed through June 30,
1999 on the subject project. The mount of this payment request is $80,024.49.
We have reviewed the payment request,, find it to be in order and recommend payment in the above
amount to the Contractor.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS FRANK R00S ASSOCIATES, INC.
John Cameron, City Engineer
JC:aam
Enclosure
e:~nain\996S\¢lark?4
15050 23rd Ave, me North · Plymouth. Minnesota · 55447
phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532
e-maih mfra~mfra.com
Jul, 7, 1999
1' 587M
MCCOMB$ FRANK ROOS
No. 1398
?. 2/2
Jul, 7. 1999 l'59PM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS No, 1399 P. 2/4
0
qq~o~~ooqooo~oooooooo~ooo
0
Z
Jul,
?. 1999
l'59PM
MCCONBS FRANK RO0$
No. 1399
P, 3/4
Jul. 7, 1999 2:00PM McCOMBS FRANK R00S NO. 1399 P. 4/4
N
BILLS
JUI.Y 13, 1999
Batch 9061
Batch 9062
118,246.20
188,589.34
Totals
$ 306,835.54
744'~
Z O,
0 ~
~ ~ ~ z~z z~zz~zz o
O ~ ~ ~ mmmmmmmmmm z
~o ~ ooo ~ oo ~
o ? ?
~ ° o
m
,o
.~_. "o
;:om
I
lc:)
,, ? ~? ,,??? ????? ?
0
0
n
,0 Q
0
-,i
0
-'-4
z
CZ
I-,,
C
C
Z
I
I
I
'r~ 'tl "t'l 't~ "n m rt~ rr~ m II1 m t~ ~. -0
Z ~
I I I I I
~.°° 7.° ~.°° ~oo ~o o~. o
:3:
0
~m
z
0
r-
r-
o oooooo oooooo
m
I I
I I
ff.-
0
Z
z
-rl~,
Z
c-
????????? ? ? ? ,
o o o~ o ~ Z, o
I I
,43 ,0
7.°
0
Z
r'
C
..L
'~4 ZZ I c,~)
0 O'
0
0
z
Z
-., -,, .,, o ~ ~. ° ~.
I I I I I I I I
,-.°°° ~o oo,_. ~o ~oo ~°°' oo,..
{2>
0
F-
.~,_ r'-
z
2-4-/O
n
rtl
z
0'13
2471
-;".- '; C' I I ,.fL:, " 0 0 C; C; ,,~;,, 0 ::J' 0 C)
July 13, ~999
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A CHURCH LOCATED WITHIN
THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AT 2451 FAIRVlEW LANE TO
ALLOW FOR UTILIZING EXISTING SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THE WESTONKA
SENIOR CENTER, THE WESTONKA HEALTHY COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVE, THE
HEAD START PROGRAM AND A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A MEMORIAL GARDEN,
TRACTS A THROUGH G, INCLUSIVE, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 739
AND THAT PART OF BLOCK 2, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D,
PIDS # 24-117-24 12 0014
P & Z 99-21
WHEREAS, the applicant, St. John's Lutheran Church, has applied to updated their
Conditional Use Permit to allow for utilizing existing space to accommodate the Westonka
Senior Center, the Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative the Head Start Program and to
construct a Memorial Garden at 2451 Fairview Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning
District where as contained in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:640, churches are considered a
conditional use; and,
WHEREAS~he Seniors will occupy the sp_a~e in F,e[[9.wship Hall in the west wing of the
building during the da~/, Monday through Frida~,~5 ~n~(~r or'~'"~(terior building changes are
proposed to accommodate their needs and all activities take place inside the building; and,
WHEREAS, parking does not appear to be of concern as the lot was usually empty
during the day prior to the groups occupancy. There are 35 spaces and 4 handicapped spaces
adjacent to Fellowship Hall which will accommodate most of the parking needs. The shared
parking lot with Shirley Hills Elementary has 112 spaces and could be used for spillover; and,
WHEREAS, the church also proposes a Memorial Garden for the entombment of
cremation remains in underground vaults. This Memorial Garden would be located in the rear
of the site approximately 35 feet from the building; and,
Ju~ 13, 1999
2451Fairview Lane -St. John~ Church
Page 2
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the Memorial Garden be considered as a
cemetery for zoning purposes which would require a 15 foot setback variance to the required 50
foot building setback; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended
approval as recommended by staff; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City Council does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit and setback Variance
for the church facility to allow space for the Westonka Senior Center, the Westonka
Healthy Community Collaborative, the Head Start Program and a Memorial Garden to
be used as a columbarium for cremation remains and providing a 15 foot setback
Variance.
2. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for the following legally described property:
TRACTS A, B, C, D, E, F, AND G, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 739, FILES OF THE
REGISTRAR OF TITLES, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AND THAT PART OF BLOCK 2,
SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF, SAID HENNEPIN
COUNTY, LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT F, AND
NORTHEASTERLY OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID
TRACT G.
This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar
of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462:36,
Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be
used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City
Clerk.
Page 3
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
by Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
, and seconded
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
Affidavit of Publication
CITY OF MOUND
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
CHURCH TO ALLOW FOR UTILIZING
EXISTING SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE
THE WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER
UNTIL THE NEW BUILDING IS
CONSTRUCTED, TO ACCOMMODATE
THE WESTONKA HEALTHY
COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVE, TO
PROVIDE TWO ROOMS FOR THE
HEADSTART PROGRAM, AND TO
BUILD A MEMORIAL GARDEN,
LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 SINGLE
FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT, TRACTS A
THROUGH G, INCLUSIVE,*
REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 739
& THAT PART OF BLOCK 2, SHIRLEY
HILLS UNIT D,
PIDS # 24-117-24 12 0014 & 24-
117-24 12 0058
P & Z 99-21
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the
City Council of the City o! Mound, Minnesota,
will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341
Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July
13, 1999 to consider the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit to allow for utilizing
existing space to accommodate the
Westonka ,.~e.~or Center, ,until! tiler ~ne~
building is cbn~trUcted; to accommodate the
Westonka Healthy Collaborative. to provide
two rooms for the Headstart program, and to
build a Memonal Garden located within the R-
1 Single Family Zoning District.
All persons appearing at said hearing
with reference to the above will be given the
opportunity to be heard at this meeting.
Kris Linquist. Planning Secretary
(Published in The Laker June 26. 1999)
State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin.
Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is
an authorized agent and employee of the publisher
of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound,
Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts
which are stated below:
A.) The newspaper has complied with all the
requirements constituting qualifications as a
qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota
Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable
laws, as amended.
B.) The printed CUP Senior Center
in Church
which is attached was cut from the columns of said
newspaper, and was printed and published once
each week for I successive weeks:
It was first published Saturday
the ~6~.h day of June 19 99,
and was thereafter printed and published every
Saturday, to and including Saturday,
the day of
Subscribed and sworn to me on this
26 day of June ,199_9
By:
~-~- - - .- ~-----'"'~N0tary}Public
· .~o.x KRISTI HOLM
~ ~:1 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
( ~ JANUARY 31, 2000
(1) Lowest classified rate paid by ~mmercial users
for comparable space: $12.90 per inch.
(2) Maximum ra~ allowed by law for above maffer: $12.90.
¢) Rate a~ually charged for above maffer: $7.19 per inch.
Each additional su~essive week: ~.14.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 28, 1999
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JUNE 28, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orr Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse,
Michael Mueller, and Frank Weiland. Absent with notice: Commissioners Jerry Clapsaddle and
Bill Voss; Council Liaison: Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building
Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Deb Hawkinson.
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
BOARD OF APPEALS
CONTINUING PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #99-21: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; TO
ALLOW FOR UTILIZING EXISTING SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THE WESTONKA
SENIOR CENTER, WESTONKA HEALTHY COMMUNITY AND BUILD A MEMORIAL
GARDEN; 2451 FAIRVIEW LANE; TRACTS l-G, INCLUSIVE REGISTERED LAND
SURVEY #739 AND HTAT PART OF BLOCK 2, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D; ST.
JOHN'S CHURCH.
PID # 24-117-24 12 0014 AND 24-117-24 12 0058
Gordon covered the report on page 19 from City Attorney John Dean regarding the vague state
codes that exist regarding how to treat memorial gardens. Latitude is given to the local
planning commissions on how to handle usage. Gordon then checked out the Bloomington City
Codes for how they handled memorial gardens.
Gordon recommended treating a memorial garden like a cemetery. Thus, a 50-foot setback
would be required. Staff recommends granting a variance to this ordinance.
MOTION by Mueller, Seconded by Burma, To consider this Memorial Garden as a
Cemetery and grant the fifty (50) foot setback variance be granted due to the lack of
space behind the steeple.
Discussion
Mueller's only concern is that his understanding is that anything above the frost line will
eventually push up. Prior to this recommendation going to the City Council, he would like this
clarified by staff.
Weiland has a concern that if ashes are directly buried and are only 3 inches below the surface,
animals could dig them up. Burma indicated that he has a problem with ashes being buried
directly because of the concern that the public raised at the last public hearing.
Gordon indicated that the discussion from the previous meeting and the regulations indicate
that the ashes would only be buried in urns and would be about 18 inches below ground.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 28, 1999
Mueller indicated that he still had a concern over things buried above the frost line. He wanted
to see what common practice was and follow that.
Hasse asked if that was something that the City could even regulate. Weiland responded that
he believes there isn't any codes regulating depth in the state ordinances.
Gordon and Sutherland indicated they would check out what is done at St. Martin's. Glister
also suggested checking at Fort Snelling since this would be federal government. Mueller
further suggested checking with the University of Minnesota's Extension service to check about
items buried above the frost line.
MOTION CARRIED: 6-0.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: June 28, 1999
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit - revised report
APPLICANT: St. John's Lutheran Church - 2451 Fairview Lane
CASE NUMBER: 99-21
HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5t
LOCATION: 2451 Fairview Lane
ZONING: Residential District R-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The memorial garden portion of the request was tabled at the
last meeting in order to further explore how cremation remains that are buffed should be
addressed. The City Attorney has drafted a letter giving his opinion of how this should be
handled. Additionally, I have looked further into this matter and found additional material.
In terms of a zoning definition, I found this in an American Planning Association publication
titled "Zoning Definitions."
Cemetery Land used or intended to be used for the burial of the
dead and dedicated for cemetery purposes, including
columbariums, crematories, mausoleums, and mortuaries when
operated in conjunction with and within the boundaries of such
cemetery.
The City of Bloomington uses this definition:
Cemetery An area used for the burial or entombment of one or
more deceased persons, including graveyards, mausoleums, and
urn entombment areas.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
#99-21 St. dohn's Lutheran Church CUP - revised report
dune 28, 1999
Each definition would support the notion that the memorial garden should be considered as any
other cemetery for zoning purposes. The only implications being the 50 feet building setback.
These definitions are the most current definitions I found. Most codes do not give a definition for
cemeteries. It would be my recommendation that we follow the trends and treat this as a
cemetery.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve a conditional
use permit for the memorial garden and treat it as a cemetery. As shown on the site plan, a 15
feet variance to the required 50 feet building setback would be needed to approve the request. If
the Commission cannot find a practical difficulty for a variance, the memorial garden will need
to meet the setback required.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
JoHN B. DEA~
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9207
cmail: jdcan~kcnncdy-gravcn.com
June 25,1999
Mr. Loren Gordon
Hoisington Koegler Group
123 North 3ra Ave.
Minneapolis, MN 55101
Re: Regulation of Columbaria.
Dear Loren:
You have recently inquired whether the City's land use provisions covering cemeteries applies to
the final placement of inumed cremated human remains. It appears, based upon my review of
the state statutes relating to those topics, and a review of the city code, that a distinction exists
between cemeteries and columbaria, and that Mound may chose to regulate them in the same
manner or not.
The state law on the subject generally treats cemeteries as places for the burial or entombment of
dead human bodies. In fact, absent special circumstances, dead human bodies must be buried
only at cemeteries. Inumed cremated human remains are not subject to that restriction nor are
they subject to any state law restriction as to their final disposition (as long as they remain
inurned).
It does not appear that the City Code contains any provision which would make the connection
between cemeteries and columbaria that is absent in state law. Consequently, It would be my
opinion that the City's land use regulations do not require that columbaria comply with the
provisions applicable to cemeteries. Instead, the use should be evaluated from a structure and
district standpoint to determine its appropriateness.
The City is, of course, always able to consider specific regulations for columbaria. That
regulation might be to link it to the regulations applicable to cemeteries. However, it should be
kept in mind that just because both pertain to human remains, that similarity may be entirely
irrelevant from a land use standpoint.
Thank you for the unusual and interesting question.
Respectfully yours,
John B Dean
ST. JOHN'S LUTFIERAN CHURCH
2451 Fairview Lane
Mound, MN 55364
ST. JOHN'S MEMORIAL GARDEN
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Adooted by the Church Council on May 18, 1998
SECTION I- ESTABLISHMENT
The name of this activity is THE ST. JOHN'S MEMORI.~ GARDEN ["Memorial Garden"], a
place for the interment of ashes of a cremated human body ["Cremains"]. This is a subordinate
activity of St. John's Lutheran Church ["St. John's"], 2451 Fairview Lane, Mound, Minnesota
55364 and will be operated subject to the approval of the Church Council of St. John's ["Church
Council"]. The Church Council has prescribed these Rules and Regula,?ns for the purchase, ,u, se
and administration of the Memorial Garden as set forth herein. These 'Rules and Regulations, as
they now exist or may hereina~er be amended, along with the "Purchase Agreement and
Reservation of Right of Use' contain the terms and conditions of the agreement between the Sr.
Pastor and Church Council of St. John's Lutheran Church and the purchaser of a right to use space
in the Memorial Garden.
SECTION H - MEMORIAL GARDEN COMMITTEE
A. General Powers: Custody and control of the Memorial Garden, the interment sites therein and
all matters relating thereot~ are vested in all respects in the Church Council as fully constituted
from time to time. A Memorial Garden Committee as appointed by the Church Council shall
manage, subject to the direction and control of the Church Council, the use and maintenance of
the Memorial Garden and its interment sites.
B. Membershio: The Memorial Garden Committee will consist of the Sr. Pastor of St. John's and
no more than five [5] and no less than three [3] members as follows: three [3] to five [5] members,
including the Chair; appointed by the Church Council; the Property Committee Chairperson; and
ether ~ l~ge members. The Appointees shall serve for three years and maj' be reappointed for an
additional 3 year term, after which a year must elapse before reappointment. The initial committee
appointments will be made for terms of one to three years which will provide for an orderly
succession and turnover. There shall be the following officers on the Memorial Garden
Committee: Chairperson and Clerk. The Clerk will be elected by the committee members.
Vacancies on the Memorial Garden Committee will be filled by appointment by the Church
Council in consultation with the Sr. Pastor.
C. Meetines: The Memorial Garden Committee shall meet at least bi-annually and at other such
times as may be required to carry out the functions of the Committee. A majority of the
Committee shall constitute a quorum.
2
D. Duties of Committee Officers:
The Chair shall:
a. Preside at all Committee meetings.
b. Be responsible for and manage the affairs of the Memorial Garden
on a day-to-day basis between the meetings of the Committee, sub-
ject to the control and approval of the Committee as a whole;
c. Oversee the receipt and acknowledgment of memorial funds given
specifically for the Memorial Garden.
d. Receive statements from the manager of the Memorial Garden funds
and keep the Committee advised of the status of these funds.
The Clerk shall:
a. Record the minutes of all meetings of the Memorial Garden Committee;
b. Maintain files and records of all Purchase Agreement and Reservation
of Right of Use forms;
c. Record and maintain data on the identity and specific location of ashes
interred in or removed from the Memorial Garden;
d. In cooperation with the Church Business Administrator oversee the receipt of funds
for purchase of the right to use sites in the Memorial Garden.
E. Compensation: Members of the Memorial Garden Committee are not entitled to any
compensation, direct or indirect~ for matters relating to the use or operation of the Memorial
Garden.
F. Annual Reoort: The Chair, with the assistance and approval of the Committee as a whole,
shall prepare and present an annual report at the annual parish meeting. The report will contain a
summary of the significant activity and financial status of the Memorial Garden.
G. Contracts: The Senior Pastor or the Church Council President is authorized to sign the
Purchase Agreement and Reservation of Right of Use form on behalf of the Church.
All other authority to approVe or sign contracts remains in the Church CoUncil.
Section III - TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PURCHASE
A. A[}olications:
It is the intention of the Church Council that the fight to purchase the use ora site in the
Memorial Garden be available to parish members of St. John's and their families; provided,
however, on an exception basis, others may purchase and use Memorial Garden sites when
specifically authorized by the Sr. Pastor in consultation with the Church Council.
Persons desiring to purchase the use of a site in the Memorial Garden will submit a written
application, entitled "Purchase Agreement and Reservation of Right of Use", to the
Committee. The form will require information necessary for the Committee to act on the
request. In addition, the applicant will be given a copy of the Rules and Regulations.
Purchasers must be natural persons or the personal representative of deceased or
incompetent persons. Two individuals may qualify as a Purchaser, taking title as joint
tenants with the right of survivorship and not as tenants in common; their fights are
exercised jointly while both are living, or by the survivor.
4. The person whose ashes are to be interred in the Memorial Garden ["Designated
Person"] must be a person authorized to purchase a site.
5. The Sr. Pastor and the Church Council are specifically authorized to approve or disapprove
all applications for purchase of the use of a site regardless of the status of the applicant.
6. At the time of purchase, the Purchaser shall name [including Purchaser] whose
cremains may be interred in the site. Ownership must stand in one name only.
B. Purchase of the Use of Sites:
Upon approval by the Sr. Pastor and Church Council of the Purchaser's application,
and upon receipt of at least one-third of the full cost of the site in effect at the time of
purchase, a site will be assigned by the Committee.
The Purchase Agreement and Reservation of Right of Use shall be executed in
duplicate, the duplicate copy to be delivered to the purchaser and the original to
the Church.
The purchase price is for the fight of use of a site in the Memorial Garden which will
accommodate the cremains of one person and the cost of interment of the cremains for one
person. A charge at rates in effect at the time of reopening will be made for opening the
site for additional interments. The pumhase price of $ includes maintenance of
the site ~d the Memorial Garden in general, the cost of establis,hing mad maintaining
records of use, administration and the preparation and installation of a marker and
nameplate as described below.
At the time of application and agreement, the Purchaser will indicate the specific ground
site desired. The Church will use its best efforts to use the specific ground at the time of
interment.
During the Purchaser's lifetime, the Purchaser may, from time to time, change the
designation of the persons whose cremated remains may be interred, by notice in writing
delivered to and accepted by the Church. The right to designate persons whose remains
may be interred ceases with the death of the Purchaser and the named designee.
Purchaser's rights may not be assigned, transferred or inherited, without the written consent
of the Church and shall not be subject to the claims of creditors.
4
7. No real property right is created or transferred by the Purchase Agreement and
Reservation of Right o£Use, these Rules and Regulations or payments for a site.
Payment relates only to the use ora site for cremains as provided for herein.
C. Payment:
Payment for the use of a site in the Memorial Garden for the cremains of a Designated
Person shall be in such amount and in such manner as may be determined fi.om time to time
by the Church Council.
The purchase price for the Purchase Agreement and Reservation of Right of Use
includes: (a) use of a site 12 inches square in the ground; (b) marker and nameplate
prepared in accordance with specifications approved by the Church Council; (c) opening
and closing of the ground for the cremains of one person; and (d) administration and
maintenance of the Memorial Garden. Opening, closing and nameplate costs for each
additional interment at a site may be assessed at the discretion of the Church Council.
Upon receipt of one-third of the purchase price, the Memorial Garden Committee at its
discretion may authorize purchase of the use of a site on an installment basis with payments
equal to one-third of the price due on each anniversary of the purchase until paid in full.
And unpaid balance of the purchase price shall be paid in full before the site is used. If site
availability is limited, the Memorial Garden Committee may request an early payment in
full or the reservation of the site may be canceled and payments refunded to the purchaser
without any accrued interest.
D. Use of Sites:
Cremated human remains only may be interred. Ashes shall be deposited directly into the
ground at least three (3) inches under ground level. Only buried urns shall be used
measuring no more than 10xl0 inches and shall be buried at a depth of 18 to 24 inches.
A religious service shall be held in connection with each interment. A member of the clergy
of St. John's shall be present and shall conduct the service, except that, at the discretion of
the Senior Pastor of St. lohn's, supetwision of the service may be designated to another
member of the clergy, but a representative of St. John's shall in any case be present.
Identification of each person interred in a site will be placed on a nameplate' on the
Memorial Garden wall with a corresponding ground marker on the internment site.
The cost of the nameplate and ground marker for one person is included in the purchase
price. Inscriptions on the nameplate are limited to the name of the deceased, together with
the dates of birth and death and plot number. The use of fraternal seals, professional
designations or similar inscriptions is expressly prohibited.
4. Inscriptions on the ground markers are limited to the plot number.
Ee
Potted plants are not permitted. The use of glass vases, chive jars, tin cans are not permitted
and are subject to immediate removal. Artificial flower plants or wreaths are not permitted.
Absolutely no man-made or natural decorations are permitted other than the numbered
ground markers The Memorial Garden committee reserves the right to determine any
marker placed on the lot. The Committee will have jurisdiction over the landscape design
embodied in the Memorial Garden.
Limitation of Liability: The Purchaser's payment for use ora site in the Memorial Garden
is made without any reservation, conditions or restrictions and the monies may be used
for any lawful purpose deemed proper by the Church Council It is the intention of the
Church to exercise reasonable and ongoing care to maintain the Memorial Garden. How-
ever, neither the Church nor any person acting for the Church assumes or shall have any
liability or responsibility for the preservation or loss of; or damage to the cremains of any
person interred in the Memorial Garden, or for any loss or damage relating to the
Memorial Garden from acts of God, vandalism, theft, or other causes or contingencies.
FJ
Modification of Terms and Conditions: The terms and conditions, these rules and Regu-
lations and all amendments, alterations, changes or modifications thereof shall apply to and be
binding on the Purchaser, Designated Persons and any person succeeding in interest thereto who
may be recognized and accepted by the Church Council as succeeding to any right under the
Purchase Agreement and Reservation of Right to Use.
G. Ret~uests: Any request relating to the Memorial Garden shall be made in writing to the
Memorial Garden Committee in care of St. John's.
SECTION IV - MEMORIAL GARDEN FUND
Establishment of Fund: There is established a special fund called the Memorial Garden Fund.
The Fund is so named to reflect present dedication to the Memorial Garden and possible future
dedication to other interment sites at the Church. This Fund will be administered as a restricted
fund under the direction of the Church Council.
Administration of the Fund: Al! monies receiv~ on account of the Memorial Garden shall
be deposited in a special restricted account designated by the St.John's Treasurer. Withdrawals
may be made in a proper case by persons authorized to do so by the Church Council. The
Church shall maintain an account for the Memorial Garden Fund as a restricted account which
shall be subject to audit and review in the same manner as other financial records of St. John's.
The Church Treasurer shall submit financial repotts to the Church Council as requested with
respect to the Memorial Garden Fund.
Co
Purpose of the Fund: The purpose of the Fund is to improve and beautify the Memorial
Garden and provide for ongoing maintenance, care and administration of the Memorial Garden
and any sites which may be established in the future. It is intended that all monies received in
payment for the right to use sites in the Memorial Garden be deposited in the Memorial Garden
Fund where they will be invested in a manner directed by the Church Council. It is intended
that the income from the Fund be used for the purposes defined above, or for future expansion
of the Garden or other purposes of vital need for the Church at the discretion and direction of
the Church Council. The principal of the Fund shall remain intact unless determined by
6
a two-thirds majority vote 0fthe members 0fthe Church Council that it is necessary to invade
the principal for the protection, repak, administration, care, expansion or improvement of the
Garden or its facilities.
Revavment of Cost of Construction: The congregation shall be reimbursed for funds loaned for
the initial construction of the Memorial Garden. Reimbursement may be made from the monies
received for the purchase of the right to use a site in the Memorial Garden or fi.om specific
memorials dedicated to items included in the original construction costs such as plantings, gates,
etc. The proportion of these monies allocated to loan repayment or allocated to principal of the
Fund shall be determined by the Church Council in consultation with the Memorial Garden
Committee until the loan is repaid in full; then the entire amounts of these monies shall be
invested in the Memorial Garden Fund.
SECIION V- REMOVAL OF REMAiNS FROM THE GROUND
Ae
Relocation: If, in the judgment of the Church Council, it shall be deemed necessary at any
time to change the location of the Memorial Garden or to discontinue its use or any part
thereof, the Church Council shall have the cremains removed fi.om any sites affected by such
changes or discontinuance and place such cremains in another site in the Memorial Garden or
to another appropriate location as in its sole discretion the Church Council may select.
SECTION VI - TERMINATION OF RIGHT OF USE
If there has been no interment in a site and the Purchaser determines that the site is no longer
needed, the Church may, in its sole discretion, agree to repurchase the Purchaser's fights,
subject to the availability of funds in the Memorial Garden Fund. St. John's shall pay no more
than 50% of the sum paid by the Purchaser at the time of purchase, there being no right in the
Purchaser to any interest accrued.
The fight of the Purchaser to use a site shall cease if the present church property is no longer
owned by the Church or the present church edifice is demolished or if in the opinion of the
Church Council, it is no longer feasible to maintain the Memorial Garden. In the event of the
termination of such right, all interred remains may be removed. If, after reasonable notice,
such remains are not removed by representatives of the person or person interred, the Church
shall have the right to remove and dispose of them in an appropriate manner, and thereafter no
fight of use of the Memorial Garden shall exist in the Purchaser or any other person.
SECTION VIH - MISCELLANEOUS
Upon recommendation of the Memorial Garden Committee, these rules and regulations may be
amended, modified, or terminated by a two-thirds majority vote of the members of the Church
Council.
The Church shall take reasonable precautions to protect the owners and property right of
owners fi.om loss or damage; but disclaims all responsibility for loss or damage from causes
beyond its control and especially from damage caused by the elements or acts of God, thieves,
and vandals.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
CASE//99-21
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHURCH
TO ALLOW FOR UTILIZING EXISTING SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THE WESTONKA
SENIOR CENTER UNTIL THE NEW BUILDING IS CONSTRUCTED, TO ACCOMMODATE THE
WESTONKA HEALTHY COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVE, TO PROVIDE TWO ROOMS FOR
THE HEADSTART PROGRAM, AND TO BUILD A MEMORIAL GARDEN,
LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT,
TRACTS A THROUGH G, INCLUSIVE, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO.739 & THAT PART
OF OF BLOCK 2, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D,
PIDS # 24-117-24 12 0014 & 24-117-24 12 0058
P & Z 99-21
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July
13, 1999 to consider the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for utilizing existing
space to accommodate the Westonka Senior Center until the new building is constructed,
to accommodate the Westonka Healthy Collaborative, to provide two rooms for the
Headstart program, and to build a Memorial Garden located within the R-1 Single Family
Zoning District.
E::.,:.::::;:::;;:~; :.:.:;:: ~: :::::.:.- ~ ~ ~ ....
~': '::3:"~:':'~':'~: ::q:: ~" ~ k ~
::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::.:::::.:.:.-.:.~ '~)~ (~) ~--~-N
All persons appearing at said hearing with reference.to the a~e will be given the
opportunity to be heard at this meeting. ~ J.~'~ /
ary
Published in the Laker, June 26, 1999
printed on recycled paper
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1999
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle,
Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Council Liaison Bob Brown.
Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jori Suthedand, and
Secretary Deb Hawkinson. Absent: Frank Weiland
Public Present: Jeff Metzger, 2470 Fairview Lane, Cathy Bailey, 1554 Bluebird Lane,
Bob Tomalka, 2964 Pelican Point Circle, Arlyss Myers, 5410 Three Points Boulevard, #
432, Phyllis Jessen, 2920 Pelican Point Court, Shirley Rommess, 5235 Bartlett
Boulevard, Pastor Eric Gustavson, 1700 Baywood Shores Drive, Tamra, Sarah, Kimmy
Botkin, 2355 Fairview Lane, Steven W. Hicks, 2072 Shorewood Lane, Pat Meisel, 5501
Bartlett Boulevard, Gene Abeggley, 2040 Arbor Lane, Mike Newman, (Toolbox Inc.)
with regards to 2040 Arbor Lane, Brent Stevens (Toolbox, Inc.) regarding 2040 Arbor
Lane, Greg Smith, 5054 Bartlett Boulevard, Kirk and Kelly Geadelmann, 1709 Baywood
Lane.
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE MAY 10, 1999 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
Commissioner Glister indicated that her name was omitted on the list of those present.
MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Glister to accept the minutes as
amended. Motion carried: 8-0.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
Chair Michael introduced the public hearings with a word to the public. Staff would give
their comments, then questions could be directed to the applicant and staff from the
commissioners. Each person from the public wishing to speak should come forward to
the podium and cleady state their name and address. Comments should be brief and
concise and directed to the issue at hand. Once the public hearing was closed, there
would be no further comments from the audience.
PUBLIC HEARING: CASE # 99-21: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; TO ALLOW FOR
UTILIZING EXISTING SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THE WESTONKA SENIOR
CENTER, WESTONKA HEALTHY COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVE, PROVIDE TWO
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1999
ROOMS FOR THE HEAD START PROGRAM, AND BUILD A MEMORIAL GARDEN;
2451 FAIRVlEW LANE; TRACTS A - G, INCLUSIVE, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY
# 739 AND THAT PART OF BLOCK 2, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D; ST. JOHN'S
CHURCH. PID # 24-117-24 12 0014 AND 24-117-24 12 0058
Gordon introduced this case. He stated that the applicant was requesting to update an
existing conditional use permit to allow space for the Westonka senior Center,
Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative and a Head Start program.to locate in
temporarily until other facilities could be built. Second, the church desires to build a
memorial garden.
The Fellowship Hall is proposed for use by the Westonka Seniors. This would be
Monday through Friday during the daytime. All activities would take place inside the
building. The kitchen and cooking facilities would also be used. Parking does not
present a problem since there is sufficient unused parking available during the week
days. The church with its recent addition, is a large facility and able to handle the
needs of the Senior Center without impacting its worship area and the needs of the
daycare.
A proposed Memorial Garden is planned for the rear of the building just beyond the
Indian Mounds along the service drive. Hard surface removal has taken place in its
approximate location. The memorial garden is a cemetery (for zoning purposes) with
elements including a wall for flowers and urns, an art centerpiece and benches. The
sod area in front of the wall will be used for underground vault sites for cremation
remains.
Shoreland Management regulations require that unplatted cemeteries maintain a 50
foot setback from buildings. As proposed the setback is 35 feet, and would need a
fifteen foot setback variance. There is sufficient area, however, to move the cemetery
back further if needed.
The state of Minnesota regulates all public and private cemeteries by Statute. None of
these requirements appear to impact any enforcement needed from the City. Any use
and operation approvals from the State that may be required should be secured by the
applicant.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of
this Conditional Use Permit as requested.
Voss asked if in the Staff's research they came up with the differences between
cremation and burial and if there were any regulations that the city needed to govern.
Gordon responded that there were two places in the state Statutes that addressed
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1999
"cemeteries," one was regarding public ones and the other private. In neither case was
the city impacted. There were some statutes regarding the spreading of ashes,
however, with land burial of ashes, the statutes were "gray." Thus, for purposes of
zoning, the Staff recommended defining this memorial garden as a cemetery.
Burma asked where the fifty foot setback ordinance came from. Gordon stated that it
was part of the state's Shoreland Management Ordinance.
Brown asked if the location of remains still needed recording and if they did, he didn't
see a difference between cemeteries and this scenario. The records would still be kept
by the managers of the memorial garden.
Clapsaddle asked if a member of the church could spread ashes over the garden and if
they could, would a permit be required. He wondered whether this aspect of the
conditional use permit application really needed to be regulated by a permit or
restrictions. Mueller responded that there were legal requirements in disposing of
human body remains.
Chair Michael opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m.
Tamra Botkin of 2355 Fairview Lane raised concerns over the amount of traffic on
Fairview Lane now heading to the church. The opening of the Senior Center has
created more. She feels that the traffic already goes too fast and is too much. As a
parent of small children, she is out there telling drivers to slow down. That includes the
"Dial a Ride" van that delivers the seniors to the church. She wanted to request that the
traffic be rerouted to the road behind Fairview, Hidden Vale. There are no homes along
this road anyway and it leads up the church's parking lot today. She asked if someone
from the church could relay this message to the people who come to the senior center
and the daycare centers. As far as the memorial garden goes, she does not want to
see the ashes let loose, they need to be in containers and buried. She doesn't want
"anyone else's remains in her yard."
Brown asked if she had spoken to the police department regarding the traffic. He also
asked her when the traffic was the most heavy and indicated he would speak with the
City Administrator to convey the message to the police department. Ms. Botkin
indicated that the traffic was all day long.
Greg Smith of 5054 Bartlett Boulevard came forward stating that he was opposed to the
Senior Center and daycare activities taking place at the church. He has lived in the
neighborhood for thirteen years. He stated that three years ago when he first got
notification of proposed construction on the north end of the building, prior to a permit
being issued, 12-15 trees were cut down. These were cut down from the Indian
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1999
Mounds. As a result, the construction came to an abrupt halt since the Indian Mounds
were being disturbed. When he spoke with the people at St. John's they referred to
these sacred grounds as "a pile of dirt."
At that time, he stated, they were "hosting a for-profit daycare center," one that he feels
was being run illegally. The area is zoned residential. He stated t. hey came to the city
for a "quick fix" to allow them to operate a commercial business. "Crazed traffic" was
generated such that residents could not even back out onto the street safely.
Another issue, stated Mr. Smith is the watershed area of the north property. The lower
3-4 acres is woods, but also watershed land. A holding pond was created and another
20-30, eighty plus year old trees were removed. These were a windbreak for his
property. In the last three years the damage to his property from this loss of windbreak
has been $5,000-$20,000.
Mr. Smith believes that the expansion that was built on the north side is one of the
"ugliest" structures he has ever seen. It was "shoe-horned" in. As a result, his neighbor
lost his view and now looks at bricks instead of sunsets, etc.
He is opposed to any further "commercial use" of the church or other uses. The
attendees park illegally during the services, they throw litter out, drive too fast and in
general are "poor neighbors."
Jeff Metzger echoed Mr. Smith's comments.
Bob Tumalka of 2964 Pelican Point Court is the treasurer of St. John's. He stated the
church did not profit (make money) from the daycare, head start, or senior center. He
stated that they charged only enough to cover the additional utility and maintenance
costs of these programs. The Church council did try to have the parking changed to the
other side of the street, but there were regulations against that. He doesn't see how the
additional activities impact the parking as greatly as has been indicated.
Mayor Pat Meisel of 5501 Bartlett Boulevard stated for the information of both the
Planning Commission and for the audience that the location of the seniors to St. John's
is a temporary placement. They will be relocated when a new facility is constructed.
She is on a committee with others looking into the best location for this.
Pastor Eric Gustavson of 1700 Baywood Courts Drive, pastor of this congregation,
addressed many of the comments. They have made attempts to keep people in the
parking lots on Sunday, off the street. They have also attempted to change the location
of street parking in the past but been stopped by ordinances. Parishioners have
received parking tickets.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1999
The church council has also been concerned about the driving down Fairview Lane. He
believes that it is an issue separate from the church activities. He believes people use
the street as a short cut.
The daycare has been in operation for over twenty five years or so. It is not a new
entity and all the church recaptures from this operation is maintenance and utility costs.
The daycare is a separate entity from the church.
He has concerns regarding the holding pond also, since he believes neighbors dump
there also.
On the Memorial Garden issue, it will be located up the hill by the church, not down by
the holding pond. The regulations they have put together are modeled after St. Martin's
church and are in compliance with all state statutes.
The public hearing was closed at 8:25 p.m. by Chair Michael.
Mueller asked Pastor Gustavson what the capacity of the Memorial Garden would be.
The Pastor indicated that with 12" X 12" plots, approximately 200 if it was located where
proposed. In response to the question of how deep the urns would be buried, he
responded that was governed by their regulations, but he believed it was 24 inches
deep. There will not be "co-mingling" of ashes. Mueller's last question was regarding
how records would be kept.
Voss asked why staff combined both issues under one umbrella. He doesn't believe
the Memorial Gardens should be grouped with the other. Mueller also sees the Senior
Center and the Memorial Garden as two different issues. He wanted to know who was
responsible for putting a sign up for the senior center also.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval
of the Conditional Use Permit for the Senior Citizen's center and the
Head Start program and daycare. This issue is separate from the
Memorial Gardens and the Conditional Use Permit would be
reviewed in one year with the neighbors being notified of the review.
Cathy Bailey, 1554 Bluebird Lane, indicated that she had transferred the sign for the
Senior Citizen's Center from the old site at the Community Center. She put it where
she did to indicate where the parking was. She took responsibility for not looking into
the need for a permit for this location. The sign did have a permit for the old location.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1999
Mueller expressed that he was uncomfortable with considering both issues under one
permit. This is because he finds it difficult to "rule" on the Memorial gardens without
more information. He feels that information is needed in order to make a fair judgment
regarding them.
He has driven by the church and the holding ponds since they were built and feels that
they are working well in maintaining water levels.
Burma had a different opinion regarding the Memorial Gardens. He feels that a church
is a good location for such. He does not see the need to review the regulations and
guidelines needed to govern this since it is outside the scope of the city's jurisdiction.
Brown agrees with this concept also as long as the plots are recorded.
When the church built it's expansion, Mueller stated, there was a concern over the
traffic then. He suggested lowering the speed on Fairview and raising the speed on
Hidden Vale. He believes this will help some of the traffic issues.
Pastor Gustavson asked if there were signs that could be posted indicating that
"children were at play." Both Voss and Brown were concerned that no one has taken
this issue to the police department. Clapsaddle suggested that the City Council should
address these concerns and asked Brown to forward.
Hasse called for the question.
The vote was 8-0. MOTION carried.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Hasse, to table the Memorial Garden
issue until further information can be provided the Commission.
Voting Aye: Clapsaddle, Voss, Hasse, Michael and Mueller.
Opposed Glister, Burma and Brown. Motion carried.
Mueller and Clapsaddle asked that the section covering the statutes regarding this topic
could be sent to the commissioners in whole, not an interpretation.
Brown asked if a permit was necessary for the Memorial Gardens. Gordon indicated
that it was covered by two levels of regulations. One under the Conditional Use Permit,
as an acceptable use by the church; and two, the loose term cemetery and the
requirement under the Shoreland Ordinances for a fifty foot setback. Additionally, State
Statute Section 307 may also apply as well as sections. The Church would have the
responsibility to meet all applicable Statue requirements.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1999
Mayor Meisel feels that other cities ordinances or other governing ordinances of
"cremains" should be reviewed also.
This issue will be covered at the next Planning Commission meeting on June 28, 1999.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: June 14, 1999
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit
APPLICANT: St. John's Lutheran Church - 2451 Fairview Lane
CASE NUMBER: 99-21
HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5t
LOCATION: 2451 Fairview Lane
ZONING: Residential District R-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting to update the conditional use permit for the
church facility to allow space for the Westonka Senior Center and to build a memorial garden.
These two activities would be additional uses of the building which received its last update with
the expansion in 1995.
The seniors are currently occupying space in Fellowship Hall in the west wing of the building
after losing their space in the Community Center. They use the space during the day, Monday
through Friday. No interior of exterior building changes are proposed to accommodate their
needs. All activities take place inside the building. The church's kitchen and cooking facilities
will also be utilized. Parking does not appear to be of concern as the lot was usually empty
during the day prior to the groups occupancy. There are 35 spaces and 4 handicapped spaces
adjacent to Fellowship Hall which will accommodate most of the parking needs. The shared
parking lot with Shirley Hills Elementary has 112 spaces and could be used for spillover. The
loop drive provides a convenient drop off and pick up area.
The proposed Memorial garden is located in the rear of the building just beyond the Indian
Mound along the service drive. Hardsurface removal has taken place in its approximate location.
The memorial garden is a cemetery with elements including a wall for flowers and urns, an art
centerpiece and benches. The sod area in front of the wall will be used for underground vault
sites for cremation remains. Shoreland Management regulations require that unplatted cemeteries
maintain a 50 feet setback from buildings. As proposed the setback is 35 feet. A second issue
123 North Third Street, ~uite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
#.2
#99-21 St. John's Lutheran Church CUP
July 9, 1999
with the cemetery is its regulation by the Minnesota Department of Health and Attorney's
General Office. The State regulates all public and private cemeteries by Statute. Any
requirements handed down from the State would not appear to impact enforcement on the part of
the City.
DISCUSSION: The church with its recent expansion, is a large facilitg, and able to handle the
needs of the Senior Center without compromising its worship and daycare uses. The location of
seniors in Fellowship Hall separates them from activities in other wings. Parking is also separate
from the daycare drop-off and pick-up area which will reduce any potential conflicts and disperse
traffic. The length of time the seniors will occupy the space is uncertain. Both the church and
senior center are viewing this as a temporary, but it would be appropriate for purposes of the
facility's CUP to treat it as indefinite. When suitable space becomes available elsewhere in the
community, the group anticipates a move.
The Memorial Garden would be considered a cemetery and as proposed would need a 15 feet
building setback variance. There areas on the site it could be located without a variance. The
Commission will need to review with the applicant the reasons for the site and understand if
there are other conforming locations it could be placed. Any use and operation approvals from
the State that may be required should also be secured by the applicant.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the CUP as requested.
123 North Third Street, ~uite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
CASE #99-21
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHURCH
TO ALLOW FOR UTILIZING EXISTING SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THE WESTONKA
SENIOR CENTER UNTIL THE NEW BUILDING IS CONSTRUCTED, TO ACCOMMODATE THE
WESTONKA HEALTHY COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVE, TO PROVIDE TWO ROOMS FOR
THE HEADSTART PROGRAM, AND TO BUILD A MEMORIAL GARDEN,
LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT,
TRACTS A THROUGH G, INCLUSIVE, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO.739 & THAT PART
OF OF BLOCK 2, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D,
PIDS # 24-117-24 12 0014 & 24-117-24 12 0058
P & Z 99-21
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on
Monday, June 14, 1999 to consider the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for
utilizing existing space to accommodate the Westonka Senior Center until the new building
is constructed, to accommodate the Westonka Healthy Collaborative, to provide two rooms
for the Headstart program, a. nd _to build a Memorial Garden located within the R-1 Single
Family Zoning District. (86) ~¢u -
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
at::
.:.:.:.:.:.., .. .... ::.::::.::...
said hoarin~ with roforonc~tho~ill be ~iven tho
~11
appoarin~
persons
at
opportunity to be heard at this meeting.~
~ ~qff~t ~la~ Secretary
Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected pr~e~ ~ay 18,~ 99~
Published in the Laker, May 22, 1999
prinled on recycled paper
Rev 12-28~98
Application for
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
City of Mound
534t Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Planning Commission Date:"'~,~t~.,,
City Council Date: -'~'L~ I~
Distribution:
City Planner:~'/~'~ ~
,eECEtvFt7
APR 2 3 15 o9
Public Works: 5'U¢4 ~ v/
Conditional Use Permit Fee: $250.00
City Engineer: 5"~ t,/ Other:
Please type or print the following information:
PROPERTY Subject
INFORMATION Address 2451 Fairview La.
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION
APPLICANT
Name of Business
St. John ' s
kotTra~ts A to G inc. ~_~
Subdivision_~,~, L.~d ,--~r~~
The appli~nt is: X owner other:
Lutheran Church
Block
PID# 24-117-24
Name Si; - John ' s T,]]~-.'hPran C. ht]r~h
P,at#
120014
Address 2451 Fairview T,Rnp
Phone
(H) 472-1416 (W)
(M)
OWNER
(if other than
applicant)
Name
Address
Phone
(H)
(w)
(M)
ARCHITECT,
SURVEYOR,
OR
ENGINEER
ZONING
DISTRICT
Name
Address
Phone
(H)
Circle:
(w)
R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3
(M)
CHANGE OF
USE
FROM:H~-.~ I 'i ~'i ng ~w~ ,~t~ ng space
TO: ]]n~-,'~l p~rman~nt bui]d~n~
Memorial Garaen
for Westonka Seniors
i~ ready: develop a
Conditional Use Permit Application
Page 2
Description of Proposed Use: The existing church, which currently has a
conditional use permit, seeks to house Westonka Seniors in Fellowship
Hall Monday through Friday. The church also plans to develop a memorial
garden in rear of church (see attached location & plans).
EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity,
including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate
or eliminate the impacts.
This should have no effect, as parking is available weekdays at
the church.
If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees
for the completion of the. proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project:
$
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure
for this property? (:~ yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and
provide copies of resolutions.
?7, 1gq6 - Cnp~ R~ P~y ~R13
This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not
Print Applicant's Name Applicant's Signature ~'7-/~-,~ ~f.,(~ Fa
Date
Print OWner's Name
Owner's Signature Date
Print Owner's Name
Rev. 12-28.98
Owner's Signature ° Date
May 4, 1999
Jon Sutherland
Mound City Hall
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Jort,
Here is information you need for the conditional use permit for Westonka Healthy
Community Collaborative. Stephanie Nelson is the Director and they have a drop-in for
Middle School and High School students. This is also a memoring program for Senior
High students to mentor Middle School on their school work.
They will occupy the Harbor Room on Tuesday and Thursday from 2:30 - 5:00 during
the school year. In the summer it would be on Tuesday and Thursday from 9:00 - 12:00.
The other group is Headstart and their program is from 8:00 A.M. - 3:30 P.M. daily
Monday- Friday. We will give them two classrooms in the New Wing. They have two
groups with a schedule from 8:00 - 12:00 and 12:00 - 3:30. There are 17 youngsters in
each group.
Please add this to our original C.U.P. and I will get the second set of mailing labels.
Sincerely,
Bob Tomalka
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA
LOT AREA
LOT AREA
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
745'1 F~r¥iew Lane
.q~ . ,7~hm ' .~ Lutheran Church
SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ..............
SQ. FT. X 40% = {for Lots of Record*) . .' .....
SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks {l/a," min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
X ~
X =
X =
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
X
X
TOTAL DETACHED
X
X
X
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
X =
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
BLDGS .................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ..... ~. C]3~oge ...... ' ........ '. · ·
PREPARED BY DATE
t~9£gg ¥.LO$~NNII'~
HD~IHD NV~tH£i~Iq S,NHOf 'J,S
:::JO 9NH~I(IOH~t~i ~ NOI.I. If](I¥ fl'~SOdOSd
.t
.i
February 27, 1996
RESOLUTION #96-21
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF A CHURCH
LOCATED IN THE R-1 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT
AT 2451 FAIRVIEW LANE, TRACTS A - G, RLS NO. 739,
AND THAT PART OF BLOCK 2, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D
PID 24-117-24 12 0014
P&Z CASE #96-01
WHEREAS, St. John's Lutheran Church has applied for a Conditional Use
Permit to allow the expansion of their present facility by adding additional sanctuary
space and classrooms and re-configuring the church entrance and the vehicular access
that serves the entrance. The proposal also includes a new parking lot adjacent to the
corner of Bartlett Blvd. and Fairview Lane, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the R-1 Single Family Residential
Zoning District, and;
WHEREAS, Mound Zoning Ordinance Section 350:640 lists churches as a
conditional use in the R-1 residential zone, and;
WHEREAS, two variances are included in this request, a) recognition of an
existing nonconforming setback to the Indian Mound of 20 feet to the required 50 foot
setback, and b) a 10 foot building height variance; the existing roof has a height of
45 feet to the required 35 feet, and;
WHEREAS, the DNR has been specifically notified in regards to the Indian
mound setback variance, and;
WHEREAS, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Minnesota Historical Society
are aware of the mounds proximity to the building, and;
WHEREAS, the proposal is in compliance with the impervious cover restrictions
at approximately 35% within the Shoreland area, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed lower parking construction will result in the loss of
12 trees. Existing trees which are to remain are those located just west of the curb
line off Fairview Lane which help separate the parking lot from the adjacent
neighborhood, and;
WHEREAS, our ordinance requires 147 parking spaces, the total proposed
parking of 188 spaces exceeds the minimum ordinance requirement. St. John's will
need to install concrete curb and gutter in the new lower level parking lot as well as
in the existing parking lot near the building entrance, and;
Resolution 96-21 -- Page 2
WHEREAS, additional trees in two of the new island areas would help soften
the paved surface area, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
unanimously recommended approval, with the conditions as recommended by staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City Council does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit a conditional
use permit and building height and Indian mound setback variances for St.
John's Lutheran Church to construct the proposed building addition and parking
lot improvements subject to the following conditions:
The church shall submit a plan for all proposed lighting including cut
sheets on the types of proposed fixtures and a lumen plan which shows
the light levels cast by the identified fixtures. Said lighting plan shall be
submitted and approved by City Staff prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
bm
Two additional deciduous trees shall be added in the newly created
parking lot islands in the parking lot near the primary church entrance.
Signs shall be installed along the drop off area abutting Fairview Lane
which shall identify the area as a "no parking" zone.
City approval of the conditional use permit is conditioned upon approval
of the drainage plan by the Watershed District.
Structural data on all retaining walls excec, ding 4 feet in height shall be
supplied. Additionally, the surface treatment of the retaining walls shall
be identified and submitted to staff for approval prior to building permit
issuance.
A street excavation permit will be required for the watermain and storm
sewer connections and the construction of new driveway entrances.
The proposed storm sewer connection at Bartlett Blvd. should be moved
appr, oximately 35' feet to the southwest. A detail of the proposed
structure shall be submitted to ,the City Engineer for review and approval
prior to the issuance bf a.building' permit.
he
The project shall comply with all applicable local, regional, state and
federal requirements.
L5o5
Resolution 96-21 . . Page 3
Construction of the lower parking lot is hereby approved. A grading
permit application must be submitted to the Building Official, and
construction work may not commence until the application is approved.
If the lower parking lot is not completed concurrent with the building
improvements, it can be constructed at a later date in full compliance
with this approval providing that the plan for the lot remains unchanged.
Construction of the parking lot, regardless of time frame, shall comply
with all local, regional, state and federal rules in effect at the time.
Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed in the lower parking lot area,
in the new entrance drive and in modified areas of the existing parking
lot consistent with Sheet C1, Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan
dated February 6, 1996.
e
This Conditional Use Permit is granted for the following legally described
property:
Tracts A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 739,
files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and that
part of Block 2, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D, according to the recorded plat
thereof, said Hennepin County, lying southeasterly of the southeasterly
line of said Tract F, and northeasterly of the southeasterly extension of
the southwesterly line of said Tract G.
e
This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the
Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute,
Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how
this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with
Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for
the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been
filed with the City Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Polston and
seconded by Councilmember Ahrens.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Hanus and Polston. Jensen and Jessen were absent and excused.
~est~- The following Councilmembers
voted in the ne_~ative: None
est' City M~
Adopted: February 27, 1996
August 8, 1995
RESOLUTION #95-78
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A CHURCH LOCATED WITHIN THE
R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT
TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PARKING LOT
LOCATED ON SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY
FOR ST · JOHN' S LUTHERAN CHURCH
2450 WILSHIRE BLVD. & 2451 FAIRVIEW LANE,
TRACTS A THROUGH G, INCLUSIVE, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 739, &
THAT PART OF BLOCK 2, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D,
PID'S 24-117-24 12 0014, 0058 & 0059
P&Z CASE #95-30
WHEREAS, St. John's Lutheran Church, together with
Independent School District #277, have applied for a Conditional
Use Permit to allow for the construction of a new parking lot, and;
WHEREAS, the Mound Zoning Ordinance allows Churches and
Public Schools to operate within the R-1 Single Family Residential
Zoning District by Conditional Use Permit, and;
WHEREAS, the proposal involves the construction of one new
parking lot and the expansion of an existing lot. The new
construction will actually occur on property owned by Independent
School District #277 (Shirley Hills School) and it will be used by
both the school and the church. An agreement between the two
parties will be established, and;
WHEREAS, the expansion of the existing parking lot will occur
on church property, southeast of the existing building, and;
WHEREAS, Mound's Zoning Ordinance addresses parking under
Section 350:760. That section allows parking serving a principal
use to be off-site providing it is controlled either by "deed or
long-term lease." It is the church's plan is to lease the
property from the school district and the school will have use of
the facility during off-peak church hours, and;
WHEREAS, Mound's Zoning Ordinance requires all new parking
lots to have either concrete or bituminous surfacing and concrete
curb. Both proposed parking lots comply with this requirement,
and;
WHEREAS, the church's building committee has investigated
other parking alternatives through a three year study, and this
location was found to be the best due to topography, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval, with the conditions as recommended by staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
August 8, 1995
The City Council does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit
for St. John's Lutheran Church to construct a new parking lot
and expand an existing parking lot and hereby approves a
parking space width variance of one foot subject to the
following conditions:
A®
A copy of the lease agreement between the school district
and St. John's Church shall be submitted to the City
prior to release of the final conditional use permit
resolution.
Be
The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan for review
and approval by City staff. Said plan shall be approved
prior to construction.
The applicant shall have a registered land surveyor
prepare and submit impervious cover calculations for the
two lots that contain the proposed par~ing lot expansion.
De
The project shall comply with all applicable codes and
permit requirements.
Ee
Furnish stormwater calculations for the easterly parking
lot which may require revisions to the curb openings
and/or erosion control.
Fe
Connect the concrete curb of the proposed westerly
parking lot to the curb radius of the entrances from
Maywood Road.
Ge
The grading, drainage and erosion control plans to be
approved by the MCWD.
He
Construction of all improvements shall be in conformance
with all local, state and federal ordinance and permit
requirements.
This Conditional Use Permit is granted for the following
legally described property:
Church Property
PID 24-117-24 12 0014: Tracts A through G, inclusive,
Registered Land Survey No. 739, according to the plat thereof
of record in Hennepin County, Minnesota; subject to road
easement over the north 33 feet of Tracts A, B, C, and G of
said Registered Land Survey; together with:
PID 24-117-24 12 0058: That part of block 2, Shirley Hills
Unit D, lying southeasterly of the southeasterly line of Tract
F, Registered Land Survey No. 739, and northeasterly of the
southeasterly extension of the southwesterly line of Tract G
of said Registered Land Survey No. 739, according to the plats
thereof of record.
August 8, 1995
School Property
PID 24-117-24 12 0059: That part of Block 2, shirley Hills
Unit D, according to the plat thereof of record in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, which lies northeasterly of County Road No.
125 (Wilshire Boulevard); excepting that part thereof which
lies southeasterly of the southeasterly line of Tract F,
Registered Land Survey No. 739, and northeasterly of the
southeasterly extension of the southwesterly line of Tract G,
said Registered Land Survey No. 739, according to the plat
thereof of record.
Subject to road easement over the north 33 feet thereof.
This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded with the County
Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County
pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36,
Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on
how this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing
this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for
such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has
been filed with the City Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Jessen and seconded by Councilmember Jensen.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen, Jessen and Polston
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None
Mayo~
'1
.I
ttD~IClH2) N'v~t~lH~L¢~I S,Nt-I. Ot ',.LS
:40 9Niq:~OOI~iB'~. '~ NOLLIOQ¥ oB$Oc~O~a
,,,/
GENERAL ZONING INFORMATION SItEET
I ADDRESS:
Require~ Lo~ Width:
Existing ~t Width , Depth
FRONTt ~ S E W
FRONT, N S ,~ SO'
SIDE: N S E W
~SHO~ 50' t~asured from O,~.W. )
EXISTING ~/OR PROPOSZD 8~TBACK8:
PRINCIPAL BUILDING
SIDE: N $ E W 4' 91 6°
SIDE, N S E W 4' or 6'
i~EAR~ H S E W 4'
LAKESNOR~: 50' ;measured from O.H.W.)
ACCESSORY BUILDING
FRONT: N S E W FRONT, N S E W
FRONT, N S E W FRONT: N $ E W
SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W R.~AR: N $ g W
LAKESNORE: LAKESHORE:
IS TH~ CONFO~ING? YES
NO
?.~. WILL THE PRQ~OSBD IMPROVeMeNTS CONFORM? YES. .
(14)
io
9
(44)
(43)
(*)
(,~)
NO
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING NONCONFORMING
USE CRITERIA BY AMENDING SECTION 350:420
OF THE MOUND CODE OF ORDINANCES
The City of Mound does ordain:
Section 350:420 of the Mound Code of Ordinances is amended by repealing
existing Subd. 9 and Subd. 10, and adding the following:
350.420' Subd. 9 Nonconformin~4f~ncipal and accessory structures may be
expanded, enlarged, or modified,/provided that the use of the parcel is conforming
to district regulations, and provided that the expansion, enlargement, or
modification meets the current zoning regulations and no other nonconformities
are created. In the event that a nonconforming structure is removed, razed, or
demolished, all newly proposed construction must meet current zoning
regulations.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Adopted by the City Council on
Published in The Laker on
Affidavit of Publication
. ' ¢,'w oF .ou"o
,, NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE REPEALING
OF CITY CODE SECTION 350:420,
SUBDIVISION 9 & 10 PERTAINING TO
NON-CONFORMING USES
" TO BE REPLACED BY .NEW
LANGUAGE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the
City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341
Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July
13, 1999 to consider the approval
repealing City Code Section 350:420,
Subdivision 9 & 10 pertaining to non-
conforming uses to be replaced by new
language.
, All persons appearing at said heacmg
with reference to the above will be given the
opportunity to be heard at this meeting.
Kris Linquist, Planning Secretary
(Published in The Laker June 26, 1999)
State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin.
Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is
an authorized agent and employee of the publisher
of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound,
Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts
which are stated below:
A.) The newspaper has complied with all the
requirements constituting qualifications as a
qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota
Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable
laws, as amended.
B.) The printed Repealinq Cit,¥ Code
Sect.. 350:420
which is attached was cut from the columns of said
newspaper, and was printed and published once
each week for 1 successive weeks:
It was first published Saturday
the 26th day of June 19 99 ,
and was thereafter printed and published every
Saturday, to and including Saturday,
the day of
19 ~;
Authorized Agent
Subscribed and sworn to me on this
26 daygf June ,19 99
I~-" :'~ KRm~'': '*~ Notar~ Public
~ate Information
(1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users
for comparable space: $12.90 per inch.
(2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter: $12.90.
(3) Rate actually'charged for above matter: $7.19 per inch.
Each additional successive week: $5.14.
By:
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
Memorandum
To~
Date~
Subject=
MOUND PLANNING COMMISSION
FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK/ACTING CITY MANAGER
JULY 7, 1999
JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL
At the Public Hearing you held on June 14th, regarding the
revision to the Section of the Zoning Code on streamlining
language there was discussion of having a joint meeting with the
City Council on this issue. The City Council had already set
it's public hearing on this issue for July 13, 1999. The city
Council is receptive to hearing your comments so they will open
the public hearing on July 13, 1999 to hear comments and interact
with the Planning Commission at that time. You will then be able
to hear their reasoning for the streamlining. The City Council
will then continue the public hearing until July 27, 1999, at
6:00 P.M. This will allow the Planning Commission time at your
meeting on July 26, 1999, to review all aspects of the
streamlining revision. The city Council has then set their July
27, 1999, meeting for a 6:00 P.M. start time in order to meet
with the Planning Commission prior to the regular meeting at 7:30
P.M.
Another reason the City Council would like to have the Planning
Commission at the July 13, 1999, HRA Meeting at 6:00 P.M. is to
update you and have your input on the downtown redevelopment and
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District schedule and boundaries.
Therefore, if you have comments on the revision and the downtown
redevelopment, please make every effort to attend the HRA
meeting on July 13, 1999, at 6:00 P.M., and the Public Hearing on
the Code revision at the regular meeting at 7:30 P.M., in the
City Council Chambers.
printed on recycled paper
CITY OF MOUND
NOTICE OF
CHANGE IN MEETING TIME
JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Mound
Regularly scheduled meeting on July 27, 1999, will begin at 6:00
P.M. on that date. The reason for the change in time will be to
hold a joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting to discuss
repealing City Code Section 350:420, Subdivisions 9 & 10,
pertaining to nonconforming uses and replacing them with new
language.
Francene C. Clark, CMC
City Clerk/Acting City Manager
Publish in The Laker - July 19, 1999
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1999
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle,
Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Council Liaison Bob Brown.
Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and
Secretary Deb Hawkinson. Absent and excused: Frank Weiland
Public Present: Jeff Metzger, 2470 Fairview Lane, Cathy Bailey, 1554 Bluebird Lane,
Bob Tomalka, 2964 Pelican Point Circle, Arlyss Myers, 5410 Three Points Boulevard, #
432, Phyllis Jessen, 2920 Pelican Point Court, Shirley Rommess, 5235 Bartlett
Boulevard, Pastor Eric Gustavson, 1700 Baywood Shores Drive, Tamra, Sarah, Kimmy
Botkin, 2355 Fairview Lane, Steven W. Hicks, 2072 Shorewood Lane, Pat Meisel, 5501
Bartlett Boulevard, Gene Abeggley, 2040 Arbor Lane, Mike Newman, (Toolbox Inc.)
with regards to 2040 Arbor Lane, Brent Stevens (Toolbox, Inc.) regarding 2040 Arbor
Lane, Greg Smith, 5054 Bartlett Boulevard, Kirk and Kelly Geadelmann, 1709 Baywood
Lane.
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE MAY 10, 1999 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
Commissioner Glister indicated that her name was omitted on the list of those present.
MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Glister to accept the minutes as
amended. Motion carried: 8-0.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE REVISION SECTION 350:420: REPEALING OF
CITY CODE SECTION 350:420, SUBDIVlDION 9 AND 10 PERTAINING TO NON-
CONFORMING USES TO BE REPLACE BY NEW LANGUAGE.
Gordon introduced the new language recommended by City Council in response the
last meeting's discussion on streamlining.
Section 350:420 of the Mound Code of Ordinance is amended by repealing
existing Subd. 9 and Subd. 10, and adding the following:
5'/q
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1999
350:420 Subd. 9. Nonconforming principal and accessory structures may be
expanded, enlarged, or modified, provided that the use of the parcel is
conforming to district regulations, and provided that the expansion, enlargement,
or modification me~t~ ~h~ currenf~ zoning regulations and no or, her
nonconformities are created. In the event that a nonconforming structure is
removed, razed or demolished, all newly proposed construction must meet
current zoning regulations.
Mueller is concerned that no matter where a new structure is located, as long as it is
conforming, this new language allows it to be placed. He also is concerned that a
review of other nonconformities existing structures is bypassed. He believes the
language to be too open.
Chair Michael opened the public hearing at 9:00 p.m.
Mayor Meisel asked the commission to consider these as some ordinances that need
rewriting and that are cumbersome. That is why City Council recommended the above.
She believes that staff should be allowed to do the job they have been hired to do.
Sutherland stated that the language and motion was based on historical data on how
the City Council and Planning Commission have acted and voted in the past. This
would allow a small number of cases to be sped up in the system. He recognizes that
the Planning Commission will lose some control.
Chair Michael closed the public hearing at 9:10 p.m.
Burma indicated that not listed in the statistics on page 49, are actions that the Planning
Commission took to resolve other issues and the application approved. Mueller also
addressed this issue.
Clapsaddle stated that he would agree with the Mayor that many codes need review
and rewriting. However, saying that, he also feels that it is difficult for staff and
administration to administer a code that is weak. He believes the code needs to be
strong first.
Additional discussion took place between the commissioners and staff regarding what is
reviewed and what is not. Mueller stated that if the Planning Commission is doing so
well, then let the cases pass through them prior to Council appearance. That way,
items can be taken care of with regard to the Comprehensive Plan process and intent
also.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1999
Michael stated that all had made good points, however, if the City Council wanted to
save time, they should give "Board of Appeals" authority to the Planning Commission
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Michael (for discussion), to
recommend the Council's streamlining language. Voting Aye:
Brown and Voss. Opposed Clapsaddle, Hasse, Michael, Mueller,
Glister, Brown, and Burma. Motion did not carry:
MOTION by Michael, seconded by Mueller to deny the Council's
streamlining language. Voting Aye: Clapsaddle, Hasse, Michael,
Mueller, Glister, Brown, and Burma. Voting nay: Brown and Voss.
Motion carried.
Mueller asked for a joint meeting between the City Council and the Planning
Commission on this topic.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE 350:420
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE REPEALING OF CITY CODE SECTION 350:420,
SUBDIVISION 9 & 10 PERTAINING TO NON-CONFORMING USES
TO BE REPLACED BY NEW LANGUAGE.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July
13, 1999 to consider the approval of repealing City Code Section 350:420, Subdivision 9
& 10 pertaining to non-conforming uses to be replaced by new language.
-- ~uist.//~l/~ng~Secretary
Published in the Laker, June 26, 1999
printed on recycled paper
2522_
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1999
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orr Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle,
Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Council Liaison Bob Brown.
Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and
Secretary Deb Hawkinson. Absent and excused: Frank Weiland
Public Present: Jeff Metzger, 2470 Fairview Lane, Cathy Bailey, 1554 Bluebird Lane,
Bob Tomalka, 2964 Pelican Point Circle, Arlyss Myers, 5410 Three Points Boulevard, #
432, Phyllis Jessen, 2920 Pelican Point Court, Shirley Rommess, 5235 Bartlett
Boulevard, Pastor Eric Gustavson, 1700 Baywood Shores Drive, Tamra, Sarah, Kimmy
Botkin, 2355 Fairview Lane, Steven W. Hicks, 2072 Shorewood Lane, Pat Meisel, 5501
Bartlett Boulevard, Gene Abeggley, 2040 Arbor Lane, Mike Newman, (Toolbox Inc.)
with regards to 2040 Arbor Lane, Brent Stevens (Toolbox, Inc.) regarding 2040 Arbor
Lane, Greg Smith, 5054 Bartlett Boulevard, Kirk and Kelly Geadelmann, 1709 Baywood
Lane.
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE MAY 10, 1999 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
Commissioner Glister indicated that her name was omitted on the list of those present.
MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Glister to accept the minutes as
amended. Motion carried: 8-0.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
Chair Michael introduced the public hearings with a word to the public. Staff would give
their comments, then questions could be directed to the applicant and staff from the
commissioners. Each person from the public wishing to speak should come forward to
the podium and clearly state their name and address. Comments should be brief and
concise and directed to the issue at hand. Once the public hearing was closed, there
would be no further comments from the audience.
PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE REVISION SECTION 350:420: REPEALING OF
CITY CODE SECTION 350:420, SUBDIVlDION 9 AND 10 PERTAINING TO NON-
CONFORMING USES TO BE REPLACE BY NEW LANGUAGE.
83
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1999
Gordon introduced the new language recommended by City Council in response the
last meeting's discussion on streamlining.
Section 350:420 of the Mound Code of Ordinance is amended by repealing
existing Subd. 9 and Subd. 10, and adding the following:
350:420 Subd. 9. Nonconforming principal and accessory structures may be
expanded, enlarged, or modified, provided that the use of the parcel is
conforming to district regulations, and provided that the expansion, enlargement,
or modification meets the current zoning regulations and no other
nonconformities are created. In the event that a nonconforming structure is
removed, razed or demolished, all newly proposed construction must meet
current zoning regulations.
Mueller is concerned that no matter where a new structure is located, as long as it is
conforming, this new language allows it to be placed. He also is concerned that a
review of other nonconformities existing structures is bypassed. He believes the
language to be too open.
Chair Michael opened the public hearing at 9:00 p.m.
Mayor Meisel asked the commission to consider these as some ordinances that need
rewriting and that are cumbersome. That is why City Council recommended the above.
She believes that staff should be allowed to do the job they have been hired to do.
Sutherland stated that the language and motion was based on historical data on how
the City Council and Planning Commission have acted and voted in the past. This
would allow a small number of cases to be sped up in the system. He recognizes that
the Planning Commission will lose some control.
Chair Michael closed the public hearing at 9:10 p.m.
Burma indicated that not listed in the statistics on page 49, are actions that the Planning
Commission took to resolve other issues and the application approved. Mueller also
addressed this issue.
Clapsaddle stated that he would agree with the Mayor that many codes need review
and rewriting. However, saying that, he also feels that it is difficult for staff and
administration to administer a code that is weak. He believes the code needs to be
strong first.
84
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1999
Additional discussion took place between the commissioners and staff regarding what is
reviewed and what is not. Mueller stated that if the Planning Commission is doing so
well, then let the cases pass through them prior to Council appearance. That way,
items can be taken care of with regard to the Comprehensive Plan process and intent
also.
Michael stated that all had made good points, however, if the City'Council wanted to
save time, they should give "Board of Appeals" authority to the Planning Commission
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Michael (for discussion), to
recommend the Council's streamlining language. Voting Aye:
Brown and Voss. Opposed Clapsaddle, Hasse, Michael, Mueller,
Glister, Brown, and Burma. Motion did not carry.
MOTION by Michael, seconded by Mueller to deny the Council's
streamlining language. Voting Aye: Clapsaddle, Hasse, Michael,
Mueller, Glister, Brown, and Burma. Voting nay: Brown and Voss.
Motion carried.
Mueller asked for a joint meeting between the City Council and the Planning
Commission on this topic.
85 .
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE 350:420
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE REPEALING OF CITY CODE SECTION 350:420,
SUBDIVISION 9 & 10 PERTAINING TO NON-CONFORMING USES
TO BE REPLACED BY NEW LANGUAGE.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on
Monday, June 14, 1999 to consider the approval of repealing City Code Section 350:420,
Subdivision 9 & 10 pertaining to non-conforming uses to be replaced by new language.
All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the
opportunity to be heard at this meeting.~~ '~ ~cretary
Published in the Laker, June 5, 1999
pr~nted on recycled paper
Mound City Council Meeting Minutes
May 25, 1999
DRAFT MINUTES
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 25, 1999
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on
Tuesday, May 25, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said
City.
Those present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark
Hanus, Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, Police Chief Len
Harrell, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance
was recited.
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the
Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from
the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
Brown asked that item 3D be pulled from the Consent Agenda. Weycker pulled item 3A from
the Consent Agenda.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Brown to approve the Regular Agenda, as
presented, and items B, C, E, F, G, H, and I from the Consent Agenda.
ZONING CODE STREAMLINING AND PROCESS ENHANCEMENT
Gordon covered the actions of the Planning Commission regarding these processes. In
100% of the cases that were conforming structures over the past couple of years that the
Planning Commission has recommended, Council has also recommended. Therefore, this
became an issue to pursue and see if there were other ways to stream line the processes
for both the City and the citizen.
Staff prepared the following guidelines for the Planning Commission to review. Under
streamlining the following two were recommended:
Mound City Council Meeting Minutes
May 25, 1999
DRAFT MINUTES
Option #1
Section 350:420. Nonconforming Uses
Subd. 11. Residential properties with a nonconforming principal structures may be
improved by adding a conforming detached accessory structure provided that any
nonconforming detached accessory structure and the principal structure are in sound
condition as determined by the Mound Building Official. Furthermore, impervious cover
on said lots shall be compliant with Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. 1. Of the Mound
Zoning Code or shall not exceed the amount allowed under prior variance approval.
Option #2
Section 350:420. Nonconforming Uses.
Subd. 9. A nonconforming structure may be expanded if the expansion meets all applicable
city ordinance requirements.
The following Process Enhancement was offered:
Section 350:510. Board of Adjustment
Subd. 1. The Board of Adjustments shall be the Planning Commission.
Commission shall hear and act on all variances to this ordinance.
The Planning
Gordon stated that this Process Enhancement was allowable by the State of Minnesota. Weycker
asked if it was true for Statutory Form B. Yes, stated Gordon.
Hanus is opposed to the process enhancement. He stated that he would have to think twice about
who was on the Planning Commission if that were enacted. He stated that as an elected official,
he would want to make sure that his opinions and views are what are voted on. He feels that the
Planning Commission is a mostly "non-political" body in a "highly political" town. He was in
support of the streamlining option #2, however. He stated that this was hardly any different than
the proposal he made a couple of years ago when the streamlining began.
His goal is to relieve the long process for the applicant. He stated, "we are here to serve them."
He further stated that he would not "sweat the small stuff that an additional pair of eyes might
catch."
Mound City Council Meeting Minutes
May 25, 1999
DRAFT MINUTES
However, he stated, he would like to see the language of option//2 tightened up. He suggested
the following:
"Nonconforming principle and accessory structures may be expanded, and conforming
principle and accessory structures may be added, provided that all uses on the parcel are
conforming, and provided that the entire expansion or construction meets the current
zoning regulations and no other non-conformities within the zoning ordinance are created."
Weycker asked if what he was really saying was that there was an existing variance on the
property. Hanus responded that he was not saying a variance existed.
Sutherland stated that Hanus' language was good. It defines the situations well and is better than
the staff's suggestions.
Ahrens agreed with Hanus both on the process enhancement issue and on the selection of Option
//2 for streamlining. She stated that the Planning Commission was an advisory commission to the
Council and were appointed people and not elected representatives. She sees issues with granting
authority to an advisory body.
Hanus stated that another issue was the lack of the presence of the attorney at the Planning
Commission meetings. He also had real problems with the suggestion of a fee if the applicant
chose to appeal to the Council a Planning Commission's ruling.
Ahrens pointed out that they needed to be careful not to confuse uses with variances.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to direct staff to prepare ordinance
language based on his earlier comments ("Nonconforming principle and accessory
structures may be expanded, and conforming principle and accessory structures may
be added, provided that all uses on the parcel are conforming, and provided that the
entire expansion or construction meets the current zoning regulations and no other
non-conformities within the zoning ordinance are created.") and to take back to the
Planning Commission for comment and review and to set a Public Hearing date. All
areas of the ordinance impacted should be changed consistently. Motion carried. 5-0.
Hanus stated that if this was adopted, it certainly would be more user friendly for the applicants.
Sutherland thanked the Council for their actions and suggestions.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
gill
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mound City Council
Loren Gordon, Assistant City Planner
May 19, 1999
Zoning code streamlining and process enhancement
The current streamlining provisions were adopted in mid 1996 with the intent of reducing the
number of variances without sacrificing community housing goals. (Streamlining provisions are
found in Section 350:420 subdivisions 9 and 10 of the zoning ordinance.) The Council directive
was to review how these provisions have worked and to evaluate ways to improve on them. The
Planning Commission has spent the last 2 meetings reviewing this item and is forwarding on
their findings for the Council to review.
During the last 3 years under streamlining provisions, there has been an increase in case load.
Staff believes this increase is more attributable to the current housing market and economic
conditions than it is to code provisions. The provisions have in fact, reduced the number of
variance cases. Without them, the case load would have been even higher than current.
Staff presented two options to the Planning Commission that posed ways to make streamlining
and the variance process more efficient. Both approaches were based on the trends that have
occurred over the last three years. The first option, streamlining, provides additional language to
the current provisions by allowing streamlining of all conforming construction regardless of
existing structure setbacks, lot area or width, or structure condition. Exceptions to this provision
would be properties with nonconforming lakeside setbacks, floodplain, and hardcover issues.
Although the Planning Commission agreed that cases with conforming construction were
approved virtually all of the time, a review was still needed to clean-up the few problem cases
and have an extra set of eyes. Motion was not adopt additional streamlining provisions and keep
the current language in place as written.
The second option Staff presented was intended to reduce the process time for variance case
review. We termed this approach "Process Enhancement." Essentially what this would do is give
the Planning Commission review and approval authority over all variances to Zoning and
Subdivision Codes. Under this approach a variance review would be reduced from a month or
more to as little as two weeks from the time of application. The current powers of the Planning
Commission as a recommending body would change those of an approval body. A draft of
suggested language is on the following page. Council would retain the powers as the appeal body
for any applicant who wished to appeal the Commission's ruling. The Commission motioned to
123 North Third Street, ~uite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
Zoning Code Streamlining and Process Enhancement
May 19, 1999
move forward with the proposed process enhancement and also add language to place a fee on
any appeal to Council.
If the Council concurs with the Commissions findings, language would be drafted and public
hearings would be held to consider its adoption. The following are the options suggested by Staff
and considered by the Planning Commission.
Streamlining Options:
#1 - Allow construction of conforming detached accessory structures only. Leave current
language in subd. 9 and 10 except for minor modifications. New subd. 11 would read as
follows:
Section 350:420. Nonconforming Uses.
Subd. 11. Residential properties with a nonconforming principal structures may be
improved by adding a conforming detached accessory structure provided that any
nonconforming detached accessory structure and the principal structure are in sound
condition as determined by the Mound Building Official. Furthermore, impervious
cover on said lots shall be compliant with Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. 1. of the
Mound Zoning Code or shall not exceed the amount allowed under prior variance
approval.
#2 - Allow conforming additions to nonconforming structures. Existing subd. 9 and 10 would be
repealed and replaced with the following:
Section 350:420. Nonconforming Uses.
Subd. 9. A nonconforming structure may be expanded if the expansion meets all
applicable city ordinance requirements.
Process Enhancement:
The Planning Commission would act as the review and approval body for all variances to Zoning
and Subdivision Codes. The Council would retain appeal authority if the applicant wished to
appeal the Board of Adjustment's decision.
Section 350:510 Appeals and thc Board of Adjustment and Appeals.
Subd. 1. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments shall be the City Council Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission shall hear and advise thc City Council of its
findings and determinations, act on all variances to this ordinance.
Current language is struck out. Additional language modifications to Section 350:510 and
350:530 would be made to keep language consistent.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, MAY 10, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orr Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle,
Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, Council Eiaison Bob Brown.
Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and
Secretary Deb Hawkinson.
Public Present: Acting City ManagedCity Clerk Fran Clark, Daren Jensen (2625
Wilshire Bird), Kirk & Kelly Geadelmann (1709 Baywood Lane), Mike & Chris Stoltenow
(2925 Holt Ln), Michele Berglund (5138 Hanover Rd), Eisa Watson (4610 Tuxedo BIvd),
Ted Metz (1601 Bluebird Ln), Clyde Bonnema (5513 Bartlett Blvd).
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
DISCUSSION
STREAMLING/PROCESS ENHANCEMENT
Gordon introduced the topic of streamlining and/or process enhancement to the
Commission again for discussion. He had formed some suggested language changes
to the ordinances and presented them to the commissioners. The suggested changes
are as follows:
Streamlining Options
Section 350:420. Nonconforming Uses.
Subd. 11. Residential properties with a nonconforming principal structure
may be improved by adding a conforming detached accessory structure
provide that any nonconforming detached accessory structure and the
principal structure are in sound condition as determined by the Mound
Building Official. Furthermore, impervious cover on said lots shall be
compliant with Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B.1. of the Mound Zoning Code
or shall not exceed the amount allowed under prior variance approval.
Section 350:420. Nonconforming Uses
Subd. 9.A nonconforming structure may be expanded if the expansion
meets all applicable city ordinance requirements.
1
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
Process Enhancement
Section 350:510. Board of Adjustment
Subd. 1. The Board of Adjustments shall be the Plan, ning Commission.
The Planning Commission shall hear and act on all variances to this
ordinance.
Clark asked the Planning Commission to bear in mind that one objective is to be "user-
friendly to the applicant."
Brown commented that as a new person on the Planning Commission, they were user
friendly and attempted to be equally fair to all applicants.
Some discussion was held regarding the first Board of Appeals considered this
evening. Clark stated that yes, the property belonged to the State, but that Mound was
the caretaker of that property. Mueller still wants an attorney's opinion.
Brown stated that to get things done propedy and to get them done right, the correct
procedure of going through the Planning Commission must be done. Clark felt that in
some cases, this was a duplication of efforts. Tonight she was here as a courtesy to
the Planning Commission.
Brown stated that all processes should work with in the established system. He felt this
one bypassed the proper procedure.
Sutherland stated "Staff's position is to not promote too strongly the applicant's
(position). Our position is to respond and give the Planning Commission the
information they need and sometimes we may disagree with you guys, but other times
you show us that we miss something, so the bottom line is whatever you ask for, we
need to treat you with courtesy and not be argumentative and not try to sell a case too
hard. So we would like to have the opportunity to keep our relationship good with these
guys.
Chair Michael brought the meeting back to streamlining.
Mueller asked why they were looking at Subd. 11 and not 9 or 10. Gordon stated that 9
and 10 address principal buildings. Mueller stated then the staff would have total
control of these situations. Why are we asking this, because of staff's workload he
asked.
2
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
Gordon stated that it started as a Council directive to look at further ways to streamline
processes based on the voting habits over the past three years. Whether or not it
benefits the community has not been determined. Mueller feels it will help the citizens
since there would be a shorter waiting period from application to permit.
Gordon stated that he was before the Commission just asking if this is what they want
to do. He has presented two options. Section 350:420. Nonconforming Uses: Subd. 11.
and Subd. 9.A. If the Commission does not want to do this, this process would stay the
same and they could look at other areas to streamline.
Sutherland stated that the community goals were admirable. The fact is, he stated, we
haven't abided to the community goals and Comprehensive Plan to eliminate some
steps over the past couple of years. So by doing some of this, the Planning
Commission would have the time to do some special projects such as housing
redevelopment. He mentioned some funds the city has transferred to a joint community
account and then cities can apply for a grant from this fund.
Mueller feels the Planning Commission is part of the checks and balances. For
example, the last Board of Appeals case looked at tonight would not have come before
our board.
Brown suggested that the Staff prepare a "Consent Agenda" like they have on the
Council. Then if a commissioner would like to look more closely at an issue, they could
pull it off for further separate discussion. It would be similar to tonight. Four of the six
cases passed with little to no discussion. The other two required discussion. If this had
been a Consent Agenda, those two would have been pulled and the others passed in
"bulk."
Weiland stated that was what they did now. Mueller agreed and stated they would
rather have the information presented to them to decide. Weiland pointed out that the
Planning Commission had a responsibility to the City Council to have reviewed these
cases prior to passing on.
Sutherland suggested a one year trial of the streamlining. Many felt this was not what
they wanted.
Voss believed that a new city manager will be requiring more of the Planning
Commission in the way of special projects and so forth as Sutherland had stated.
Brown echoed these thoughts.
Glister stated it was important to speed up the process and be more user friendly to the
applicant. But, she feels lots of eyes reviewing something is good.
3
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to agree to 350:510, but that
the other would remain the same.
A discussion was held about charging an additional modest fee if an applicant wanted
to appeal to the City Council. The purpose is not to just recover staff time, but to
encourage the applicant to really think out why they are appealing'the decision of the
Planning Commission.
Gordon stated that if the commissioners were comfortable with the change, he would
bring before the City Council for review prior to bringing back to the Planning
Commission for a public hearing after he does some additional "tweaking" to the
language.
Weiland wanted to let it be known that he was really against this motion.
The vote was called. Motion carried: 5-3 (voting nay: Michael, Weiland, Hasse).
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to add some language to the
ordinance that would really put some teeth into the Planning
Commission's ability to make decisions, but that would not deter the
applicant. This could be a modest fee. Also the applicant would
need to show a mason for appeal.
Brown stated that he really had some issues with that. Sutherland pointed out that
normally (98-100% of the time) Staff was in agreement with the Planning Commission
and the City Council on recommendations. This was an effort to help speed the
process and eliminate unnecessary extra work.
There was additional discussion on the value or correctness of additional fees for an
appeal. This included some comments by Weiland that perhaps the building permit
fees were too Iow. Sutherland stated that the fees were adapted from a State fee
schedule which is followed by most municipalities. They were compatible with other
cities.
A call on the motion resulted in a Motion carried: 6-1.
4
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
Apdl 26, 1999
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orr Burma, Cklair Hasse, Michael
Mueller (7:55 p.m.), Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff
present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Suthedand, and Secretary
Deb Hawkinson.
Those absent: Jerry Clapsaddle (excused); Becky Glister (excused).
Public Present: Amy Steele (2352 Driftwood Lane); Bob Steele; Gaylord Steele (207
Donne); Mr. and Mrs. James Smith (3153 Priest Lane); Jay Peterson (2667 Halstead
Lane).
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
DISCUSSION
STREAMLINING
Gordon stated that there was a need to review the streamlining provisions in the zoning
code as they apply to residential construction. This discussion was formalized with a
Council motion to have the Planning Commission revisit the streamlining provisions and
provide a recommendation on how they can be further enhanced. He further discussed
the caseloads that had been looked at since 1996 when streamlining was first enacted.
They have gone up in number, but he believes this is due to increased activity versus a
negative reflection on streamlining. A review of the voting on conforming construction
cases shows that when the Planning Commission recommends Council approval, the
Council will approve the variance resolution in every case.
Code enhancement has been added, which modifies the nonconforming structure to be
expanded if expansion meets all applicable city code requirements. This would include
approval of all conforming accessory buildings and principal structure additions. There
are probably at least three exceptions where a review would be needed: floodplain
issues, shoreland impact zone, impervious surface.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
Apd126, 1999
In small communities, such as Mound, the Planning Commission and the Board of
Zoning Appeals are the same group of people. A way to reduce process time would be
to designate the Board of Appeals as the approval body. In this situation, the Council
would still retain its authority as the appeal body on cases where the applicant wishes
to have the Board of Appeals decision heard. This would one way to reduce the
review process for the applicant. Staff feels that these added streamlining provisions
and process enhancement will not compromise overall community goals. These
proposed strategies accurately represent the trends happening in the review process.
The also will give the Staff, the Commission, and the Council have more time to
address broader community planning issues such as comprehensive plans, zoning
updates, downtown redevelopment, and many other issues.
After discussion by many commissioners, the consensus was in favor of the
streamlining and process enhancement suggestions by staff.
MOTION by Brown, second by Weiland, to recommend Staff's
suggestions to the City Council and let them decide.
Weiland stated that he would like to see a trial period of trying these strategies before
recommending that City Council pass this on outright. He believes the balance
between appointed and elected officials must be looked at.
Mueller asked that attorneys be present at controversial cases. Gordon stated that the
attorney's information is gathered upfront in the staff report. If more is needed, the
issue is tabled and then the attorneys are contacted.
Gordon stated that the Code enhancement could be handled by amending the
language to the codes. A year's trial time period is difficult because of the ordinances
that would require changing.
Brown and Weiland withdrew the motion.
Staff was requested to bring back ordinance draft language for the zoning code
enhancements and later address the process enhancements.
2
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
II1[]
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mound City Council, Planning Commission and Staff
Loren Gordon, Assistant City Planner
April 19, 1999
Zoning code streamlining
There has been an on going discussion about the need to review streamlining provisions in the
zoning code as they apply to residential construction. This discussion was formalized with a
Council motion to have the Planning Commission revisit the streamlining provisions and provide
a recommendation on how they can be further enhanced.
The current streamlining provisions were adopted in mid 1996 with the intentions of reducing the
number of variance cases while still upholding Comprehensive Plan goals and the intent of the
zoning code. The zoning code (Section 350:420) currently allows streamlining either by a
previous variance approval within 15 years or by compliance with percentage of the required
yard or lot standards. The intent of streamlining was to reduce the number of cases that were
"slam dunks." Staff knows the existing provisions have reduced the number of variance requests.
The sheer volume of construction activity over the past few years however, has kept the case load
high. The following two tables give a comparison of cases before streamlining was adopted in
1996 and the case load after adoption. The tables show the number of variance requests has
increased from an average of 39 per year pre-1995 to 44 per year after 1996.
Variance Cases 1990- 1995 before streamlining provisions
1990 20
1991 45
1992 48
1993 41
1994 49
1995 30
Totals 233 (39 per year)
225 or 97%
The intent of this review is to evaluate the streamlining process to see if any revisions are
needed. Included in your packet material are spreadsheets of all variance cases since 1995. Each
of these cases did not qualify for streamlining for one reason or more. The nonconformity is
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
25387
p. 2
Zoning Code Streamlining
April 19, 1999
usually due to insufficient yard setbacks or lot standards. In a smaller percentage of cases,
floodplain standards trigger the nonconformity. Another specific area that commonly triggers
variance review is a lakeside setback of accessory use.
In reviewing the yearly summary sheets, one area that really jumped out at staff was the number
of cases where the proposed construction was conforming and a variance was granted. Of the
total 142 cases reviewed since 1996, 49 cases or 35 percent involved a review of conforming
construction through additions or alterations. All of the 49 cases reviewed were approved by both
the Planning Commission and City Council. The following table is a summary of the packet
material.
Variance cases 1996 to present after adoption of streamlining provisions
1996 48 15 15
1997 40 13 13
1998 50 19 19
1999 to date 4 2 2
Totals 142 (44 per year) 49 49 or 35% of
total cases
reviewed
Note: When the Planning Commission recommended approval of a case with
conforming construction, the Council approved it 100% of the time.
There has been recent discussion at the Planning Commission and Council that variance cases
with conforming construction appear to be a "rubber stamp" approval because they are always
approved. There is also some sentiment that it is a hassle to the applicant to go through the
review process when the outcome seems known. The review variance process requires the
applicant to complete an application, provide addresses of adjacent property owners for mailing
labels, and provide a updated survey of the property with improvements.
The major reason Mound has reviewed nonconformities is to ensure proposals meet the goals of
the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. This process has been a tool over the years in helping
the City transition from a cabin community to a community with typical year round housing
stock. Many of the tough decisions to realize this goal have been made in cleaning up the
community. The City has a practice of requesting that other noncompliant property issues that
are related to the request be brought into conformance. This process has assisted with property
compliance issues related to a request.
If the Planning Commission and Council were to entertain allowing streamlining of cases with
conforming improvements, the following could result:
Loss of review authority over related noncompliant property issues.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 3
Zoning Code Streamlining
April 19, 1999
· A reduction in the number of variance cases.
Lose some ability to advance comprehensive plan and zoning goals.
· A reduction in staff time spent on review.
· Possibly allow nonconformities to exist longer than they would if a review were required.
· Spend more time on community wide planning projects.
Given the past direction on streamlining, here are some options staff would suggest to further
enhance streamlining:
Code Enhancement
Modify the nonconforming use section to allow a nonconforming structure to be expanded if the
expansion meets all applicable city code requirements. This would include approval of
conforming accessory buildings and principal structure additions. There are probably at least
three exceptions where a review would be needed. These would include:
1. Floodplain issues
2. Shoreland Impact Zone
3. Impervious Surface
Again, these would be part of meeting all applicable code requirements.
Process Enhancement
The review of voting on conforming construction cases shows that when the Planning
Commission recommends Council approval, the Council will approve the variance resolution in
every case. In many small communities such as Mound, the Planning Commission and Board of
Zoning Appeals are the same group of people. One way to reduce the process time would be to
designate the Board of Appeals as the approval body thereby keeping the Council free of any
review for variance cases. There are Cities that have adopted this structure and find it works well.
In this situation, the Council would still retain its authority as the appeal body on cases where the
applicant wishes to have the Board of Appeals decision heard.
Summary
Staff has explored ways streamlining can be further enhanced and still not compromise overall
community goals. The code enhancement and process enhancement strategies seem to accurately
represent the trends happening in the review process. We feel these two approaches will also help
staff, the Commission, and Council have more time to address broader community planning
issues such as the comprehensive plan, zoning updates, downtown redevelopment, and many
others.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
Jul-OB-gg
04:21pm From-~$$ & BARNETT
+4900
MOSS & BARNETT
A Professional Association
MEMORANDUM
TO: Francene Clark
FROM: Brian T. Grogan
CLIENT: 39962.1
DATE: July 8, 1999
RE:
Public Hearing Regarding Proposed Transfer of Cable Franchise from
Triax to Mediacom
Pursuant our recent telephone conversation I have Outlined below the purpose of
the Public Hearing and some other initial comments which you may wish to make
to ~ntroduce the topic to your City council,
Tonight's Pubhc Hearing is called pursuant to Minn. Stat. §238.083
regarding the proposed transfer of the cable television system and
cable television franchise currently held by Triax Midwest Associates,
L.P. to Mediacom, L.L.C. Both the City's local franchise and state law
require advance writ"[en approval by the City for any sale or transfer of
the franchise. The City has received from Triax FCC Form 394 which
prov~ctes information regarding Mechacom's legal, technical, and
financial qualifications. The City ~s also working with Moss & Barnett,
legal COunSel on this cable matter, to review Uediacom's qualifications
and to provide recommendations regarding how best to process the
requested transfer.
State law requires that the City reply in writing within Thirty (30) days
of Triax's request .ndlcating its approval or its determination that a
Public Hearing is necessary. The City called a Public Hearing because
ii believes The transfer may have an adverse effect on cable television
subscribers.
Any and all interestea parties may comment on the proposea transfer
from Triax to Mediacom. Once all comments have been made the City
may close the Public Hearing and then will I~ave thirty [30) days within
which to take action on a resolution either approving or denying the
transfer request. Approval of the requested transfer cannot be
unreasonably w~thheld and any denial must be based on the legal,
technlcak and financial qualifications of Mediacom.
26856511
CITY OF MOUND .~!~>. ~ ., r
NOTICE Oi PUBLIC HFARING ,
The City Council for the ,City o! Mound,
Minnesota, will be conducting a public
headng on Tuesday, July 13, 1999 at 7:30
p.m. or as soon thereafter as it may be heard
at the City Hall in Mound, Minnesota. The
purpose of this public hearing is to consider
the application to assign the city's cable
television franchise from Triax Midwest
Associates, L.P. to Mediacom LLC. The
hearing will. focus 'on the application
submitted and the qualifications of the
Mediacom LLC.
All interested persons should appear at
the above date and time.
· '"':' :' CITY OF MOUND
- ' Byi Francene Clark-Leisinger
· ' · C~Clerk
(Published in The Laker June 26, 1999)
Affidavit of Publication
State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin.
Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is
an authorized agent and employee of the publisher
of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound,
Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts
which are stated below:
A.) The newspaper has complied with all the
requirements constituting qualifications as a
qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota
Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable
laws, as amended.
B.) The printed Cable Public Hearing -
Triax to Mediacom LLC
which is attached was cut from the columns of said
newspaper, and was printed and published once
each week for 1 successive weeks:
It was first published Saturday
the ?6~hdayof June 19 99,
and was thereafter printed and published every
Saturday, to and including Saturday,
the day of
19 . ;
Subscribed and sworn to me on this
2 6 day 9f June ,1999 .
/ ~-"--'--""--'--"---~'---f~tary P~blic
~;;%;~ JANUARY 31. ~00
L
(1) Lowest classified rate paid by ~mmerdal usem
for ~mparable space: $12.90 per in~.
(2) Maximum ra~ allowed by law for a~ve maaer: $12.90.
(3) Rate actually charg~ for above maU~ $7.19 per inch.
Each additional su~essive we~: ~.14.
By:
612-~8~8~8 HDISINGTON KOEGLER
569 PO?
.TUL 08 '99 20:43
Creative Solutions fc~r Laf~d Plan?i~8 and Desisn
July 8, 1999
FranClaxk, ActingCityManag~r
CRy of Mound
5341MaywoodRoad
Moun~MN 55463
Re: Lost Lake Gr~nway plan preparation.
Hoisington Kocgler Group Inc,
D~ar Fran:
The Lost Lake Oreenway project was approved for ISTEA funds in 1996. Now that the Canal is
dredged and the fa'st phase of Auditors Road is nearing completion, it is appropriate timing to
initiate plan preparation of the Greenway project. There is another important factor enticing the
City to begin plan preparation now. Enclosed is a letter from the Metropolitan Council stating
that ISTEA projects that have a bid opening date set by the end of the year will be eligible to
receive additional federal funds up to 80% of actual construction costs. If the City is to take
advantage of this opportunity, plans will need to begin immediately and be completed for
submittal to Mn/DOT by about October 1. This is a tight schedule but one we can meet.
The Greenway project is focussed on the corridor around the north perimeter of Lost Lake and thc
new alignment of County Road 15. The project is intended to include a multi-use trail,
landscaping, pedestrian and bike facilities and pedestrian lighting from Commerce Boulevard ~o
Cypress Lane; streetscape improvements along the new alignment of Shoreline Drive; and a 50
car park ,a, ride lot on the Lost Lake site. Originally, the project included the pier and boardwalk
but they were incorporated into the canal project already underway. The construction budget for
the revised project is $~42,000. If the bid opening date can be scheduled in time, the City's share
of construction would be roughly $110,000.
The project would include the services of four firms, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. would be
the project manager and responsible for landscape archit~:tural plans and specifications.
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. would be the civil engineering firm responsible for overall
plan and specification assembly as well as parking lot plans and specifications. Erieksen Ellison
and Associates Inc, would be responsible for electrical engineering on the project. Hakanson
Anderson Associates, Inc, would be responsible for construction administration. The three firms
with primary roles on the project are currently collaborating on the Lost Lake Canal project,
Plan preparation and construction observation/administration of State Aid and ISTEA projects
generally runs 25 to 27% of construction costs. This translates to $135-$I46,000 for the
Greenway project. The only anticipated costs outside of this figure are survey and soil borings,
which will be in the cange of $5-8,000. The Lost Lak~ Canal project exceeded this amount but it
was primarily due to the extensive permitting and environmental review rcquircrr~nts,
Fortunately, the Canal project has paved the way for the Oreenway project, Only standard
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, MinncapolB, MN 55401-1659
Ph (612) 338-0800 l~x (612) 338-6838
612-~868~8 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 569 P08 JUL 08 '99 20:4J
Fra~ Clark, Actiag City
July 8. 1999
Pag~ 2
permits will be required and the F. AW, I~A and Project Report required of State Aid projects are
already completed and signed.
The action requested of thc City Council at their July 13 meeting is to direct Staff to prepare
professional service contracts with the firms identified within the fee range outlined above. If
you have any questions, please give me a call. John Cameron and I will be. at the meeting to
answer question the Council may have.
Sincerely,
Bruce L, Chamberlain, RLA
Vice President
MAMOUND~9-24~n~y..pro. DO~
612-~868~8 HOISINGTON KOEGLER
Metropolitan Council
W'orking ,for the Region, Planning/or the Future
TRANSPOR'I',s, TION ADVISOKY BOARD
569 P09
JUL 88
I!
· 1 §
April 14, 1999 RECEIVED
Ed Shukle
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mr. Shukle:
This letter is tO inform you that transportation projects that have been approved to receive federal £unds
through the competitive regional solicitation and selection process of Transportation Advisory Board and
that will have a hid opening scheduled by DeCember 3 I, 1999 will be eligible to hav~. the federal share of
the cost of these projects increased to $0 percent which is the maximum allowable under federal law.
Eligible projects include those funded through the Surface Transpo?tation Program (STP), the
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality progr~rn (CMAQ), and :he Enhancement Program.
This should be attractive to agencies and organiT~tions whose locali share of the project cost is
anticipated to be larger than 20 percent. While most projects were ~unded at the 80 percent level by the
time the project is ready to bid, the eligible federal share hax, in mahy cases, decreased. The maximum
additional l~deral funds tbr any one project is limited to $2 miltioni In addition to requiring the bid
opening schedule of December :31, the actual bid opening must occur by March 15, 2000.
It is hoped this provision will be an incentive for agencies with projects in the 1999 program year of the
Region's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to meet. theisprogram year, and to possibly
encourage projea ep~n.~rs with a project scheduled ibr th, year 20...00 to advance the implementation
date.
For additional information on this, please contact Mr. Ruben Browia: State Aid Engineer of thc
Metropolitan Division of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. He can be reached at phon. e no.
651 582-1351.
Emil Brandt
Transpor~tion Coordinator
Robert Brown
.Ion Olson, Chair, TAC Funding and Prcgramming Conm~ilxee
cithform
28:43
AREA CODE CHANGES TO 651 IN JL LY. 1998
St l~ul. I~dnne~ta 55101-1628 t'al2) 602-10(~] I~ 6~550
I
TDD/'ITY 291.090~
WATER AND SEWER AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITIES OF MINNETRISTA AND MOUND
This agreement made and entered into this ~ day of June, 1999, by and between the City of
Minnetrista, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota herein
referred to as "Minnetrista", and the City of Mound, a municipal corporation organized under
the laws of the State of Minnesota, herein referred to as "Mound".
RECITALS
Both Mound and Minnetfista operate municipal sanitary sewer water systems serving their
respective communities. The Metropolitan Council, Environmental Services Division provides for
treatment and disposal of sewage collected in both communities. Based on the Comprehensive
Plan of both communities it is economically advantageous for a portion of the land area within
Minnetfista to have water and sewer service provided through the Mound utility systems. The
purpose of this Agreement is to provide terms and conditions for this joint usage. The
communities pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 471.59 have authority to enter into a joint powers
agreement for utility services.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions hereinafter
contained, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows:
Section 1. Affected Area - Mound agrees to allow Minnetrista to connect at its option to the
Mound water and sanitary sewer mains to serve the land area within Minnetfista identified in as
"South Saunders Lake", not to exceed 64 units.
Section 2. Connection Costs - All construction costs associated with connecting to Mound
sanitary sewer and water mains shall be borne by Minnetfista or their Developer.
Section 3. Plan Approval and Construction Standards - Minnetrista shall submit to Mound
detailed plans and specifications for the connections to Mound's water and sanitary sewer lines.
All construction associated with the connections shall be in accordance with the City of Mound's
standards. Both the plans and construction must be approved by engineers for both cities.
Minnetrista agrees to provide Mound with record plans of all connections made to Mound's
water and sewer mains.
Section 4. Ownership of Sewer and Water System - Upon completion and final acceptance of
the water and sewer system, ownership of all mains located within the Mound corporate
boundary will transfer to the City of Mound. All mains and appurtenances located within the
corporate boundary of Minnetrista shall be owned by the City of Minnetrista.
Section 5. Connection Fees - The City of Minnetrista agrees to pay the City of Mound a
connection fee per unit as follows:
Sanitary Sewer
Watermain
$ 500.O0/residential unit
$1,800.O0/residential unit
The sanitary sewer fee shall be paid to Mound at the time the service is connected to each unit.
$680 of the per unit watermain fee shall be paid at the time the se~4ce is connected to each
unit. The balance of the watermain fee applies only to units which remain connected on or after
January 5, 2003, and shall be paid at the rate of $160 per year, per unit, be~nning on that date
and on each Januaqt 5, thereafter until the service is disconnected or until the January 5, 2009
payment, whichever comes first.
Section 6. Area Changes - Minnetrista will charge the developer area charges for the
installation of the mains and keep for repairs and replacement of the main in the development.
Section 7. Rates and Billing - Minnetrista agrees to bill the property owners connected to its
sanitary sewer and water systems served by the City of Mound and include a monthly surcharge
sufficient to reimburse the city of Mound for providing water and sewer service. Said surcharge
shall be computed as follows:
Sanitary Sewer: amount equal to 30 percent of what a Mound customer would pay
based on the billing rates as set by Mound ordinance.
Water: amount equal to 80 percent of what a Mound customer would pay based on the
billing rates as set by Mound ordinance.
Said surcharge collected by the City of Minnetrista shall be paid to the city of Mound quarterly.
The City of Minnetrista shall be responsible for payment of Metropolitan Council,
Environmental Services Wastewater Se~ice charges.
Section 8. Permits - Minnetrista agrees to obtain the necessary Metropolitan Coundl,
Environmental Services, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Health
or other State or Regional permits required prior to completing the utility connections. Permits
for construction (e.g. building, plumbing) would be obtained from Minnetrista.
Section 9. Infrastructure Capital - Initial construction of water infrastructure requirements
would be paid for by the developer. Future replacement of the infrastructure will be the sole
responsibility of Minnetrista.
Section 10. Usage - The usage will be as per City of Mound guidelines for water usage for the
areas identified as "South Saunders Lake", not to exceed 64 units. The a,mragc daily watcr
usage will be no more than 300 gallons per day per unit for thc areas identified in Exhibit A.
Section 11. Maintenance - The City of Minnetrista shall be responsible for routine inspection
and maintenance of the sewer and water system located within their corporate boundaries,
including semi-annual flushing of water hydrants. Hydrant use for purposes other then flushing
or fire fighting shall be subject to the same rules and regulations applied by the City of Mound.
Section 12. Water Meters - Water meters shall be provided by the City of Minnetrista.
254 '7
Section 13. Interruptions to Water Supply - The City of Mound shall not be liable for any lack
of water supply to Minnetrista customers, in the event of repair of watermains or connection of
new watermains or in the event of fire prevention, or any other cause, and such water supply
may be interrupted for as long as is necessary to complete the necessary work.
Section 14. Notices - Any notice or other communication into this Agreement by either party to
the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered after it is dispatched by first class mail, postage
prepaid or delivered personally to:
City of Minnetrista, City Hall, 7701 County Road ll0W, Minnetrista, MN 55364
City of Mound, City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Section 15. Binding Effect - This Agreement shall bind on the assessors and assign of the
parties hereto.
Section 16. Indemnification - Each City agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the
other for any claim, action or liability due to its own negligence concerning any matter arising
out of or relating to this contract.
Section 17. Additional Conditions -
A. The compost facility be open for operation and be available to Mound
residents.
B_ Minnetrista furnish Mound with assurances, in a form acceptable to Mound
that the compost facility will remain in operation, and, in the even that the
operator either elects to discontinue operation, or is in default on its lease for
the facility, Minnetrista will either assume the lease (and has the authority to
do sol or will continue compost operations at another facility.
IN wrrNESS THERE WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused these presence to be
executed the day and year first above written:
CITY OF MINNETRISTA
CITY OF MOUND
City Administrator
Acting City Manager
Mayor Mayor
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
July 7, 1999
Memorandum
TO: Mayor/City Council ~
FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director I/ ~.
SUBJECT: Configuration of Pembroke ~ultiple Slip
Dock.
A situation has arisen after the change was made to the
Pembroke Multiple Slip Dock. Todd Rask who had been on the
dock at a outside slip (See 1997-1998 Dock'Configuration)
registered for the 1999 season with a 26' boat (See 1999
Application). On June 15, 1999 he changed his boat to a
27'8" boat with a 10' beam without city staff approval.
In a memorandum that is sent each year (See April 15, 1999
Memorandum) it states that any change from the prior years
dock permit has to be approved by the Dock Inspector. And
goes on to state that this includes boat size, dock
configuration and share arrangements. Finishing with stating
all dock sites have their limitations and decisions on usage
have to be based on each site.
Mr. Rask feels that new 27'8" boat will not fit into site
(F) a 24' slip that he had been assigned on the 1999 Dock
(See 1999 Dock Configuration). Mr. Rask feels he did not
have a 24' slip on the 1997-1998 dock but rather a 28' slip
(See Attorneys letter dated June 28, 1999).
The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Ordinance (LMCD)
Dock Use Area Section 2.001, Subd. 1 & 2. This allows a
overhang so long as it doesn't exceed the Dock Use Area (See
LMCD Ordinance) for the Pembroke Dock the Use Area is 100'
from the shoreline (DNR Ordinary High Water elevation of
~ printed on recycle~f paper
929.4). At this time the dock is utilizing 95'. By the LMCD
rule the 27'8" boat would be allowed in the 2~' slip in this
situation. Mr. Rask feels a 24' slip is not sufficient in
length to allow access to his new boat and the 10' beam
would not have sufficient side spacing between his boat and
a boat moored in site (G) (See 1999 Dock Configuration).
I have reviewed this matter with Mr. Rask and discussed
these options:
1) Move to a individual dock site at the Centerview
Beach access where a site holder is willing to move
to the Pembroke site.
2) Move to the Amhurst Multiple Slip Dock where there
is an outside slip currently issued to a friend of
Mr. Rask and he is willing to move. This would
require approval of a larger boat in that site.
3) Change the Pembroke dock to allow the 27'.8" boat.
4) To find dockage at a private marina.
If the Council chose to have the dock adjusted to allow for
Mr. Rask's new boat it would have to fit into the
limitations of the 143' docking space available. This would
require an expense of approximately $200.00 and could be
done quickly (See Proposed Dock).
Staff is asking for City Council direction.
1997- 1998
DOCKCONTIGUP, ATION
V
1999 DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND, 53~1 MAYWOOD ROAD, MOUND, MN 55364
MOUND RESIDENT: Please complete and return BY FEBRUARY 28, 1999, (must be
~stmarked by a U.S. Post Office by February 28, 1999). Applications received on March 1,
and before April 1 are subject to a minimum late fee of $20.00 and are placed in the
third (3r~) priority category. Application renewals for non-abutting residents not received
BY MA_RCH 3tst will not retain a second (2nd) priority status, and will he-placed in a third
(3rd) priorty category. Residents abutting the commons who have not submitted their renewal
application BY FEBRUARY 28, 1999 will be subject to a minimum late fee of $20.00 and will be
placed in a third (3rd) priority catego~t if fee is not paid by March 31.
To share a dock, there is an additional $30.00 fee. Also note the L.M.C.D. Boat Fee. See
information on back for senior citizen rates. Ail information pertaining to you must be
completed or the application will be denied.
APPLICANT'S NAME.
MOUND STREET ADDi
t RENEWAL:
Rask. Todd
510g Drummond Road
Mound MN 55364
preferred area:
WOULD LIKE TO SHARE A DOCK WITH ANOTHER MOUND RESIDENT.
-
I ?ermanent Resident (owner) I t *Summer Resident
Owe. er (paying fee for renter) { I Rentar
*S~5~_~R ~ESiDENT ' S MAILING ADDRESS:
A WORK PHONE:
a -- --
E {__{ Summer Resident I__{ Ren~er
TO SHARE A DOCK THERE IS A $30.00 FEE FOR THE SHARED SPACE.
NA=ME OF PERSON SHARING DOCK:
MOUND STREET ADDRESS:
HOME PHONE:
I/~l Permanent Resident (Owner)
CHECK
ONE:
Lisc ALL waLercraft to be kept at ~his dock'. Furnish MN Watercraf~ License Number, make and
size of boat. (This includes the boats of a shared dock holder.) Add the L.M.C.D. Boat Fee
to the Permit Fee for all boats, based upon the formula below. NO PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED
WITHOUT THIS IN-FORMATION and a photocopy of all watercraft licenses:
BOAT OWN-~3~ S NAMe. /~ .MN LICENSE { ..~AKE OF BOAT LENGTH 5M. CD FEE
4/jet
ski
L.M.C.D. BOAT FEES:
Boats up to 20' long
over 20' and up to 24' long
over 24' and up to 32' long
= $7.50
= $11.25
= $15.00
over 32' and u9 to 40' long = $18.75
over 40' and up to 48' long = $22.00
over 48' feet long = $30.00
~ermits will not be issued to any non-resident of Mound. Proof of residency or proof of boat
p must be furnished if requested. Any false information given or violations of Dock
Drdinance 437 shall be reason for denial or revocation of.permit.
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ~ ? WATERCRAFT LICENSE.
,o.: -::-' :':' :::,. ;.$&NOtOOSH?TH
H~ i I,O.
Last)
O~te:
DUFFS AU%'O SALES
· i.714 MaL, tstteef
HOPKINS, MN S~43
612-939-0747 ' ,':'.. ' ....
Co-Buyer Name: (Last). . ~ ..~,. ~ (First)_ .
PLEASE ENTER MY ORDER FOR: New~ Used~ Demo~ Lienholder '
CAS~ PRICE OF VEHICLE
FREIGHT
DEALER INSTALLED OPTIONS
YES ~]
/'- &
TRADE-IN DATA
DOES YOUR TRA[)E4N HAVE A BRANDED
TITLE OR INSURANCE SALVAGE HISTORY?
YE.AR IMAKE .,. IMODEL
NHOLDER S
_,AME
(Middle) J
" (Middle~/
County:
Co-Buyer DOB:
Add~ess
COLOR,'~
M~LEAGE .~
/757'.'"' ? o"
.,..
/' / ,':? ~
NO ~ --
BODY
S~LE ' ' ' ~-* '
INTERIOR
DELIVERED
ON OR ABOUT
~e ~d~ ~t~ maamn ~ol=~em ....... ' ,, . ~ :;x:. LESS TRADE-iN ALLOWANCE FOR USED VEHICLE . (-) ·
~ S~na~;'~' ": ;~r ' ' r..: - .... ,.-, . :i. ,~, ~,e" ,*- :' ,r:&c. LICENSE P~TE STATE & LOCAL TAXES
TITLE & TRANSFER FEES FEDERAL LUXURY TAX
' ' DBLER'S BSC~IMER OFWARB~
~ D~ e~sly dl~Nm~ ~t~s. ~er express ~ ;m~i~ on ~ v~ LIEN RECORDING FEE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE
~d. ex~ ~ ~l~ ~ ~d ex~ed in P~gr~hs 10 ~ro~h13 ~ ~ SERVICE CONTRACT
' " ~"', ..... ~ C.'C
SUBTOTAL ,.
DEALER'S POLLUTION CONTROL 5~ETEM OlSOLOSURE LESS CASH SUBM~ED W~TH ORDER
(VEH~OLE 8E~N6 SOLD) (~)
Transient (Bealer) hereby certifies, m me ~sl ol hiFer kn~le~e, thai me ~llulion PLUS BA~NCE OWING TO LIENHOLDER ON TRADE IN
The front and back of this CONTRACT comprise the enhre CONTRACT affecting this purchase. The DEALER will not recognize shy verbal agreement, or any o~her agreemem
understanding of any nature. You certi~ that no credit has been exlended by dealer for the purchase of this motor VEHICLE. You ceRi~ that you are 18 years of age or older, a
le receiving a copy of this contract.
terms of this CONTRACT were agreed upon and the CONTRACT signed In the
~ on the date noted at top of this form. I1 DEALER is arranging credit for YOU, this
CONTRACT is not valid until a credit disclosure is made as described In Regulation Z and
IMPORTANT: THIS MAY BE A BINDING CONTRAC
AND YOU MAY LOSE ANY DEPOSITS IF YOU D
you have accepted the credit extended. NOT PERFORM ACCORDING T-(~ITS TERMS.
NOTICE OF SALESPERSON'S LIMITED AUTHORITY. This contra, is not valid unless signed
and accepted by Sales Manager or Officer o! Dealership.
MADA 1346~C~IMADASERVICE$,INC.{~93) ReO~tMIrm'~MADASERVICES. INC. 277Umv~Av~..SLPauI. MN 5~t03-(612) 291-2400
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April, 1999
TO:
Dock License Holder
FROM:
Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector
SUBJECT: 1999 Dock Site #
Boating season is upon us once again! The dock site number listed above has been assigned to you
· for the 1999 season. If you need help locating your site, please call me and I will assist you.
Your dock license plate is not enclosed, I will personally attach your license plate to the dock after
I have inspected it to ensure it conforms to City Code requirements relating to construction and
placement. If your dock does not pass inspection, I will issue a notice listing the deficiency and
you will have ten (10) days to correct it. If you neglect to do so, you could lose your dock
license.
Docks must be securely installed and built of safe, sound materials. Boats, dock sections, pipes
and other materials cannot be stored on the public shoreline during the boating season. Tires are
not allowed.
Each individual dock license holder must maintain the cleanliness of their dock site area. The area
must be free of litter, debris and aquatic vegetation which has accumulated on the shoreland. The
grass at the shoreline must be maintained and trimmed.
Any change from the prior years dock permit has to be approved by the Dock Inspector. This
includes boat size, dock configuration and share arrangements. All dock sites have their
limitations and decisions on usage have to be based on each site.
Please be considerate of neighbors when you are leaving the lake at night.
Please be aware of the information on the back of this letter regarding your responsibilities as a
dock holder and Mound City Code Section 437 relating to Dock Licenses.
Thank you for your cooperation in making the public lands safe and attractive to help everyone
have an enjoyable boating season.
pt~nted on recycled paoer
YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS A DOCK LICENSE HOLDER
Install your own dock that meets Mound's specifications for safetyl size and materials.
Maintain the cleanliness of the area by your site, including grass cutting and weed
training.
Boats, dock sections, pipes, posts, and other material cannot be stored on the public
shoreline during the boating season. They must be in the water or removed from the
public property by June 1. No tires will be allowed on docks.
Response to correction notices must be made within the time specified or your dock license
will be in jeopardy.
Only boats registered to your dock license may be moored there. Other boats are in
danger of being impounded.
MOUND CITY CODE SECTION 437:10, SUBD. 13.
"Dock licenses and permits issued by the City are personal in nature and may be used only by the
licensee or members of their household. No dock licensed by the City of Mound located on public
streets, roads, parks or public commons may be rented, leased or sublet to any person, partnership
or corporation. If the licensee or permit holder rents, leases or sublets or in any manner charges
or receives consideration for the use of the dock, the license shall be revoked.
'256q
,v
]~O:~Hf4N &il'il} BP..F..r*I'.~JE TH
P. Ot
M!cnaet D..Do~h~n
Fre~3ric A, Brem$0th
Tl~ema~ W. Gen~
DOSHAN & BREMSETH
el o ~st Lake Stree:
Wayzata, Minn~eota ~391-1830
(fi12) 47S.2~C~
~une 28, 1999
Legal A55i=~ant
Che~/I K. Gcul.-t
M~und City Council
Mound City Hal!
534' Maywo~d Road
Mound~ Minnesota 553~4
Re: Todd Raak
Pembroke Mu!tlDIe Dock Plan
Mr, To~.d Rask of 5",.0~ Drummond Road, Mound has asked us Lc
'_nves~ate ~he elimination of ~is lon~-stand~n~ 2§ ~'cot dock
rig}'..~.s a~ Pembroke.
For the D&~t three years, Mr, Rask had a 28 foo~ slip at [ke
sca;th end of tko Pembroke multiple dock (see dia~ra~ ~). A: a
Mound City Council mee~in~ on May 11, ~99~ an attempt wa~ made to
l~ghten the burden of a homeowner having to deal w~tk a dock
situated directly in front of kls livin~ room window. The dock
ccnflguratlon was changed to accommodate the homeowner (see
diagram ~2). By resolution of the Council, the change was
adop[ed on a ~rial basis for the balance of this year w~th a
rev~ewal tn October 1999 to determine if it was a workable design
(see Da~es 20~3-2014 of tko Mound City Minutes of May ~, 1999),
In bhe midst of these changes, we believe Mr. Rask was
- ,nte .... on ~o try and
¢on~doraD1y skort-¢h&nged. ,t is our ~ ~ '
out an accephable solution to all concerned.
As slated above, for three years Mr. Rash has paid fees for
and enjoyed a 28 loc% slip ~6 on the outside portion of the
prevlcus!y exissln~ dock confi~uraticn (se~ diagram #1). Because
0£ an ag£ocmen[ cntc£ed into with the homeowner, thc Ci%y agreed
not to extend any "structures" ~a~[ a 143 foot reference point,
This agreement vlrtua!Iy eliminated Mr. Rack's 2S foot boat slip.
Th= propcaed so!ut~on is n3t only simple; it also represents
th~ alimlnation of one dock sactJon and the work necessary to
insha!l il (see diagram #3 existing dock and ~ia9ra=~ #4 proposed
solution), Essentially, Mr. Rask'S inside sl~p would be
elimlnated and placed tc the outside of the dock aa it was for
the past three years. This Dl~n would allow Mr. R~sk to retain
his 28 foot slip, the dock cczplex would house thc same number
M~und Clt~ Council
Page Two
June 28, 199~
AS Coun¢ilmember Hannus had indicated at thc May 11, 1999
C:uncil m~ting and in his l~tt~r to th~ Editor of tk~ Lakor
Newspaper on May 22, 1999, "It is very important to note that
everyone that had a slip at this site last year will continue %o
bare one if they wish. They will all have the same s].xe slip
they had last year..."
Please let us know if the proposed solution is acceptable.
Apparently, the Council has an estimate of $100.00 labor costs to
effackuate the proposal.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very ~uly/rs,.
MD.D / ckg
£~.closure
Mo,md Ci~ Council Reguhr Meeting Minutes
May I1, 1999
JoM Held:son of 3 ! 24 T,ax erin Boulevard a~ked if they had a list of people with '~oats :: be on that
dock. ~e ~swer w~ no. He ~s cohered about thc ~6-foot boat. ~re will probi~s ~here
cn the dock with this boat. Brown suggested that "maybe your boat is too large for thc dock
T. ne mayer came back to the need to r-.view :ko ~rdinances.
Ahtens suggested extending section one towards thc shore. That would give him rents for his boat
and protec'. ~e beach more.
~k. He!gesox stared chat would work for 1,.ira, but he still couldn't see why the dock had to change.
He asked ifthe r~ascn was to relocate people ~om ko,ok: onto Chis dock. He ~till wante,t to
w~y they coul~'t work with what was there ~n~ chug: for next y~. H~us responded ~kat
~ abso~ed the ~ntire dock f~ mo long. ~e cilizens ~ked why he ~l~a) w~n't at :he ;needing.
Mr. He!&eson stated he felt like the City Council wu holding tkis over :heir heads, if they didn't
age'.e:, then the ::locks wou!d.n't go in at al!..ad~ens stated el,at they .needed :o .~t 12 boats [n:o the
deck. Mr. Watson .~mted ~at iftMy left it as itwu, there would 11 of:~he 12 boa~ there. Ham. s
~ked where they should local: the other 7eopl~, ehewh~e in the City,.
Weycker asked Hanu~ if thi~ wm ;till impacted ',y ti'.: Roanoke area. ~. T~.e
at'tomey' was a.~ked if it was a conflict of'inter:st :o have Ah'em parfic.ipating in this discussion.
Dean came back after sr..erupting to listen to '.he tape (which had been switched offunbek.n~wnat to
the Council in the audio/visual mom upstairs and therefore ~ere was no taped re:ord], and stated
that when this clisc',~sion bad begun he was approached ,~dth ',he question otwhethcr or not there
~'u a :~rtgict of interest on the Council. A2u'¢ns asked ,klm t~: quos:ion herse!E He didn't ~i~
at the time there '&'as an issu.-.
V~'ken the question waa asked about wh~e ~o we locate thc other pOOl2!.- [n nh: d~ By H~us, hc still
net se~ a conn:etion ~ Devon. ~erefor~, he ~ti]I does not see a :em~ict of intere~t if .~Jcns
The Mayor made a motion which wa.s:
MOTION made by Mayor Mefsel, seconded by Brown to put In the configuration as It was
on page 1630 with the accommodations for an extra ge:tins onto number I to
accommodate a 36 foot boat. The stick would be located I3.2.5 feet fram the
light post The Beach area would be roped off from the rest of the area and
M~u,',d City Council Regular Mac'.ink Minu~es
May ' 1999
thi, would be revisited tn October to determine how it worked. This season
would be a trial period.
In conjunction with his ~econd, Brown asked that a representative
neighborhood group work with people from the Cie)' to come to some
compromise through the summer rather ~an waiting until October. Foar
neighborhood represeata~ves, one CI~ Council member, one Parks
Commission member, a~d oa~ Dock Commlssio~ member wa~ ~ugg~t~d. At
least one of the neighborhood repruentatb~ nctdcd to llv~ in thc attghber
~oo~ the other thr~e could bc on ~c doc~ or re~idenB or both.
The Mayor accepted Browses amendment.
1'll!¢ussfon
H~us a~ked :hat along '~ thc motion b¢a.< a:r..~ndm,~! which would direct thc City A~cm.-y to
drab an agreement between the City of Mz,.md md the ,":r. ighbor :o t~¢ south of P:mb:ok:
RodHgo ?laza Navarreae at 4.539 Island View Da'ave. This docmmem w{!i sta:~ that Mr. Plaza
:l,.a :he airy may freely utiliz¢ a portion of :he ?ro~,'wy in front of '.he Plaza proper"7' for city
dockage in :iS'~er a single or malt/pie co:IriS;ora:ion wit,houi ¢onte',t. In exchange for this prom[se
o."no contest in the k.p.'e, the city will agr-.e :hat it will no~ expmd, extend, or shi fi th~ dock'bcat
complex area beTond a point 113 fe~t southwest along .'.he ihore!ine as men!uteri ,%rt. :he north
pro.:erp- · line of?embroke Park.
Weycker wen: on record to sa}' that this was "::-uly a sca.'9,' precedent" that th~. Cir':, would allow
thamaelv~ to be ti~l :o a pa,~i:ular limit or, Fabric prope.~. She feels this will become an !ss:-e and
follow :hem through discussions on al! ~: 4i~::':nt corm'nons. She ~kzd Dean whal thc C, ty's
[if"iI),y would be if anyone got hun becau!e of'Ae configuration ',.hey set up.
De:Lt. ' '
na:~d ,ha: ne zculdr,'r commcnt on '~c :onfi~ration, but mreiy, i fit wu
b: ,resale and someone was injured, the City would hay: liabiliS'.
Ha,nas also a.sk:d :hat along with the motion, th.~ money be released :o pay for thc dock.
1-ne Mayor ~cepted ',.he 143-foot guidel[nc.
W..-ycker stat:d "beware, it is a sad thing that we are doing. I believe that will dimina:e :he beach
and kids won': use because it ,.rill be too dir;y. It is another "Al mhd Alma's" si!uaticn
The mcti,:.n was ca!lee. Mod:an carvi :d ~-I. ~%Vcyckc: meed she ~'a.s ye,9' Ol::pos:d and ,, ot,,.g ,,a,,, .)
14
F'. ~J?
MY NAME IS TODD RASK. I HAVE A SLIP AT THE PEMBROKE MULTIPLE
DOCK. DUE TO AN ERROR ON THE PART OF THE CITY MYSLIP WAS
INCORRECTLY INSTALLED AND UNABLE TO HOUSE MY BOAT. IN
ORDER TO ALLOW THE CITY TIME TO REMEDY THE SITUATION, I HAVE
REACHED AN AGREEMENT WITH ONE OF THE PERMIT HOLDERS ON
THE AMHURST MULTIPLE DOCK TO DO A TEMPORARY TRADE.
THE CITY ASKED THAT I-NOTIFY ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERSOF
THIS SWITCH, AND TO PASS ON MY INFORMATION TO THEM.
MY BOAT IS A CENTURY AND THE LICENSE NUMBER IS MNzL485ES.
MY HOME PHONE NUMBER IS 472-7591. IF YOU NOTICE ANYTHING
PECULIAR WITH MY BOAT, FEEL FREE TO GIVE ME A CALL.
THANKYOU,
TODD RASK
07-e~-1999 13:38 61~ 471063~ LMCD P.O~
'-CHAPTER l I
REGULATION OF STRUCTURES WITHIN THE LA~
Section 2.001. Statement of Findings.
the LMCD finds and determines thatl
The Board of Directors of
a) Zncreasing population and development
occurring and is likely to continue in the future;
b) Such pressures increase tho storage of watoFcra£t on the
public waters of the Lake;.
Lake and the intensity of watercraft usage; and
d) The in~eneity of watercraft use and storage on the public
waters of the Lake has the effect of: diminishing the aesthetic and
recreational qualities of ~he Lake; increasing congestion along the
shoreline; endangering the' sa,ICy of users of the Lake/ reducing
the total area of lake surface available for public use; adversely
affecting wildlife and its habitat on ~he Lake and along the Lake
shore; and polluting the Lake and Ate shore.
Accordingly, lnni furtherance of the purposes, goals, and
policies met ~orth Section 1.0! of ~his Code, the Boar~ has
adopted the provisions of this Cha~ter.
Section 2.01. Au~horized Dock'Use Area.
Subd. 1. Prohibition. No pellon shall uso any a~ea o~ the
Lake outside an authorized dock use area, ~or docks, moorin~s,
watercraft s~orage, swimming floats, ski Jump s~orago or diving
tows=s, unless such use As specifically permit=ed under the
provisions of thischapter. No person shall use any area of the
Lake within any authorized dock use area for docks, moorings,
watercraf~ storage, swimming floats, ski Jump storage or diving
towers without the consent of ~he ~lparian owner. No person who is
in charge or cent=el of any property on the Lake whether as owner,
~enant, occupant, lessee, or otherwise, shall allow an~ sunken,
wrecked, Junked, or discarded watercraf~ to remain within any dock
use area for a period of longer than one week; p~cvldsd, however,
~hat this llml~ation shall not apply to watercraft within the dock
use area of a commercial es~ablishment engaged in the business of
repairing and rehabilitating watercra~ which is so engaged with
regard ~o such watercraft.
Subd. 2. DescrAp~lon of Authorized Dock Use Area. An
authorized dock use area is described as
a) Length - The authorized dock use a~ea for sites bordering
on the Lake extends into the Lake a distance ~qual to ~he site Lake
07-06-~999 13:38 612 4710632 L~CD P.O3
(Rev. ~- 9'7)
frontage to be 'measured at right angles to the side site lines and,
excep~ as provided herein, _shall not extend into the Lake a
distance of greater than 200 feet in the case of commercial docks
in existence on Auks= 30, 1~7~, and 100 feet in the case of other
docks to be measured on a line parallel ~o ~he sire side lines as
ex~ended in~o the ~e. In ~he case of co~ercial docks in
existence on Au~s~ 30, 1~7~, ~he l~eward ex~ension o~ ~he dock
use area more ~han 100 fee= from ~he shoreline s~11 be limited ~o
=he distance from shore of ~he docks in existence on said dare and
~ha= portion of said docks more ~han 100 fee= from =he shoreline
~y no= be altered or e~ded.
A site in existence on FebruarM S, 1970, which has a Lake
frontage of 40 feet or more, but less than S0 feet, may have a dock
ex=end~ng up to S0 feet into the lake. Any such sire which has a
Lake frontage of less than 40 ~ee~ ~7 ~ve a dock which ex~ends
beyond ~he authorized dock use area =o the point necessa~ =o reach
a waher depth of four fee=, measured from 92~.~ fee= N~, and no
~ur~her; provided ~ha~ no such dock shall be located .or ex~ended
more ~han 60 fee~ in~o ~he Lake. Side setbacks re~iremen~s shall
~ obae~ad, ~ever, ~less a variance is ~ran=ed by ~he Board
~der Sec=ion 1.07.
b] Width - The authorized dock use area for sites b.ordering
on the Lake is limited in width by the setback limmtations
prescribed herein. The setback from side site lines as ex=ended' in
~he Lake shall be as
For ~ha~ portion of the
length of ~he authorized
dock use area which ex~ends
~rom =he ~hore The se~ack ~b, ll be
Zero to SO fee~
50 to 100 feet
100 to 200 fee=
l0 feet
1S fee=
20 feet
1)
2)
Where boa= slips open toward a side site line, the
setback provided shall be at least equal =o the
slip depth, but shall not be less than 20 fee=.
Setbacks shall be doubled for all multiple docks or
mooring areas and commercial docks on each side
where such multiple docks are not located adjacent
to another multiple dock or mooring area or
commercial docks; provided, however, that multiple
docks or mooring areas and commercial docks xn
existence on May 3, 1978, shall be non-conforming
structures and shall not be subject to this
subparagraph 2_.) as long as such structures are not
expanded, and further provided ~ha~ se=backs
established by ~ection 2.12, Subd.. 3 are not
required to be doubled pursuant ~o this
subparagraph 2).
-17 o
07-06-i999 i3:39 612 4710632 LMCD P.04
(Rev.
The authorized dock use area, in the case of sites
S0 feet in width or leos in existence on February
2, 1970, may be ex~anded to a side setback
limitation of five feet, provided that such setback
in no way impairs access to neighboring docks.
c) Measurement - Authorized dock uss areas'shall be measured
from the point which forms the shoreline when the Lake is at
elevation 929.4, National Geodetic Vertical Datum, 1929.
d) Temporary low water dock extensions for docks not
requiring a license under Section 2.03. (For multiple docks or
moorin~ areas, refer to Section 1.07, Subd. 9.) During periods
when the Lake level falls below 928.0 feet and when is declared by
resolution of the board, the Executive Director may issue permits
for temporax-f dock extensions beyond =he authorized dock use area
subject to the following limitations:
1) Need for the temporary dock extension must be
demonstrated by the applicant.
3)
The extension shall be a temporary, seasonal t~pe
dock. No extensions may be on pile driven or
permanent year round docks.
The extension shall meet all requirements of this
Code other than the length limitation described in
this Section.
The extension shall only be permit=ed during the
time the wa=er level is below elevation 928.0 feet
and, at any ~iven time, shall be permit~ed only to
the extent o! the e~uivalen= dockage and comparable
depth existing at a Lake elevation of 92~.¢ ~ee=.
The extension, together with the original dock,
shall not be used to provide storage space ~or a
greater number of watercraft than are authorized
under this Code.
Temporary ex~ensions must be removed for the winter
season, no la=er than November 15.
Subd. ~. Setback AdJustmants and Common Uae of Adjacent Dock
Use Areas. Two or more adjoining sics owners may by mutual
a~reement adjust =he side setback requirements be=ween such
adjoining sites or may use their combined authorized dock use areas
for a single common dock or moorin~ area subject to the following
conditions:
a)
Adjustment of side setback requirements is permit=ed
subject to the following limi~.ations:
07/07/99 12:55 FAX CITY OF MOUND ~00!
ACTIVITY REPORT
TRANSMISSION OK
TX/RX NO.
CONNECTION TEL
CONNECTION ID
START TIME
USAGE TIME
PAGES
RESULT
8852
9p3379310
J0ttN DEAN
0?/07 12:4o
15'16
21
OK
FA X ¢ 0 VERSHEE T
TO:
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MA YWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
PHONE: 612-472-0600
FAX:612-472-0620
FAX:
FROM:
DATE:
TOTAL PAGES
PURPOSE:
REMARKS:
For your information
__ A.~ you requested
As we discussed
, For your approval
....... Take appropriate action
Review and return
--~Reply to sender
Other {see remarks)
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
July 7, 1999
Doshan & Bremseth
Attorneys at Law
810 East Lake Street
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
Dear Mr. Doshan,
I am in receipt of your letter dated June 28, 1999 referencing Tom Rask and his usage of the
Cities Multiple Slip Dock on Devon Common at the Pembroke Park access.
This matter will be discussed at the City Council meeting on Tuesday July 13, 1999 at 7:30 p.m.
The location is at Mound City Hall 5341 Maywood Road, in the Council Chambers.
Your presence at this meeting will allow for a open discussion in resolving the situation.
kler
Parks Director
printed on recycled paper
'2_5'q0
Michael D. Doshan
Fredric A. Bremseth
Thomas W. Geng
DOSHAN & BREMSETH
s~..3
810 East Lake Street
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391-1839
(612) 475-2800
Fax: (612) 475-3879
June 28, 1999
Legal Assistant
Cheryl K. Goulet
Mound City Council
Mound City Hall
5341Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Re:
Todd Rask
Pembroke Multiple Dock Plan
Gentlemen:
Mr. Todd Rask of 5109 Drummond Road, Mound has asked us to
investigate the elimination of his long-standing 28 foot dock
rights at Pembroke.
For the past three years, Mr. Rask had a 28 foot slip at the
south end of the Pembroke multiple dock (see diagram #1). At a
Mound City Council meeting on May 11, 1999 an attempt was made to
lighten the burden of a homeowner having to deal with a dock
situated directly in front of his living room window. The dock
configuration was changed to accommodate the homeowner (see
diagram #2). By resolution of the Council, the change was
adopted on a trial basis for the balance of this year with a
reviewal in October 1999 to determine if it was a workable design
(see pages 2013-2014 of the Mound City Minutes of May 11, 1999).
In the midst of these changes, we believe Mr. Rask was
considerably short-changed. It is our intention to try and work
out an acceptable solution to all concerned.
As stated above, for three years Mr. Rask has paid fees for
and enjoyed a 28 foot slip #6 on the outside portion of the
previously existing dock configuration (see diagram #1). Because
of an agreement entered into with the homeowner, the City agreed
not to extend any "structures" past a 143 foot reference point.
This agreement virtually eliminated Mr. Rask's 28 foot boat slip.
The proposed solution is not only simple; it also represents
the elimination of one dock section and the work necessary to
install it (see diagram #3 existing dock and diagram #4 proposed
solution). Essent~ially, Mr. Rask's inside slip would be
eliminated and placed to the outside of the dock as it was for
the past three years. This plan would allow Mr. Rask to retain
his 28 foot slip, the dock complex would house the same number
of boats, and the agreement with the homeowner would be fully
honored.
Mound City Council
Page Two
June 28, 1999
As Councilmember Hannus had indicated at the May 11, 1999
Council meeting and in his letter to the Editor of the Laker
Newspaper on May 22, 1999, "It is very important to note that
everyone that had a slip at this site last year will continue to
have one if they wish. They will all have the same size slip
they had last year...
Please let us know if the proposed solution is acceptable.
Apparently, the Council has an estimate of $100.00 labor costs to
effectuate the proposal.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very t~uly y~rs, . ~
SH & B MsE~ '
MDD/ckg
Enclosure
' 1997- 1998
DOCK CONFIGURATION
I I I I I !
,\
Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 11, 1999
John Helgeson of 3124 Tuxedo Boulevard asked if they had a list of people with boats to be on that
dock. The answer was no. He is concerned about the 36-foot boat. There will problems anywhere
on the dock with this boat. Brown suggested that "maybe your boat is too large for the dock
system."
The mayor came back to the need to review the ordinances.
Ahrens suggested extending section one towards the shore. That would giv~ him room for his boat
and protect the beach more.
Mr. Helgeson stated that would work for him, but he still couldn't see why the dock had to change.
He asked if the reason was to relocate people from Roanoke onto this dock. He still wanted to know
why they couldn't work with what was there and change for next year. Hanus responded that Plaza
has absorbed the entire dock far too long. The citizens asked why he (Plaza) wasn't at the meeting.
Mr. Helgeson stated he felt like the City Council was holding this over their heads, if they didn't
agree, then the docks wouldn't go in at all. Ahrens stated that they needed to fit 12 boats into the
dock. Mr. Watson stated that if they left it as it was, there would 11 of the 12 boats there. Hanus
asked where they should locate the other people, elsewhere in the City.
Weycker asked Hanus if this was still impacted by the Roanoke area. Hanus answered yes. The
attorney was asked if it was a conflict of interest to have Akrens participating in this discussion.
Dean came back after attempting to listen to the tape (which had been switched offunbeknownst to
the Council in the audio/visual room upstairs and therefore there was no taped record), and stated
that when this discussion had begun he was approached with the question of whether or not there
was a conflict of interest on the Council. Ahrens asked him that question herself. He didn't think
at the time there was an issue.
When the question was asked about where do we locate the other people in the city by Hanus, he still
did not see a connection to Devon. Therefore, he still does not see a conflict of interest ifAhrens
remains on the Council for this discussion.
The Mayor made a motion which was:
MOTION made by Mayor Meisel, seconded by Brown to put in the configuration as it was
on page 1630 with the accommodations for an extra section onto number I to
accommodate a 36 foot boat. The stick would be located 13.25 feet from the
light post. The Beach area would be roped off from the rest of the area and
13
Mound City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 11, 1999
this would be revisited in October to determine how it worked. This season
would be a trial period.
In conjunction with his second, Brown asked that a representative
neighborhood group work with people from the City to come to some
compromise through the summer rather than waiting until October. Four
neighborhood representatives, one City Council member, one Parks
Commission member, and one Dock Commission member was suggested. At
least one of the neighborhood representatives needed to live in the neighbor
hood, the other three could be on the dock or residents or both.
The Mayor accepted Brown's amendment.
Discussion
Hanus asked that along with the motion be an amendment which would direct the City Attorney to
draft an agreement between the City of Mound and the neighbor to the south of Pembroke Park,
Rodrigo Plaza Navarrette at 4539 Island View Drive. This document will state that Mr. Plaza agrees
that the city may freely utilize a portion of the property in front of the Plaza property for city
dockage in either a single or multiple configuration without contest. In exchange for this promise
of no contest in the future, the city will agree that it will not expand, extend, or shift the dock/boat
complex area beyond a point 143 feet southwest along the shoreline as measured from the north
property line of Pembroke Park.
Weycker went on record to say that this was "truly a scary precedent" that the City would allow
themselves to be tied to a particular limit on public property. She feels this will become an issue and
follow them through discussions on all the different commons. She asked Dean what the City's
liability would be if anyone got hurt because of the configuration they set up.
Dean stated that he couldn't comment on the configuration, but surely, if it was set up to deliberately
be unsafe and someone was injured, the City would have liability.
Hanus also asked that along with the motion, the money be released to pay for the dock.
The Mayor accepted the 143-foot guideline.
Weycker stated "beware, it is a sad thing that we are doing. I believe that will eliminate the beach
and kids won't use because it will be too dirty. It is another "Al and Alma's" situation.
The motion was called. Motion carried 4-1. (Weycker stated she was very opposed and voting nay.)
14
K
0.,
CITY OF EXCELSIOR
June 23, 1999
339 THIRD STREET
EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 66331
TELE: 612--474-5233
To Public Officials, News Media Organizations, Neighboring Cities:
On June 21, 1999, the Excelsior City Council unanimously adopted a resolution which
states principles that should be used when considering public financial support for sports
stadiums that would be constructed primm~ily for the use by professional sports.
As stated in the resolution, the Excelsior Council:
Calls for taxpayers to be consulted, preferably through a referendum, before
levying any kind of local tax as a general obligation to which they would be
subject, including a one-half percent sales tax.
Opposes taxing Hennepin County taxpayers to support, in any way, professional
sports without a referendum to support such expenditures.
Opposes otherwise any public spending for private ventures in professional sports.
The City Council also encourages the city councils of all other cities in Hennepin County to join
Excelsior in adopting these principles.
A copy of this resolution has been enclosed. If you have questions or would like further
information, please contact me at 612.474.5233.
Sincerely,
Hennepin County
RESOLUTION NO. 99- 21
A RESOLUTION OPPOSING TAXATION WITHOUT PUBLIC CONSENT
FOR A NEW BASEBALL STADIUM IN HENNEPIN COUNTY
WHEREAS, The Minnesota Legislature has rejected tax support for, and/or government
ownership or participation in professional, major league baseball; and
WHEREAS,
Residents of the City of Minneapolis approved a city charter amendment which
would limited property-tax supported expenditures for single capital projects to
$10 million; and
WHEREAS,
The mayor of the City of Saint Paul has proposed a referendum in that city to
determine the public's willingness to support public funding for a professional
baseball stadium; and
WHEREAS,
The City Council of the City of Excelsior believes that taxpayers should be
consulted, preferably through a referendum, before levying any kind of local (i.e.,
county-wide) tax as a general obligation to which they would be subject, including
a one-half percent sales tax,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Excelsior that:
· It opposes taxing Hennepin County taxpayers to support, in any way, professional
sports without a referendum to support such expenditures.
· It opposes otherwise any public spending for private ventures in professional
sports.
· It encourages city councils of all other cities in Hennepin County to join with
Excelsior in adopting this statement of principles.
Adopted by the City Council on June 21, 1999
ATTEST:
E. Anderson, Mayor
J~ity Cl~erk/Treasur~~er
Cr~ City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 99 -
A RESOLUTION OPPOSING TAXATION WITHOUT PUBLIC CONSENT
FOR A NEW BASEBALL STADIUM IN HENNEPIN COUNTY
WHEREAS, The Minnesota Legislature has rejected tax
support for, and/or government ownership or participation in
professional, major league baseball; and
WHEREAS, Residents of the City of Minneapolis approved
a city charter amendment which would limit property-tax
supported expenditures for single capital projects to $10
million; and
WHEREAS, The Mayor of the City of Saint Paul has
proposed a referendum in that city to determine the public's
willingness to support public funding for a professional
baseball stadium; and
WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Mound believes
that taxpayers should be consulted, preferably through a
referendum, before levying any kind of local (i.e., county-
wide) tax as a general obligation to which they would be
subject, including a one-half percent sales tax.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Mound that:
It opposes taxing Hennepin County taxpayers to support,
in any way, professional sports without a referendum to
support such expenditures.
It opposes otherwise any public spending for private
ventures in professional sports.
It encourages Cty Cuncils of all other cities in
Hennepin County to join with Excelsior and Mound in
adopting this statement of principles.
TO:
FROM:
RE:
MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER
GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR
JUNE FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT
Investment Activity
Balance: JUne' 1, 1999 $3,628,978
Bought:
Money Market 4M Plus 308,337
Money Market USBank 40,023
CP USBank 5.176.% 849,044
CP USBank 5.091 .% 248,958
CP USBank 5.23.% 519,050
Matured:
Money Market 4M Plus (400,000)
Money Market USBank (85,000)
CP Dain Rauscher 4.978.% (302,249)
CP USBank 4.895.% (293,164)
CP Norwest 4.991 .% (827,366)
Balance: June 30, 1999 $3,686,611
Year 2000
We feel confident that the issues related to the year 2000 are being addressed
by the City of Mound and we feel confident that we will be ready.
In the Finance Department we continue to update and test the financial systems.
The Police, Fire, and Public Works Departments are preparing their contingency
plans. At the same time we are informing the public on the issue and assuring
them of the actions taken by the City of Mound.
Safety Training
City Employees were asked to attend a safety training workshop. Many did attend.
The key word was accountability or the duty of each one to account for his/her
safety and the safety of others. A specific place was designated for shelter or check point.
City of Mound
Monthly Report
Utilities
Month of: June 1999
O7/08/99
Utility-99
Residential
No, of Customers:
Water 1,100
Sewer 1,096
Water Used:
(in 1,000 gallons) 16,694
Billing:
Water $29,578
Sewer $60,867
Recycle $6,704
Total $97,149
Commercial
123
123
3,186
$6,423
$17,621
$142
$24,186
Payments:
Water $30,352 $4,836
Sewer $67,772 $12,964
Recycle $6,915 $106
Total $105,039 $17,906
Total
1,223
1,219
19,880
$36,001
$78,488
$6,846=
$121,335'
$35,1881
$80,736[
$7,021
$122,945;
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Mayor, City Council and Acting City Manager
Joel Kmmm, Liquor Store Manager
July 1, 1999
Quarterly Report (April - June 1999)
For the most part it has been a very wet and cool Spring up until now. Unfortunately several
weekends have been wash outs. Thus people don't utilize the lake and parties are canceled. Still
through all of the inclement weather we've managed to keep our heads above water. No pun
intended. Gross sales for the 99 Spring quarter were, $492,518.00. Last year, which was an
ideal Spring, every weekend was another day in paradise, sales were, $485,519.00. Should we
get a break from mother nature, I am anticipating above average sale for the summer quarter.
At the end of March I lost a long time part time employee. He had been here for over two years.
His shift was Monday and Thursday evenings and Saturday Mornings. I was able to hire an
employee for the Monday and Thursday slots but I am still in need of someone to fill the
Saturday shift. I work every other Saturday Morning. However to fill that Saturday void I've
been filling in every Saturday. Maybe when summer is over and school begins in the Fall I'll be
able to find a college student hopefully.
We've done a little redecorating. We took down some ancient wooden plaques that were above
our beer cooler and replaced them with some attractive beer mirrors. It seems to brighten that
area up quite a bit. My intention is to also put up some mirrors above our liquor shelves.
I would like to thank all of your for approving my merit pay increase. I feel that over my fifteen
years of tenure I have proven that my performance has not been just ordinary, It's a good feeling
to know that you also acknowledge that.
Again, THANK YOU.
printed on recycled paper
Hennepin County
An Equal Opportunity Employer
DATE:
June 29, 1999
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
City Officials in Greenfield, Hanover, Mound, Rockford, Rogers, Shorewood, and
St. Bonifacius
Epstein, Community Health Department .~
Howard
Changes in the Proposed FIENNEPIN COUNTY RETAIL TOBACCO SALES
ORDINANCE (Ordinance Number 21)
As indicated in a previous mailing, a Public Hearing is scheduled for July 6, 2:00 PM, before the
Hennepin County Board of Commissioners for the purpose of gaining public input on the proposed
Ordinance 21: Retail Tobacco Sales in Hennepin County. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of
some changes in the proposed ordinance (see enclosures).
Based on discussions with businesses and city and county officials, the Community Health Department is
recommending a change in the proposed ordinance that would permit employees who are 16 or older to
sell tobacco products -- the previous recommended minimum age was 18. This change in the proposed
ordinance is in Section l0 Other Illegal Acts, where 10.6 Illegal Sales by Minor now reads:
10.1 Illegal Sales by Minor. It shall be a violation of this ordinance:
O)
(2)
For any miner person under age 16 to sell tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-
related devices.
For a licensee to cause or permit a mL~zr person under age 16 to sell tobacco,
tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices.
In addition, we have clarified Section 16 Effective Date to set October 1 as the effective date for the
proposed ordinance. In addition, the County Auditor will provide notice and application forms 60-90
days prior to the effective date of the ordinance. If an establishment is currently licensed by a
municipality and the municipality does not wish to continue licensing tobacco retailers, then the effective
date of the annual county license would commence the day after the current license expires.
If you have any questions about the Public Heating or these changes in the proposed ordinance, please
contact me at 612-348-7550.
Sincerely,
Howard Epstein
Senior Planning Analyst
Hennepin County Community Health Department
Health Promotion Division
525 Portland Avenue -
Mail Code 968
Minneapolis, MN 55415-1569
(612) 348-5618
Recycled Paper
ORDINANCE NUMBER 21 (proposed)
Version 2 -June 24, 1999
RETAIL TOBACCO SALES ORDINANCE
FOR
HENNEPIN COUNTY
Community Health Department
PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 6, 1999
IN ACCORDANCE WITH
MINNESOTA STATUTES, {}{}461.12 to 461.18
ORDINANCE NUMBER 21 (proposed)
Version 2 -June 24, 1999
RETAIL TOBACCO SALES ORDINANCE
FOR
HENNEPIN COUNTY
Public Hearing: July 6, 1999
An ordinance relating to the sale, possession and use of tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco-related
devices in Hennepin County and to reduce the illegal sale, possession, and use of such items to and by
minors. This ordinance is enacted pursuant to the requirements of Minnesota Statute §§461.12 to 461.18.
The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Ordains:
Section 1
1.1
1.2
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Purpose. Because Hennepin County recognizes that many persons under the age of 18
years purchase or otherwise obtain, possess and use Tobacco, Tobacco Products and
Tobacco-Related Devices, and such sales, possession and use are violations of both State
and Federal laws; and because studies~'4, which are hereby accepted and adopted, have
shown that most smokers begin smoking before the age of 18 years; and those persons who
reach the age of 18 years without having started smoking are significantly less likely to
begin smoking; and because smoking has been shown to be the cause of several serious
health problems, including cancer, heart disease, and respiratory problems, which
subsequently place a financial burden on all levels of government, this ordinance is
intended to regulate the sale, possession and use of Tobacco, Tobacco Products and
Tobacco-Related Devices and to further the official public policy of the State of Minnesota
in regard to preventing young people from starting to smoke as stated in Minnesota Statute
§144.391.
Scope. This ordinance is applicable in any unorganized territory of Hennepin County and
in any town or home rule charter or statutory city in Hennepin County, which does not
license and regulate retail tobacco sales. Retail establishments licensed by a town or a city
to sell tobacco are not required to obtain a second license for the same location pursuant to
this ordinance.
U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1994): Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People: A Report of
the Surgeon General. Washington, D.C.: USDHHS.
U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessibility of cigarettes to youth aged 12-17 years; United States,
1989 and 1993. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 45, 125-130.
Forster, J., Murray, D., Wolfson, M., Blaine, T., et al. (1998). The effects of community policies to reduce youth access
to tobacco. American Journal of Public Health, 88(8), 1193-1198.
Lynch, B. S. & Bonnie, R. J. editors. (1994). Growing up Tobacco Free: Preventing Nicotine Addiction in Children and
Youths. Washington, D. C.: Institute of Health: National Academy Press.
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
ORDINANCE NUMBER 21 (proposed)
Version 2 -June 24, 1999
Hennepin County Retail Tobacco Sales Ordinance
Public Hearing: ~luly 6. 1999
Retail Establishment. "Retail establishment" shall mean any place of business where
tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco-related devices are available for sale to the general
public. Retail establishments shall include, but not to be limited to, grocery stores,
convenience stores, and restaurants.
Moveable Place of Business. "Moveable Place of Business" shall refer to any form of
business operated out of a truck, van, automobile, or any other type of a vehicle or
transportable shelter and not a fixed address store front or other permanent type of structure
authorized for sales transactions.
Sale. A "sale" shall mean any transfer of goods for money, trade, barter, or other
consideration.
Compliance Checks. "Compliance Checks" shall mean the system the County or its
designated agent uses to investigate and ensure that those authorized to sell tobacco,
tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices are following and complying with the
requirements of this ordinance. Compliance checks shall involve the use of minors as
authorized by this ordinance. Compliance checks shall also mean the use of minors who
attempt to purchase tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices for educational,
research and training purposes as authorized by State and Federal laws. Compliance checks
may also be conducted by other units of government for the purpose of enforcing
appropriate Federal, State or local laws and regulations relating to tobacco, tobacco
products, or tobacco-related devices.
Auditor. "Auditor" shall mean the Hennepin County Auditor of the Taxpayer Services
Department or designee.
CoUnty Board. "County Board" shall mean the Hennepin County Board of
Commissioners.
Section 3 LICENSE
It shall be illegal for anyone to sell or offer to sell tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices in
Hennepin County without first having obtained a license to do so from the County, unless located within a
town or statutory city that has retained licensing authority under Minnesota Statutes 461.12, Subdivision 1.
3.1
Application. An application for a license to sell tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-
related devices shall be made on a form provided by the Auditor. The application shall
contain the full name of the applicant, the applicant's residential and business address and
telephone numbers, the name and location of the business for which the license is sought
and any additional information deemed_necessary. Upon receipt of a completed application,
the Auditor shall forward the application to the County Administrator for action at the next
regularly scheduled County Board meeting. If the Auditor shall determine that an
application is incomplete, the application shall be returned to applicant with notice of the
information necessary to make the application complete.
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
ORDINANCE NUMBER 21 (proposed)
Version 2 -June 24, 1999
Hennepin County Retail Tobacco Sales Ordinance
Public Hearing: July 6, 1999
Action. The County Board may either approve or deny the license or it may delay action
for such reasonable period of time as necessary to complete any background investigation
of the application or the applicant it deems necessary. If the County Board approves the
license, the Auditor shall issue the license to the applicant. If the County Board denies the
license, notice of denial shall be given to the applicant along with notice of the applicant's
fight to appeal the decision.
Term. All licenses issued under this ordinance shall be valid for one calendar year from
the date of issue.
Revocation or suspension. Any license issued under this ordinance may be revoked or
suspended as provided in the Violations and Penalties sections of this ordinance.
Transfers. All licenses issued under this ordinance shall be valid only on the premises for
which the license was issued and only for the applicant to whom the license was issued. No
transfer of any license to another location or person shall be va!id without the prior written
approval of the County Board.
Moveable Place of Business. No license shall be issued to a Moveable Place of Business.
Only fixed location businesses shall be eligible to be licensed.
Display. All licenses shall be posted and displayed in plain view of the general public on
the licensed premises.
Renewals. The renewal of a license issued under this section shall be done in the same
manner as the original application. A request for a renewal shall be made at least sixty (60)
days but no more than ninety (90) days before the expiration of the current license. The
issuance of a license under this ordinance shall be considered a privilege and not an
absolute fight of the applicant and shall not entitle the holder to automatic renewal of the
license.
Section 4 FEES
No license shall be issued under this ordinance until the appropriate license fee shall be paid in full. The
license fee will be established annually by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners.
Section 5 BASIS FOR DENIAL OF LICENSE
The following non-inclusive reasons shall be grounds for revoking a license or denying the issuance or
renewal of a license under this ordinance; however, except as may otherwise be provided by law, the
existence of any particular ground for denial does not mean that the County Board must deny the license:
5.1 The applicant is under the age of eighteen (18) years.
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
ORDINANCE NUMBER 21 (proposed)
Version 2 -June 24, 1999
Hennepin County Retail Tobacco Sales Ordinance
Public Hearing: July 6, 1999
The applicant has been convicted within the past five years of any violation of a Federal,
State or local law, ordinance provision or other regulation relating to tobacco, or tobacco
products, or tobacco-related devices.
The applicant has had a license to sell tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices
revoked within the preceding 12 months of the date of application.
The applicant fails to provide the information required on the application or provides false
or misleading information.
The applicant is prohibited by Federal, State, or other local law, ordinance, or other
regulation, from holding such a license.
Section 6 PROHIBITED SALES
It shall be a violation of this ordinance for anyone to sell or offer to sell any tobacco, tobacco product, or
tobacco-related devices:
6.1 To any person under the age of eighteen (18) years.
6.2 By means of any type of vending machine.
6.3 By means of self-service sales as defined in Section 7 herein.
6.4 By means of loosies as defined in Section 2 of this ordinance.
6.5
Containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna, strychnos, cocaine, marijuana or
other deleterious, hallucinogenic, toxic or controlled substances except nicotine and other
substances found naturally in tobacco or added as part of an otherwise lawful
manufacturing process.
6.6
By any other means, to any other person or in any other manner or form prohibited by
Federal or State or local law or other Hennepin County ordinance, provision, or other
regulation.
Section 7 SELF-SERVICE SALES
It shall be unlawful for a licensee under this ordinance to allow the sale of tobacco, tobacco products, or
tobacco-related devices by any means whereby the customer may have access to such items without having
to request the item from the licensee or licensee's employee and whereby there is not a physical exchange
of the tobacco, tobacco product, or the tobacco-related device between the licensee or his or her employee
and the customer. All tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco-related devices shall either be stored behind
a counter or other area not freely accessible to customers, or in a locked case or other storage unit not left
open and accessible to the general public. Any retailer selling tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-
related devices shall comply with this Section within 90 days following the effective date of this ordinance.
This Section does not apply to retail establishments that prohibit minors from entering the premises at all
ORDINANCE NUMBER 21 (propose_dj
Version 2 -June 24. 1999
Hennepin County Retail Tobacco Sales Ordinance
Public Hearing: duly 6, 1999
times, and derive ninety (90) pement or more of their revenues from the sale of tobacco and tobacco-related
products. Any retail establishment that allows self-service sales shall provide upon request financial
records that provide documentation summarizing annual sales.
Section 8 RESPONSIBILITY
All licensees under this ordinance shall be responsible for the actions of their employees in regard to the
sale of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices on the licensed premises and the sale of such
an item by an employee shall be considered a sale by the license holder. Nothing in this section shall be
construed as prohibiting Hennepin County from also subjecting the employee to whatever penalties are
appropriate under this ordinance, State or Federal law or other applicable law or regulation.
Section 9 COMPLIANCE CHECKS AND INSPECTIONS
All licensed premises shall be open to inspection by the local law enforcement or other authorized
Hennepin County officials during regular business hours. From time to time, but at least twice per year, the
County or its designated agent shall conduct compliance checks by engaging, with the written consent of
their parents or guardians, minors over the age of fifteen (15) years but less than eighteen (18) years, to
enter the licensed premises to attempt to purchase tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices.
Minors used for the purpose of compliance checks shall be supervised by designated law enforcement or
Hennepin County personnel. Minors used for compliance checks shall not be guilty of the unlawful
purchase or attempted purchase, nor the unlawful possession of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-
related devices when such items are obtained or attempted to be obtained as part of a compliance check.
No minor used in compliance checks shall attempt to use a false identification misrepresenting the minor's
age and all minors lawfully engaged in a compliance check shall answer all questions about the minor's age
asked by the licensee or his or her employee and shall produce any identification, if any exists, for which he
or she is asked. Nothing in this section shall prohibit compliance checks authorized by State or Federal
laws for educational, reseamh or training purposes, or required for the enforcement of a particular State or
Federal Law.
Section 10 OTHER ILLEGAL ACTS
Unless otherwise provided, the following acts shall be a violation of this ordinance:
10.1
Illegal Sales. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for any person to sell or otherwise
provide any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco-related device to any minor.
10.2
Illegal Possession. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for any minor to have in his or
her possession any tobacco, tobacco product or tobacco-related device. This subdivision
shall not apply to minors lawfully involved in a compliance check or to an employee of the
license holder under the age of eighteen (18) years while stocking tobacco, tobacco
products, or tobacco-related devices.
6
10.3
10.4
10.5
ORDINANCE NUMBER 21 (proposed)
Version 2 -June 24, 1999
Hennepin County Retail Tobacco Sales Ordinance
Public Hearing: July 6, 1999
Illegal Use. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for any minor to smoke, chew, sniff or
otherwise use any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco-related device.
Illegal Procurement. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for any minor to purchase or
attempt to purchase or otherwise obtain any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco-related
device and it shall be a violation of this ordinance for any person to purchase or otherwise
obtain such items on behalf of a minor. It shall further be a violation for any person to
coerce or attempt to coerce a Minor to illegally purchase or otherwise obtain or use any
tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco-related device. This subdivision shall not apply to
minors lawfully involved in a compliance check.
Use of False Identification. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for any minor to
attempt to disguise his or her true age by the use of a false form of identification, whether
the identification is that of another person or one on which the age of the person has been
modified or tampered with to represent an age older than the actual age of the person.
10.6 Illegal Sales by Minor. It shall be a violation of this ordinance:
(1)
For any person under age 16 to sell tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related
devices.
(2)
For a licensee to cause or permit a person under age 16 to sell tobacco, tobacco
products, or tobacco-related devices.
Section 11
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
VIOLATIONS
Notice. Upon discovery of a suspected violation, the alleged violator shall be issued, either
personally or by mail, a citation that sets forth the alleged violation and which shall inform
the alleged violator of his or her tight to be heard on the accusation.
Hearings. If a person accused of violating this ordinance so requests, a heating shall be
scheduled, the time and place of which shall be published and provided to the accused
violator.
Hearing Officer. The County Administrator or designee shall serve as the heating officer.
Decision. If the heating officer determines that a violation of this ordinance did occur, that
decision, along with the heating officer's reasons for finding a violation and the penalty to
be imposed under Section 1300 of this ordinance, shall be recorded in writing, a copy of
which shall be provided to the accused violator. Likewise, if the heating officer finds that
no violation occurred or finds grounds for not imposing any penalty, such findings shall be
recorded and a copy provided to the acquitted accused violator.
Appeals. Appeals of any decision made by the hearing officer shall be filed in the
Hennepin County District Court.
11.6
11.7
ORDINANCE NUMBER 21 (proposed)
Version 2 -dune 24, 1999
Hennepin County Retail Tobacco Sales Ordinance
Public Hearing: duly 6, 1999
Misdemeanor Prosecution. Nothing in this section shall prohibit Hennepin County from
seeking prosecution as a misdemeanor for any violation of this ordinance.
Continued Violations. Each violation shall constitute a separate offense. Every day. in
which a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense.
Section 12
12.1
12.2
12.3
12.4
PENALTIES
Licensees. Any licensee found to have violated this ordinance or whose employee shall
have violated this Ordinance shall be charged an administrative fine of $200 for the first
violation of this ordinance; $300 for the second offense at the same licensed premises
within a twenty-four (24) month period; and $400 for the third offense within a twenty-four
(24) month period. In addition, after the third offense, the license shall be suspended for no
less than seven (7) days. After the fourth offense within a twenty-four (24) month period,
the licensee shall be charged an administrative fine of $500, and the license shall be
revoked.
Other Individuals. Other individuals, other than minors regulated by Section 12.3, found
to be in violation of this ordinance shall be charged an administrative fine of $50. An
administrative fine of $100 shall be charged for additional subsequent offenses within a
twenty-four (24) month period.
Minors. Minors found in unlawful possession of, or who unlawfully purchase or attempt to
purchase tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices, shall be referred to the
Hennepin County Attorney's "Citations for Tobacco Offense" procedure.
Misdemeanor. Nothing in this Section shall prohibit Hennepin County from seeking
prosecution as a misdemeanor for any violation of this ordinance.
Section 13 EXCEPTIONS AND DEFENSES
Nothing in this ordinance shall prevent the providing of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related
devices to a minor as part of a lawfully recognized religious, spiritual or cultural ceremony. It shall be an
affirmative defense to the violation of this ordinance for a person to have reasonably and in good faith
relied on proof of age as described by State law.
Section 14 SEVERABILITY AND SAVINGS CLAUSE
If any section or portion of this ordinance shall be found unconstitutional or otherwise invalid or
unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that finding shall not serve to invalidate or otherwise
effect the validity or enforceability of other sections or provisions of this ordinance.
ORDINANCE NUMBER 21 (proposed)
Version 2 -June 24, 1999
Hennepin County Retail T0baec0 Sales 0rdinanee
Public Hearing: duly 6, 1999
Section 15 NOTICE
The County shall make reasonable efforts to send tobacco retailers regulated by this ordinance and the
Hennepin County Community Health Department, thirty (30) days mailed notice of proposed amendments
to this ordinance.
Section 16 EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect October 1, 1999. Any retailer selling tobacco, tobacco products, or
tobacco-related devices at the time this ordinance is adopted, and that is not licensed by a municipality in
Hennepin County, shall comply with this ordinance within 60 days following the effective date of this
ordinance.
Passed by the Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County, Minnesota, this
Chair, Board of County Commissioners
Attest:
Approved as to form and legality:
9
z
z z z
.<
z
o o '~
z z
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
June 25, 1999
TO:
FROM:
LMC.D_ Member Cities
SUBJF~T: Adopted 2000 LMCD Budget
Enclosed is a copy of the 2000 LMCD Budget, which was adopted and certified by the
LMCD Board at the 6/9/99 meeting. Minnesota State Statute 103B.635, Subd. 1
requires the LMCD Board, on or before July 1 of each year, to prepare and submit a
detailed budget of the district's needs for the next calendar year to the governing body of
each municipality in the district with a statement of the proportion of the budget to be
provided by each municipality.
Per enabling legislation, the maximum levy the LMCD couM forward to its member
communities in 2000 is $204,634.33. We are pleased to forward an approved budget
that is below the maximum levy at $190,679.00.
The 2000 LMCD Budget can further be broken down into two budgets, Administration
and EWM/F_.xotics. A general overview of the key notes of both budgets is detailed in
Appendix A.
The LMCD maintains five reserve fund accounts. These accounts include
Administration, EWM/Exotics, Save the Lake, New Equipment Acquisition, and
Equipment Replacement. Both Save the Lake and New Equipment Acquisition funds
consist of donated funds, which are derived from non-taxable dollars. These funds are
being held separate for the purposes for which they are donated.
Administration, EWM/Exotics, and New Equipment Acquisition funds are derived from
tax dollars, which are levied to the 14 member communities. Equipment Replacement is
for non-operating purposes and has been established to either replace or refurbish capital
equipment used in the Eurasian Watermilfoil harvesting project. Both Administration
and EWM/Exotics funds are used for operating purposes. Reserve fund balances of six
months for Administration and 12 months for EWM/Exofics have previously been agreed
upon. As of 12/31/98, the reserve fund balance for Administration was well below the
six-month policy. For EWM/Exotics, it is anticipated the 12-month reserve fund
balance will be achieved by 12/31/99.
The $39,471 increase in levy to the 14 member cities can be attributed to:
· No reserve fund contribution is budgeted for Administration revenue in 2000
ADOPTED 2000 LMCD BUDGET, 612~i~, PAGE 2
because the LMCD has achieved the agreed upon reserve fund level. In 1999,
$15,000 was budgeted .:.~ ~
· $15,000 is budgeted for implementation of Management Plan projects in 2000,
including a boat density survey and a user attitude survey. No Management Plan
projects were budgeted for in 1999.
· $10,000 is budgeted in 2000 for weed harvesting equipment depreciation.
In closing, your city has the ability to require the LMCD to hold a hearing if your city
has an objection to the adopted 2000 budget.
On behalf of the LMCD Board, I would like to thank all 14-member cbmmunifies for
your continued participation and support in District related activities. Feel free to call
the office at 745-0789 if you have questions or concerns.
Ii!
9 lo(BI
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
2000 BUDGET
The following assumptions were made in the preparation of the 2000 LMCD Budget:
Salaries (la) Current Hours 2000
Executive Director $45,000 $45,000
Admin. Tech. $28,000 $28,000
Admin. Ass't. $23,000 $23,000
Admin. Clerk (hourly rate) $11.60 819 $9,500
$105,500
Employer Benefit
Contributions (lb)
P.E.R.A. (4.75 %) $5,011.25
P.E.R.A. Life Ins. $432.00
Unum Life Ins. $64.80
F.I.C.A. & Medicare $8,070.95
Medical Ins. $6,400.00
$19,979.00
Office Lease & Storage (:la)
Office & storage ($1,560/mo.) $18,720.00
Off-site storage $240.00
$18,960.110
Telephone (3b)
U.S. West $4,200.00
AT&T $240.00
Insurance, B,onds (3g)
Property $150.00
Inland Marine $1,100.00
Municipal Liability $4,000.00
Excess Liability w/Waiver $1,500.00
Bond $250.00
$7,000.00
Contingency (7)
(includes salary increases) $I0,000.00
EWM Salaries & Employer
Taxes/Insurance (la)
Salaries $23,250.00
F.I.C.A. & Medicare (7.65%) $2,140.00
Insurance (Auto & Workers Comp.) $2,610.00
$28,000.00
Admlnl~tratlon EWM/Exotlcs
1999
12/31/98 BalanCe'~"
-. · $n8,530 $150,191
Transfer to E~uio. Repl. Fund $0 ($35,000)
$118,530
2OOO
Projected 12/31/99 Balance $118,530 $95,191
Reserve Fund Allocation $0 ($10,000)
Transfer to Equip. Repl. Fund ' $0 ($!0,000)
Projected 12/31/99 Balance $118,530 $75,191
APPENDIX A
DRAFT 2000 LMCD BUDGET
NOTES
ADMINISTRATION
· $105,500 has been budgeted for Salaries for three full-time employees and one part-time
employee at current salaries and hourly rate (line item la). Salary adjustments for these
employees have been budgeted as part of Contingency (line item 7). ~
$18,960, a 5% increase from 1999, has been budgeted for Office Lease & Storage (line item 2a).
It is projected that Office Lease & Storage expenses for 2000 will cost the District approximately
$25,000. The balance of these expenses will be off-set by funds received from the Freshwater
Foundation in the Fall of 1998 move.
· $11,000 has been budgeted for Professional Services (line item 2b). This includes funds for the
1999 LMCD Audit and for the District Bookkeeper.
· $4,000 has been budgeted for Printing, Publications, & Advertising (line item 3d). This includes
for the re-printing of Summer Rules and other District literature.
Boat and Water Safety Education (BWSE) expenses 0ine item 3j) generally offset revenues
received (line item le) for this twice a year course for boaters who get BWI's on Lake
Minnetonka.
· The purchase or lease of a new or used copy machine is planned for Furniture & Equipment (line
item 4a).
$3,500 has been budgeted for Computer Software & Hardware expenses (line item 4b). This
includes operating systems and word processing software upgrades, and the replacement of one
desktop computer.
$40,000 has been budgeted for Prosecution Services 0ine item 5b). This 25 % increase from
1999 can be attributed to the change in BWI legislation in 1998 and the recent challenges of
authority of Special Deputies of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol.
$15,000 has been budgeted for Management Plan Implementation (line item 6a). Consistent with
the Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka, a Boat Density Study and a User Attitude Survey are
planned.
No reserve fund contribution has been budgeted for 2000. With a projected Administrative
reserve fund balance of $118,530 by 12/31/99, the District should attain the agreed upon six-
month reserve for the Administrative Budget by year-end of 1999.
EWNUEXOTICS MAN.~GEMENT
· It is anticipated that the MN DNR will fund the District with a grant of approximately $24,000 to
assist in the management of Eurasian Watermilfoil.
· $5,000 has been budgeted for Zebra Mussel expenses (line item 2). These funds will be spent on
related operating expenses for the spraydown program.
A reserve fund contribution of $10,000 has been budgeted. With a projected EWM reserve fund
balance of $95,191 by 12/31/99, this would reduce the reserve fund balance for EWlVl to
$85,191. By the year-end 2000, the District should attain the agreed upon 12 month reserve for
the EWlVl program.
· A transfer of $10,000 is budgeted to the Equipment Replacement reserve fund for equipment
depreciation.
Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
June 21, 1999
FranClark, Acting City Manager
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Fran:
Recently, Peter Johnson contacted me regarding his involvement with a citizen group interested
in closing heavy rail on the Dakota Rail corridor and converting the right-of-way to a recreational
trail. Based on information Peter has provided (as enclosed) there is a strong likelihood that rail
service could be permanently discontinued by the end of 1999.
In my view, this possibility offers some distinct benefits to redevelopment of downtown.
1) Alignment of the relocated CSAH 15 would be much simpler since we would not
have to cross the tracks at a near 90 degree angle.
2) There would be significant construction cost savings (likely over $100,000) by not
having to build a rail crossing at the new CSAH 15/rail intersection.
3) The parking lot connection contemplated between the Coast to Coast District and the
Auditors Road District will be difficult if not impossible with the rail in place but
very simple if the corridor were a trail.
4) The economic opportunities of having a recreational trail extend through the heart of
downtown Mound are tremendous.
Based on these thoughts, I asked Peter what the City of Mound might do to support the trail
effort. He indicated that public knowledge of an effort to use the corridor as a trail will likely
open a highly political debate with many people strongly opposing trail development. His desire
is that the Mound City Council be made aware of the issue but not begin any public discussion or
action until an appropriate time in the future.
This approach seems to make sense. So, at this time I am passing the information along to you
for distribution to the Council as an FYI item. I suggest that this is an issue the City of Mound
has a vested and timely interest in and is something in which the City will want to consider taking
an active role at some point in the future.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
Bruce Chamberlain
Mound Visions Coordinator
M:'qt40UNlSh99-24XDOCSYad_l.doc
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659
Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838
PETER W. JOHNSON
ATTORNEY AT LAW
DIRECT DIAL: (612) 275-7963
fl/' ~; .1999.
DATE:
ORIGINAl.. MAILED: H,~
FACSIMILE
FROM:
SENDER'S FAX NUMBER: (612) 4T2-6103
'nME: ~' 2~ ~,
NO. OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER
COMMENTS:
The information contained in this facsimile is attorney privileged and confidential. R is intended only
for the use of the person named above, ff the reader is not the intended recipient, you am hereby
Ilotlfled that any dissemin~tion, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
facsintile kt error, please notify us by telephone (612.495-1910), and return the original message to us
by U.S. Mail. We will reimbum you for any postage paid,
MEMO
By: Peter W. Johnson
Date: June 17, 1999
Re: Dakota Rail
I attended the joint meeting of the McLeod County Regional Authority and the Central
Prairie Railroad Association on June 17th at 9:00 a.m. Sheldon Neis chaired the meeting
on behalf of the McLeod County Regional Rail Authority (MRRA), Les Forman was the
chair of the Central Prairie Railroad Association (CPRA). In addition to myself,
representatives of the main shippers on the rail line were present. In addition, three vice-
presidents from RailAmerica were present Jack Couser and Bob Parker made most of the
statements on behalf of RailAmerica. Also present from RailAmerica was their local vice
president stationed in Fergus Falls.
At'the commencement of the meeting Sheldon Neis and Les Forman presented a "Survey
of Track Condition" dated May 14, 1999 and prepared by MNDOT. Representatives of
RailAmerica had not previously seen the report. No representative of MNDOT was present
at the meeting.
Jack Couser began the meeting by reporling that RailAmerica has failed in its effort to
operate the railroad profitably. While the railroad had "pre-tax net income" of $50,000.00
in its best year, RailAmerica is not willing to continue operating on a "substandard track."
Mr. Couser indicated that RailAmerica is at a point where it must receive funds to
rehabilitate the line or it will be forced to discontinue service. IVIr. Couser indicated that
he had considered and rejected various options, including the following:
Sal._.._~e. RaiiAmerica has investigated selling the rail line to other short line
operators. RailAmerica has discussed this possibility with all potential
buyers in the State of Minnesota. No operators are interested in taking over
the line.
Increase Revenue. Rail,America has evaluated its marketing efforts and has
determined that there are no additional revenue sources on the line,
Increasing traffic beyond the projections made by the Shippers Association
is impractical.
Reduce Costs. RailAmerica does not see any opportunities for reducing
costs. RailAmerica believes that it has done what it can to reduce costs. Mr.
Couser indicates that they cannot reduce personnel below its current level.
By:
Dated:
Page 2
Peter W. Johnson
June 17, 1999
Mr. Couser reported that the only way to continue operations is to receive outside money
tO rehabilitate the line.
Mr. Couser indicated that he and the other representatives of RailAmerica disagree
vehemently with MNDOT's repod. MNDOT's report states that the line can continue to be
operated in its current condition. Mr. Couser stated: that much of the rail dates back to
1888 and is more than 100 years old. a) The rail is brittle and that it is breaking frequently.
b) There have been 24 derailments in the last three years, with seven occurring so far this
year. c) RailAmerica has insurance for derailments, but the deductible is very high, d)
RailAmerica operates 16 railroads in the U.S_ and additional railroads in Canada, Chili,
and Australia. The derailment frequency on this short, unprofitable line is unacceptable.
The Dakota Line has had more derailments than any other eight railroads operated by
RailAmerica, in combination, e)The derailment experience on the Dakota Line is 1,500
times the national average (derailments per car/mile).
Mr. Couser reported that the derailment in New Germany, with the partial evacuation of the
city, cost the rail line more than $100,000.00. He indicated that when a derailment occurs,
it does more than simply delay shipments. The rail cars and the track bed are almost
always damaged when a derailment occurs.
Mr. Couser indicated that RailAmerica's average rail bed maintenance costs on the Dakota
Line have been $5,200.00 per mile. By way of comparison, the national average for
maintenance costs is $2,500.00 per mile for similar rail lines. Mr. Couser also said that
the maintenance costs on the line are averaging 20% of gross revenues. The track is 44
miles long. Maintenance costs have evidently been averaging $228,000,00 per year, with
gross revenues averaging $1.1 million. (These figures are probably based on rail
operations before RailAmedca declared a moratorium on transporting hazardous materials
in approximately March of 1999.)
Bob Parker of RailAmerica indicated that RailAmefica generally must have rail traffic equal
to 75 cars per mile per year in order to maintain their normal profit margins. However, on
the Dakota Line, Mr. Parker indicated that they would be satisfied with 50 cars per mile per
year, or 2,200 cars per year. At present, they are only transporting 640 cars per year. · The
Shippers Association has submitted written projections of future car volume. Their
projection as far out as 2003 is only 648 cars per year, In other words, the Shippers
Association projects virtually no growth in volume over the next four years.
Mr. Couser and Mr. Parker of RailAmerica recently met with Al Vogel of MNDOT. At the
meeting, RailAmerica was inquiring as to whether any form of public subsidy would be
made available to RailAmerica in order to continue operations. MNDOT indicated to
RailAmerica personnel that no public funds would be available because projected rail
By:
Dated:
Page 3
Peter W. Johnson
June 17, 1999
volumes were too Iow to justify the projected cost of rehabilitation. MNDOT's report
indicates that projected rehabilitation of the line would cost $8 million even if only
$100,000.00 was allocated to repairing railway bridges.
At earlier meetings, MNDOT had indicated that there was some possibility that MNDOT
would make a financial contribution if the Shippers Association came forward with a
significant capital improvement program. However, at the recent meeting with
RailAmerica, MNDOT personnel confirmed that MNDOT would not be making a financial
investment in the Dakota Line even if the shippers agreed to make a significant financial
contribution.
At the meeting. Sheldon Neis inquired whether charging a rate premium or rate surcharge
to shippers would help to fund rehabilitation of the rail line. RailAmerica personnel
indicated that they were already charging a surcharge and that any additional surcharges
would make its services noncompetitive with truck ,.transport. The shippers generally
agreed that paying additional surcharges would not be practical if the surcharges resulted
in transportation costs which exceeded truck transpod, costs.
The MNDOT repod suggests that derailments were caused by inexperienced personnel
or lack of a maintenance program. RailAmerica personnel disagreed, RailAmerica
indicated that its employees average more than seven years of experience and that none
of the derailment incidents were based upon improper operation. Bob Parker talked about
the technical aspects of the derailments and indicated that all of their investigations had
concluded that the derailments are being caused by bdttle rail, which is breaking under the
stresses caused by normal rail traffic.
There was some discussion between shippers and RailAmerica personnel about a "less
ambitious" capital improvement program, which would attempt to "patch together" an
operating rail line. in other words, the shippers wanted to discuss a capital improvement
project which would cost significantly less than $8 million, but would continue to insure rail
service to Hutchinson. RailAmerica personnel indicated that it might be possible to invest
several million dollars in a partial rehabilitation and thereby resolve the most immediate
safety and derailment concerns. However, RailAmerica personnel pointed out that the
portions of the line which were not immediately rehabilitated would soon become a
problem. RailAmerica would not expect that its maintenance costs would be reduced if a
partial rehabilitation was undertaken. Furthermore, given the fact that there is no projected
increase in traffic volume, RailAmerica personnel seemed skeptical that money from
outside sources would be made available for a partial rehabilitation. RailAmerica
personnel again discussed the fact that the current rail is more than 100 years old and Is
extremely brittle, and should be replaced entirely. Ballast on the line has not been
replaced or supplemented by any routine maintenance program over the last 15 years.
By:
Dated:
Page 4
Peter W. Johnson
June 17, 1999
As a consequence, the rail line needs hundreds of cars of ballast in order to continue
operations safely.
Jack Couser of RailAmerica indicated that he wanted a specific financial commitment for
capital improvements by Labor Day. He indicated that RailAmedca needs to discontinue
operation if the line can't be rehabilitated. Sheldon Neis requested that the deadline be
extended. Mr. Couser indicated that RailAmerica would not consider operating through
another Minnesota winter unless a rehabilitation project has been funded. He established
October 15, 1999 as the deadline by which the MRRA and/or the CPRA need to obtain
funding commitments for line rehabilitation. Mr. Couser reiterated that the moratorium on
transport of hazardous materials would have to remain in place at this time.
RailAmerica personnel evidently fixed a bridge in May of 1999 with the agreement that the
shippers would contribute $8,000.00 to the cost of repair. RailAmerica spent $25,000.00
in the repair and has requested the promised payment from all shippers. To date, only 3M
has paid for the corrections.
When Jack Couser and Bob Parker met with MNDOT personnel recently, they made a
proposal to "prepay" the amounts due to MNDOT (i.e. the interest free loan which requires
continued operation). They have not received any response to their proposal.
RailAmerica personnel indicated that they intended to meet all of their financial
responsibilities concerning the line and that RailAmerica would not simply walk away from
the line.
Sheldon Neis indicated that he and Les Forman will schedule a meeting with MNDOT (Al
Vogel) to discuss the possibility of obtaining federal funding of a rail rehabilitation project.
That meeting will be preliminary to a proposed meeting with Minnesota Senators Wellstone
and Grams,
Sheldon Neis indicated that MNDO'r's long-term light rail plan includes the Dakota Line.
However, he acknowledged that the line is a Iow pdority because there is no substantial
population base surrounding Hutchinson. He indicates that the rail line will not be
evaluated for light rail transport for at least 18 years, and that development of the line
would not be considered until lines have reached various "Downtown locations", St. Cloud,
Rochester, Duluth, etc.
Mr. Neis closed by saying that his first priority will continue to be to maintain rail traffic to
Hutchinson, Minnesota. He indicated that if rail traffic cannot be continued, his second
priority is to maintain the rail right of way for future transportation uses, including light rail.
21 10
By:
Dated:
Page 5
Peter W. Johnson
June 17, 1999
MNDOT's Survey of the Dakota Rail Line dated May 14, 1999 is attached hereto.
Enclosure
C:\WPDOC$~RAILROA~DAKRAIL.M£t
To' Carla Helgeson
From 'Jim Brandt
Subject · Dakota Rail track inspection
Mankato, MN.
May 14, 1999
On May 13, 1999 I inspected the Dakota Rail system, Wayzata -
Hutchinson. Harry Krog, General Manager, accompanied me on the hi-rail trip.
My last inspection of this Railroad was on August 28, 1997.
The track condition is generally good with no significm~t changes since
my 1997 inspection. The tie condition is well within FRA class 1 st,--mdards with
a few marginal areas scattered throughout thc line. Surface is generally good
with most surface irregularities in areas where the tie condition is marginal or
where the track bed is saturated on account of poor drainage.
No exceptions were taken during this inspection and all marginal
tie/surface areas could be repaired with the materials normally included in an
annual maintenance program. The exceptions taken during my AugUst 1997
inspection were repaired shortly after my inspection by a local track contractor
hired by Rail America. The work included changing out 30 defective rails,
install 500 ties, correct surface, and relay 1300' of 90# rail.
I took a few tie counts at random locations along the line and found 14 -
20 good ties per 39 ft. segment. FRA standards require a minimum of 5 ties for
class 1, and 8 ties for class 2-3. All joints appeared to comply with FRA
standards with at least 1 good tie per joint. FRA standards wouldn't necessarily
apply to this line on account of the light rail section, but the current tie
condition makes up for the rail section and will support the traffic on this line.
Bridges on the line are in good condition with only the bridges at Mile
Post 37.7 and 67.9 needing repairs. Turnouts are poor-fair condition 'with most
needing switch tie renewal. Most public crossings are in good condition with
the majority of the crossings renewed in the past 13 years.
The rail condition over the line ranges from fair-good with some surface-
bent rail scattered throughout the line. I noted 7 locations ,4,here the rail is
sur£ace-bcnt and/or thc Railroad has had problems. The locations noted are all
curves and include the curve at mile post 27 ( 500' ), 28.5 ( 1500' ), 32 { 750' ),
34 (750'), 36 ( 1000' ], 37 ( 500'] and 39 - 40.4 ( 1.4 miles ). The worst rail
condition on the line is in the curve at Mile Post 40.2. This curve has been
written up in the past for relay aha involves the replacement of 2300 trk./ft, of
qL/!
1
The number of broken rail in the track is the lo, vest its been since I
started inspecting this line in 1985. I fouled 470 in i992, 282 in 1997 and the
number is now below 150. With no ties or ballast to work with the track crew
has been spending the majority of its time changing out broken rail/bars.
Records show that only 750 ties, 2 cars of ballast and 1 truckoad of rail
have been purchased for the line sincc the '91-'92 project. For whatever reason
there hasn't been any routine maintenance progrm-n on this line since the
project and apparently that trend will continue. For some time now the track
crew has been removing the side tracks at Spring Park, New Germany, Lcstcr
Prairie and Silver Lake to recover materials so that they can continue some
Dspe oF m,dntenance.
Train operations and traffic levels on this line haven't changed since
Dakota Rail has been in operation and don't expect any ch .anges in the future.
Using a switch engine for power and with only a few ca_rs on each train the rail
has never been a problem.
Records show that this line has had only 2 reportable derailments 1986 -
1997, 1 in 1998 and 4 already this year This increase may be the result of
deferred maintenance over the past 7 years, the in. experienced train and track
personnel now employed with the Railroad or a combination of both. None of
the derailments on this line have been caused by rail.
If the Railroad is expecting a significant increase in tralfic a rail upgrade
of some kind should than be considered. Until that happens I see no reason
why normal operations can't continue with an on-going maintenance program
in place.
For your information I've encloscd thc following attachments
Number of ties and ballast installed during rehab.projects
2) Rail section summa~
Estimate to upgrade tine to class II
Mile Post
Location
Wayzata
25 - 26
26 - 27
27 - 28
--'-28 - 29
29 - 30
30-31
~ No.New Ties Installed
B.N. B,N. Rehab.Projects
'79 '83 '86-'87 '91-'92
SpringP~rk
31 - 32 1,000
32 - 33 500
Mound
33 34
34 - 35
35 -
36 - 37
St. Boni
38 - 39
39 - 40
40 -'41
41.-42
49. - 43
43 - 44
44 - 45
Mayer ._
45 - 46
46 - 47
47 - 48
48 - 49
600 '"
500 1,042
1,500 26
1,000 31
1,000 20 1
667 '
450
1,232
· 1,270
1,348
446
1,000
674
906
286
337
130
53
New Germany 49 - 50
50 - 51
52 - 53
Lester Prairie
53 -- 54
54 - 55
55 - 56
56 - 57
57 - 58
58 - 59
59.- 60
Su~-total
8OO
900'
900
400
285
1,360
1,751
456
90O
461
Total
( No.Cszs B-11ast
Rehab. Projects
'86-'87 '91-'92
,000 1,000 1
891 1,491
125 1,667 11
122 .. !,648. 2
476 1,507
226 1,246 3
i4 1,681
403 1,353
1,232
195 1,465
106' '1,448
~37 1,283
108 I, 108
364 .... -1,'~3~
835
26 932
574 860
337
574 704
172 228
174 1,344
415 815
136 42i'
1,751
571 1,8.2.7
: 1,800
337 1,698
900 808 2'D 1,987
800 1,149 370 2,319
800 879 40.! ~,_080
800 t,052
1,100 299 1,399
1;200 512 81' ' 1,793
1,200 200 1,400
I$,500 21,942 [ 9,827 47,272
Total
12 13
"'5 13
8 19
4 6
6 6
5
12 12
il 8 19
9
30
10
i4
7 16
6 36
6 16
3 17
22
14
14
16
16
4
6
5
5
5
6
I0
8
7
27
13
19
20
26
24
I4
13
15
9
23
1
2
12
16
12
23
6 3 9
8 5 13
8 8"
3 4 7
10 5
14 6
2O 8
10 .....
7 5
2 3
- 360 ' I97
15
21
28
12
12
8
557
.~qT~an r~wn :.~gl lU~.~
61 -62
6~ - 63
63 - 64
64 - 65
65 - 66
66 - 67
Mile Post B.N,
Location '79
Sub-total pg. 1._ .. -0-
60 - 61 1 000
1 000
1 000
1.000
1 000
1 000
1. 000
67 - 68 300
68 - Hutch I
Totals -7,300. 15,5(5'0 21,4~0" 12,45_.8 ...... 56,~591
( No, New Ties Installed [ { No,
B,N, Rehab,Projects Rehab,ProJects
~83 ~86-'87 '91-~92 Torsi '86-'87 '91-'92 Total
.1..5,500 '-21,942 9,827 47,272 _ 360 ... 197 .... 557
'- 150 1,150 3 3
304 1.,.304 3 3'
301 1 ~301 '
290 1,290 4 4"
-~32 1,~3~ 4 4
278 !,278 2
300 1,300 1 1
876 1,176 1
360 218 " 578
Carla
The figures shown above do not include the ties and ballast installed by Jerry Ross.
The records I have are incomplete, but show 5,000 new ties and ?,000 tons of ballast.
Records show a total of 56,691 new ties were installed in the various upgrades on
this line, which is an average of 1290 ties/mile or 43% replacement. Upgrades on other
projects have been averaging 900 ties/mile or 30% replacement.
The ballast figures do not show the ballast placed by the B.N. in 1979 and 1983,
Records show a sled job Mile Post .58 - Hutchinson in 1979, which requires a full ballast
dump, and surface corrections over the system in 1983
Records show 578 cars or 47,000 tons were placed on this line during the two ( 2 }
MN,/DOT projects or an average of 1050 tons per mile. Other projects average 1200
tons/mile.
Rail Section
Station
Mile Post
W__~ffzata
24,5 - 25.8
25.8 - 2~,§
25.9 - 27.5
27.5 - 27,69.
27.62 - 30.7
Spring. Park
30.7 - 32.4
Mound
32.4
32,65 - 33.8
33.8 - 35.0
35.0 -33.2
39.0 - 39,5
39.5 - 40.3
40.3 - 40.75
40.75 - 42.0
42.0 - 4~..'16
42.16 - 43,0
43.0 - 43.43
'43.43 - 44.0
44,0 - 44.9
56#
1.2
1,25
,84
,57"
44.9 - 46.0 ...... 1.1
46,0 - 46.46
46.46 - 49.0 2.54
New Germany
49.0 - 50.0 1.0
50.0 - 51.18
51,18 - 52.5 1.32
Lester Pralxie
52.5 - 60.1 7.6
Silver Lake
60,1 - 68.5 ' 8.4
Hutchinson
31.05
66#
1,3
1,6
3.0~
1.7
1.15
8.2
9O#
.12
100#
.2
.5
.16
.43
.9
.46
1.18
4.29 .46
Curve
curve.
Curve
cu'rve
C~rve
Dakota Rail Class II Estimate
Note: Unit cost includes most recent contractor" bid prices ~ to furnish material & install.
90# rail to tie into existing 90-100# rail.
quantity U/..M unit. Co_st.. Total Cost
411,840 Ln'./ft $14
7 Each" $ 15,000 8~,000
'f050 {'rk..~ ft "$ 200 210,000
'" 5,ooo E' ich $'3o "- 45o,ooo
'35,000 T°ns $ 15 525,600
'232,000 Trk.ft $0.65 149,500
Lump Sum 100,000
Lump Sum .... 50,000
Lump SuTM 50,000
$7,385,260
Description
Relay 39 miles 90# no. 1 relay
Upgrade 8 turnouts
~ll~grade public xings'
N0. f relay ties - 340 ti~s-/'~niic
Ballast - 8 cars/mile
Surface 44 miles
Repair 2 bridges
l~ai~age improvements ....
Brush removal
Z
Z
3ent By: LAW OFFZCE; 6124720311; Jun-18-99 6:35PM; Page 1411b
~ Z
~_~20
CITY OF MOUND
DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
JUNE 17, 1999
Present were: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners Orvin Burma, Frank Ahrens and Greg
Eurich, and Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present were Park Director Jim
Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey and Secretary Kristine Kitzman.
Absent was: Commissioner Mark Goldberg
Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
1. MINUTES
Motion was made by Ahrens, seconded by Burma, to approve the minutes of
the May 20, 1999 DCAC meeting as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Agenda approved as amended: Remove Item Number 8 to July.
3. REVIEW: PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT
Mark Hanus, 4446 Denbigh Road
Councilmember Hanus stepped down for this discussion.
Park Director Fackler reported on the request for a public lands permit as detailed in the
staff report of June 11, 1999. Staff recommends approval as requested with the condition
that the applicant shall work with the Parks Director to complete the rip rap according to
the normal permit requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), and
the City shall obtain the permit. This recommendation will come before the Council on
June 22, 1999.
Councilmember Hanus questioned whether the subject of rip rap needs to go to the City
Council, as in the staff report, Building Official Jon Sutherland stated it was considered
maintenance and does not need to go to Council.
Park Director Fackler stated he is uncertain, but the Building Official, Jon Sutherland has
talked to the MCWD, and he has a better feel for this question.
Chair Funk asked to have the Building Official clarify whether the issue of the rip rap does,
or does not, need to go before the City Council.
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Funk, to recommend approval of the
Public Lands Permit for Mark Hanus, 4446 Denbigh Road. Motion carried
unanimously.
4. REVIEW: PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT
Ed Gordon, 4737 Island View Drive
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission June 17, 1999
Park Director Fackler reported on the request for a public lands permit as detailed in the
staff report of June 11, 1999. Staff recommends a permit be approved as requested
subject to a final inspection and approval by the Building Official at the completion of the
'project.
Chair Funk questioned if the wall can come up to the stairway evenly, without an adjoining
problem.
Mr. Gordon stated it would be even, and look very nice.
Commissioner Ahrens asked for some clarification from Mr. Gordon regarding the detail
of the proposed changes.
Mr. Gordon proceeded to explain that the sketch included in the information packet,
detailing what is now in existence, and the changes he wishes to make.
Commissioner Eurich asked how much of the changes were on Commons property.
Councilmember Hanus answered that the majority of the changes are on Commons
property. However, most of the land is not traversable.
Commissioner Ahrens stated he believes it looks like a good improvement.
Commissioner Burma asked what happens if Mr. Gordon moves away and the new owner
does not take care of these shrubs.
Councilmember Hanus stated these changes will help stop erosion also, and the area is
more likely to go back to wild than end up barren.
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Funk to recommend approval of the
Public Lands Permit for Ed Gordon, 4737 Island View Drive. Motion carried
unanimously.
5. DISCUSS: RULES AND REGULATIONS ON MULTIPLE SLIP DOCKS
Park Director Fackler reported on the subject of dock rules and regulations, stating that this
subject has been discussed superficially at past meetings. Some safety and aesthetic
concerns have been brought to the City recently that may fall under dock rules and
regulations. Especially as it pertains to boat lifts.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey then stated he had contacted various marinas and nearby cities,
and found that they do not allow boat lifts at all.
Commissioner Ahrens pointed out that some City docks could handle lifts, and questioned
whether all lifts should be banned, or if some spots could' be permitted to have them.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission June 17, 1999
Commissioner Burma questioned the wisdom of separating the dock sites like that, which
could cause very bad feeling with many slip holders.
Commissioner Ahrens also questioned the acceptance of a hoist for smaller boats and
personal watercraft.
Councilmember Hanus pointed out that the language for the area of personal watercraft
includes the lift. These lifts are much smaller and not as cumbersome to move in and out.
Chair Funk pointed out that the Policy could be no lifts, and a special variance could be
applied for if there is a real need.
Jorj Ayaz, 4844 Islandview Drive, addressed the Commission regarding the fact that he has
a boat that is deemed too big for the dock. Mr. Ayaz stated his preference to slip his boat
pointing at the shore, as it is easier to dock this way than parallel to the shore.
Commissioner Ahrens brought up the fact that there is one single dock alongside this
multiple, which causes the multiple to be too far in front of someone's house. Ahrens
would like to insist on these single dock holders either joining the multiple dock, or move
them to a different area.
Councilmember Hanus asked how Mr. Ayaz would respond if the water level were to go
down two feet, as his boat may not be able to be kept at that site if that happens.
Mr. Ayaz stated if the lake goes down two feet, no boats will be able to be docked there.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey stated his concern is that no limitations have been put on the
multiples as yet, so when someone comes up with a larger boat, they fully expect to be
able to use the slip they used for their smaller boat.
Park Director Fackler stated that the LMCD also states boat sizes must be limited.
Mr. Ayaz asked if the dock site allows for a larger boat, why would the City limit the size of
the boat to less than the dock can handle. If the water goes down, that is an act of nature
that Mr. Ayaz himself would expect to deal with.
Park Director Fackler pointed out that additional bumpers would have to be added down
the dock, and Mr. Miller, the abutter on top of the hill, should be approached for his opinion
of any changes.
Commissioner Burma stated this change seems to make sense, as it would be easier and
safer to dock the boat as Mr. Ayaz has requested. Also, having the boat perpendicular to
the shore is more aesthetically pleasing.
'Chair Hanus stated it is not the intention that this slip be made a 27 foot slip. This is a
circumstance where Mr. Ayaz is waiting for a different slip when available, which will
accommodate his 27 foot boat. .
3
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission June 17, 1999
Commissioner Ahrens stated that when there is a site that is undesirable, at some point,
these back sites should be eliminated, keeping open only the primary sites.
Park Director Fackler stated that for next season, regulation of boat size needs to be set,
as this type of problem, boats coming in larger sizes, will continue to come up, likely more
often. He noted that goals and objectives need to be set for each site an basic rules need
to be put down in writing soon.
Mr. Ayaz asked why slips are limited in size, if there is enough spabe for a larger boat.
Discussion followed by all pointing out various concerns about larger boats. Consensus
was reached that each site has different concerns, and this question is not easily answered
in a general fashion. Mr. Ayaz understood and appreciated the attempt to explain some
of the various issues to him.
Motion made by Funk, seconded by Burma, to approve the request made by
Mr. Ayaz for temporary relocation of his boat, and to direct staff to first talk to
abutting owners for their consent. Motion carried unanimously.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey brought up a phone call he had received from a woman who
uses Pembroke Park, and is very angry about the multiple dock being put at the park,
ruining the view and swimming at the park.
Commissioner Ahrens pointed out that this dock had been in front of an abutters' front
window previously and the Commons area is where the dock belongs.
Park Director Fackler stated that the issue of boat lifts has not been decided and a policy
is needed.
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Burma, to disallow boat lifts at City
docks. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Ahrens stated that boat size needs to be discussed fairly soon, as issues
are being raised presently. Other cities have fairly strict limitations on boat size, and
Mound is in need of some limits.
Park Director Fackler stated some flexibility is needed to accommodate people coming into
the multiple dock system. However, once the system is established, the limit should be
strictly kept.
Commissioner Ahrens suggested that discussion on boat size be added to the agenda for
July, and asked staff to get the boat size limitations for surrounding communities.
Commissioner Burma pointed out that this information is in the April 27th City Council
minutes.
6. DISCUSS: MOUND CITY DOCKS SITES/SLIPS WITHOUT BOAT USE
4
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission June 17, 1999
Councilmember Hanus summarized past conversations of City docks/slips without boat
· use, noting that opinions are quite mixed. Some feel that if there is a dock, there should
be a boat. Others believe that docks have other uses, including but not limited to fishing,
or just sitting near the water.
Chair Funk suggested "locking onto" people who may be abusing the system such as
keeping the dock in case a relative or friend wants to use it.
Commissioner Ahrens stated that if an abutter chooses to pay for a dock location and then
not put in a dock, they should have that right.
Commissioner Burma stated that if nonabutters are required to put in a boat to keep their
space, and abutters are not required to put in a boat to keep their space, this may be a
very unfriendly way to handle the situation.
Councilmember Hanus stated that somehow there may be a way to "draw the line"
between people who are keeping the dock for an erroneous or wasteful reason, and people
'who have a use for the dock other than keeping a boat. Possibly a letter offering options
and correct information regarding the fact that a spot on a dock does not go with a house
if and when the house is sold. This would give those people with a dock but no boat the
option of subletting or sharing their dock.
Park Director Fackler stated there are approximately 30 spots that did not register a boat
on their dock or slip.
Councilmember Hanus stated the letter also should come back to the Commission before
being sent out.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey stated he will draft the letter and present it to the Commission
in July.
7. DISCUSS: TO THE YEAR 2000 DOCK FEES
Park Director Fackler stated that the dock fees Public Hearing will be held in July. If there
is any information the DCAC members would like to have prior to that hearing, staffwould
like the requests soon.
Councilmember Hanus stated Mound may be charging to high dock fees now, as the fund
is quite high. However, there is a potential for this fund to be depleted soon.
Commissioner Ahrens asked if it would be possible to get revenue and expenditure
projections to assist in the discussion of future dock fees.
10:00 p.m. Motion made by Funk, seconded by Ahrens to extend the meeting
for 15 minutes. Motion passed unanimously.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission June 17, 1999
Councilmember Hanus stated that he does not believe the City Council will not enter into
any agreement that will cause the dock fund to be depleted enough to cause any serious
cash flow problem or a reason to force the City to raise dock fees. However, nothing of
course, is 100% certain.
Park Director Fackler stated that staffwill bring a memo to the DCAC in July requesting no
change in dock fees for the 2000 season. A notice will be put in the paper advertising the
Public Hearing.
DISCUSS: DCAC RESTATEMENT OF PRINCIPALS RELATING TO DOCK AND
COMMONS
Remove from agenda, rescheduled to July.
9. DISCUSS: JULY DCAC AGENDA
To be included on the July agenda are:
Public Hearing on Year 2000 Dock Fees
Discuss: DCAC Restatement of Principals Relating to Dock and Commons
Discuss: Boat size limitations on multiple docks
Review letter to dock/slip holders regarding docks with no boat use
Review and discuss survey's received
***For August:
Continue discussion of multiple dock on Kenmore Commons
Discussion of additional multiple dock locations
***For September
Discussion of Devon access
10,
FYI
A)
B)
C)
D)
LMCD INFORMATION
POSC MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MONTHLY EVENTS CALENDAR
11. REPORTS
A) CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE
No report at this time.
B) PARK DIRECTOR
No report at this time.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission
June 17,1999
10.
C) DOCK INSPECTOR
No report at this time.
ADJOURN
Motion made by Eurich, seconded by Burma, to adjourn the meeting at 10:15
p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
June 24, 1999
Mr. Edward Shuckle Jr.
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364-1687
Northern States Power Company
414 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
Telephone (612) 330-5500
Dear Edward Shuckle Jr.,
I am writing to let you know about an exciting NSP project in the Twin Cities Metro area
that will enhance NSP' s ability to provide quality service to our customers. NSP is working in
conjunction with CellNet Data Systems, Inc. to deploy technology to remotely read electric and
natural gas meters via radio signal. NSP plans to automate its residential and business meters in
stages, with completion scheduled for the summer of 2000. We anticipate that this technology
will remove some current barriers to monthly meter reads that limit our ability to read the meters
regularly and force us to estimate usage.
In order to remotely read our meters, CellNet is installing a radio frequency
communication network. We anticipate utilizing existing right-of-way or NSP property and
equipment to deploy most of the network infrastructure. CellNet will seek the appropriate
approvals and/or permits for your community prior to any deployment in your community.
The network is comprised of"CellMasters" and "MicroCell Controllers." Each
CellMaster is like a hub ora wheel, and depending on the density of the area, receives radio-
generated meter data from a 50-200 square-mile area. The CellMaster antenna is typically
mounted on an existing structure. The MicroCell Controller collects data from individual meters
and passes it to a CellMaster. Each MicroCell Controller is approximately 15"x 12"x 12", and
operates on a much weaker radio frequency than the CellMaster, and therefore must be installed
about every 1/4 mile. We anticipate that most MicroCell Controllers can be installed on NSP
electric distribution poles, but in some areas they may need to be installed on other structures,
such as streetlights. CellNet anticipates the need to install approximately 50 CellMasters and
6,500 MicroCell Controllers in the metro area.
In addition to the installation of the network, all NSP meters will be replaced with an
automated meter that can communicate with this network. The automated meter looks much the
same as the existing meter, but contains a radio transmitter to communicate with the network,
which in turn communicates back to NSP. In general, meter automation (vill begin
approximately 30 days after the start of the network installation.
The geographically based implementation of the network has already begun in the high
density areas of the metro area of the Twin Cities. NSP and CellNet have completed most of
Minneapolis and the metro west suburbs and are now currently installing equipment in the
southern suburbs of the metro east area and St. Paul. From there, the plan is to complete the
network in St. Paul and move into the northern suburbs. Automation of the electric and gas
commercial meters are planned to begin in the second quarter of 1999 and will join up with the
existing geographic rollout.
As the project approaches your community over the coming months, I will be contacting
you with more specific information about how the implementation affects your community. If
you have any questions, please contact me at (612) 630-4282. If you have any additional
questions, please call our project hotline at (612) 630-4900.
Sincerely,
James H. R,hodes
Community Relations Manager
c. Gregg Larson, CellNet Data Systems
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612} 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 tax
http:/ /www. kennedy-graven.com
MEMORANDUM
J,~-51ES M. STROMMEN
Attorney at La~
Direct Dial (612) 337-9233
email: jstrommen~ kennedy-gra~ eh.corn
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
SRA Executive Committee
Jim Strommen
July 8, 1999
SRA Executive Committee Meeting
There will be an Executive Committee meeting before the Board meeting. We will meet at
3:30 p.m. at Woodbury City Hall to discuss and provide a recommendation on the following
issues:
o
Positions to be taken by the SRA in the NSP undergrounding case.
Provide a recommendation regarding support of municipalities as electric
aggregators on behalf of residents and small businesses.
Consider the Energy Cents resolution request.
Provide a recommendation on assessments and fees for the year 2000.
There are some important issues currently before the SRA. Your input is extremely valuable in
this process.
JMS-165428
5U160-3
ven
T ~' R
E D
470 Pillsburv Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
http://www, kennedy-graven.com
J.4~MES M. STROMMEN
Attorney at La~
Direct Dial (612) 33"-9233
e-mail:jstrommen~ kennedy-graven.corn
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates
Suburban Rate Authority
July 8, 1999
Notice of Quarterly SRA Meeting
On July 21, 1999, at 4:00 p.m., the Woodbury City Hall, Woodbury, Minnesota, the SRA will
hold its quarterly meeting (map attached).
It is important to have a quorum of the members at this meeting. There are a number of
issues for action at this meeting that significantly affect SRA cities and the SRA itself. Your
presence and input are highly valued.
Please RSVP to Shannon Stang (612) 337-9279 or sstang~kennedy-graven.com, no later than
10:00 a.m. July 19, 1999.
JMS-165430
SU160-3
N
1-94 and
Radio Drive
1-494 and
Valley Creek Read
v/ Bury
Wo-odbury City Hall
Valley Creek Road and Radio Drive
DIRECTIONS TO CITY HALL
From Internee 94
Exit at Radio Ddve (County Road 13) and head south on Radio Drive.
Follow Radio Drive for opprox~mately 2 re,es past shopl~ng, Tamarack Road, Seasor~s
Parkway, offices, residential au'aaa, Donegal Ddve and City Centre Drive.
Just after City Centre Drive take a right onto Valley Creek Road and move to the left; turn
lane immediately.
Take your first left into the entrance to City Hall.
From Interstate 494
Exit at Valley Creek Road (County Road 16) and head, east on Valley Creek Road.
Follow Valley Creek Road for nearly 2 miles past Woodlane Drive, Queens Drive,
shopping, offi~.--es and Tower Drive,
Just after Tower Drive take a right into the City Hall paH<ing lot.
AGENDA FOR THE QUARTERLY
MEETING OF THE
SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY
Woodbury City Hall, Woodbury, Minnesota
July 21, 1999
4:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER:
2. ROLL CALL:
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
4. REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
COMMUNICATIONS:
Email Communication (Memorandum # 1)
OLD BUSINESS:
Area Code Final Order (Memorandum #2)
CIP Lost Margins Order (Memorandum #3)
ROW Ordinance Gas/Electric Franchise Activity (Memorandum #4)
Telephone Rate Geographic Deaveraging (Memorandum #5)
- Gas and Electric Retail Choice Docket--Municipalities as
Aggregators (Memorandum #6)
- Energy Cents Request (Memorandum #7)
- Cost of PUC Proceedings (Memorandum #8)
e
NEW BUSINESS:
- Approval of Year 2000 Budget, Rates and Member
Assessments (2000 Census) (Memorandum g9)
8. LOCATION OF NEXT MEETING;
9. CLAIMS
10. ADJOURNMENT
JMS-165431
$U160-3
A I~ T
E D
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
htt p://www, kennedy-graven.com
MEMORANDUM
JAMES M. STROMMEN
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (012) 337-9233
MEMO #1
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Altemates
Suburban Rate Authority
July 8, 1999
Email Communication
For those of you participating in the ema?l communication that has been established, it has
proven to be a cost saving, communication-enhancing vehicle for the SRA. I am able to
communicate much more quickly and directly to SRA membership regarding issues as they arise.
SPA member representatives in turn have been able to respond quickly and provide valuable
opinions on issues as they develop.
This communication is to urge all SPA members to establish an email address with Kennedy &
Graven so that all members can received the same benefits regarding communication on issues.
Every email that is sent saves the SRA approximately 50¢ in saved postage and paper.
JM5-165436
5U160-3
Ken!? edy
CHARTERED
-470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
h ttp:/A~%~c, ken nedy-graven.com
MEMORANDUM
JAMES M. STROMMEN
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612)337-9233
email: jstrommen~ kenned.,,-gra~ et~ corn
MEMO #2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates
Suburban Rate Authority
July 8, 1999
Area Code Final Order
On May 26, 1999, the PUC issued its final Order alter reconsideration on the area code splits for
the Twin Cities metropolitan area. In a truly significant decision for municipalities, the PUC
confirmed the Twin Cities as the only metropolitan area in the United States to adopt area code
splits along municipal boundaries. Commissioners Johnson, Jacobs and Scott were strong allies of
the importance of maintaining community along by dividing area codes municipal boundaries.
Commissioners Koppendrayer and Garvey favored the overlay, but not without acknowledging the
importance of municipal boundaries. They, however, believe that the additional cost (estimated to
be S30 million) to establish boundaries along municipal boundaries was not justified. There will be
no more reconsideration of this issue.
The following are the highlights of the decision:
On February 15, 2000, permissive dialing will begin for the two new area codes to
be drawn along municipal boundaries near the 1-394 corridor.
Municipal boundaries will be maintained until the westem border of Orono, at
which point wire center boundaries will be used. The GTE boundaries will be along
wire centers affecting a total of six customers in the city of Orono and customers in
the cities of Medina and Minnetrista.
Alter implementation of the municipal area code boundaries, US West has
indicated, it will seek recovery of the incremental cost fi.om ratepayers by petition to
the PUC. The SRA opposed and the Commission also opposed any decision on
recovery of cost prior to such a petition.
JMS-165438
SU160-3
July 8, 1999
Page 2
The area code change for the northwest and southwest Minneapolis suburbs will
occur simultaneously and promise to be a long-term solution to the exhaust
problem. Minneapolis, Richfield and St. Anthony will retain the (612), but also face
a short exhaust period (4 to 7 years). This will require either the implementation of
the overlay in the 612 area or a further split along wire center boundaries.
Of critical importance in the procedure was the existence of a joint powers organization
representing many municipalities. Almost every time a border issue was discussed, I was able to
indicate that the affected city was an SRA member. This clearly caused the PUC to listen to our
position, a position that could not have been advanced by a single municipality or even a small
group of municipalities.
Also critical in this process was the unanimity of SPA members. I would have been obligated to
disclose support for the overlay had any SPA member strongly supported it. The fact that no SPA
cities supported the overlay or other proposal and all SPA cities felt municipal boundaries were
important, created great momentum and influence in this discussion. The SRA position was
assisted greatly by the Department of Public Service and the Minnesota Business Utility Users
Council.
In sum, the SPA accomplished what could not have been done without the SPA and the
membership numbers it has. It is a true example of the need for this organization and the critical
mass necessary to maintain it.
JMS-165438
SU160-3
Ken?. edy
C H A R T E R E D
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
http://www, kennedy-graven.com
MEMORANDUM
JAMES M. STROMMEN
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612)337-9233
email: j strommen~kennedy-graven.com
MEMO #3
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates
Suburban Rate Authority
July 8, 1999
CIP Lost Margins Order
In another significant victory for ratepayers, aided by the SRA, the PUC accepted the arguments
advanced by Dahlen Berg in denying lost margin recovery for both gas and electric utility serving
SRA customers. (See Bill Glahn report attached). This will result in a rate savings to SRA
member customers of at least $12.5 million dollars for the next year alone.
Mr. Glahn indicated that adding the SRA to the customers challenging this lost margin recovery
was a very important to the argument. Dahlen Berg had represented only large end user customers
and not the broader cross section represented by SRA by ratepayers living in the SRA cities. This
gave a much broader base to the argument and was taken into consideration by the PUC when
evaluating the arguments. The SRA in turn benefited from the work done, the analysis carried out
by Dahlen Berg and the fact that it supported a prevailing argument.
JMS-165440
5U160-3
DAHLE:N~ R£RG & I~.0.
ENERGY SUPPLY MANAGEMENT
July 8, 1999
James M. Strommen
Attorney
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
470 Pillsbury Center
200 S. Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Dear Mr. Strommen:
I am writing to update you on our effort in the Demand Side Management (DSM) Lost Margins
case before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC). In the latest development, the
PUC followed our recommendation to deny Northern States Power Company (NSP) its request
to recover $33.8 million in lost margins and DSM bonuses for 1998. In addition, the PUC
granted our request to begin an investigation into NSP's current electric rates.
Savings to SRA Ratepayers Estimated at $12.5 Million in Next 12 Months
We estimate that-- if the forthcoming PUC order is upheld-- this decision will save ratepayers
in SRA cities approximately $12.5 million over the next twelve months.
Earlier this year, NSP projected that its CIP surcharge rate would have increased to 4.61
percent in July 1999, if NSP had (1) kept the same incentive structure that was in place before
we became involved in this case, and (2) been allowed to recover its 1998 lost margins and
bonuses. The difference between NSP's projection of 4.61 percent and our estimate for a
revised CIP surcharge of 1.59 percent (after removing the $33.8 million in denied incentives
from rates) represents annual savings of more than $46 million for NSP's ratepayers. As the
ratepayers in SRA cities are estimated to represent approximately 25 to 30 percent of NSP's
total customer base, SRA ratepayers would receive approximately $11.5 to 13.8 million in
savings in the next year.
NSP Has Proposed to Modify its Lost Margins and DSM Incentive Structure
In an April 16~ filing, NSP proposed a plan to modify its system for future recovery of lost
margins and other DSM financial incentives. NSP's plan would reduce its lost margin recovery
while increasing the size of its DSM bonus.
NSP's Proposal May Save SRA Ratepayers an Additional $10 Million Over 5 Years
One estimate of the total cost for NSP's proposed incentives indicates that NSP ratepayers
would save approximately $39 million over the cost of NSP's current incentive structure during
the five-year period 2000 through 2004.
Again, based on the assumption that ratepayers in SRA cities represent 25 to 30 percent of
NSP's total customer base, SRA ratepayers would receive approximately $9.8 to 11.7 million
in savings over this five-year period. Savings would then continue in later years.
120 SOUTH SIXTH STREET, SUITE 850
iMINNEAPOtlS, MINNESOTA 55,402 I PHONE 612/349-6868 [ FAX
Mr. James Strommen
July 8, 1999
Page 2
$36 Million is Still at Stake for SRA Ratepayers
Despite NSP's proposal to reduce lost margin recovery, it has been estimated that up to $136
million may still be at stake for NSP ratepayers over the next five years, with SRA ratepayers'
share at approximately $36 million. Of course, we continue to advocate the complete
elimination of both lost margin recovery and DSM bonuses and we will continue pursuing this
issue at the PUC.
If you have any questions, please call me at (612) 252-6518.
Very truly yours,
Dahlen, Berg & Co.
William L. Glahn
T E
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
h ttp://www, kennedy-graven.com
MEMORANDUM
J,",MES M. STROMMEN
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9233
cmaiI: j strommcn~ kenn¢cly-graven.com
MEMO #4
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates
Suburban Rate Authority
July 8, 1999
ROW Ordinance Gas/Electric Franchise Activity
The PUC ROW rules have been promulgated and draft of the League Model Ordinance has been
circulated to SRA members.
A number of cities are now adopting the ROW ordinance and franchises on expired gas and electric
franchises with existing utilities. This process will identify those issues of continuing dispute over
the interpretation of the 1997 ROW Act. Cities still maintain significant autonomy over the ROW
as used by gas and electric colnpanies.
NSP is taking the most aggressive position in franchise negotiations. The disagreement comes in
determining which of the PUC rules is to be incorporated in the franchise and which are simply left
to be enforced outside the franchise. Note that a franchise needs to be neaotiated and the ROW
ordinance does not. The ROW ordinance is a unilateral police power act and a franchise is
regarded as a contract, with the right of cities ultimately to enforce reasonable provisions.
JMS-165576
SU16~-3
h A
R T E R
E D
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
http:/ /~ww'.kennedy-graven.com
MEMORANDUM
JAMES M. STROMMEN
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612~ 337-9233
email: jstrommen~'kennedy-gra~ eh.co m
MEMO #5
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates
Suburban Rate Authority
July 8, 1999
Telephone Rate Geographic Deaveraging
Initial comments have been submitted by the Department of Public Service and the Office of the
Attorney General on the new geographic deaveraging docket. The SRA has been authorized to
intervene in this docket. The issue of retail rate distinctions based on geographical location with be
considered and ultimately adopted in this docket.
As background, federal law provides that state commissions are to establish at least three telephone
rate zones in any given state. The US West generic cost proceeding established the different
population densities and impact on cost in the wholesale rate context. Eventually, these findings
will be used to establish retail rates in the various areas of the state. A major requirement before
geographic deaveraging is implemented is the establishment of the Universal Service Fund to
equalize disparate rates. The cost of serving rural areas is much higher than serving urban areas.
The DPS has proposed a rate distinction to be drawn along wire center boundaries, based on their
density. It is likely that such a basis will favorably affect ratepayers in most SRA cities. Only the
outlying, largely undeveloped areas of SRA cities in the outer metro regions may not experience
rate drops. Ratepayers living in cities in the inner-tiers of the metro area, e.g., Golden Valley,
Edina, Roseville, will probably benefit from geographic deaveraging.
We will monitor the developments in this case.
JMS-165568
SU16~-3
T E
470 Pillsburv Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
htr p://www, kenncdy-graven.co m
MEMORANDUM
JAMES M. STROMMEN
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 33%9233
email: 3 strommen ~,kennedy-gra,, eh.corn
MEMO #6
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates
Suburban Rate Authority
July 8, 1999
Gas and Electric Retail Choice--Municipalities as Aggregation Agents
The SRA Executive Committee has given authority to the SRA to intervene in a newly opened docket
investigating retail choice in the delivery of electric and gas services. This implicates all ratepayers, not just
large end users. This is a process that will be led by the Department of Public Service and culminate in a
report to the legislature in the year 2001.
As you know from a previous communication, there has been an inquiry from the PUC as to the interest of
municipalities enacting as aggregators for their ratepayers. This is separate and apart from the issue now
being discussed at the Met Council level involving aggregation ofmuniciaal customers. This issue involves
a municipality, acting alone or with other municipalities, negotiating with power providers on behalf of
residents and small business customers who opt into such a program. The rationale is based on the
collective bargaining approach and the lack of controls otherwise available to insure that other individual
residents will be treated fairly in a deregulated environment. Municipalities could clearly act as aggregation
agents on their own or through joint powers.
I have received only limited comments on the idea and invite discussion at the July 21 Board meeting. Prior
to that time, I will be attending a legislative update on this issue at the League of Cities. I have received
information from the League representative that it would be very interested in pursuing an opportunity to
establish municipalities as having a right to act as aggregators. The potential benefit to a city and its
ratepayers would appear to be significant in this area. It would not be something that a municipality would
be required to undertake against its will. Rather, some legislative or PUC delegated authority would grant
municipalities the right to act on behalf of their ratepayers.
This appears to be an opportunity for SRA cities to engage in a discussion regarding the benefits of such a
framework, before a receptive PUC. It would also provide the opportunity to establish the framework its¢t f
to benefit both the cities and their ratepayers.
If you are unable to attend the July 21 meeting, I would welcome you email or voicemail responses.
JMS-165468
SU163-3
2042
R t E R E
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
t612) 337-9310 fax
htrp:/ /www. kennedy-graven.com
MEMORANDUM
JAMES ~/I. STROMMEN
Attome~ at Law
Direct Dial (612) 33'7-9233
email: jstrommen~kennedy-graven.com
MEMO #7
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates
Suburban Rate Authority
July 8, 1999
Energy Cents Request--Resolution
I received a call from Pam Marshall, Director of Energy Cents Coalition, regarding residential
customer rates in a deregulated electric environment. As some SRA cities are aware, this public
interest ~oup has sought municipal resolutions supporting fair rates for residential customers in a
deregulated environment (proposed resolution attached). Energy Cents is very active in seeking
federal and state regulatory and legislative support to provide safety nets for the most impoverished
ratepayers. Energy Cents has been involved in rate cases on these issues.
Attached is the draft resolution that has been circulated to and passed by some cities. Some SRA
members have requested the SRA to consider this resolution. Ms. Marshall has also asked the SRA
to consider this issue and potentially take a position supporting fair rates for all ratepayers in a
deregulated environment that could potentially benefit only the large users to the detriment of
smaller customers.
This issue triggers the discussion of municipal aggregation also. Ms. Marshall expressed her strong
endorsement of municipalities acting as agents for residential users, rather than relying on the
market to provide representation. She has provided me with a number of resources on the
aggregation and deregulation issue.
I respect Ms. Marshall's work over the years in the utility area. I do not believe that the language of
the attached resolution includes positions that are against SRA city interests. While I would
suggest some changes in the language, I do not believe this resolution is contrary to anything the
SRA would itself argue in these proceedings. No SRA city wants to see its most vulnerable
inhabitants be "left out" in deregulation.
JMS-165473
SU16O-3
RESOI,UTION TO ENSURE ACCI:'SS TO AFFORDA~I_E £NERGY
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Le$islature and the Public Utilities Commission will consider
proposals to dere_m.~late the electric utility industD'; and
x,X~12ER.EAS, changes to the electric utility industry will affect how electric service is provided
and priced; and
VG--IEREAS, competitive electric suppliers may not actively seek to serve residential customers,
particularly Iow and fixe4 i,~come customers; and
WI--~REAS, electric utility deregulation may shi~ costs onto residential customers, increase
prices and overall bills; and
WI-'~AS, Iow and fixed income Minnesotans devote an average of 17% of their income for
energy costs (energy burden); and
WI.-~REAS, the energy burden of low and fixed income Minnesotans causes hardship and
suffering; and
W'I-IEREAS, access to affordable energy service is essential to the health and safety of all
Minnesotans;
THEREFORE, BE I1 RESOLVED THAT access to affordable energy service should be
declared an essential requirement in any legislation or proposal to deregulate the electric utility
industry; and
BE IT FURTt--IZR RESOLVED THAT universal service must include provisions for default and
provider of last resort sets'ice; and
BE IT FURTI-~R RESOLVED THAT a universal service fund be established to provide bill-
payment and conservation assis:ance to low and fixed income Minnesotans; and
BE IT F'U'RTI~R. R.ESOLVED Ti-'L~.T the goal df the universal service fund is to assist as mahy
income-eligible households as possible; and
BE II FURTHER KESOLVED THAT universal service funding levels should be based on
reducing the energ-y burden of households at a defined level of need; and
BE IT FURTI-~R RESOLVED THAT universal service Funds st~,ould be raised on a consistent
basis to meet the determined need; and
BE IT FLrRTI--IY_R R.ESOLV'ED THAT universal service funds should be administered in the
most efficient manner possible to provide the most significant benefit to Iow and fixed income
M. innesotans.
coo[~
SHN~ ~0 ~LL ZI9 %¥~ 60:ZI 66
C h
A R T E R
E D
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
htr p:/Avww, kenned~,-graven.com
MEMORANDUM
J-~MES M. STROMMEN
Attom¢> at Lax,.
Direct Dial (012)337-9233
email: jstrommen~ kennedy-gra~ en.com
MEMO #8
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Altemates
Suburban Rate Authority
July 8, 1999
Cost of PUC Proceedings
On June 22, the PUC met on the issue of assessing cities for the cost of the ROW rule proceeding.
Following an earlier PUC hearing, the League lobbied for and obtained an appropriation fi.om the
legislature for that portion that the PUC had previously requested be paid by cities for their
participation, albeit indirectly, in the ROW rulemaking proceeding. At the hearing, the PUC took
the position that additional funds over and above the $30,000 appropriation were to be paid,
totaling $8,000.
The SRA had earlier expressed its strong opposition to any appropriation against municipalities for
the ROW rulemaking proceeding or any other proceeding before the PUC. Fortunately, the matter
was resolved at the June 22 heating to accept the appropriated amount as full payment for the ROW
rulemaking. The issue of assessing municipalities who are willingly or unwillingly before the PUC
on ROW matters is still unresolved. The statute at issue, Minnesota Statutes, 237.295 is ambiguous
and will be an issue to be debated at a future time. Of greatest concern is the chilling affect it may
have on participation by non-utilities before the PUC. Them is also the oppommity for utilities to
bring municipalities in a forum which has the potential of requiring an additional cost for
participation. The SRA will oppose this at every opportunity.
JM5-1~5482
SU160-3
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
h ttp://x~",~,.kennedy-graven.com
MEMORANDUM
JAMES M. STROMMEN
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9233
email: j strommenOkennedy-~aven.com
MEMO #9
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates
Suburban Rate Authority
July 8, 1999
Approval of Year 2000 Budget
Attached is the budget preliminarily approved by the Board in an action taken at the April meeting.
A committee of the whole was declared, however, and as such would need to be ratified at the July
meeting simultaneously with budget approval. Some related issues should be to be considered
along with the budget approval.
The SRA bylaws provide for assessments based on the population of its members. The SRA has
relied on the decade census taken in ten-year increments. The year 2000 census will establish new
populations. This process is not completed until the year 2001, I believe. It is a time of sticker
shock for SRA cities that have growing populations. While on the one hand, one could argue that
such cities have artificially low assessments throughout the growth years, it does not make for a
smooth growth transition when the new population is announced and two or three additional votes
have been added at greater cost ($400 per vote). Any suggestions in altering the bylaws in the
regard, or otherwise dealing with issue would be welcome. Population loss also factors in but
clearly does not create a problem for those cities with lower populations and, therefore, lower
assessments.
Also, in 1992, the SRA authorized the last increase in legal rates charged by Kennedy & Graven to
$135 per hour for utility rate work and $110 per hour for general file work. Such rates have
remained unchanged for seven years. Kennedy & Graven proposes that at an upcoming meeting
the SRA Board approve an increase to $145 for utility work and $120 for general work effective in
the year 2000. This is not necessarily placed on the agenda as an action item for this meeting, but
one that may merit discussion in connection with the budget and population issue.
JMS-165471
$U16,5.3
2000 SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY PROPOSED BUDGET
1999
Assets:
Cash and Investments (12/31/98)
Membership Assessments~
TOTAL
$19,160
63,200
$82,360
Anticipated 1999 Expenses: Utility Undergrounding
US West Cost Investigation
612/952 Area Code Proceeding
US West Alternative Regulation
PUC Right-of-Way Rulemaking
PUC Case Cost Allocations
Lost Margins Electric (Electric Rate Surcharges)
General (incl. costs and disbursements)
TOTAL
$10,000
2,000
10,000
1,000
5,000
2,000
10,000
16,000
($56,0O0)
Reserve at December 31, 1999:
$26,360
2000
Assets:
Carryover from 1999
· 2
Membership Assessments
TOTAL
$26,360
63,200
$89,560
Anticipated 2000 Expenses
Right-of-Way Issues (Legislation/PUC)
Telephone Rate Geographic Deaveraging
Electric-Gas Franchise Issues
Utility Undergrounding
General Matters (incl. costs and disbursements)
TOTAL
$10,000
10,000
5,000
10,000
16,000
($51,000)
Estimated Reserve at December 31, 2000:
$38,500
~This is calculated at $400 per vote established in 1995 (for every 5,000 in population or fraction
thereof). This calculation is based on full year assessments from the 36 SRA members.
2This is calculated at $400 per vote established in 1995 (for every 5,000 in population or fraction
thereof). This calculation is based on full year assessments from the 36 SRA members.
JM S- 160846
SU 160-3
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 28, 1999
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JUNE 28, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: 0rv Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse,
Michael Mueller, and Frank Weiland. Absent with notice: Commissioners Jerry Clapsaddle and
Bill Voss; Council Liaison: Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building
Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Deb Hawkinson.
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 14, 1999 MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
Burma made the following changes:
Page 8 On the motion to recommend the Council's streamlining language, Burma
was opposed to the motion.
Page 8 On the motion to deny Council's streamlining language, Burma voted in favor
of the motion.
Page 13 The motion to recommend Staff's recommendation was carried 8-0.
Page 14 The motion by Brown to extend the Planning Commission was carried 7-1.
Weiland asked that his absence on page 1 be reflected as excused.
MOTION By Weiland, Seconded by Burma, To accept to the June 14, 1999 Minutes
with the above changes. MOTION CARRIED: 6-0.
BOARD OF APPEALS
CONTINUING PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #99-21: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; TO
ALLOW FOR UTILIZING EXISTING SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THE WESTONKA
SENIOR CENTER, WESTONKA HEALTHY COMMUNITY AND BUILD A MEMORIAL
GARDEN; 2451 FAIRVlEW LANE; TRACTS l-G, INCLUSIVE REGISTERED LAND
SURVEY #739 AND HTAT PART OF BLOCK 2, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D; ST.
JOHN'S CHURCH.
PID # 24-117-24 12 0014 AND 24-117-24 12 0058
Gordon covered the report on page 19 from City Attorney John Dean regarding the vague state
codes that exist regarding how to treat memorial gardens. Latitude is given to the local
planning commissions on how to handle usage. Gordon then checked out the Bloomington City
Codes for how they handled memorial gardens.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 28, 1999
Gordon recommended treating a memorial garden like a cemetery. Thus, a 50-foot setback
would be required. Staff recommends granting a variance to this ordinance.
MOTION by Mueller, Seconded by Burma, To consider this Memorial Garden as a
Cemetery and grant the fifty (50) foot setback variance be granted due to the lack of
space behind the steeple.
Discussion
Mueller's only concern is that his understanding is that anything above the frost line will
eventually push up. Prior to this recommendation going to the City Council, he would like this
clarified by staff.
Weiland has a concern that if ashes are directly buried and are only 3 inches below the surface,
animals could dig them up. Burma indicated that he has a problem with ashes being buried
directly because of the concern that the public raised at the last public hearing.
Gordon indicated that the discussion from the previous meeting and the regulations indicate
that the ashes would only be buried in urns and would be about 18 inches below ground.
Mueller indicated that he still had a concern over things buried above the frost line. He wanted
to see what common practice was and follow that.
Hasse asked if that was something that the City could even regulate. Weiland responded that
he believes there isn't any codes regulating depth in the state ordinances.
Gordon and Sutherland indicated they would check out what is done at St. Martin's. Glister
also suggested checking at Fort Snelling since this would be federal government. Mueller
further suggested checking with the University of Minnesota's Extension service to check about
items buried above the frost line.
MOTION CARRIED: 6-0.
DISCUSSION
Section 320:00 - verbal report from Sutherland. Sutherland reported that this regarded an
ordinance that regulates public land usage. Concern was raised that went to a task force and
out of the task force comes the modifications he is discussing. He wanted the Planning
Commission to have a chance to hear the changes and comment. Once enacted, he will be
asked to enforce the new ordinances.
Sutherland has met with over seventeen customers and with the Dock and Commons
Commission. Some of the Commons are for use by the general public and other Commons are
for specific neighborhoods. Permits will need to be issued for encroachments on these lands.
Any new regulations will require a City Council approval unless in the land use plans.
Mueller suggested that in Subd. 3, "structural repair" needs to be very clearly defined to avoid
confusion or issues at a later date.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
June 28, 1999
Weiland indicated that Subd. 1 and Subd. 5 should be consistent in what vote is required from
the City Council for approval of changes/uses. Mueller also indicated that Subd. 5 needs to be
consistent with the Use Plan. He has a further concern that by adopting this prior to adopting
specific commons use plans could lead to other issues. He feels that the specific use plans
should be looked at first,.
Sutherland indicated that he would entertain comments from the Planning Commission to
recommend that staff consider the impact of adoption of this ordinance ~rior to the review and
update of specific use plans first since these plans need updating. The other option would be to
have a motion to prevent any new structures on the Commons until the Use Plan is reviewed
and modified as needed.
Weiland asked the following question: if he didn't have a boat and was located on lakeshore,
could he still have a stairway to get down to the lake.
Burma stated that perhaps a moratorium would be a good thing to avOid these types of issues.
Sutherland stated that the docks are approved only once a year. It was suggested that no
manipulation of the system should occur prior to the update of the Use Plans.
Further, it was suggested that the Use Plans and the Procedure Manual need updating and
perhaps could be accomplished with joint commission meetings.
Mueller suggested language changes to Subd. 7, Paragraph B that he felt would allow staff to
act more effectively.
Sutherland indicated that this code embodies the zoning codes.
INFORMATION/COMMENTS
Mueller asked if the Westonka Senior Center's sign had come down. Sutherland stated that a
permit application had been tendered, however was on hold until the approval of the conditional
use permit for the Senior Center at St. John's.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Mueller to adjourn the Planning Commission
meeting at 8:44 p.m. MOTION CARRIED: 6-0.
E
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
Memorandum
To=
From=
Date=
subject
ALL DOWNTOWN BUSINESS & PROPERTY OWNERS
MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
JULY 6, 1999
UPDATE ON DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT VISIONS PROGRAM
The Mayor and City Council would again like to update all of you
on the Downtown Redevelopment and Visions program.
We cordially invite you to the 2nd Coffee and Roils get together:
COF~EE~
& D~)N UTS
THURSDAY - JULY 15, 1999
7:30 A.M. - 9:00 A.M.
MOUND CITY HALL, 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
printed on recycled paper
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
subject:
MOUND PLANNING COMMISSION
FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK/ACTING CITY MANAGER
JULY 7, 1999
JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL
At the t~-~blic Hearing you held on June 14th, regarding the
revision to the Section of the Zoning Code on streamlining
language there was discussion of having a joint meeting with the
City Council on this issue. The City Council had already set
it's public hearing on this issue for July 13, 1999. The City
Council is receptive to hearing your comments so they will open
the public hearing on July 13, 1999 to hear comments and interact
with the Planning Commission at that time. You will then be able
to hear their reasoning for the streamlining. The City Council
will then continue the public hearing until July 27, 1999, at
6:00 P.M. This will allow the Planning Commission time at your
meeting on July 26, 1999, to review all aspects of the
streamlining revision. The City Council has then set their July
27, 1999, meeting for a 6:00 P.M. start time in order to meet
with the Planning Commission prior to the regular meeting at 7:30
P.M.
Another reason the City Council would like to have the Planning
Commission at the July 13, 1999, HRA Meeting at 6:00 P.M. is to
update you and have your input on the downtown redevelopment and
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District schedule and boundaries.
Therefore, if you have comments on the revision and the downtown
redevelopment, please make every effort to attend the HRA
meeting on July 13, 1999, at 6:00 P.M., and the Public Hearing on
the Code revision at the regular meeting at 7:30 P.M., in the
City Council Chambers.
printed on recycled paper
CITY OF MOUND
NOTICE OF
CHANGE IN MEETING TIME
JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Mound
Regularly scheduled meeting on July 27, 1999, will begin at 6:00
P.M. on that date. The reason for the change in time will be to
hold a joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting to discuss
repealing City Code Section 350:420, Subdivisions 9 & 10,
pertaining to nonconforming uses and replacing them with new
language.
F a~n~ark,~ 6MC~~
City Clerk/Acting City Manager
Publish in The Laker - July 19, 1999