The URL can be used to link to this page

2000-03-14AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 2000, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *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 Qtizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ~IANCE. PAGE 2. APPROVE AGENDA. 3. *CONSENT AGENDA *A. APPROVE MINUTF3 OF FEBRUARY 15, 2000, COMM1TrEE OF THE WHOLE lViF. F~TING ........................... 863-874 *B. APPROVE THE MINUTF_3 OF FEBRUARY 22, 2000, REGULAR lVlF. E~G .................................... 875-896 *C. APPROVE MINUTF3 OF THE FEBRUARY 29, 2000, SPECIAL MEETR~IG ....................................... 897 *D. APPROVE MINUTF_~ OF THE · MARCH 2, 2000, SPECIAL MEETING .................. 898-904 *E. APPROVAL OF 2 YEAR UNION CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC WORKS, TEAMSTERS LOCAL 320 FOR 2000& 2001 ...... 905 *F. APPROVAL OF 2 YEAR UNION CONTRACT FOR POLICE SERGEANTS, LELS LOCAL 35 FOR 2000 & 2001 ........ 906 *G. APPROVAL OF 2 YEAR UNION CONTRACT FOR POLICE PATROL, LELS LOCAL 266 FOR 2000 & 2001 .......... 907 *H. APPROVAL OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT FOR NEW CITY MANAGER ...................................... 908 CASE g00-01: MINOR SUBDIVISION TO CREATE 3 CONFORMING PARSELS FROM TWO EXISTING PARCEL~; AT 2155 NOBLE LANE, LOTS 20 & 21, BLOCK 3, PIX)//13-117-24 31 0019, AND 2149 NOBLE LANE, LOTS 22 & 23, BLOCK 3, PID//13-117-24 31 0010, BOTH IN ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK ..................... 909-924 861 ~. PAYMENT OF BILLS ............................. 925-944 CO~ & SUC. GF. qTION$ FROM CITIZ~S PRF.~IOff ON ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA (PIJ~ASE LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SUIkIECTI REQUEST FROM NANCY AND CONRAD STARR TO RECONSIDER THE TEMPORARY VARIANCE APPROVED FOR THEIR DETACHED GARAGE TO ALLOW 1T TO RFAIAIN ...................... 945-970 APPROVAL OF 2000 LMCIT INSURANCE PREMIUMS. INFORlVlATIOIN/lVIIS~US .......... 971-975 A. Monthly report for January from Police Chief, Len HarreH ........... 976-977 B. Economic Development Commission (EDC) Minutes from February 17, 2000.978-980 Park & Open Space Commission (POSC) Minutes from January 13, 2000 & February 10, 2000 ................................... 981-992 Dock & Commons Commission (DCAC) Minutes from February 17, 2000. Lake Mirmetonka Conservation District mailings ................. 993 -997 998-1027 862 MINUTES - MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE -FEBRUARY 15, 2000 The Committee of the Whole for the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, February 15, 2000, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Workroom at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance: Vern Hanson, Larry Olson, Larissa Tadavarthy of Metro Plains Development Co.; Acting City Manager Fran Clark; Bruce Chamberlain; John Beise; Peter Meyer; and Secretary Sue McCulloch. Mayor Meisel welcomed those present and opened the meeting at 7:31 p.m. 1.0 PRESENTATION BY METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT CO. OF A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE OLD COMMUNITY CENTER SITE. Bruce Chamberlain introduced Larry Olson of Metro Plains Development. He stated Metro Plains Development is very serious about this project and is looking forward to working with the City of Mound. Larry Olson stated he is the Vice President of Metro Plains Development. He introduced his associates Vern Hanson and Larissa Tadavarthy. Mr. Olson stated Ms. Tadavarthy would be presenting a time schedule for the development and Mr. Hanson would be presenting the potential plans for the development location. Mr. Olson stated Trail Head had originally contracted with the school district with this project. He stated in November the residential portion of the project was being reviewed. Mr. Olson stated a close working relationship had begun with the City concerning the post office and the soil conditions, and Metro Plains noticed the residential and commercial development needed to be done as one package. With that in mind, Mr. Olson concluded Metro Plains could do a better development project than Trail Head. He further stated in January they worked with the school district and extended the purchase agreement to reflect the current time schedule for the development. Mr. Olson stated for those interested, he has brought with him this evening brochures that will give a thorough background on Metro Plains Development. Ms. Tadavarthy stated they negotiated an extension with the school district contingent on a few factors. She stated soil tests needed to be completed to find out if the site which had fields on was buildable. She stated the results of the soil tests have recently come back and Metro Plains is satisfied with the results. She stated there will need be some corrections made, but they are minor. Ms. Tadavarthy stated they have completed the Phase I environmental study and found old oil tanks underneath the ground, but that is not surprising. She stated she has been working with staff regarding the post office, including exploring tax increment and the site plan. Ms. Tadavarthy stated several meetings have been occurring, including with potential builders for the site, Bill Beard, the Pond Arena people, MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES -FEBRUARY 1~. 2000 Hennepin County regarding the two County roads, and U.S. West regarding the cellular antenna. She stated a site plan will be presented tonight from the information received from these meetings. Ms. Tadavarthy stated within the next four weeks she would like to have a commercial partner in place and the site approved for the post office. They hope to be submitting a development plan and working through zoning issues. She stated the property would be for sale or rental, depending upon the need and market of the people of Mound. Currently there are costs that have occurred concerning soil testing and infrastructures. Councilmember Hanus asked if the cell tower would be removed or left where it is currently located. Ms. Tadavarthy stated the tower would not be moving. Councilmember Hanus stated the lease for,[heo,~_ wer is 20 years. Ms. Tadavarthy agreed and further stated the light pole would stay~°~t when it needed to be rebuilt, thc school di~trlct wonld r~wn the4~:fl~zi!gd Abe tower. ,,~,o-O..-ro- Councilmember Hanus asked if Metro Plains would hold on to the property they are proposing or do they sell it off. Mr. Olson stated most everything being proposed would be rental. He stated Metro Plains would act as a general partner and bring in a limited partner. He stated Metro Plains does have a development group, specific investors, and a property management company. Councilmember Hanus asked about the commercial property and the intent. Mr. Olson stated he would like the commercial property to be handled by another party or have a joint venture. Councilmember Hanus asked when the joint venture is created, would the property be held on to or sold off by Metro Plains? Mr. Olson stated Metro Plains would hold on to the property. Mayor Meisel asked about time-lines with the development. Mr. Olson stated the amendment on the purchase agreement with the school district stated the soil work and environmental work would be completed by February. He further stated there are two contingencies that need addressing and are they are hopeful that these will be completed by June and closing will take place in the summer. He stated the school district would like to use the football field in the fall. Mr. Olson stated the post office is always of high priority and is hopeful fall construction would begin on the commercial site. Mayor Meisel confirmed the post office occupancy would occur in the year 2001. Councilmember Brown stated the property is currently zoned R-1. He stated if this is going to be rental, it would need to be rezoned. Mr. Olson stated with the City of Mound completing their Comprehensive Plan, this area could be rezoned as medium density to comply with the development being proposed. MINUTES - MOUND COMMITTEE OF TIlE WHOLE -FEBRUARY 15, 2000 The Committee of the Whole for the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, February 15, 2000, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Workroom at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, and ~ Weycker. Also in attendance: Vern Hanson, Larry Olson, Larissa Tadavarthy of Metro Plains Development Co.; Acting City Manager Fran Clark; Bruce Chamberlain; John Beise; Peter Meyer; and Secretary Sue McCulloch. Mayor Meisel welcomed those present and opened the meeting at 7:31 p.m. 1.0 PRESENTATION BY METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT CO. OF A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE OLD COMMUNITY CENTER SITE. Bruce Chamberlain introduced Larry Olson of Metro Plains Development. He stated Metro Plains Development is very serious about this project and is looking forward to working with the City of Mound. Larry Olson stated he is the Vice President of Metro Plains Development. He introduced his associates Vern Hanson and Larissa Tadavarthy. Mr. Olson stated Ms. Tadavarthy would be presenting a time schedule for the development and Mr. Hanson would be presenting the potential plans for the development location. Mr. Olson stated Trail Head had originally contracted with the school district with this project. He stated in November the residential portion of the project was being reviewed. Mr. Olson stated a close working relationship had begun with the City concerning the post office and the soil conditions, and Metro Plains noticed the residential and commercial development needed to be done as one package. With that in mind, Mr. Olson concluded Metro Plains could do a better development project than Trail Head. He further stated in January they worked with the school district and extended the purchase agreement to reflect the current time schedule for the development. Mr. Olson stated for those interested, he has brought with him this evening brochures that will give a thorough background on Metro Plains Development. Ms. Tadavarthy stated they negotiated an extension with the school district contingent on a few factors. She stated soil tests needed to be completed to find out if the site which had fields on was buildable. She stated the results of the soil tests have recently come back and Metro Plains is satisfied with the results. She stated there will need be some corrections made, but they are minor. Ms. Tadavarthy stated they have completed the Phase I environmental study and found old oil tanks underneath the ground, but that is not surprising. She stated she has been working with staff regarding the post office, including exploring tax increment and the site plan. Ms. Tadavarthy stated several meetings have been occurring, including with potential builders for the site, Bill Beard, the Pond Arena people, MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15. 2000 Hennepin County regarding the two County roads, and U.S. West regarding the cellular antenna. She stated a site plan will be presented tonight from the information received from these meetings. Ms. Tadavarthy stated within the next four weeks she would like to have a commercial parmer in place and the site approved for the post office. They hope to be submitting a development plan and working through zoning issues. She stated the property would be for sale or rental, depending upon the need and nmrket of the people of Mound. Currently there are costs that have occurred concerning soil testing and infrastructures. Councilmember Hanus asked if the cell tower would be removed or left where it is currently located. Ms. Tadavarthy stated the tower would not be moving. Councilmember Hanus stated the lease for the tower is 20 years. Ms. Tadavarthy agreed and further stated the light pole would staycbut when it needed to be ~ the school disl~ict vao~ld o,~a th~. pole zmd Councilmember Hanus asked if Metro Plains would hold on to the property they are proposing or do they sell it off. Mr. Olson stated most everything being proposed would be rental. He stated Metro Plains would act as a general partner and bring in a limited parmer. He stated Metro Plains does have a development group, specific investors, and a property management company. Councilmember Hanus asked about the commercial property and the intent. Mr. Olson stated he would like the commercial property to be handled by another party or have a joint venture. Councilmember Hanus asked when the joint venture is created, would the property be held on to or sold off by Metro Plains? Mr. Olson stated Metro Plains would hold on to the property. Mayor Meisel asked about time-lines with the development. Mr. Olson stated the amendment on the purchase agreement with the school district stated the soil work and environmental work would be completed by February. He further stated there are two contingencies that need addressing and are they are hopeful that these will be completed by June and closing will take place in the summer. He stated the school district would like to use the football field in the fall. Mr. Olson stated the post office is always of high priority and is hopeful fall construction would begin on the commercial site. Mayor Meisel confmned the post office occupancy would occur in the year 2001. Councilmember Brown stated the property is currently zoned R-1. He stated if this is going to be rental, it would need to be rezoned. Mr. Olson stated with the City of Mound completing their Comprehensive Plan, this area could be rezoned as medium density to comply with the development being proposed. MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15. 2000 Councilmember Brown stated he does not approve of a large section of rental apartments in this new development. He asked if this site is going to be comprised a majority rental property. Mr. Olson stated they are taking the proper steps and accumulating information to figure out exactly the type of development that will be built. He stated because the soils are better than expected, there are a variety of routes to take in development. He stated there may be rental and for saleable property for the site. Councilmember Brown stated the area has always been a residential neighborhood. He stated there has been a lot of discussion in the past about the green space and how the City of Mound would like to keep it zoned as R-1. Councilmember Hanus stated the Beard Group is proposing a lot of homes for the site. does agree with Councilmember Brown to be cautious about putting more apartments or rentals in Mound because overall he did not think the town would like that idea. He Vern Hanson presented an aerial map of the school before it got removed, a map with the survey from the school district, a map showing the Pond Arena and parking, and a map where the ballfields currently exist. Mr. Hanson then presented a drawing of the development site with the transition having taken place. It showed the commercial and residential areas, with the post office being the center building to fie the two properties together. He stated when the preliminary drawing work had started, they encountered a major multi-district utility sewer line that ran through the property. He stated thisis how they decided the separation of the commercial and residential property would start. Mr. Hanson stated the main area off of Alder Road needed to be addressed. He stated the County Roads 110 and 15 roads need to be respectful of the business district and have to create a downtown feel. He stated it was important to create a visual and physical site line to tie these two quadrants together. Mr. Hanson stated that west of the intersection of County Roads 110 and 15, the post office would be located there and would be the middle of the two locations. The large scale drawing of the commercial and residential properties was well displayed. Mr. Hanson stated there is about 36,000 square feet for commercial property out of the 50,000 square feet site. He stated the parking is appropriate for what is proposed. He stated the residential district would consist of 2-story townhomes with a town square as the center component. He stated the townhomes would be medium density. In the center of the residential development would be a gazebo with a bridge over a ponding area. The townhomes would consist of two or three bedrooms and a two-car garage, with one stall out front to park. This whole site would establish an on-grid pattern for circulation from the residential to the commercial. MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15.2(XX) Councilmember Brown was concerned about hardcover and stated the City of Mound had very stringent codes set up regarding hardcover. Mr. Hanson stated hardcover has not been discussed yet and the zoning will need to be discu.ssed at a [aler date as well. Council member Hanus asked if a buffer~$~o~uded on the west side of the townhomes. Mr. Hanson stated there will be a berm or buffer on the west. Councilmember Brown stated park dedication needs to be considered into the site drawing. Mr. Hanson stated park dedication has not been considered at this point. Mr. Olson stated this site drawing presented this evening is only one option and there is room for change. Although, Mr. Olson stated he is fairly confident with the post office location. Mayor Meisel asked about the price of the townhomes and Mr. Olson stated they would start at about $140,000 if it they were to be sold. Bruce Chamberlain answered the ponding concern by stating they are looking into regional ponding with the development of County Road 15. Councilmember Brown asked about the arena and parking for it. Mr. Hanson stated they would have only the parking behind the building that would be dedicated to the arena. Mr. Olson stated the amount of parking would be considered at great lengths for the commercial value and access. Mr. Chamberlain stated the road next to the post office would be a dead-end road to allow for proper setbacks, parking, and to alleviate the right-of-way concern. Mayor Meisel was concerned if this was good planning to have it a dead-end street. Mr. Hanson stated the drawing demonstrates an access off of County Road 110 and would like to maintain two curb cuts to keep the traffic flowing. Councilmember Hanus asked how many units are being proposed in the preliminary drawings presented tonight. Mr. Hanson stated there are 152 with medium density. Councilmember Weycker asked if the post office individuals have seen this drawing yet and Mr. Chamberlain stated no; although, it would be done in the very near furore. Councilmember Hanus was concerned about the heavy traffic flow that would be occurring at the post office that so close to the residential area. Councilmember Brown asked if it would be feasible to take away some of the townhomes and allow more green space for a larger park area. He realizes this may not be economical MOUND COMMrlTEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15. 2000 Councilmember Brown stated he does not approve of a large section of rental apartments in this new development. He asked if this site is going to be comprised a majority rental property. Mr. Olson stated they are taking the proper steps and accumulating information to figure out exactly the type of development that will be built. He stated because the soils are better than expected, there are a variety of routes to take in development. He stated there may be rental and for saleable property for the site. Councilmember Brown stated the area has always been a residential neighborhood. He stated there has been a lot of discussion in the past about the green space and how the City of Mound would like to keep it zoned as R-1. Councilmember Hanus stated the Beard Group is proposing a lot of homes for the site. does agree with Councilmember Brown to be cautious about putting more apartments or rentals in Mound because overall he did not think the town would like that idea. He Vern Hanson presented an aerial map of the school before it got removed, a map with the survey from the school district, a map showing the Pond Arena and parking, and a map where the ballfields currently exist. Mr. Hanson then presented a drawing of the development site with the transition having taken place. It showed the commercial and residential areas, with the post office being the center building to tie the two properties together. He stated when the preliminary drawing work had started, they encountered a major multi-district utility sewer line that ran through the property. He stated this is how they decided the separation of the commercial and residential property would start. Mr. Hanson stated the main area off of Alder Road needed to be addressed. He stated the County Roads 110 and 15 roads need to be respectful of the business district and have to create a downtown feel. He stated it was important to create a visual and physical site line to tie these two quadrants together. Mr. Hanson stated that west of the intersection of County Roads 110 and 15, the post office would be located there and would be the middle of the two locations. The large scale drawing of the commercial and residential properties was well displayed. Mr. Hanson stated there is about 36,000 square feet for commercial property out of the 50,000 square feet site. He stated the parking is appropriate for what is proposed. He stated the residential district would consist of 2,story townhomes with a town square as the center component. He stated the townhomes would be medium density. In the center of the residential development would be a gazebo with a bridge over a ponding area. The townhomes would consist of two or three bedrooms and a two-car garage, with one stall out front to park. This whole site would establish an on-grid pattern for circulation from the residential to the commercial. MOUND COMMI'I'I'EE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES -FEBRUARY 1~. 2000 Councilmember Brown was concerned about hardcover and stated the City of Mound had very stringent codes set up regarding hardcover. Mr. Hanson stated hardcover has not been discussed yet and the zoning will need to be discussed at a later date as well. Councilmember Hanus asked if a buffer would be included on the west side of the townhomes. Mr. Hanson stated there will be a borm+? ~,uffor on the west. Councilmember Brown stated park dedication needs to be considered into the site drawing. Mr. Hanson stated park dedication has not been considered at this point. Mr. Olson stated this site drawing presented this evening is only one option and there is room for change. Although, Mr. Olson stated he is fairly confident with the post office location. Mayor Meisel asked about the price of the townhomes and Mr. Olson stated they would start at about $140,000 if it they were to be sold. Bruce Chamberlain answered the ponding concern by stating they are looking into regional ponding with the development of County Road 15. Councilmember Brown asked about the arena and parking for it. Mr. Hanson stated they would have only the parking behind the building that would be dedicated to the arena. Mr. Olson stated the amount of parking would be considered at great lengths for the commercial value and access. Mr. Chamberlain stated the road next to the post office would be a dead-end road to allow for proper setbacks, parking, and to alleviate the right-of-way concern. Mayor Meisel was concerned if this was good planning to have it a dead-end street. Mr. Hanson stated the drawing demonstrates an access off of County Road 110 and would like to maintain two curb cuts to keep the traffic flowing. Councilmember Hanus asked how many units are being proposed in the preliminary drawings presented tonight. Mr. Hanson stated there are 152 with medium density. Councilmember Weycker asked if the post office individuals have seen this drawing yet and Mr. Chamberlain stated no; although, it would be done in the very near future. Councilmember Hanus was concerned about the heavy traffic flow that would be occurring at the post office that so close to the residential area. Councilmember Brown asked if it would be feasible to take away some of the townhomes and allow more green space for a larger park area. He realizes this may not be economical 4 MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2000 for the developers, but it may be more what the citizens of Mound would appreciate. Mr. Olson stated this has not been discussed up to this point. Mr. Chamberlain stated the open space on the preliminary drawing does focus around the central green and connects the green space with the downtown core. He stated it would be important to use the green space to make that tie and create the atmosphere for everyone involved. Mayor Meisel stated Mound has a lot of variety in housing. She stated she appreciates the bridge look and the connection between the commercial and the residential areas, but is not confident the 152 units proposed is an appropriate amount. Councilmember Hanus agreed the residential areas do seem quite dense. He further stated the park dedication of 10 percent needs to figured into the downtown development, and the 10 percent cannot include ponding. Councilmember Hanus asked what the size of the residential property was to date. Mr. Hanson stated it was approximately 11.5 acres. Councilmember Weycker stated she would like to see a ballfield in the downtown location. Mr. Hanson is pretty certain there is not enough acreage for this to occur. Mayor Meisel stated she would prefer to see park dedication for a ballfield located out at the Rex Alwin property. She Stated the parking would be much more appropriate there than at the downtown site. Mr. Hanson confirmed this preliminary development site has an urban setting, including the flow from the street, to the sidewalk, to the buildings, with a center square. Councilmember Brown suggested having the ponding go under the gazebo as well. He stated this would be an appealing look. Mr. Olson stated they will continue to have weekly meetings to keep the whole process moving along in an orderly fashion. Mr. Olson thanked the Councilmembers for their time. The Councilmembers thanked Mr. Olson and his associates for their time and look forward to working with them further. MOUND COMMITI'EE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2000 1.1 MOUND DEVELOPMENT CO--CATIONS PLAN. Mayor Meisel presented the Mound Development Communications Plan. She stated Mr. Prosser, Bruce Chamberlain and herself sat down and drew up this Plan. She stated it would be a way to keep communication lines open between the public and City staff. Mayor Meisel stated the Questions and Answers had positive feedback from the public, and is hopeful this Plan will also. Mayor Meisel is asking Councilmembers for their input regarding additions or deletions from the Plan at the February 22, 2000, meeting. Councilmember Brown would like this circulated to all department heads as well as the public. Bruce Chamberlain stated this Plan is a great concept in keeping the public apprised with the redevelopment of downtown. Councilmember Ahrens was concerned if the people of Mound would really appreciate this type of information presented to them or would it be over burdensome. Mr. Chamberlain stated the Questions and Answers received positive feedback, so he thinks this will also. Councilmember Hanus stated this Plan identifies all the different aspects of redevelopment and should really allow the public to understand the worked involved in such an endeavor. Councilmember Brown appreciated seeing the Beard Group preliminary drawing of the redevelopment site and concept presented in the banks. He stated this was good PR. Mayor Meisel stated this Plan would allow information out for the public to review and, thus, the City of Mound would not be accused of not making information available to the public. Councilmember Weycker appreciates the Plan, but is concerned there are no time-lines noted. Mr. Chamberlain stated a notation of time-lines could possibly be implemented into the Plan. The following were other suggestions how the City of Mound could communicate with the public in a positive way/ Ed TV (channel 18). Make a documentary of some type noting and visioning changes to the downtown area. Mr. Chamberlain suggested a PBS documentary. e Awards or special recognition be given out for big successes for towns and this could be publicized. MOUND COMM1TI~E OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15. 2000 Colored billboard display of the redevelopment. Mr. Chamberlain stated this would cost about $600. Have a notation in the newsletter about the award-winning concept for the City of Mound that was received by Hoisington-Koegler. 1.2 CASH ADVANCE FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE NEW TIF FUND. The Acting City Manager stated this cash advance is required for the audit. The amount being recommended is approximately $200,000. The consensus agreed to have this item put on the agenda for February 22, 2000, for approval. 1.3 REQUEST FROM WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR A DONATION TO MUSIC 2000 "THE MUSIC IN THE PARK" SERIES. The Acting City Manager presented this item. She stated the Westonka Public Schools requested a donation from the City of Mound for the Music in the Park. She stated the City donated approximately $167 in 1998. Councilmember Brown stated the City of Mound would like to donate to the Music in the Park, although, this item was not presented to the City Council so they could budget for it this year. As a result, the funds are not available for a substantial donation. Councilmember Ahrens asked why it would appear they are losing the grant money previously donated for the Music in the Park. Mr. Meyer stated this grant money was a start-up fund and it was not meant to be continual. Councilmember Ahrens would have appreciated knowing this information last year before budget time. Mayor Meisel would be curious to know if Minnetrista has been asked to donate to the Music in the Park. She had conversations with Cheryl and Russ Fischer which sparked this thought. Mayor Meisel stated she would possibly be willing to match what Minnetrista donated, if they donated at all. Councilmember Brown stated he would not have a problem with donating to this cause if the money had been budgeted. Councilmember Weycker asked about giving half of what is being requested from the City of Mound. Mayor Meisel stated she would rather match what the City of Minnetrista was asked to donate, although, there is the question of knowing where to get the money because it was not budgeted for this year. MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES -FEBRUARY I~. 2000 Councilmember Brown stated, and Mayor Meisel agreed, he would like this item listed as a line item on the Park Commission's budget for next year. He strongly recommended to the Park Commission this .w. ou.ld be a good cause to put money toward for next year. Councilmember Ahrens does appreciate Mayor Meisel's sugi,ristion of having half coming from Minnetrista and half coming from the City of Mound. The Acting City Manager stated we could request donations from the bass fishing tournaments, such as Red Man or Performance. The Acting City Manager was directed to investigate whether or not Minnetrista donated to the Music in the Park this year and what amount was presented. The Acting City Manager will talk to School District contact for Music in the Park and explain the budget constraints this year, that the Council is supportive of their efforts, and that Mound would make a sincere effort to include this in budget for 2001. The consensus agreed this was an appropriate reply. 1.4 ~ALARIES OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. The Acting City Manager presented a 1999 survey for cities with a population similar to the City of Mound. She stated if the Councilmembers do choose to change the salaries, they will not go into affect until January, 2001. Councilmember Brown stated with all the excess meetings concerning TIF, HRA, and time spent at home by the Councilmembers due to the redevelopment of the City of Mound, he requested the Councilmembers salaries be increased by $100 per month across the board. He suggested having this increase budgeted for next year's budget. This item will be presented at a future City Council meeting. 1.5 REVIEW OF THE TWO UNION CONTRACTS THAT WILL BE ON THE AGENDA FEBRUARY 22, 2000. PUBLIC WORKS (LOCAL 320) AND POLICE SERGEANTS (LELSL Mayor Meisel stated the Committee of the Whole would continue in executive session to discuss the union contracts. She stated this is a labor issue so this type of action is appropriate. The meeting recessed at 9:05 p.m. 8 MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2000 The Committee of the Whole was brought back into session at 9:36 p.m. 0.6 POSSIBLE CLEAN-UP DAY IN MOUND (MAY 6. 2000). Ae B. C. D. No leaves, wood or brush; Do we allow Minnetrista residents; This was budgeted for in the recycling budget; and Cost is $10,000 to $12,000. We usually take in about $6,000. would be paid through the recycling fee. The balance Councilmember Hanus suggested non-residents be charged a higher fee because the City of Mound residents are already paying a recycling fee. The Acting City Manager was directed to put the date and time of the clean-up in the newsletter so the public would be informed. 1.7 REINSTATING THE POLICE CANINE PROGRAM. THIS WOULD BE PAID FOR ENTIRELY BY THE CRIME PREVENTION FUND. WE KEPT AN EXTRA CAR .lUST FOR THIS PURPOSE. THE COST OF TRAINING IS $1.500 FOR THE OFFICER. THE SCHOOL STARTS MARCH 13. 2000. PLEASE LET ME KNOW TONIGHT IF THE COUNCIL IS IN FAVOR OF Councilmember Brown wanted to confirm he was stating to Mr. Harrell that he personally was not in support of the canine program and he was not speaking on behalf of what the City Council thought of the program. Mayor Meisel asked what benefit there is having a canine program of this type for the City of Mound. Councilmember Brown stated with the information he received, it was strictly a PR improvement. He stated also the dog was an entry-level dog that would be placed with the officer. Councilmember Brown further stated he spent a lot of time today speaking with Mr. Harrell and other friends on the Mound police force regarding the canine program. He raised the following items concerning his conversations: Currently there are two dogs for Hennepin County kept in the high crime area of Minneapolis that can be used in any suburb when the need arises. The crime prevention program provides the cost of the dog, but the food would need to be paid for by the department. MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15. 2000 e e 10. 11. 12. 13. There would be no benefit to the officer because it would be considered a reassignment, and not a promotional item. The newer vehicle would become the dog car for four to five years and this would put an older vehicle back into service. The clothing requ'trements would be a bite slip and specific leashes. The newer car would have to have special control heating and cooling units for the car. It was suggested the officer's belt would have a button that, once pressed, it would open the door of the vehicle allowing the dog to get out of the car. This would cost about $300, although it may not be necessary. Vet and kennel bills would need to be paid by the City. The initial dog training is about 12 weeks and the officer leaves for the full 12 weeks at one time. There would be no overtime expense with that officer gone, but the City of Mound would be lacking an officer on the street. There may be decisions to make if the dog is sick and whether this does allow the officer to take a sick day as well from work. There would be conference times and dog competition times that would need to be computed as well. In case the dog car would stop an individual, another car would have to be called to assist if the individual needed to be transported. The dog car could not be used for transporting. This would be good PR for the City of Mound. It appears the base price for this canine program could be as much as $3,200. Mayor Meisel stated what seems most troublesome to her is the EMT school cost, the officer being gone for 12 weeks for the canine training, and the officer in the dog car having to pull another squad to assist which may cause life hardship elsewhere. Councilmember Hanus does not think the time is right for this type of program, although, he stated the opportunity is great. He stated the budget is tight. Councilmember Weycker stated this might be more of a benefit if this was a drug dog and the City of Mound could make money from this dog. Councilmember Brown stated this would be an incentive to keep officers in Mound, but the funds are not available for this program. He stated the City of Mound should decline with opportunity this year. Councilmember Hanus restated the timing is not right for this year. Mayor Meisel stated she would rather approve this type of program when it has been budgeted and planned for appropriately. 10 MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15. 2000 Councilmember Ahre. ns stated she does not agree with this program with the only benefit to the City of Mound being PR as well as the service of the Ix)Bce department being lessened with this program in effect. The consensus of the Councilmembers was to wait until a possible later date and time to adopt such a canine program. 1.8 SHIRTS WITH. THE CITY LOGO FOR NON UNION EMPLOYEES. The Acting City Manager stated the head of Public Works, Mr: Skinner, suggested this. Mr. Skinner stated he felt it would be nice to have the City logo on staff shirts for them to wear at the City offices. Mr. Skinner is willing to donate $75 out of his own personal clothing budget in support of this muse. Councilmember Brown stated he would donate $50 of his own Councilmember salary to help with this cause as well. The Acting City Manager stated the cost of the shirts would be approximately $17 per shirt. It was agreed the City staff could purchase the shirts with the donated money suggested above. 1.9 INFORMATION ITEMS. Mayor Meisel stated the Committee of the Whole will be meeting with the Park Commission in April to discuss what the City would like the Parks Commission to address in the City of Mound. She stated she is looking for ideas from the Councilmembers to present to the Park Commission in April. Mayor Meisel stated these could be projects that will affect the development. Councilmember Ahrens suggested initiating a garden club. Mayor Meisel suggested having "tree tops" in planters at Christmas time in the downtown area. Councilmember Brown stated Shirley Anderson would appreciate being involved with a project of this type. Mayor Meisel would appreciate the Councilmembers input at the February 22, 2000, City Council meeting. Councilmember Brown informed the Councilmembers of the dilapidated detached garage located on the Start property, that encroaches on the neighbors, which is now be requested by the applicants to keep erected on their property even though it was agreed by the applicants in a resolution to tear it down within a three year period which has now come due. Councilmember Brown stated the new streamlining code allows the applicants to be considering this request. 11 5. 6. 1.10 MOUND COMM1TrEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15. 2000 Councilmember Brown stated a motion will be presented to the City Council on February 22, 2000, regarding this case, and the Planning Commission will be requesting the City Council change the code to allow strea~ining, but when it encroaches on another person's property, streamlining would not apply as in the Start case. Brown confirms this garage does need to come down. Councilmember Ahrens agreed that if all your pieces of your property are not on your land, then the streamlining should not apply. Councilmember Hanus stated he recalls the City Attorney stating if this type of situation does arise, then rather than changing the code, this should be a civil matter between the two parties involved. Councilmember Hanus does not recommend._^,~~-0o~ changing the code as suggested by the Planning Commission. Councilmember ~.~..,{L Weycker agreed. The Acting City Manager stated the City Council meetings will be aired every other Thursday at 7:00 p.m. The organization involved has requested $1.51 from the City of Mound and that was agreed by the Councilmembers for a three-month period at a previous meeting. The Acting City Manager stated this studio could be used for personal use without being charged individually. The Councilmembers were shocked with this report. It was agreed when the audit had been conducted, the contract might need to be revised. The WECAN, Inc. financial report was reviewed and discussed briefly. The Netka letter to Bruce Chamberh~n was presented. A Proposed reply to the Netlm letter from Jim Prosser was presented. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to adjourn at 10:23 P.M. The vote was nnqnlmously in favor. Motion e. arried. 5-0. Attest: Mayor Meisel Francene C. Clark, Acting City Manager 12 MOUND COMMI~I'TEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTF_~ -FEBRUARY' 15. 2000 Councilmember Ahrens stated she does not agree with this program with the only benefit to the City of Mound being PR as well as the service of the police department being lessened with this program in effect. The consensus of the Councilmembers was to wait until a possible later date and time to adopt such a canine program. 1.8 SHIRTS WITH. TIlE CITY LOGO FOR NON UNION EMPLOYEES. The Acting City Manager stated the head of Public Works, Mr: Skinner, suggested this. Mr. Skinner stated he felt it would be nice to have the City logo on staff shirts for them to wear at the City offices. Mr. Skinner is willing to donate $75 out of his own personal clothing budget in support of this cause. Councilmember Brown stated he would donate $50 of his own Councilmember salary to help with this cause as well. The Acting City Manager stated the cost of the shirts would be approximately $17 per shirt. It was agreed the City staff could purchase the shirts with the donated money suggested above. 1.9 INFORMATION ITEMS. Mayor Meisel stated the Committee of the Whole will be meeting with the Park Commission in April to discuss what the City would like the Parks Commission to address in the City of Mound. She stated she is looking for ideas from the Councilmembers to present to the Park Commission in April. Mayor Meisel stated these could be projects that will affect the development. Councilmember Ahrens suggested initiating a garden club. Mayor Meisel suggested having "tree tops" in planters at Christmas time in the downtown area. Councilmember Brown stated Shirley Anderson would appreciate being involved with a project of this type. Mayor Meisel would appreciate the Councilmembers input at the February 22, 2000, City Council meeting. 0 Councilmember Brown informed the Councilmembers of the dilapidated detached garage located on the Start property, that encroaches on the neighbors, which is now be requested by the applicants to keep erected on their property even though it was agreed by the applicants in a resolution to tear it down within a three year period which has now come due. Councilmember Brown stated the new streamlining code allows the applicants to be considering this request. 11 e 5. 6. 1.10 MOUND COMMrI'I'EE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES -FEBRUARY 1S. 2000 Councilmember Brown stated a motion will be presented to the City Council on February 22, 2000, regarding this case, and the Planning Commission will be requesting the City Council change the code to allow streamlining, but when it encroaches on another person's property, streamlining would not apply as in the Starr case. Brown confirms this garage does need to come down. Councilmember Ahrens agreed that if all your pieces of your property are not on your land, then the streamlining should not apply. Councilmember Hanus stated he recalls the City Attorney stating if this type of situation does arise, then rather than changing the code, this should be a civil matter between the two parties involved. Councilmember Hanus does not recommend co cha~t;hsg th~ code a~ ~uggcstcd by thc Planning Co,nmission. Councilmember Weycker agreed, a~ d ~a-A~r~ ,~ The Acting City Manager stated the City Council meetings will be aired every o~er Thursday at 7:00 p.m. The organization involved has requested $1.51 from the City of Mound and that was agreed by the Councilmembers for a three-month period at a previous meeting. The Acting City Manager stated this studio could be used for personal use without being charged individually. The Councilmembers were shocked with this report. It was agreed when the audit had been conducted, the contract might need to be The WECAN, Inc. financial report was reviewed and discussed briefly. The Netka letter to Bruce Chamberlain was presented. A Proposed reply to the Netka letter from Jim Prosser was presented. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to adjourn at 10:23 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. Attest: Mayor Meisel Francene C. Clark, Acting City Manager 12 MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL -FEBRUARY 22, 2000 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, February 22, 2000, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens (arrived 8:10), Bob Brown, Mark Hanus and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, Acting City Manager Len Harrell, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. The following interested citizens were also present: Kenny Beek, Jami Burke, Joe Condo, Cklair Hasse, Richard Hawks, Shirley Hawks, Michell Hexundes, Stephen Krause, Sharon Looh, John McKinley, Paul Meisel, Peter C. Meyer', Michael Mueller, Mick Mueller, Dan Niccum, Larry Olson, Kemp Putuk, Jason Swensen, Jim Venmra, Frank Weiland. *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 pom the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor opened the meeting at 7:38 P.M. and welcomed the people in attendance. The pledge of allegiance was recited. APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA The Acting City Manger stated he would like to add an Item M, a gambling premises permit for the VFW, and he would like to Pull Item H. Councilmember Hanus stated he would like to pull Items C, D, E, F and I. Councilmember Brown stated he would like to pull Item L. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to approve the agenda and consent agenda with the removal of Item~ C, D, E, F, H, I, L and the add-on of Item M to the consent. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. CONSENT AGENDA *1.0 MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 8. 2000. REGULAR MEETING. MOTION. Hanus, Weycker, 'nnanimoUSly. *1.! CASH ADVANCE FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE NEW TIF FUND. MOTION. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 2000 '1.2 *1.3 H_anus, Weycker, nnanlmously. APPROVAL FOR SPRING CLEAN-UP DAY IN MOUND. LOST LAKE SITE. DATE: SATURDAY. MAY 6 FROM 8:00 A.M. TO 3:00 P.M. A. No leaves, wood or brush. B. Anyone bringing things will have to show a valid picture driver's license. C. We will charge more for non-Mound residents. MOTION. Hanus, Weycker, nnanlmotlsly. APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT WEED INSPECTOR. RESOLUTION//00-23 RESOL~ON TO APPOINT JIM FACKLER AS ASSISTANT WEED INSPECTOR FOR 2000 *1.4 *1.5 Hanus, Weycker, ~nnnimously. APPROVAL OF VFW PREMISES PERMIT. RESOLUTION//00-24 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PREMISES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR ~ VFW POST //5113 - MOUND Uanus, Weycker, nnanimously. PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION. Iianus, Weycker, unnnimously. 1.6 CASE//00-02: MINOR SUBDIVISION: RENEWAL OF AN EXPIRED MINOR SUBDMSION RESOLUTION FOR 2978/2988 PELICAN POINT CIRCLE. BLOCK 1. PELICAN POINT: PID//19-117-23 42 0038 & 0039: P & Z CASE//96-3. Councilmember Ranus stated on page 662, second paragraph, line 3 should read as follows: ~wrong location and, therefore, the developer is proposing to locate the lot line to the." MOTION by Itanus, seconded by Brown, to accept the Resolution as amended. 2 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 2000 RESOLUTION//00-24: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR 2978 AND 2988 PELICAN POINT CIRCLE, LOTS 13 AND 14, BLOCK 1, P£I.ICAN POINT, PID# 19-117-23 42 0038 AND #19-- 117-23-31-0139, P & Z CASE # 00-02. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. 1.7 APPROVAL OF 2 YEAR UNION CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC WORKS. TEAMSTERS LOCAL 320 FOR 2000 AND 2001. Councilmember Hanus stated he has not seen the actual agreement and he would like to review the agreement before approving the Resolution. The Acting City Manager stated the contract is retroactive, so approving the Resolution at the next City Council meeting would be sufficient and timely. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown, to table the approval of the resolution until March 14, 2000. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. 1.8 APPROVAL OF 2 YEAR UNION CONTRACT FOR POLICE SERGEANTS. LELS LOCAL 35 FOR 2000 AND 2001. Councilmember Hanus stated he has not seen the actual agreement and he would like to review the agreement before approving the Resolution. The Acting City Manager stated the contract is retroactive, so approving the Resolution at the next City Council meeting would be sufficient and timely. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown, to table the approval of the resolution until March 14, 2000. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. 1.9 APPROVAL OF 2 YEAR UNION CONTRACT FOR POLICE PATROL. LELS LOCAL266 FOR 2000 AND 2001. Councilmember Hanus stated he has not seen the actual agreement and he would like to review the agreement before approving the Resolution. The Acting City Manager stated the contract is retroactive, so approving the Resolution at the next City Council meeting would be workable. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown, to table the approval of the resolution until March 14, 2000. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. 3 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINI. F/'ES - FEBRUARY 22. 2000 1.10 GARBAGE LICENSE RENEWALS. B. C. D. Best Disposal. Blackowiak & Sons. Rnndy's Sanitation. BFI of Minnesota (formerly Woodlake Sanitation). The Acting City Manager stated Waste Management should be added as an additional waste company. He stated the contract was sent to a wrong address, and Waste Management did not receive the contract until this morning. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to accept Item H of the Consent Agenda, with the addition of adding Waste Management as an additional waste company for the City of Mound. The vote was nnanimously in favor. Motion 1.11 APPROVAL OF FARMERS MARKET FROM JUNE 17. 2000. THROUGH OCTOBER 28. 2000. Councilmember Hanus stated he does not recaU having approved this document in previous years. He would like it clarified why the City Council is required to approve this contract and the connection the City has with this document. Councilmember Brown questioned the location of the Farmers Market. He would like the contract to be more specific with regard to Highway 15 and Highway 110. Councilmember Weycker stated with Ms. Heyer in charge of this community project and her having strong management skills, that could be the reason the City Council is reviewing the contract this year and not having been done so in the past. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown, to table the approval of the Farmers Market until March 14, 2000, at which time the above questions would be answered. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. Mayor Meisel stated the tabling of this item until March 14, 2000, should not damper any tim,lines. 1.12 APPOINTMENT OF SUZANNE CLAYWELL TO THE EDC. Councilmember Brown stated Ms. Ch)well interviewed for the position on the EDC. He stated she is very enthusiastic and would bring a lot of positive attributes to the committee. Ms. Claywell is knowledgeable with programs and this will be an azset for the City of Mound. She was voted unanimously by the EDC to appoint her on the committee. Brown moved and Weycker ~,x~,onded the following resolution: 4 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 2000 RESOLUTION RESOLUTION APPOINTING SUZANNE CLAYWELL TO ~ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION THREE YEAR TERM - TO EXPIRE 12/03 Discussion. Councilmember Weycker stated she would have like to have seen the minutes from the EDC meeting. Councilmember Brown stated one other candidate withdrew and Ms. Claywell was favored over her opponent. Councilmember Hanus was concerned about the questioning and answering the candidate was involved in through the interview process. He stated he would have appreciated being able review the minutes as well. Mayor Meisel suggested the Chair of EDC was present tonight if Councilmember Hanus would like to address his concerns with him. Motion carried. 5-0. Councilmember Hanus stated he would appreciate seeing the minutes in future instances before being asked to vote. COMMFNTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT PLEASE LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SUBJECT). There were no comments from citizens. PUBLIC HEARINGS. 1.13 CASE//9945: CONDmONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ADI)mON TO MOUNT OLIVE LUTHERAN CHURCH; 5218 BARTLETT BOULEVARD, BLOCK 2, TRACT A & PART OF BLOCK 2 SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D, 62050, PID # 24-117-24-21-0036. Mount Olive Lutheran Church requested a conditional use permit and variances associated with building expansion and renovation and site work. The church is located at the comer of Bartlett and Wilshire Boulevard. Zoning of the property is R-1 which allows the church as a conditional use. The facility plans would require conditional use permit and variance approval from the City Council to proceed. The variance requests associated with the project are as follows: Existing/Proposed Required Variance Impervious surface 53,300 sf 47,153 sf 6147 sf -5 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 2000 Parking stall width (existing and proposed) 9 feet Driveway entrance width 42 feet (Bartlett entrance) Parking lot setback 0 feet 5 feet Parking lot screening as noted in the report. 10 feet I foot 24 feet 18 feet 5 feet Building Improvements. The scope of the project involves a large degree of remodeling and modernizing of existing internal space and the addition of a new north and .west entrances. The north education wing of the building, which currently has a second story walkway connection, will be provided with an enclosed first floor access. This will remove the existing water drainage course. Existing lobby and narthex spaces on both levels will be increased. A number of interior facelift improvements will also occur. The sanctuary seating capacity will remain unchanged at 316 seats. All building improvements would meet district setback requirements. Site improvements consist of a new parking and garden area at the front entrance as well as entrance improvements. In terms of code requirements for parking, the proposal is for 105 spaces with the ability to remove 5 spaces which encroach on adjacent city wetland property to the west. The existing 86 stalls located in the north and west parking areas would remain unchanged at a 9 feet stall width. The 19 proposed spaces in the new Wilshire parking area are also requested at a 9 feet width. This would require a variance. The code bases parking requirements for churches on sanctuary seating capacity. The plans show the church has a 316 seat capacity requiring 105 parking spaces. As proposed 105 spaces are provided. Access to the site is currently provided by 4 drives, 2 on Wilshire and 2 on Bartlett. Both roadways are under County's jurisdiction. The proposal is to remove the existing loop drive on Bartlett, leaving the existing three access points. Staff would expect a favorable review from the County regarding the Bartlett dosing. Additional comments are provided in the Engineer's report. Impervious surfacedStormwater. Total site hardcover will be reduced from approximately 59,946 sq. ft or 38.1% to 53,300 sq. ft. or 33.9%. The reductions occur namely with the work to the front parking area and the removal of the loop drive at the south entrance. Storm water runoff issues need to be addressed to the MCWD for their review and approval. The project also incorporates a number of landscape plantings in and around the new front 6 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 2000 parking area and the south and west entrances. Code requirements for landscaping of institutional facilities are to provide the greater of I tree per 1,000 sq. ft. of building area or 1 per 50 feet of lineal site perimeter. The perimeter of the site is the determinant in this ease with 1431 lineal feet. This equates to 29 trees which exceeds code requirements and also satisfies the minimum 25 % conifer and deciduous varieties. Code also requires screening of the western parking area because it is within 30 feet of an adjacent residentially zoned property. As noted above, this parcel is a wetland owned by the City. The zoning is also residential north of the property but because the parking lot is further than 30 feet, no screening is required. Utilities. Utilities need to be addressed as discussed in the Engineer's report. DISCUSSION: Building improvements. As proposed, the building improvements meet zoning code requirements. building related concerns will be reviewed by the Building Official. Any additional The site meets the parking space requirements based on the sanctuary seating capacity if that portion of the western parking area is allowed to continue it encroachment on city property. If it were removed the parking requirements would be deficient by 5 spaces. Staff would recommend that if the City allows this existing situation to continue, an easement for parking and driveway access purposes be prepared by the applicant and submitted to the city for review and approval. Staff has no issues with the 9 feet stall width for existing proposed spaces. The existing driveways to the parsonage and the west parking lot exceed 24 feet width requirements. Unless the parking lot encroachment is removed, a variance is acceptable with staff. If the parking encroachment is removed, then this drive should meet width requirements. SOd will need to be replaced as well. Impervious surface/Stormwater. ' The total site hardcover will be reduced by about 4 percent as proposed. This is an improvement and is acceptable to staff. Final review of the storm water plan will need approval from the MCWD. Landscaphlg Site landscaping will be greatly improved and satisfies code requirements based on the site perimeter. The western parking area is also required to have screening. Based on the dense vegetation surrounding the wetland and the City's ownership of it, staff finds no reason to provide additional screening in this location. Utilities 7 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22. 2000 The City Engineer's report provides a detail of utility concerns and recommendations which should be included in any approval. Staff recommends the City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit and variances as required with the following conditions: A determination be made regarding the encroaching parking area; Storm water plans be reviewed and approved by the MCWD; and Other comments as outlined in the City Engineer's report. The City Planner and the City Engineer recommend throating the access point and making it a standard 24 foot on Bartlett Boulevard which would remove one of the variances. The City Planner stated the applicant submitted a lighting plan consistent with the city code requirements. He stated there are no bulbs or upward lighting that would affect the residents near the church. Mayor Meisel asked if the section referred to in the Planning Commission minutes as pavement or black top the City should take care of concerning use refers to this small section on Bartlett Boulevard. The City Planner stated this section is what they were referring to and it should be stated somehow by the City how that triangular section should be used. Councilmember Hanus asked if this is approved tonight by easement, would the easement be in perpetuity. He stated if this is the case, then why do we keep this triangular section. The City Planner stated we could sell this piece to the public, but this would be a longer process than what is being recommended tonight. Councilmember Hanus asked what was the size of this triang.u~r~ction. The City Planner stated it was about 500 square feet. Councilmember Hanus~e would like to consider this parcel for ponding possibly in the future. Councilmember Hanus asked the City Planner if the list for the variances should be stated as 9 x 18, 10 x 20, 1 x 2. The City Planner agreed with these measurements. Mayor Meisel opened the public heating at 8:10 p.m. Richard Hawks, 2640 Setter Circle, Mound. Mr. Hawks stated since the driveway is going to be vacated, what would be the problem of moving the driveway over to accommodate it instead of taking up City property. The City Planner stated this might be the most desirable way, although, since it has existed for a long time, the applicant would like to keep it as it always has been. Mayor Meisel closed the public hearing at 8:19 p.m. 8 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 2000 parking area and the south and west entrances. Code requirements for landscaping of institutional facilities are to provide the greater of 1 tree per 1,000 sq. ft. of building area or 1 per 50 feet of lineal site perimeter. The perimeter of the site is the determinant in this case with 1431 lineal feet. This equates to 29 trees which exceeds code requirements and also satisfies the minimum 25 % conifer and deciduous varieties. Code also requires screening of the western parking area because it is within 30 feet of an adjacent residentially zoned property. As noted above, this parcel is a wetland owned by the City. The zoning is also residential north of the property but because the parking lot is further than 30 feet, no screening is required. Utilities. Utilities need to be addressed as discussed in the Engineer's report. DISCUSSION: Building improvements. As proposed, the building improvements meet zoning code requirements. building related concerns will be reviewed by the Building Official. Any additional The site meets the parking space requirements based on the sanctuary seating capacity if that portion of the western parking area is allowed to continue it encroachment on city property. If it were removed the parking requirements would be deficient by 5 spaces. Staff would recommend that if the City allows this existing situation to continue, an easement for parking and driveway access purposes be prepared by the applicant and submitted to the city for review and approval. Staff has no issues with the 9 feet stall width for existing proposed spaces. Access. The existing driveways to the parsonage and the west parking lot exceed 24 feet width requirements. Unless the parking lot encroachment is removed, a variance is acceptable with staff. If the parking encroachment is removed, then this drive should meet width requirements. SOd will need to be replaced as well. Impervious surface/Stormwater. ' The total site hardcover will be reduced by about 4 percent as proposed. This is an improvement and is acceptable to staff. Final review of the storm water plan will need approval from the MCWD. Landscaphlg Site landscaping will be greatly improved and satisfies code requirements based on the site perimeter. The western parking area is also required to have screening. Based on the dense vegetation surrounding the wetland and the City's ownership of it, staff finds no reason to provide additional screening in this .location. Utilities 7 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 2000 The City Engineer's report provides a detail of utility concerns and recommendations which should be included in any approval. Staff recommends the City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit and variances as required with the following conditions: A determination be made regarding the encroaching parking area; Storm water plans be reviewed and approved by the MCWD; and Other comments as outlined in the City Engineer's report. The City Planner and the City Engineer recommend throating the access point and ma~ng it a standard 24 foot on Bartlett Boulevard which would remove one of the variances. The City Planner stated the applicant submitted a lighting plan consistent with the city code requirements. He stated there are no bulbs or upward lighting that would affect the residents near the church. Mayor Meisel asked if the section referred to in the Planning Commission minutes as pavement or black top the City should take care of concerning use refers to this small section on Bartlett Boulevard: The City Planner stated this section is what they were referring to and it should be stated somehow by the City how that triangular section should be used. Councilmember I-Ianus asked if this is approved tonight by easement, would the easement be in perpetuity. He stated if this is the case, then why do we keep this triangular section. The City Planner stated we could sell this piece to the public, but this would be a longer process than what is being recommended tonight. C°uncilmember Hanus asked what was the size of this triangular section. The City Planner stated it was about 500 square feet. Councilmember Hanus stated hc .woulsl ~ to eonsidor this parcel~for pon,ding possibly in the future. Councilmember Hanus asked the City Planner if the list for the variances should be stated as 9 x 18, I0 x 20, 1 x 2. The City Planner agreed with these measurements. Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Richard Hawks, 2640 Setter Circle, Mound. Mr. Hawks stated since the driveway is going to be vacated, what would be the problem of moving the driveway over to accommodate it instead of taking up City property. The City Planner stated this might be the most desirable way, although, since it has existed for a long time, the applicant would like to keep it as it always has been. Mayor Meisel dosed the public heating at 8:19 p.m. 8 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22. 2000 Councilmember Brown asked how much work would be involved in vacating this triangular piec,~ of property. Thc City Attorncy stated thc City ~c,?j,~. ~1 off this piece of property by resolution. Councilmember Brown stated it is near a'/a'*'~'-~r'Wefland that will probably never be built. The City Planner stated there would some be setback requirements in the Councilmember Brown stated it might be best for the City at this poin! t~ have this triangular parcel be rid of through sale. Councilmember Hanus stated if there is~ potential for public use in the future, should the City sell the property. Councilmember Hanus stated possibly agreeing to the variance, but directing staff to take some action to do away with the property. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus, to approve the resolution granting the CUP and variance, the 24-foot driveway change, the variance for the parking stallS, and directing staff to investigate turning over the 500 square foot triangular parcel to Mount Olive. RESOLUTION g00-26: RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES TO ALLOW BUII.BING EXPANSION AND SITE WORK TO MOUNT OLIVE LUTFfERAN CIt-URCIt LOCAT~Z~o AT 5218 BARTLETT BOULEVARD, TRACT A & PARK OF BLOCK 2, SFIIRLEY Flll.l.g UNIT "D", PK)g 24-117-24 21 0036, P & Z CASES g99-45 AND The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. 1.14 CONTINUATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. The City Planner presented the case. He stated the previous handouts are still applicable. The City Planner stated there is an additional letter from Bruce Chamberlain and him that discuss the community center and ballfield property. The City Planner stated there are two items that need to be finalized by the City Council which include the Comprehensive Plan and the Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). He stated the Comprehensive Plan is ready for the City Council's review, although the SWMP is being reviewed by the Planning Commission. The City Planner stated some issues regarding the school property have been investigated by Metro Plains after soft testing had been conducted. He further stated Metro Plains would like some direction from the City Council that would be given to them once the Comprehensive Plan has been approved. 9 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22. 2000 It was suggested by communication from Metro Plains to recommend the ballfield property to be considered medium density land use classification. He further stated the rest of the property would remain commercial. He stated a meeting with the Commissions is suggested to get some direction regarding the development of this property. The City Planner presented to the public the different definitions of low, medium, and high density properties, the locations where residential and commercial property are revealed, and the park locations proposed on the map presented. The City Planner stated the Planning Commission .proposed two recommendations for changes to the Comprehensive Plan concerning land use. He stated they would like the Lost Lake area to be designated as a conversation area with a linear park around this area and, secondly, the ballfield site to be changed from medium density residential to public institution density. There were also some ``word smithing'' changes in land use, as well as comments in the transportation section concerning the transit service and appropriate changes made to the buffer zone section. He stated the Parks Commission suggested changes in their November 17, 1999, letter. He stated some citizens of Mound at previous meetings were concerned about the width of County Road 15 with the new redevelopment proposal and also the Haddolf site. Councilmember I-Ianus stated this. Comprehensive Plan indicates a~vision for the City of Mound and the City Planner agreed. He asked the City Planner if the City Council is suppose to identify properties for the use we would like, or for what we think is inevitable, or a happy medium between the two thoughts. The City Planner stated the Comprehensive Plan should state what is the future 'for the use of the land and what the City would like to see happen to this land in the future. He stated it should consider your look into the future concerning parks, redevelopment, and transportation, but the changes being considered may cause friction and they need to be resolved in a way that it best' for the community. Mayor Meisel stated she deals with reality and if someone presents a proposal along a checkbook, she is certainly willing to give it consideration. Councilmember Brown stated there is concern from the Planning Commission and him about the density being proposed for the City of Mound. Mayor Meisel stated we need to keep in mind any redevelopment proposal presented to the City Council is only preliminary, but she appreciates the need to question what is being proposed. Councilmember Brown asked if the ballfield location was zoned as R-l, would any developer that would like to develop this area need to come before the Planning Commission regarding zoning issues. The City Planner stated this would be the case. Councilmember Weycker asked what public institution zoning being proposed for the ballfield location represents. The City Planner stated this is a more guiding issue for owner and considered a "catch all" for parks. 10 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22. 2000 The City Attorney stated with the City Council approving the Comprehensive Plan it does not directly affect the zoning issues. The City Attorney asked about the public/institutional designation and asked if this is a defined term. The definition is considered for property owned by city/school or public institute and designates those land areas as they exist today or in the future. Attorney stated this could not be defined as a holding pattern. The City Planner agreed. Mayor Meisel opened the public heating open at 8:45 p.m. Michael Mueller, 5910 Ridgewood Road, Mound. He stated he is a member of the Planning Commission and has been for many years. He is concerned about the school district site. He stated at the Planning Commission meetings citizens wanted it to be designated public or institutional property which.would then deny a developer the opportunity to change it in the future if requested. He stated they wanted to keep it the way it was zoned because no body knows what that piece of property will be designated for in the future. He stated now there is a timeframe crunch being suggested by Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Gordon concerning the post office location which states if the post office is not designated soon, the City of Mound could lose its grant. He is very concerned about this and was not aware of this situation. He stated the Planning Commission is not sure if the post office should go where it is being proposed. He stated if it is at the corner of County 15 and 110, this would probably be a much too busy corner to have the post office, although he would appreciate having the Planning Commission review where the best spot would be for the post office. He stated he is aware the developer may back out if the City leaves this location designated as public or institutional. He stated the City Council is not responsible to make the school district's purchase agreement valid by changing a Comprehensive Plan to meet a developer's plan. Mr. Mueller stated this property is currently zoned as R-1. He would appreciate being allowed to arrange Planning Commission meetings to efficiently and timely discuss where the post office should be located, but to not harm the grant being considered for this redevelopment of Mound. He would like, at this point, to see the property noted in the Comprehensive Plan as it currently is zoned to date. Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road, Mound. He stated he supports the Planning Commissions' recommendations to keep the Haddolf location considered as institutional. He stated this location has been at part of Mound's parkland inventory for many years. He restated the City of Mound has a shortage of parks. Mr. Meyer mentioned there have been enough names to support a referendum regarding this property. Kim Anderson, 5736 Lynwood Bouelvard, Mound. Ms. Anderson stated she would like to have the City Council respect what the Planning Commission presented tonight and leave the property in question zoned as it currently exists. She stated she would like to see the second set of signatures for the Petition verified regarding the referendum. Mayor Meisel stated the City Attorney was just faxed today a summary of the signatures on the petition concerning the referendum. She stated there were 1,010 signatures. Out of the 1,010, 70 people were not from Mound, 36 signatures were not readable, 15 signatures had 11 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22. 2000 no addresses, 16 people had signed for two, 19 people signed twice. She stated this leaves 111 signatures short for a completed petition to have the City start a referendum. Councilmember Brown stated eminent domain would be considered a last resort and has never been discussed concerning the school district Property. Councilmember Hanus stated he would like point of order and stated there is a public hearing for consideration of the Comprehensive Plan. Paul Meisel, 5501 Bartlett Boulevard, Mound. He stated he is the Chair of the Economic Development Committee. He stated they have been working on getting this project going. He stated it has been a real struggle. He stated a big struggle was getting a developer come to the City of Mound and now we finally have some interest. He appreciates the Planning Commission's interest in trying to work through the post office issue. He stated he does not foresee the City losing the grant. He stated the EDC unanimously agrees with a change in the Comprehensive Plan, particularly the Haddolf field. He stated he does not want to see this project lost and all the work put into it at this point. Mr. Michael Mueller stated he would like to clarify that he, on behalf of the Planning Commission, does not want to see the grant lost; but, he also wants it known that the Planning Commission is not favoring any specific direction of the Haddolf fields and that is why they left it as public institutional. Mayor Meisel closed the public hearing at 9:10 p.m. Councilmember Brown stated he and the Planning Commission are supportive in what is best for the majority of people in the City of Mound. Councilmember Hanus stated he agreed with almost everything Mr. Mueller said. He said because the City of Mound does not know what the land in question is going to be in the future, it should bo-tv..,,d as public institutional in the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Meisel stated she wanted it made clear that what it remains and what it becomes are two different things. She restated the fact what is here and what truly happens could be different things. Councilmember I-Ianus stated the post office location not only needs to be approved by the Commissions of the City of Mound, but more importantly, it has to be approved by them and there are many item to be discussed to allow this to happen. Mr. James Prosser, Elders and Associates. He stated the agreement with the post office is they would attempt to provide an alternative location. He stated the post office could wait up to three more years, and may look at other sites that may be possible. He stated the post office does not have to be located downtown. Mr. Prosser stated on the broader issue that is before the City Council, is the appropriate land use in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the City needs to look at the Plan in a pragmatic vision, both realty and vision. He stated 12 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 2000 this is an appropriate time for the City to make this choice, even though it is a tough decision. He stated tonight's decision will provide staff and the community with what the City would feel would be best for the land use in Mound for now and in the long run. He stated the City Council does need to step forward and help shape the City of Mound. Councilmember Hanus stated his first choice at this point is not to have this land developed. He further stated if the City Council is at the point of adopting the Comprehensive Plan, he has a number of changes that he would like to have considered in the Plan. Councilmember Brown asked the City Planner if the ComPrehensive Plan should be passed tonight. The City Planner stated the Plan' could be passed tonight if there are no additional changes, it could be completely reviewed and then passed tonight, or it could also be continued to a later date. Councilmember Weycker stated she is very frustrated with the whole process and would like to see the Planning Commission complete their side of the Comprehensive Plan and the Surface Water Management Plan in its entirety. Councilmember Brown stated the Planning Commission has completed the Comprehensive Plan and the SWMP could have been completed if staff, specifi~y Mr. Parks, was made available at the last meeting. He stated the Planning Commission has spent a lot of hours on both of these Plans and knows they are coming to the City Council is the best way they can be presented. Councilmember Weycker appreciated knowing staff has not been made available so the Planning Commission can be allowed to complete both Plans. Mayor Meisel asked what the general consensus is whether the City Council should continue this meeting concerning the Comprehensive Plan and get through it tonight or should this be tabled. Councilmember Hanus stated he would like to leave the Comprehensive Plan as the Planning Commission recommended, but he does have about 15 items he would like to add for discussion. Councilmember Brown stated he would like to see the Comprehensive Plan passed tonight by the City Council. Councilmember Weycker stated she has already recommended her changes to the Comprehensive Plan at previous meetings and would like to see the City Council finish the review process tonight. Councilmember Ahrens stated she is equally frustrated with a continuous review of the Comprehensive Plan and the SWMP by various staff and Commissioners and would like to get this topic off of the agenda. She agreed to continue the meeting and pass the Plan in some fashion if possible. 13 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22. 2000 Mayor Meisel stated the consensus was to continue the review process of the Comprehensive Plan in hopes of passing it tonight. She stated they would continue after a ten-minute break. The City Council recessed at 9:45 p.m. Mayor Meisel stated on break a suggestion was presented to her regarding the page-by-page review process of the Comprehensive Plan. She stated rather than having a page-by-page review, all Councilmembers were handed a card by Mr. Prosser of Ehlers & Associates. She suggested having each Councilmember submit his/her changes to Mr. Prosser by e-mail or mailing by March 1, 2000, who will in turn integrate them and the Planning Commission's changes into a final draft form that will be presented to the City Council with the' changes indicated. She stated she would continue the public hearing at that time which would probably be the first meeting in April. Cotmcilmember Hanus asked how the public would be given this information in a timely manner. Mayor Meisel stated Mr. Prosser would be able to have a draft done within two weeks which would be submitted to the Commissions at that point in the same format as presented in the past. Councilmember Brown asked by waiting until the April meeting, would we jeopardize the grant money at this time for the post office. The City Planner stated he does not see the true relation between the two, but passing the Comprehensive Plan would certainly help with this issue. Mayor Meisel stated the Planning Commission would be reviewing the preliminary concept plans on March 13, 2000. Mr. Prosser agreed. Mr. Prosser further stated he would like to make sure each Councilmember submits their comments on the relocation of the post office and he will, in turn, develop a contingency plan for the post office to be presented at the time the Comprehensive Plan is presented. Councilmember Hanus stated he would like to continue discussions concerning the relocation of the post office at .the end of the meeting. The Councilmembers agreed with this suggestion. Mayor Meisel reopened the public hearing at 9:50 p.m. for a continuation of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown, to continue the public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan until the first week in April. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 50. Councilmember Hanus stated he wanted it clarified the recommendations to staff would include visions for the community center site as well. Mayor Meisel agreed. 14 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 2000 1AS REQUEST FROM NANCY AND CONRAD STARR TO RECONSIDER THF. TEMPORARY VARIANCE APPROVED FOR THEIR DETACHED GARAGE TO ALLOW IT TO REMAIN. The City Planner stated the owners have requested the City Council consider the temporary variance approved for their detached garage and allow it to remain. In Resolution//9%24, it is stated quite clearly the terms of the variance and why the dilapidated detached garage that is in need of great structural repairs needs to be tom down. The City Planner stated the garage is nonconforming, it encroaches on the neighboring property to the north, and it is five feet away from the right-of-way. However, he stated, based on the streamlining code, this could possibly be passed. He further stated the Planning Commission denied this request at its February 14, 2000, meeting. Mayor Meisel questioned if we would have allowed the garage to stay if it had not been previously requested to have it removed in Resolution g97-24. The City Planner stated the City would not have allowed this situation. Councilmember Ahrens stated she is alarmed to have it mentioned that streamlining would apply in a case where an individual has a structure that is nonconforming and the structure encroaches on the neighbor's property. Councilmember Brown agreed with Councilmember Ahrens. Councilmember Hanus asked the City Attorney if the City has the authority to grant permission to keep a structure on someone else's property. The City Attorney stated it does not have this authority. Councilmember Brown recommended that the Council allow an extension until April 1, 2000, before the dilapidated detached garage would need to be tom down. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to DENY the applicants' request for reconsideration of the removal of their detached garage, but to allow an extension until April 1, 2000, to remove the dilapidated garage. Discussion. Councilmember Ahrens clarified the City of Mound would wait until April 1, 2000, to have the applicants tear down the detached garage, but after that point, if the garage has not been removed, the City can remove it. Mayor Meisel directed staff to give the applicants an extension until April 1, 2000. Motion carried. 5-0. 15 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 2000 1.16 CONSIDERATION FOR REINSTATING THE POLICE CANINE PROGRAM. Mayor Meisel stated at the Committee of the Whole meeting the Councilmembers were presented information about this program. When all of the information had been presented, the consensus was that even though it was a good program, the money was not in the budget this year and the program would have to be put on hold. Mayor Meisel stated the following day she was approached by Chief Harrell, who is present tonight, and who will clarify some misrepresented information that was given to the Committee of the Whole. Chief Harrell stated when the officers heard the canine program was turned down by the Councilmembers, there was a lot of emotions that were exerted. Chief Harrell stated the program would basically be paid for by the Mound Criminal Prevention Association. He further stated they would need to convert a car with minimal expense, the force would not have to add a vehicle, and the use of a car with the higher mileage is not required as well. He stated with regard to overtime because of dog training school, Niccum has agreed to cover the officer's position when he is at the EMT school. The canine would be considered a narcotic dog. Chief Harrell stated this would be a great PR tool for the City of Mound. Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 10:10 p.m. Jim Ventura, 1000 Superior Boulevard, Wayzata. Mr. Ventura is an attorney representing the Mound Criminal Association. He stated they are dedicated to serve on the Canine program in Mound. Mr. Ventura stated this program would support officer safety. He further stated it would be very cost-effective and a positiVe impact to the City would be great. He stated having a canine program would deter criminals from hiding in the tall grasses or abandoned buildings because they know they would be located by a trained canine. He stated Mound would be sending a message to the public they are a community that is devoted to stopping crime, Mayor Meisel stated she spoke with Jim Brandon on the Mound Criminal Prevention Association. He stated the money that is available for this program now is about $6,000. Mr. Brandon stated to Mayor Meisel they would support this canine program with an extreme positive attitude, and they would hope to contribute every year to the program. Mr. Brandon stated he felt there would be no problem in raising the funds for this program if the need arises. Furthermore, there is the possibility of asking the public for funding if other means have been exhausted. Mayor Meisel is confident Jim Brandon would help with the funding of this program. Mayor Meisel questioned the canine officer wages and Chief Harrel stated the wage has been allocated already. Chief Harrell stated when the 12 weeks of training have been accomplished, the dog will be valued at approximately $10,000 and does not need to be job placed with the officer the canine started with if the canine had to leave Mound for some unknown reason. He stated within 18 months the dog would be trained for narcotics. He further stated the officer 16 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22. 2000 already committed to this program would work less hours to compensate for the time spent with thc dog, rather than overtime being exerted. Couneilmember I-Ianus asked about other minor costs and how they would be funded. Chief Harrell stated in the past the competitions have been paid for these costs and if the monies would not come from there, then the crime fund would be more than happy to spend their funds for this program. John McKinley, 4177 Shoreline Drive, Spring Park. He stated he was the first canine officer in Mound. He stated the year he and his dog went to national competition, it was funded by organizations such as the VFW. He stated transporting an individual with a dog in the car, is beneficial to the officer, and would pose no problem with the citizen. Councilmember Brown stated this program presented tonight was a whole new program than what was presented to him and he had passed on to the Committee of the Whole. He was a little disturbed about being presented with false information, but was glad to hear the canine program looked more financially possible. Councilmember Brown wanted some clarification. He asked why Hennepin County would not bring a dog into Mound if requested. Mr. McKinley stated they probably would not because they do not come out as far as Mound with their canine program. Chief Harrell stated this canine program would be an incentive program for the officers and would keep the police department more content. He stated in the past this was a cost- effective program and a unique one which he would like to see started up again in Mound. Councilmember Hanus stated, and all other Councilmembers agreed, he was under the impression the only benefit of the canine program was a PR one and it was proven tonight there were other benefits. He restated there would not be a transporting problem anymore, a new car was not an issue anymore, and the Crime Prevention fund would help with the financial commitments. Chief Harrell stated a real benefit is a PR one, but as noted tonight, there are other benefits as well. Dan Niccum, P.O. Box 13, Mound. Mr. Niccum stated there is quite a bit of wait time when a trained canine would be brought into the City of Mound. In a past experience, it took between 2 to 2 ~h hours before a canine was brought in to the school in a bomb threat situation. He was employed by Mound when the other two canines were at Mound, and is very confident this program leaves a positive note with the police department. Jason Swensen, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound. He stated he was surprised to hear the canine program was turned down at the COW meeting because of budgeting issues, when in the past, Chief Harrell has always come up with monies to support a program that the police department feels is worth supporting. He further commented the dog would be utilized for 17 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22. 2000 fights at the bar, parking lot patrol, hauling off drunks, searches at schools, and kid-friendly programs. Mayor Meisel closed the public hearing at 10:35 p.m.. MOTION by,B. onded by Ahrens, to proceed with reinstating the c~nlne program for the City of Mound. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. 1.17 CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF METRICOM RIGHT-OF-WAY ACCESS PROPOSAL. The City Planner stated Metricom is a wireless communications company that is involved in interact, e-mail and local air network access seeking to secure its future in the Twin Cities and nationwide. He stated the agreement has been accepted by the League of Cities. He stated there are revenues generated per pole for the City of Mound, as well as 10 free subscriptions for the City. The City Planner stated the Suburban Right Authority does not foresee any problems with this company. He then introduced Joe Condo. Mr. Joe Condo of Metricom presented a live sample of the radio transmitter. He stated ur~like typical phone or cable companies that offer 'wire' service, Metric. om uses wireless technology to transmit data over its service area. He stated they are an alternative to typical service providers and have been operating in major metropolitan areas on the east and west coasts for a number of years. He stated Metricom uses small radio transmitters to transmit signals throughout their coverage area. These transmitters are typically mounted to street lights or other utility poles to tap into existing power supplies. He stated they would be disbursed approximately one transmitter per square mile. Mr. Condo stated there axe 15 cities within the Twin Cities that have approved this wireless system for their city. Councilmember Ahrens asked if the contract was revised by any of the 15 cities that have agreed to participate in this program. Mr. Condo stated the contract has not been revised. The City Attorney stated there is a municipality clause in the contract which would benefit the City of Mound. It states if another city works out a better financial agreement for this type of access, the City of Mound would have rights to that financial decrease. Councilmember IIanus asked if the changes Mr. Jim Strommen suggested have been implemented into the agreement. Secondly, he is concerned if the $1,000 reimbursement for fees is large enough. Councilmember Weycker is also concerned if changes Mr. Strommen mentioned have been implemented, specifically on page 826, number 1.8. 18 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22. 2000 The City Attorney stated after reviewing the agreement, the agreement presented to the Councilmembers does not have the changes Mr. Strommen' suggested. A specific change was having the word "places" removed or changed. Mr, Condo was not aware of any proposed changes being made by Mr. Strommen. The City Attorney is not comfortable approving the agreement before Mr. Strommen has completed his review of the final draft. Councilmember Hanus questioned paragraph 1.9 on page 826. Mayor Meisel questioned page 830, paragraph 4.4 and whether or not the $1,000 was an appropriate amount. She would like to know if this amount could be renegotiated to state any excess amount over the $1,000, would be paid by Metricom. Mr. Condo stated the agreement cannot be restated if there are excess reimbursements fees over the $1,000 mark, .they will be paid by Metricom. Metricom is too small of a company to comply. The City Attorney stated, and the City Planner agreed, the $1,000 covers only the preparation of the document which has basically been completed by the consultants for the City of Mound for less than $500. Councilmember Ahrens stated the $1,000 appears to be an appropriate amount with almost all of the work already done on the document and it having reached approximately $500 to Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution to approve the Agreement with Metricom upon Mr. Strommen's complete satisfaction with the final draft of the Agreement. RESOLUTION//00-27 RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND ACTING CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT AND FACILITY USE AGREEMENT WITH METRICOM, INC. Motion carried. 5-0. 1.18 CONSIDERATION FOR MOUND REDEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS PLAN. Councilmember Weycker stated the Redevelopment Communications Plans was presented at the Committee of the Whole on February 15, 2000, and she suggested at that meeting another means of good communication could include a billboard. Councilmember Brown stated he suggested some form of documentary. 19 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22. 2000 The consensus of the City Council agreed to bring this matter back to the Council at a later date in time when all of the Commissions have reviewed the Plan and presented some comments and ideas. 1.19 RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR USE OF 2000 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM CONSILIDATED POOL FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF SUBRECIP1ENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS FOR 2020 COMMERCE BOULEVARD. INDIAN KNOLL MANOR. Councilmember Brown stated the HRA Director would like to use the grant money to improve the ventilation and also convert studio apartments to handicapped accessible apartments in the HUD subsidized housing. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens, to accept the Resolution recommended by staff. RESOLU~ON//00-28: RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR USE OF 2000 URBAN IIENNEP~ COUNTY COMlVllYNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM CONSOl.mATED POOL FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF SUBRECIP~ENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS. 1. Draft financial statement for the Liquor Fund. 2. Annual report from Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager. Letter from the DNR notifying Park Director, Jim Fackler, that our application for the Minnesota ReLeaf Grant has been approved in the amount of $5,000. REMINDER: Interview of candidates for City Manager will be held here at City Hall on Friday, February 25, 2000, at 10:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. Mayor Meisel distributed guidelines for interviewing to the Councilmembers. The City Attorney stated the names mentioned in the pamphlet should not be made public until Meroer has been authorized by each candidate to make it known. 2O MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 2000 Memo dated 2/16/00 from lim Faclder to Mayor/City Council regarding mu~'ple slip dock sites specifications. LMCD News Release dated 2/10/00 and Executive Director Newsletter dated 2/11/00. 7. Location of the Post Office. Councilmember Hanus expressed concern about the development site and the change of direction it may be taking because of the location of the post office consuming more time than expected. He stated last summer he wanted to spend time looking at sites for the post office. He stated it appears there is concern to get a location of the post office done quickly to. not lose the grant money. He stated the City of Mound cannot afford to lose the grant money. He mentioned it has always been noted that the post office should be put downtown to draw traffic in and this would also be a destination location as well. Councilmember IIanus is concerned about the tim,frames with the development site and at this point, he would appreciate a contingency plan put into play. Mr. James Prosser stated if the Councilmembers have concerns about the location of the post office, then this needs to be addressed right away. Also, he stated a contingency plan could be put together and he would assist in accomplishing this project. The consensus of the Councilmembers agreed there is great concern that the grant money will be taken away if the City of Mound if it does not act quickly and get a location for the post office. Mr. Prosser stated he would like the concerns of the Councilmembers addressed and presented to him. He stated the proximity of the post office to the residential location is appears to be a concern to the Councilmembers. Councilmember Hanus asked if the City Council is wasting their time with Metro Plains. Specifically, is Metro Plains planning only what is best for them and not considering what is best for the City of Mound. Mr. Prosser stated there are other options where the post office could be located, and soil testings need to be accomplished to figure out where the post office could actually be relocated. The City Attorney stated the City Council needs to decide if the post office should be downtown or located elsewhere. Mr. Prosser still favors having the post office downtown. There were extensive decisions about where the post office could be located, but nothing was decided. Mr. Prosser clarified after conversations made by the City Council that they would appreciate several options for the relocation of the post office. He stated the Councilmembers could present to him their thoughts in writing and then Mr. Prosser could come up with sites that would be appropriate. 21 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22. 2000 Mayor Meisel suggested the next step for the City Council should possibly be meeting with the other Commissions and come up with locations for the post office that are agreed upon by everyone and agreed that would be the best thing for the City of Mound. The City Planner agreed this would be an appropriate step. Mr. Prosser stated he has been enlightened and had not realized the City Council's concerns with the post office location and the redevelopment site. He stated the City of Mound needs to come up with general parameters for developers who are interested in building in Mound. Mr. Prosser further stated they also need to come up with a vision for the school site and need to be proactive and reactive with this process. Mayor Meisel asked Mr. Prosser and the City Attorney for some direction. It was agreed each Councilmember would send his/her concerns for the post office location and the redevelopment project to Mr. Prosser. Mr. Prosser stated he would, in mm, bring back options for the post office and would set up a contingency plan as well. Councilmember Weycker stated the relocation of the post office and the redevelopment site have never been brought up properly with all the Commissions and working towards that goal would be positive in her mind. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens, to adjourn the meeting at 11:55 p.m. The vote was nnnnimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. Leni Harrell, Acting City Manager Attest: Council Secretary lVllNUTF~ SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 29th, 2000 SECOND INTERVIEW FOR THE CITY MANAGER POSITION Those in attendance: Acting Mayor Hanus, Councilmembers Brown, and Weycker. Also in attendance: Hanson. Mayor Meisel and Councilmember Ahrens were absent and excused. Acting Mayor Hanus called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. He announced that this was called under the guidelines of an emergency Council Meeting due to the time constraints involved with this candidate and proper posting of this meeting has taken place. Hanus welcomed Ms. Hanson back and apologized for bringing her back for such a short meeting. The Council agreed on the procedures for this meeting and began the next round of questioning. Councilmember Brown asked a question and a follow'question regarding personnel management. Acting Mayor Hanus asked a series of questions involving p~monnel management, management techniques, use of consultants, involvement with local businesses, and the applicanfs current staff size. Hanus then asked a couple of ~mulation questions. Councilmember Weycker asked a follow up question from the last interview involving ethics issues. At, the end of questioning Acting Mayor Hanus thanked Ms. Hanson for returning again for this additional opportunity to talk. MOTION by Brown seconded by Weycker to adjourn at 7:35 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion passed. Minutes prepared by: Acting Mayor Harms MINUTES FOR SPECIAL lVlEETING MARCH 2, 2~ PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ISSUF.~ In Attendance: Mayor Meisel, Councilmembers Ahrens, Brown, and Hanus. Bruce Chamberlain, James Prosser, Mark Koegler, and Len Harrell. The Mayor called the meeting to order at 6:08 P.M. The Mayor and Council voiced concern about the progress and communications regarding the Beard Group and downtown developments, as well as the post office relocation situation. I-Ianus provided a handout with concerns and a time-table for discussion of benchmarks for the project to progress. Discussion began regarding the Beard Group and the downtown development project. Mr. Prosser explained that there have been meetings with Beard and that they are trying to get the numbers right before bringing the proposal forward, There was discussion regarding stages of development and the need to tie the residential to a commitment for the retail/commercial. A realistic draft proposal could be done within about two weeks and will be ready for the Council to review at their April 1 lth Meeting. Mr. Chamberlain stated he would expect ground breaking this Fall. He stated that wetland issues have created the need to took closer at the numbers and costs. Some other hang-ups have been the railroad and the easement with the church. He would like to see people moving in by June 1, 2001. The discussion moved to the post office relocation issue. Mr, Chamberlain stated that time is important and that the project needs to be let by 2001, The post office must be moved by March 1 of 2001, at the absolute latest. The greenway will not be done until 2002 with the delays. Council does not want the greenway delayed until 2002. They would like completion in 2001. Discussion then moved to the Metro 'Plains concept plan and concerns about density and positioning of post office. There may be a need to reevaluate costs, and purchase issues. The Council requested a. list of alternatives if the Metro Plains site is not viable. Mr. Chamberlain provided a handout of alternative locations for discussion that included: Anthony's Floral, Willette property, Bethel Methodist, SA area, Bowling alley, and Jubilee Foods. Brown inquired about Meyer's Service and the bait shop area and Mayor Meisel added tile Mueller-Lansing property. Mr. Brown suggested the west end of Balboa as a possible option. There was discussed about the requirements by the post office for size and location. Mr. Koegler gave some examples from other cities where post offices have been relocated and issues that can be tough to overcome. There was discussion, regarding the option of condemnation as an alternative. Five alternate sites will be evaluated and brought back to the council after examination by Mr, Prosser and our planning group. Those sites are: the bowling alley; Lynwood/Commerce; Jubilee; Balboa Building-west end; and the Coast to Coast area. A Special Council Meeting was set for Thursday, March 9th at 6:30P.M. to review alternate sites. Due to the tight time constraints and the fact that the candidate may have another offer from another City, discussion then turned to the selection of a new City Manager. The Council, by consensus, agreed on the terms and conditions of a package to offer the selected candidate. The Mayor will provide the Mercer Group with the package to be offered to the candidate before she leaves town tomorrow. The Mercer Group will then negotiate with the selected candidate and report back to Acting Mayor Hanus who will then submit the terms and conditions of employment to the City Attorney for review. They will then come back to the Council, in Employment contract form, for approval or changes. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn at 8:20 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Len Harrell, Acting City Manager 2-27-00 To: Bruce Chamberlain Mark Koegler Jim Prosser -MEMO- Subject: New Requirements for the Mound Visions Schedule Recently the Mound Council has identified some areas that we feel are lacking in the progress with Mound Visions. Listed below are some of those concerns. The Council has all but dropped out of the information loop and we face angry citizens and business owners all the time. The project suffers in the public eye when "the Council doesn't even know what's going on". This is what happens when we get mini-updates such as, "Things are moving along", or "We're making progress, hang on just a little more". This is part of the reason rumors fly and negative comments are passed around. This, we can no longer afford! The results being achieved appear to be short of the large monthly bills that we have been paying. As an example, we are not one inch closer to having a new Post Office site now than at this time last year. And there are months to go before the closing on the current prospect is scheduled, assuming it ever closes. This, we can no longer afford! The Beard Group has missed its schedule on presenting plans with no explanation. Is this going to become a chronic problem? This we can no longer afford! These conditions are no longer acceptable to the Council and will require corrective action, effective immediately. The following requirements are being imposed to improve the progress of the Visions project and keep the Council better informed. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS Bruce Chamberlain will provide the council with weekly progress reports showing what was accomplished that week toward the required schedule. These reports may be informal and referred by e-mail, or dropped in the council's mailbox at city hall. E-mails will be due by 10pm each Friday or in the mailboxes by COB on Friday starting immediately. We do not intend or desire these communiqu6s to take much time at all to write or send. The following schedule has been laid out in order to get back on schedule. This is extremely aggressive but we are out of time. These times must be met! ON OR BEFORE: 3-7-00 - The Beard Group will be contacted and informed of the council's disappointment with them not meeting the February date for submission of plans. They will be informed of the urgency the council feels and that we expect schedules to be met. Ifa chronic late situation develops, the council will review the agreement and consider it for revocation. We are putting property owners and business owners through hell right now and it will not be tolerated any longer than absolutely necessary. 3-17-00 - Staff will have three alternate Post Office sites identified that meet the known Post Office criteria. 3-31-00 - The community center Post Office site must be "locked in" by written agreement including a defined site plan by this date or the council will consider abandonment of this location and actively pursue one of the alternate sites. We will not wait until June or longer for the Community Center property to close to determine if we have a site. The luxury of waiting has passed by. 3-31-00 - We will have the community center site as well as the three alternate sites run through the Planning Commission for input and thoughts. (Concepts! Concepts! Not specifics. We need their buy in to avoid delays later.) We will be ready to shift our efforts to the next desirable site if the Community Center site isn't locked in by this date. 3-31-00 - We will have a plan written for each alternate site that will address the likely method of acquisition to allow us to meet the required dates. Also, a concept of the building location and parking/access solutions will be complete even if it is only a hand sketch. 4-15-00 - Final decision on a site will be made and immediate actions will be taken toward plans and acquisition. 4-28-00 - The proposal will be run through the approving authority for the Post Office immediately followed by approving local authorities. 5-30-00 - The city will have ownership of the property and final plans will be underway with a developer in place. 7-15-00 - Construction begins with move in prior to the end of October 2000. 11-10-00 - Demolition of the old post office begins. 12-15-00 - Final phase of dredging begins and completion must be prior to spring and spawning season. 2-28-01 - Final Greenway plans are approved. 5-30-01 - Greenway project begins. If this schedule is determined not feasible by staff, a plan may be offered to the council provided the following criteria is met. This schedule, if offered, is due no later than the 3-14-00 council meeting. If staff rejects this schedule then staff must tell us what it will take to meet this schedule! 1) It must show the establishment of at least three viable alternative sites that meet the Post Office requirements. 2) It must show a plan of acquisition and a schedule stepping through all the approving authorities. 3) The schedule must show construction beginning by 7-15-00. 4) The schedule must show the final phase of dredging prior to spring and spawning season of 2001. 5) The schedule must show the greenway project work beginning in the spring of 2001. Mark Hanus Mound Councilmember February 22, 2000 RESOLUTION NO. 00- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 320, PUBLIC WORKS UNIT BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2000 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2000 WHEREAS, the City of Mound and Teamsters Local No. 320, Maintenance Persons and Unit Supervisor have gone through the collective bargaining process and negotiated a Labor Contract for January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2001, a two yeard period; and WHEREAS, both sides have worked a final agreement which is acceptable to both the City's negotiators and the Bargaining Unit's negotiators. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mound and Teamsters Lrx~ No. 320 Maintenance Persons and Unit Supervisor have reached a settlement on the January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2001, contract attached hereto and made a part thereof. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember and The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk February 22, 2000 RESOLUTION ~0- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LABOR CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES (LELS)LOCAL 35, POLICE SERGEANTS, FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2000, THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2001 WtIEREAS, the City of Mound and w Enforcement Labor Services, (LELS) LOCAL 35, Police Sergeants, have gone through the collective bargaining process and negotiated a Labor Contract for January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2001; and WHEREAS, both sides have worked a final agreement which is acceptable to both the City's negotiators and the Bargaining Unit's negotiators, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mound and Law Enforcement Labor Services (LELS) Local 35, Police Sergeants, have reached a settlement on the Janu 1 , 2000 through December 31, 2001 contract attached hereto and made a part thereof. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember , and seconded by The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk February 22, 2000 RESOLUTION NO. 00- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LABOR CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND LELS LOCAL 266 POLICE PATROL OFFICERS JANUARY 1, 2000 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2001. WHEREAS, the City of Mound and LEIS Local No. 266, Police Officers have gone through the collective bargaining process and negotiated a Labor Contract for January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2001 period; and WHEREAS, both sides have worked a final agreement which is acceptable to both the City's negotiators and the Bargaining Unit's negotiators. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mound and LELS I_xxTal No. 266 Police Patrol Officers have reached a settlement on the January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2001, contract attached hereto and made a part thereof. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember and The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk March 14, 2000 RESOL~ON NO. 00- RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT FOR A CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF MOUND WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mound hired the Mercer Group to search for a new City Manager, and WHEREAS, the City Council interviewed several candidates on Friday, February 25, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Council then invited one candidate back for a second interview on February 29, 2000; and WHEREAS, The Mercer Group negotiated with Ms. Kandis M. Hanson, one of the applicants, on the terms and conditions for employment; and WHEREAS, the terms and conditions for employment have been submitted to the City Attomey for his review; and WHEREAS, the Ms. Hanson has agreed with the terms and conditions of employment, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, selects Kandis M. Hanson to serve as City Manager for the City of Mound. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, docs hereby adopt the Employment Contract ("EXHIBIT A # attached hereto and becoming a part of this resolution), with Ms. Kandis lvL Hanson, for the position of City Manager. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the Acting Mayor and Acting City Manager to execute this the Employment Contract with Kandis M. Hanson. January 11, 2000 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #00 RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION IN ORDER TO CREATE THREE CONFORMING PARCELS FROM TWO EXISTING PARCELS; 2155 NOBLE LANE, BLOCK 3, LOTS 20,21; PID#13-117-24-31-0019, AND 2149 NOBLE LANE, BLOCK 3, LOTS 22,23, ABRAHAM LINCOLN; PID#13-117-24-31-0020. P & Z CASE # 00-01 WHEREAS, the applicant, Bruce and Laura Sohns, have applied for a minor subdivision to create three new parcels from two existing parcels on the property located at 2149 and 2155 Noble Lane; and, WHEREAS, the subject properties are located within the R-2 One and Two Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet for Single Family Residences; and, WHEREAS, As proposed, the property would be split into three parcels to allow for construction of three new single family dwellings. The proposed parcels will conform to all lot area, width, and structure setbacks for the R-2 district. Total lot area as proposed is 7,759 sq. ft. for parcel A and B, and 10,322 sq. ft. for parcel C. WHEREAS, With the subdivision, the status of the property as a lot of record is eliminated, this reduces the allowable hardcover to a maximum of 30% of the lot area for each lot as a non lot of record, and; W~IEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the City Planner and Engineeri~=s reports and has incorporated their recommendations in this resolution as conditions, and recommends approval with amendments, and; WHEREAS, Approval of the request results in the demolition and removal of several outdated structures, orderly redevelopment of the property, reconstruction of three new homes, and has a positive impact to the neighborhood, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: The City does hereby grant a minor subdivision of the property pursuant to Section 330:20, Subdivision 1.B. with the following conditions: ee go Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan be approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. Provide utility and drainage easements along all new lot lines on both parcels, 5 feet wide on the side and rear lot lines and 10 feet in width along the street side. Existing concrete driveway apron on Lot 23 to be removed and concrete curbs installed at time of new home construction on Parcel A. The new sanitary sewer and water service either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond. Any deficient sanitary sewer or watermaln unit charges shall be collected. Remove all buildings prior to the release of the resolution for filing or provide an agreement suitable to the applicant and City Attorney conceming the demolition time period. Hardcover shall be limited to 30 percent on each parcel. Park dedication fee of $500 shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance for the first house to be reconstructed (only one fee is applicable). e This Minor Subdivision is granted for the following new legally described property (as listed on the survey dated 12/13/99): Parcel A: Parcel B: Parcel C: Lot 23, and that part of Lot 22, lying northerly of a line parallel with, and 140.13 feet northerly of the southernly line of Lot 20, all in Block 3, AAbraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, Mound, Minnetonka.@ Those parts of Lots 21, and 22, Block 3, AAbraham Uncoln Addition to Lakeside Park, Mound, Minnetonka,@ lying southemly of a line parallel with, and 140.13 feet northerly of the southemly line of Lot 20, said Block 3, and lying northerly of a line parallel with, and 80.00 feet northerly of said Southemly line of Lot 20. Lot 20, and that part of Lot 21, Block 3, AAbraham Uncoln Addition to Lakeside Park, Mound, Minnetonka,@ lying southemly of a line parallel with and 80.00 feet northerly of the Southemly line of said Lot 20. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 DRAFT MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2000 DRAFT Those present: Commissioners: Orr Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland; Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent and excused: Chair Geoff Michael and Commissioner Bill Voss. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Suthedand, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. The following public were present: Mayor Pat Meisel, Mark Ortner, and Peter C. Meyer. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 00-01: MINOR SUBDIVISION; IN ORDER TO CREATE 3 CONFORMING PARCELS FROM THE TWO EXISTING PARCELS; 2155 NOBLE LANE, BLOCK 3, LOTS 20,21; PID~13-117-24-31-0019, AND 2149 NOBLE LANE, BLOCK 3, LOTS 22,23, ABRAHAM LINCOLN; PID~13-117-24- 31-0020. Gordon presented this case. He stated the applicant submitted a request for a minor subdivision to create 3 buildable parcels from two existing lots of record. The property consists of lots 20, 21, 22, and 23, Block 3 of Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, consisting of approximately 25,840 square feet. There are no topographical or landscape features on the site that pose problems for the development proposal. As proposed, the property would be split into 3 buildable parcels shown as A, B and C on the survey. The existing residences and garages would be removed. Proposed lot area and widths are as follows: Lot Area Lot Width Parcel A 7759 sq. ft. 60.27 feet Parcel B 7759 sq. ft. 60.13 feet Parcel C 10,322 sq. ft. 80 feet The replatting of the parcels will cause the existing parcels to lose their lot of record status. Non-lot of record status would apply requiring a maximum of 30 percent hardcover and 10 feet minimum side-yard setbacks for each parcel. If for some reason the resolution approving the subdivision is filed and the project doesn't proceed, the lot lines would run through the existing homes. To prevent this, the building should be removed prior to release of the resolution or the applicant should provide some assurance to the City such as a bond to cover the Mound Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT costs of removal. The City Engineer has a number of comments provided in the February 8, 2000 memorandum. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the minor subdivision as requested with the following conditions. Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan be approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. Provide utility and drainage easements along all new lot lines on both parcels, 5 feet wide on the side and rear lot lines and 10 feet in width along the street side. Existing concrete driveway apron on Lot 23 to be removed and concrete curbs installed at time of new home construction on Parcel A. The new sanitary sewer and water service either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,170.90 shall be paid. o Any deficient sanitary sewer or watermain unit charges shall be collected. Remove all buildings or provide a bond for their removal prior to release of the resolution for filing. 8. Hardcover shall be limited to 30 percent on each parcel. Park dedication fee of $500 be paid at the time of building permit issuance. Gordon stated number 5 mentioned above in the report would be removed as a staff recommendation for approval by the Planning Commission. Weiland asked if we charge a park dedication fee of $500 for a single unit. Gordon stated this is City policy. Weiland stated for future use, in this case, there is a subdivision thereby creating three building sites. Acting Chair Mueller clarified the situation and asked if there were three parcels to be built on, and the houses were not moving at this time, would we not be charging a park dedication fee to the original three parcels but rather only the two being built on. Gordon stated the original houses have already paid their park DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 DRAFT DRAFT dedication fees, but when the new house is built because of the subdivision, a $500 park dedication fee will be charged. Clapsaddle questioned why the Planning Commission goes through this second questioning of park dedication every time we are presented with a subdivision. He stated the code requires a park dedication fee for the privilege of being allowed a subdivision. He stated there should be no further discussions. Weiland stated in a subdivision there is no question there should be a park dedication fee, but in situations where them is not a subdivision, this is where the questioning becomes an issue. Glister wanted clarification of what "deficient street unit charge" referred to in number 5 that is being removed as a recommendation refers to. Gordon stated these charges were established to pay off the bonds for resurfacing projects in the late 70's. He stated these bonds have been paid and additional assessments don't need to be collected. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weiland, to approve the minor subdivision as staff recommended, with the removal of Item 5. Discussion. Acting Chair Mueller asked if it is possible to research prior to the City Council meeting any deficiency sanitary and sewer water charges as information for the applicant. Gordon stated this is feasible. Acting Chair Mueller asked what is the timeline to file a resolution after approval by the City Council of the subdivision. Gordon stated this is 60 days. Mueller asked if we need to recommend if the houses are not demolished within 60 days, the City has the right then to take it upon itself to rid these houses itself after a bond has been issued or; rather, have an extension of the 60 days to allow the applicant sufficient time to allow the demolition to occur. Mr. Mark Ortner, representing the applicant, stated he is concerned about the 60 day time period for the demolition because the proposed house for the applicant will not be built in that short of timeframe. Sutherland suggested having the. Planning Commission approve the subdivision according to staff recommendations, with the addition of stating a suitable agreement proposed by the City Attorney be agreed upon by the applicant concerning the demolition time period. Acting Chair Mueller stated he would like the City Attorney to make sure the renters' rights with regard to the people at this time have been protected so, therefore, reviewing the agreement in its entirety is very important so not to Mound Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2000 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT create a negative impact on the City as well. Acting Chair Mueller was concerned about the tuck under garage presented by the applicant. Gordon stated the garage meets all City codes. Burma expressed concern about the hardcover and wanted it made clear anything over the 30 percent would need to be-approved by the Planning Commission with a variance. Gordon agreed. Acting Chair Mueller stated any futuredeck that weald also be nonconforming would also require a variance by the Planning Commission as well. Gordon agreed. Gordon stated item 7 could read as follows: Remove all buildings and provide an agreement and bond for the removal prior to the release of the resolution for filing. AMENDED MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weiland, to approve the minor subdivision according to staff recommendations, with the t, emoval of Item 5-and the revision to Item 7. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0. Acting Chair Mueller stated this case will be presented to the City Council on March t4, 2000. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. i ln TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: February 14, 2000 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision OWNER: Bruce and Laura Sohns CASE ~ER: 00-01 B_KG FILE NETM~ER: 00-5 LOCATION: 2149 and 2155 Noble Lane ZONING: Residential District R-2 COMPRERENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant has submitted a request for a minor subdivision to create 3 buildable parcels from two existing lots of record. The property consists of lots 20, 21, 22, and 23, Block 3 of Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, consisting of approximately 25,840 square feet. There are no topographical or landscape features on the site that pose problems for the development proposal. As proposed, the property would be split into 3 buildable parcels shown as A, B and C on the survey. The existing residences and garages would be removed. Proposed lot area and widths are as follows: Lot Area Lot Width Parcel A 7759 sq. ff. 60.27 feet Parcel B 7759 sq. ff. 60.13 feet Parcel C 10,322 sq. ff. 80 feet The replatting of the parcels will cause the existing parcels to lose their lot of record status. Non- lot of record status would apply requiring a maximum of 30 percent hardcover and 10 feet minimum sideyard setbacks for each parcel. If for some reason the resolution approving the subdivision is filed and the project doesn't proceed, the lot lines would run through the existing homes. To prevent this, the building should be removed prior to release of the resolution or the applicant should provide some assurance to 123 North Third Str~t, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 p. 2 #00-01 Sohns Minor Subdivision February 14, 2000 the City such as a bond to cover the costs of removal. The City Engineer has a number of commems provided in the February 8, 2000 memorandum. The recommendations are included in the following recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the minor subdivision as requested with the following conditions. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan be approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. Provide utility and drainage easements along all new lot lines on both parcels, 5 feet wide on the side and rear lot lines and 10 feet in width along the street side. Existing concrete driveway apron on Lot 23 to be removed and concrete curbs installed at time of new home construction on Parcel A. The new sanitary sewer and water service either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond. One deficient street unit charge in the mount of $1,170.90 shall be paid. Any deficient sanitary sewer or watermain unit charges shall be collected. Remove all buildings or provide a bond for their removal prior to release of the resolution for filing. Hardcover shall be limited to 30 percem on each parcel. Park dedication fee of $500 be paid at the time of building permit issuance. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Engineering o Planning o Surveying Associates, Inc, MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: February. 8, 2000 Jon Sutherland John Cameron, City Engineer City of Mound Minor Subdivision - Sohns Property 2149 and 2155 Noble Lane Case No...0O..0ff OO '01 MFRA//12759 Commettts 1. A survey xvith more detailed grading and erosion control should be submitted when application is made for a building permit. 2. The original plat of"Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, Mound, Minnetonka" did not include any drainage and utility easements along the lot lines. Therefore, drainage easements should be provided along all new lot lines. 3. The existing concrete apron located on Lot 23 will need to be removed since it will not accommodate the proposed driveway for Parcel A. 4. It appears from City utility records that only two sanitary services and two water services for the existing homes currently exist. Therefore, one additional sanitary and water service will need to be installed from the City mains in Noble Lane. 5. The combination of these 4 lots (2 parcels) were assessed two (2) unit charges when the streets in this area were reconstructed in 1978. If it is City's desire to continue the policy of collecting deferred unit charges when properties are re-divided and additional building units are created, then this property should be charged for one additional unit, or $1,170.90. 6. The original sanitary sewer and watermain assessment records should also be checked for deficient unit charges. 15050 23rd Avenue North . Plymouth. Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 6t2/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra, com Jon Suthefland February 8, 2000 Page 2 Recommendations We recommend the following conditions become a part of the subdivision approval: 1. Final grading and drainage plan to be approved by the City Engineer. 2. Provide drainage and utility easements along all new lot lines, five feet wide on side lot lines and ten feet in width along front and rear lot lines. 3. Existing concrete driveway apron on Lot 23 to be removed and concrete curbs installed at time of new home construction on Parcel A. 4. The new sanitary, sewer and'water service either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond. 5. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,170.90 shall be paid. 6. Any deficient sanitary sewer or watermain unit charges shall be collected. cc: Loren Gordon, HKG s:~4ou 12759:\Correspondence~suthcrland 1-28 I<ev. 12-30-98 Application for ' MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 ~] Commission Date: O !~ 10~'. 2,00 O City Council Date: O ~..//~ ~? A O ~30 Distribution: I- ~o-¢~:~ City Planner/ 1"~,1-'o~ DNR Public Works / Other City Enginee¢' 55364 CaseNo. t~)O ' ~ Application Fee: Escrow Deposit: Deficient Unit Charges? Delinquent Taxes? $7500 $1,000 VARIANCE REQUIRED? A/0 Please type or print the following information: PROPERTY INFORMATION EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION ZONING DISTRICT Circle: R-1 R-la (~ R-3 B-1 B-2 APPLICANT The applicant is: ~owner ~(, other. OWNER Name ~~ ~ ~0~ (if other than · ppli~nt) Address2155 ~Qb~/ ~ /~ r~, 5535 ~/'~ - ~/ 7 SURVEYOR/ ENGINEER Phone (H) _ 0N)g/;z.- ~73- ~/'/3,5" (M) 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. This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVI~R CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: ~_ ~ LOTAREA ~..~ ~'/-/O SQ. FT. X 30% = (for ail lots) .............. J 77~'[ I LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... J J LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .. I I *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 subsided and apl3roved by the Building Official. HOUSE '~L'TACl ;=u 6LOG5 (GARAGE/~'fED1 DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1 I~," min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT /~ O X 2~/ = EgO ff O X ;Z 'Y = ?~0 TOTAL HOUSE ......................... TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. ~o x /4 = 2.4) x 14; = ;.5 x 1~ = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X X X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X X TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~'t~NDER~OVER (indicate difference) ............................... L..il I UI' A/IUUINL/ - LUINII',iLJ lf"tI'UKMAIIUIN ADDRESS: SURVEY ON FILE? YES I NO l.o'r OF RECORD? YF~ I NO -' YA RI) j DIRE(.-rION '~I()USE ......... I FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SlOE N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W TOP OF nI.UFF ZONING DISTRICT, LOT $1ZE/WIDTii: R1 IO,O001GO R!A 6, oo0/4o B2 2o. ooo/eo ~2 s,ooo/~O a3 ~o. ooo/so R2 14,000/80 R3 SK~ ORD. I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED 15' 10' OR 30' EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOi WIDTii: LOi Lq.Pill: VARIAN~ GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACHED BUll.DIN(iS FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W FOP t}F III.UFF 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' ~0' 10' OR 30' IIARDCOVER 30S OR 40% --' -ON,:OR,,N~ ~.~, ~,o ,, I"": ~ ID~,,: ClI'Y O1: MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SilEi:.T ADDRESS: SURVEY ON FILE? YES I NO loOT OI" RECORD? Y-ES I NO YARD I IH)USE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF DIRE(.'flON N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N $ E W N S E W ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTti: R! 10,000/G0 B! T,SO0/0 ~.~A ~.000/40 B2 20,000/80 6,000/403 B3 20,000/G0 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. Zl 30,000/100 REQUIRED I ~,~iSTING/PROPOSED 15' 10' OR 30' EXi~I'ING LOT SIZE: LO'i WIDIII: LOi I.~E? I il: VARIANCE GARAGE. SIIED ..... DETACliED BUIIoDIN(L~ FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E w SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W FOP OF III.IJFF 4' OR6' 4' OR6' 4' 50' 10' OR 30' O PROPOSED LOT DIVISION AND CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR L USE AND SONS OF LOTS 20-23, BLOCK 3, ABRAHAM :,'_,: LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK . 89'$$' 16"E I ...................... 1.. 129.02,,.,~, ...... HENNEPIN COUNTY MINNESOTA ........ 1~2.5.,., ............... i I~ / : ....... j . ~ ~ , I~ // . , ; ': , g e" I "~, ',~ ~1 : b,-,; Ig~ ~,~ ~ / ., ~ _ ._ ~. _ _~ ~ ~1 I ~ i.. ..... ~/ r0~-"-'~ · ~ 12902 .... I,I ~'...- J. ........... ~ ..... ~ ...... L.I .... ~ ........ :"~ ~" I , 7T ,-., o '~ / ~''~ ' '~ ~ I ........... ;~ ..... ~2~-[ ........... ~ .... ~ ........... ~ ........... ~ ...... ~ '; F, ' .... ~': ': ~1 ~ ~ '~= ~'" :' 1-' re : . ....... ~..o~ ..... 1 ............................................... i +% .... ' ', 1 ~2.5 ~, I I Lots Z0. ~t. ~2, ~ 23. ~k 5. "~ L~ A~t~ tO L~e~e P~, ~. ~OSED L~C~L ~S~P~ . PARC[L A : LOt 23, ~ t~t ~t Oi Lot 22. ly~ ~tn~ly ol ~ ~e p~ ~ ~ 140.15 f~t ~th~y ol t~ s~n~ly ~ Lot 20. M ~ ~k 3. '*~ L~ A~t~ to L~lside P~. ~ PARCEL ~ : Tho~e p~s of Lots ~1. ~ 22. ~k ~. "A~ L~ A~ti~ to L~es~ P~. ~ ly~ ~l~ly of O ~ ~ wlt~ ~ 140,1~l~t~ly Of h ~y h Of LOt 20, s~d ~k ~. ~ ~ I~ ~t~r~y of o ~ p~ w~t~ ~ 8~,~ feet ~t~ of SQ~ ~ly h of ~ot PARCEL C : Lot 20. ~ t~t ~t al LO[ 21. ~ 5. "~ L~ A~t~ [O L~e~e P~. ~ ~et~o" IV~ s~y of a ~ 80,~ leer ~t~ty ol the SOulh~ly I~ OI s~d Lot 20. &t2-47~*..414 t SED LOT DIVISIGN AND iCATE OF SURVEY FOR SE AND SONS Z0--23, BLOCK ,3, ABRAHAM E, .FION TO LAKESIDE PARK :IN COUNTY, MINNESOTA i 7759 SO. FT. TO BE REIaOV~'D sa. FT. i !','; ! ~) , ................ 129.02~,.,~ - " ' '112.5 ~, I N 89058' 00" W ~L DESCRIPTION : 22. ,,nd 23. 8lock 3. "Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside P~rk, Mound. Mirmetonka" '_GA. $CR~PTIONS : i -! i .at 23, and that part of Lot 22. lying northerly of a llne parolle~ ~,ith. arW 140.13 feet nartharty of the southerly line of .at 20, oll in Block 3. "Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Pork. Mound, Minneto~ka" :hose parts of Lots 21. and 22. Block 3. "Abraham Lincoln Addition te Lakeside Park. Mound. Minnetonko". ying southerly of a llne parallel with. and 140. I3~rtherly of the southerly line of Lot 20. said Block 3. ~nd ~-'t ~¥in~ northerly of o line 13ar~lel with. anti 80.00 feet northerly of s~d Southerly line of Lot 20. ~>~,_ 3. and that port of Lot 21. Block 5. "Abraham L~ncoln Addition to Lakeside Park. Mound, Minnetonko" lylnc} southerly of o line p~rallet with '' -- ~ ' - f ti' ~ " "Iv I;r PAYMENT BILLS DATE: MARCH 14. 2000 BILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE BATCH # #0021 #0022 TOTAL BILLS $406,090.81 AMOUNT $197,157.44 $208,933.37 PAGE I AP-C02-O1 VENDOR iNVOICE NO. INVOICE N~SR DATE A0333 000229 DUE HOLD DATE STATUS A~OCO OIL CO~iPANY VENDOR TOTAL A0414 23A90 3/i4/00 3/14/00 ASSURED SECURITY VENDOR TOTAL PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 30.25 FEB 2000 GASOLINE CHARGES 01-4280-2210 181.77 FEB 2000 GASDLINE CHARGES 73-7300-2210 212.02 6~.52 NEKEY PROPERTY ROOM 01-4320-3~30 64.52 JPNL-CD lOlO 64.52 ~0549 31407000 ........................... 142.G?- MtSC~LLA,,_uUS TAXABLE - 3/14/00 3/14/00 142.&7 JRNL-CD 71-71~-95~0 ......... 1010 BE~bBGY-C-ORPORATION ~ ' B0567 143113 3/14/00 3/14/00 660.10 JRNL-CD 1010 t&~5~500 642 ~Z~5---L~VOR 3114100 3/14/00 642.25 JRNL-CD 1010 t~7200 695.09 LIQUOR 3/14100 3/14/00 695.09 J~NL-CD lOlO VE-N-DOR TOTAL 214-0.11 3114100 3/14/00 34.00 COFFEE 01-4020-4120 !7.00 COFFEE 01-4340-4120 65.00 JRNL-CD lOIO BERRY COFFEE COHPA)iY VENDOR TOTAL ................ 3-tt~-/q)-O 3/14/00 BILL CLANK OiL COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 50600 10030542 i g4)-2-V ~ 3/14/00 3/14/00 66.00 -1.?-5 . 32 '-C~-L4zONS- 0 tt=-(-$ 50 125.52 GALLONS OIL (55) 125.31 GALLONS OIL (55) 37-5 .-9-5--- .JRNL~C~) 375.95 31.~6 02-00 GARBAGE PICKUP 31.66 02-00 GARBAGE PICKUP ---']~,-67- -02-0-0 -GARBAGE ~P{~C-KRJ~m 94.9o JPNL-CD 6:~ .q>l----Ot--OO--GARBAGE P IC-K-UP 3114/00 3114/00 67.01 JRNL-CD 10030543 ........................ 67.01 02--00 GARBAGE ~ICKUP ~/14/00 3/14/U0 67.01 J~NL-CD 10030597 2~.30- 02--00 GANSAGE PICKUP 3/14/00 3/1~/00 2c.30 J~NL-CD 10030474 ................. I7.76 02-00 ~AR~AGE PICKUP 3/14/00 3/14/00 i7.76 JRNL-Cg 73-7300-2250 78-7800-2250 1-0-1-0" 01-4280-3750 73-7300-3750 ~-?~00--3-750----- 1010 22-~i7~- 3'? 5 O- ...... 1010 22-4170--3750 1010 01--4340-3750 lOlo 71-7100-375~ .... 1010 ~AGE 2 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AF-C02-Oi CITY OF MOUND VENDOR iNVOiCE DUE HOLD P NO. INVOICE tenOR DATE DATE STATUS A~OUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 10030459 67.07 02-00 GARBAGE PICKUP 01-4280-3750 3/I4/00 3/i~/00 67.07 J~NL-CD lO!O BLACKOWIAK AND SON VENDOR TOTAL 340.14 b061i 000211 ............ 49~-4'q S~O FOR SALI ~I~ 3/14/00 3/14/00 493.49 JRNL-CD 1010 - 000214 ........... ~0~-;39-' $~D'FOf~-SALT 3/14/00 3/14/00 1,006.39 JRNL-(D 1010 BOB 'WI.NKLER - ~0640 000303 127.80 .... 69-;-22 3/I4/00 3/14/00 i97.02 ; ~R*DE-E~--<-H£H-DRY- VENDOR TOTAL 197.02 COa20 20199758 PUBLIC WORKS CARPET CLEANI~G 01-42B0-4200 JRNL-CD 1010 20198030 1,803.14 BULK ICE CONTROL 01-4280-2340 448.11 ~ULK ICE CONTROL 01-4280-2~40 3/14/00 448.11 JRNL-CD 1010 20198033 CONTROL 01-4280-2340 .......... 5ti-4-/-~-~----3Y-t-~-/00 1010 "' CARGILL SALT DIVISION VENDOR TOTAL C0859 02o409 0~-4340-3B10 3/14/00 3/i4/00 iOlO 431.35 BULK ICE 2682.60 30.84 FILTER, ETC. 3~.~4 JRNL-CD ChAmPIOt, AUTO VENDOR TOTAL 30.84 C0920 On021~ ................................... 17~7~-- T~U-~2-15-O~--~ATER/S~ER- ~-l--~l-Ot~-~O 3114100 3114190 17.71 JRNL-CD 1010 C]-TY-OF-~OU~ ..... V£NDOk T~T-~I_ ~ C0960 00}229 46.72 SUPPLIES 73-7300-2250 ...... ~.4~---S~PPbIE$ ................................. ~ 1~2~0--~-~-5-0 C&ASI C0970 CA 39.35 SUPPLIES 135.41 SUPPLIES .................................... 5q.i-3-- 67.45 SUPPLIES I7.~5 SUPPLIES 7~.72 SHPPLIEq 3114100 3/i~/00 ~E2.03 J~NL-CD TO COAST o4&93202 VENUO~ TOTAL-- 3114100 -3/1~/00 90.14 -- 90.14 J~NL--CD COLA BOTILING-M1DwEST VENDOR I'OTAL 7~-7&00-2250 22-4170-4100 ........................ 01-4~40-~200 01-43&D-2~90 lOlO 71-7100-9540 ............................. ~-t0 PAGE 3 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-CO2-D1 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. I!;VOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER Cl104 000308 .............. 5~t'4 t-g0-- 4,12~..00 02101/00-02/29/00 PROSECUTION 01-4110-3120 ~-,i24--.-00 -- JR ~L-CD ................................................ 10 i0----- C~ADUICK AND ~ERTZ, P.A VENDOR TOTAL 4124.00 Dl153 2315 203.93 3/14/00 3/14/00 203.93 D J'S HU~ICIPAL SUPPLY, IN VENDO~ TOTAL 203.93 TOW STRAP 01-4340-2300 JRNL-CD 1010 01154 621-00 ............................ 5~2~00-'- ~E~-R 3/14/00 3/i4/00 ........ 61752 3/14/00 3/14/00 -DA~H~-ME-R--D~S-T-R~BUTING CO V[NDOR TOTAL ....... ?l-TTOD-9530 .... · : D1200 87655 3/14/00 3/14/00 :_i ...... 3/14/00 3/14100 · ~705~ 532.00 JRNL-CD }12.00 JRNL-CD §44.00 984.25 BEER 984.25 JRNL-CD 1,166.00 BEER 1,166.00 691.20 BEER 691.20 JP~L CD 1010 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-95 71-7100-9530 1010 ..... DAY bISTRIBUTING COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 2841.45 D13OO 032302 5.81 ~' 4.26 ................. 3t~-4/0U 3/!4/00 10.uT ~ DIXCO ENGRAVING VENDO~ TOTAL 10.07 E142U 593379 3,372.~5 ~ 3/14/00 3/14/00 3,37~.65 DOCK PLATE ENGRAVING DOCK PLATE ENGRAVING JRNL---~D 81-~350-2200 81-4350-2200 --1-Oil)-- -- BEER 71-7100-9530 JRNL-CD 1010 592279 59',)972 590973 3?8.00 3/14/00 3/14/00 37B.00 1,570.7D 3/14/00 3/1~/00 1,570.70 ~/14/00 3/14/00 BEER J~NL-CD BEER JRNL-C~ 27.15 MISCELLANEOUS 27.15 J~NL-CD 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9540 1010 5965~5 266.00 =sEER 71-7100-9530 3/14/u0 3/14/00 266.00 JRNL-CD 1010 5&~432 66.00 BEER 71-7100-9530 3/14100 3/14/00 66.00 JRNL-CD lOlO EAST SIDE F,~vE,-;~gE VENDOR TOTAL 56~0.50 ............. ' ..... ' ...... ~ ..........:...:: .... ._:'. ........ .......7T-': .... :~. PAGE 4 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR iNVOICE DuE HOLD NO. ]t.iVO1CE NHBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER E14~5 000211 360.00 2000 ANNUAL MAINTENA~C~ AGREEH 71-7100-4200 3/14/00 3/14/U0 360.00 JRNL-CD 1010 5344-21800 360.00 02/01/00-01/31/0i AGREEMENT 01-4320-4200 3/14/00 3/i4/00 360.00 JRNL-CD 1010 1~5044 97.87 AIR HANDLING UNIT WORK 01-4340-2330 3/14/00 3/14/00 97.~? JRNL-C~ 1glo EQUIPMENT SUPPLY INC VENDO~ TOTAL 817.87 E1515 390 3/14/00 3/14/00 E-Z.%ECWC{~NG---I~C VENDG~ ~TAL FITlO 000307 FRANCENE CLARK VENDOk TOTAL .723 710109069 3/14/00 3/14/00 FRANKLIN COVEY COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 3/14/00 3/14/00 · FU~R~£~--I:qRE COKGULT & DEw VENDOR T-O-TAL G175~ 2940~ 3/14/00 3/1~/00 -'6 -,-7-?-9 -. 35 -- --FE~ - 2000 · ~CU R'B Si OE-~'~, E C~Y C L-I~G ......... 7-0-,'~ 270-'~ ~t~O 6.779.35 JRNL-CD 1010 158.6~ J~N AND FEB 2000 CELL PHONE 158.64 JRNL~D 158.64 86.47 ~AGIC PLANNER 0~-4190-2100 86.47 JRNL-CD 10~0 01-4040-3220 1-ei-e · lOO.O0 JRNL-CD 1010 100.00 0.16 MATS 01-42~0-2250 6~16.---MA-T~- 73 73~-2~0 ...... ~.16 HATS 7B-?gOO-2250 32.24 UNIFORMS 01-4280-~240 ---~}-2-.~ FORMS .......... 7~---7300 2240 32.24 UNIFORNS 78-7800-2240 115.20 JRNL-CD 10~0 284858 94.67 MATS 01-4320-4210 3/14/0U 3/14/0D 9&.BT JRNL-CD lOlO 25~4b? 25.83 MATS 22-4170-2230 3/14/00 3/14/00 25.83 JRNL-CD 1010 280223 27.38 M~TS 22-4170-2230 3/14/00 3/I~/00 27.38 JRNL-CD 1010 I0.~7 HATS 01-4280-2250 ~0.67 MATS 73-7300-2250 32.01 UNIFORMS 0~-4280-2240 32.01 UNIFORMS 7~-7300-2240 ................. ~2.~0- U~IFORMS ............ 7{--~0~-2240 .......... X/i~/O0 3/14/00 12~.0~ J~L-CD 1010 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY DF HOUND PAGE 5 ~.. AP-Cu2-01 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD - - NO. 1HVOICE NK~R DATE DATE STATUS A,OUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NumBER -- 289468 22.27 MATS - 3/14/00 3/14/00 22.27 JRNL-CD 284857 8.38 MATS g.3~ MATS 280222 - SERVICES -0002-2-9 3/14/00 3/14/00 284860 280221 .... ~ ~-3~~- 25.14 UNIFORMS 25.14 Ut.,' I FORMS 100.56 JRNL-CD 71-7100-4210 1010 01-4280-2250 73-7300-2250 1t.70- -fiATS'' 11.70 MATS 11.69 MATS 3/14/00 3/14/00 VENDOR TOTAL GLEh~OOD INGLE~UOD VENDOR TOTAL G1922 0023003 3/14/00 3/14/00 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICER VENDOR TOTAL G~97-2 -~056~ 3/14/00 3/14/00 .................................. 7~.-7,-800~-2-2-5~ .... 01-4280-2240 73-7300-2250 7-~-7~2~2-50 1010 '01-4280-2250 ...... 73-7300-2250 78-7800-2250 12.03 MATS 71-7100-4210 12.03 jRNL~CD 101-0------ 19.25 MATS 01-4280-2250 19.25 MATS 19.24 MATS 78-7800'225~ 23.70 UNIFORMS 01-4280-22 23.69 UNIFORMS-- 73-7300--Z-2~, 23.69 UNIFORMS 78-7800-2240 12g.B2 JRNL-CD lOiO 690.08 ----.B-.~-O---~>B--O.~-~-TE-R~-OOLER 9~-2~-~0~- -- 8.50 02-00 WATER COOLER 01-4140-4100 26.10 02-00 wATER COOLER 01-4320-2200 ..... ~.~7---O-,2~--O0--W-A-T~R--COOL~R ..................... ~1~4~0-2200 ........ 4.37 02-00 ~ATER COOLER 73-7300-2200 ~.36 02-00 WATER COOLER 76-7800-2200 5~.20 130.00 05/01/00-04/30/01 MEMBERSHIP 01-4090-4130 130.00 JRNL-CD 1010 1~0644 130.00 1. ~ ~ v ~'~- -i= t-~?dOR ....... 7-1~ ?-1-0~951-0-- '- 1,206.87 JgNL-CD 1010 ................................. ~.0~ - W']~ ............................. ~t--7t00--95~ ........ 3/14/0u 3114/00 416.0C J;:'~L-CD 1010 17~416 ................................ 47.5~ Mi-K ......... 71-71~0-95~.0 ...... 3/14/00 3/14/00 47.50 JRNL-CD 1010 .... 17~ 415 ...... ---1-,-2~)-0 .-8-b---L-t-~U OR ......... ?-t-- 7-t 0-0-- 95-1-0----- 3/14/00 3/14/00 1,2C0.86 JRNL-CD 1010 PAGE 6 P U R C d A S E AP-CO2-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NU. INVOICE NHSR DATE DATE STATUS A~OUNT DESCRIPTION 177816 3/14/00 184399 3/14/00 3/i4/00 JOURNAL ACCOUNT NUMBER 537.13 Wl NE 71-7100-9520 537 .i3 JR I-,'L- C D 1GlO 1,278.03 ~INE 7i-7100-9520 1,278.03 JRNL-CD !OiO GRIGGS COOPER G197~ COhPANY 000214-5 000219-C 3/14/00 3/14/00 VENDOR TOTAL 4686.39 ............... ~25.2M--- THRU ~2-19-0~ T~LE~HON£'SE~VIC 12.~0 THRU 02-19-00 LONG DISTANCE 01-4090-3220 .B9 TWRU 02-19-00 LONG DISTANCE 01-~095-3220 3.34 THRU 02-19-00 LONG DISTANCE 73-7300-3220 2.4i THRU 02-19-00 LONG DISTANCE 01-4240-3220 1.74 THRU 02-19-00 LONG DISTANCE 01-4190-3220 1.74 THRU 02-~9-00 LONG DISTANCE 0i-~280-3220 302.73 THRU 02-19-00 TELEPHONE SERVIC 01-42~0-3220 412.72 THRU 02-19-00 TELEPHONE SERVZC 78-7800-3220 3/14/00 1,080.73 JRNL-CD lOlO 674.44 THRU 02-~9-00 REGULATED SERVIC 01-4140-3220 21.30 THEU 02-19-00 NON-REGULATED SE 01-~1~0-3220 760.~4 JRNL-CD 42.50 REIMBURSEMENT FOR SUPPLIES 42.50 3114100 VENDOR TOTAL 3/14/00 3/14/00 VENDOR TOTAL ~/14/00 3/14/00 VENDOR TOTAL G1990 OOc'20~ GUST AF SO;,~, BRUCE H2004 201502 HAMCO DATA PRODUCTS - -H2q)7~5---O 6217-9 ~/14/00 3/14/00 HE~ETHCOMP- E~ AUL~T t~.-. SER* H2090 50117 5021m 22-4170-2100 --10 lq) .... 132.66 132.a6 132.86 -~-I~ GO 31.00 Gi.O0 255.10 255.10 79.65 CASh REGISTEL CARTRIDGES 71-7100-2200 JRNL-CD lOlO i L-C-OHO L- -~-E_ $ T · -H £ I T£- 0 t-- ,~2-~'('~'3~149 ...... JRNL-CD 1010 REKEY EXTERIOR DOORS 22-4170-3a30 J~;~L-CD 1'010 REPAIR COMS]NATION LoCK 22-4170-3&30 HEFNER, AL VEt';DOR TOTAL 33~.75 H2160 002604 1,842.50 Ol-OG ROOM AND BOAHD 01-~1~0-4250 PAGE ? AP-C02-01 VENDOR NO. INVOICE N~BR HENN CO TREASURER P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L CITY OF ,MOUND INVOICE DUE HOLD DATE DATE STATUS AKOUNT DESCRIPTION VE!;DOR TOTAL 18~2.50 H2289 6090795 HOME DEPuT/GECF · t2-30¥ ~235-7-352-9 3/14/00 3/14/00 VENDOR TOTAL 3/14/00 3/14/00 ACCOUNT NUMBER 247.43 MISCELLANEOUS BROOHS SHOVELS 01-4340-2200 247.43 JRNL-CD 1010 24?.43 · 4~;4~---02--O~--UPST~ I RS' C~P-I ER ......... 01-4~20---3~-0 ~3.40 JRNL-CD 1010 01 -,.,,~ 21) -3-80'0 ....... 23575505 ...................................... 29-7.50 -02-O0 MAI:J COPIER ' 3/14/00 3/14/00 297.50 JPNL-CD 1010 3/14/00 3/14/00 3/14/00 3/14/00 VENDOR TOTAL 235-B 3-2-75 237~03A -!Kq)N OFF1CE SOLUTIONS 12313 2503 ---- -90~-7~----0~-00 - Pg~t'! CE--CO P I ER 90.72 JR NL-CD 46.55 PPlN~-E~q-REP-A-tR 46.55 JRNL-CD 1010 478.17 80.25 04-10-00 THRU 04-09-01 METER 01-4040-22~ 80.25 04-i0-00 THRU 04-09-01 METER 01-4190-2200 80.25 04-10-00 THRU 04-09-01 METER 01-4140-2200 80.25 26.75 04-10-00 THRU 04-09-01 METER 01-4280-2200 26.75 04-10-00 THRU U4-09-01 METER 71-7100-2200 40.13 04-!0-0~ THRU 04-09-01 METER 78-7800-2200 535.00 J~t;L-CD 1010 · .- 3/14/00 3/14/00 IHS/MN VENDOR TOTAL t2320--i39662 ............ 3/14/00 3/14/00 .-I~gUS~tALi-S~cF--F_Y & SECURI~ VEtJDOR TOTAL -- I2333 0001~9 ~3-/i ~/-00 3/14/00 535.00 5~-]B4~- FEE-IGMT ................... 5.~g J~L-CD 1010 161.1I SUPER PARKA 73-7300-2240 ~6~.~-1 .... ~RNL--C~. 1010 -- ] INFk(ATECH VENDOR TOTAL 161.11 J2573 12652& 119.40 PICTURE FRAMING C2) -- 3/14/00 3/14/00 1!9.40 J~NL-CD JUH;~S VA~IETY ~ PET5 VENDOR TOTAL 119.40 J2579 10642.47-- 01-4320-2200 1010 ............................ 931.35 wINE 3/1G/O0 3/14/00 931.35 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9520 1010 1,172.47 JPNL-CD 1010 AP-C02-01 .., YEND3R NO. II:vOICE .-_ 10~4245 1034542 10~1767 INVOICE DUE HOLD DATE DATE STATUS 3/14/00 3/14/00 3/14/00 3/14/00 3/14/00 3114/00 1066~60 3/14/00 3/~4/00 JOHNSON mROTHEP, S LI~uOR VE~4DOR TOTAL J2600-0C~-225 -- ~OYC-E-f,.E~SO-N J2610 000229 UBILEE FOODS PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF HOUND AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 137.10 wINE 137 .i0 JF:NL-CD 1,404.65 WINE 1,404.65 JRNL-CD 935.00 ~INE 936.00 JRNL-CD 214.I0 KINE 214.10 JR ~'.L-CD ACCOUNT NUMBER 71-7100-9520 1010 71-710~l-9520 1010 71-7100-9520 1010 71-7100-9520 1010 ,. K2699 321 ~- 2 4797.67 3/14/00 3/14/00 ]-2;-5'O---t~E-I-MBUf~S E.-HI~NT -.-M ItEAGEYE-XPET~$E 32.50 JRNL-CD VFNDOR TOTAL 32.50 3~-1-4 / 00 37.25 COUNCIL COOKIES 01-4020-4120 10l~--- VENDOR TOTAL 37.25 3114/00 3/14/00 32u81 00U229 KENN£DY & GRAVEI~ 3/14/00 3/14/00 3/14/00 3/14/00 VENDOR TOTAL 3,515.63 02-00 REDEV AREA/BEL~OA PROPER 3,515.63 JRItL-C D 55-5880-3100 1010 697.96 02-00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 697.96 JRNL-CD 55-5880-3100 1010 1,517.00 02-00 BALBOA PROJECT 1,517.00 JANL-CD 55-5880-3100 1010 5730.59 N2705 02!7-41692e KNOX LUHSER COHPANY L276Y 00U302 LAKE HANAGEMENT 3t~/00 3/14/00 VENDOR TOTAL 3/14/00 3/14/00 VEKDOR TOTAL ..... !5.~! .... CED:~.~-LUM~ER ................. 13.50 CEDAR LUMRER 13.50 CEDAR LUMSER 4~.5t-----JR~rL--C-D ...... 40.51 3,355.55 A~UATIC PLANT SWIMMING BEACH 3,355.55 JR~;L-CD 3355.55 73-7300-2250 78-7800-2250 1010 01-4340-3600 1010 L2770 OOG366 4,05~.29 2ND ~TP 2000 LEVY PAYMENT 01-4020-4130 . 5/i4/00 3/14/00 4,054.29 JqNL-CD lOlO ..... 00G2t5-¢~ ...... 28~*~0-2000-MULTIPLE DOCK BALANCE DUE 30-5610-31OU ........ .. - 3/14/00 3/14/00 280.00 JRNL-CD ' lOlO · 000215--3 ........................ ~,-,405,-0~ 2000-~ULTIPLE DOCK BALANCE DU~ ..... 8t~~00 -,-__ J/14/O0 3/14/00 4,405.00 J~NL-CD 1010 PAGE 9 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-Oi CIIY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE N~!SR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION LAKE HIh~NETGNAK CONVERSATI VENDOR TOTAL 8739.29 ACCOUNT NU~,B ER L2719 002005FS-1-22. .............................. 65~.00- FIRE -SCHOOL 3/14/00 3/14/00 656.00 JRNL-CD 1010 LAKE SUPE-R(-02, COL-L~-E-G-E ---VE-NDO~-t-T-OT-~rc 65t-~-00 L2810 28710 250.45 REPAIR ?.OiiCAT 01-4340-3820 ........ 3./-1-4 t-0 ~)-- -3-/-1-4-/~-0 ---2. 50-,-4-5-----j R'N L-- C-D ............... '1t) 1-0- - - LANO E@UIPMENT ]NC VENDOR TOTAL 250.45 L2811 10547 894.37 WINDOW ENVELOPES FOR CHECKS 01-4090-2200 3/14100 3/1;/00 894.37 JRNL-CD 1010 VENDOR IOTAL LARSON PRINTING & ---L2 850---2-210 GRAPHICS 894.37 551.95 02/01/00-02/01/01 LIABILITY IN 547.70 02/01/00-02/01/01 LIABILITY IN 3,521.86 02/01/00-02/01/01 LIABILITY IN 55.i9 02/01/00-02/01/01 LIABILITY IN 3,736.27 02/01/00-02/01/01 LIABILITY IN 220.78 02/01/00-02/01/01 LIABILITY IN 3,831.80 02/01/00-02/01/01 LIABILITY IN 4,097.17 2,993.27 25,~38.50 01-4020-3~10 01-4040-3610 01-4090-3610 01-4110-3610 01-4140-3B10 01-4150-3B1 01-4190-361 01-4260-3010 01-4320-3610 22-4170-3610 3,938.00 3,93~.00 79~.00 796°00 500.00 500.00 3/14/00 3/14/00 2211 3/1~/00 3/1~/00 2212 3/14/00 3/i~/00 000227 3/14/00 3/14/00 02/01/00-02/01/01 LIABILITY IN 02/01/00-02/01/01 LIABILITY IN JRNL-CD 71-7100-3610 7-3---7-~00-3610 78-7500-3610 1010 02/01/00-02/01/01 1ST INSTALL JRNL-CD 71-7100-3610 1010 02/01/00-02101/01 ZST INSTALLM JRNL-CD 01-4020-3610 1010 CLAIM ~1101514B JRNL-CD 01-4280-3610. 1010 30672.50 27~-9~)----~HRU~2-29-OO'TRUE~--$UPPLIES 27.90 JRNL-CD 2~-.~0 lOU.~O 02-03-00 DELIVERY CHA~GES 100.-80 J~L-£D ....... 25.90 02-07-00 DELIVERY CHARGES 7i-7100-9600 '10t0- -- 71-7100-9600 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS T* VENDOR TOIAL L2-93~ ~0022~ 3/14/00 3/14/00 LOWELL'S .AUTOMOTIVE/~-I-T{~*~/~N. DOR---T-O.T-A~ ~30i0 7G90 71o4 ............. 3-/1~t00-- 3/14't00 .............. 25-.9e" J.R~,'L'-C-D ............................................. -1:0-1*0----- 7174 147.00 02-10-00 DEL]VERY CHARGES 71-7103-960o PAGE 10 AP-C02-O1 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF HOUND VENDOR I NVOI CE DUE HOLD F NO. IKVOICE N~'BR DATE DATE STATUS AKOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 3/14/00 3114100 147.09 JRNL-CD 1010 7157 ........... ~L~'0-0----02 - 1%'-'00 --D~d_ I ¥[ RY CHARGES 3/14100 3/l~/O0 14.00 JRNL-CD ~0~0 ....... 7170 ~;~- '02-21-0¢) ~[T-IVE~Y CHARGES .... 7i-71-09-9B~ ....... 3/14/00 3114/00 &.40 JRNL-CD 1010 ....... 719-3 ~O~2-24-~--DEL-IVERY CHARGES · -' 71-7100-~b0~ ....... 5/14/00 3/14/00 12o.00 JRNL-CD 1010 72{)1 ....................................... 3/14/00 3114/00 42.70 JRNL-CD M3030 119354 1,174.32 BEER ...... 3/14/00 3/14/00 1,174.]2 '- 11&799 1,674.15 BEER ~- 3/14/00 3/:1-4/00 1,674.15 J2NL-CD VII DISTRIBUTOR VENDOR TOTAL 2848.47 083 692610 115.99 SAFETY E~UIPMENT 3/1~/00 3/14/00 i15.99 JRNL-CD ~DS iiATRX mEDiCAL INC. VENDOR TOTAL 1!5.99 3/i~/00 3/14/00 1,089.00 JRNL-{D 29,~2~.00 29,~20.00 1,375.00 1.375.00 1375.00 229.57 ~.97.58 3/14100 3/1~/00 HETRUPgL-13A~;-qZ-g~',~{L Et;VI* V[NDOi! TOTAL H3171 000301 3/14/00 3/14/00 METRO WEST INSPECTION SER~ VENDDk TOTAL M3250 000229 - MINNEGASCO M337~ I00941?-00 _....,.::::. ~=-- ..... . .:' _ -_ ,...:.~.. 1010 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9530 ..................... t~t-0------ 22-4170-2270 10t0 ......... 1010 JPNL-CD 1010 JAN,FEB 2000 BLDG INSPECTIONS JRNL-ED 01-4190-4170 lOlD Ol/l~/OO-O2/la/0o 58ol BARlLET 01/1~/00-02/16/00 4812 CUM~EHL 01-43~0-3270 01-4340-3720 ...... 31-i.~2 01/ld/00-02/16/00 L IwUOR -5:rORE- ...... 22-4170-3720 01-432~-3720 01-42~0-3720 73-7300-3720 7~-7S0~-3720 ........... 37.28 0i/1~/00-02/i6/00 FIRE STATION 805.95 01/18/00-02/16!00 5341 MAY~OOD .............. ~6~-~5. 0]/1~/00-02/16/00 STREETS 261.96 01/~8/~0-02/I6/00 WATER 324.83 01/1S/00-32/1b/00 SE~ER 5/14/00 3/14100 2,V3u.14 JRNL-CD - - VENDOR TOTAL 2930.14 260.00 2000 ANNUAL FEE SDS PERMIT 3/~&/OO ~/14/00 260.00 JRNL-CD 30-5615-3100 lolo PAGE ii AP-CO2-O1 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS ~N POLLUTION £O~TROL AGEHC VENDOR TOTAL 1~3470 33i93 3/14/00 3/14/00 MN VALLEY TESTING LABORATO VENDOR TOTAL ~350~ ~00229 3/14/00 3/14/00 PURCHASE CITY OF MOdND JOURNAL AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 260.00 72.50 COL I FORK', MF-WATER 73-7300-4215 72.50 JRNL-CD 1010 72.50 $,~84.17 JRNL-CD 1010 HOUND-F I~E- R_~t E*F --A ~-5*~------V*E~D~,,- ~,i: ...... $48~,-,:1-7 ............................................ N3737 000220 L ..... 3/I~/00 3/14/00 NEXTEL COMhUNICATIONS, INC VE~DO~ TOTAL N3740 TI-004317~ 3/1~/00 3/14/00 T1-00424~5 3/14/00 3/14/00 70.00 THRU 02-18-00 o812 FA£KLER 01-4340-3220 ~-O~O0 THI~U~--l~-O~-OS-~-3---TOM ~1~-~-220 - 23.33 THRU 02-1~-00 6811 SKINNER 01-4280-3950 23.33 THRU 02-18-00 6811 SKINNER 73-7300-3950 46.15 THRU 02-18-00 6814 HEII'Z, D 01-4280-3950 4o.15 THRU 02-18-00 ~815 JOHNSON 01-4280-3950 46.15 TIIRU 02-1-8~'~O-~-6-'-HE-~E ----'~7-3-0t)-3950 46.15 THRU 02-18-00 6817 KEST~ER 73-7300-3950 46.15 THRU 02-18-00 681~ HARDINA 7~-7800-39 46.15 THRU 02-1~-00 6820 GRADY 01-4280-39)~ 46.15 THRU 02-18-00 6821 HETIZ, F 01-4280-3950 i5.3~ THRU 02-1~-00 6822 NELSON !5.37 IHRU 02-1~-00 6822 NELSON 7~-7800-3950 ~2~-~t---~C~ l~IO 625.31 150.39 160.39 106.93 i06.93 SIGN "NO S~IMMING OR DIVING" 8i-A350-2300 JRNL-CD 1010 LIFEGUAPD SIGN 01-4340-2310 JRNL-CD I010 NEWMAN SIGNS VENDOR TOTAL 267.32 N3800 000229 .................................. 5, 3/14/00 3/14/00 5, NORTHE-R~-.~G--~WER CO VE~DOR TOTAL 091126490001 149.4~ 3/14/00 3/14/00 - - 149.46 OFFICE DEPOT VENDOR IOTAL 219.24 ................................................................ P3955 000214 69.03 ~/14/00 ~/14/UO 69.03 15-1.76- -THRU 02-2-9--00 0009-604--835 ...... 01-~,2-8~--3-71-0 ....... 151.76 JRNL-CD 1010 ADJUSTABLE BOOKSHELF JRNL-CD 01-4140-2200 I010 .... PAPER, GREEN 01-41~0-2200 JRNL-CD - · 101~-- 02-01-00 THRU D3-1~-UC PAGERS 01-414A-3~50 JRNL-CD lUlO PAGE 12 P U R C H A 5 E J 0 U R N A L AP-CO2-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMbR DATE DATE STATdS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMdER PAGE;'~ET DF .~INNESOTA P3957 1691784 VENDOR TOTAL 69.03 3/14/00 3114100 83.91 55 GALLON DRUM ANTI-FREEZE 01-4280-2250 83.~0 55 GALLON DRUM ANTI-FREEZE 73-7300-2250 ~O--~J'5--G~LtON-DRU~-ANTI-FREEZE .......... 251.71 JRNL-CD !010 PAM COHPAN-IES ................. YENDe-R -TOT-AL- ~5-t .-tt P3994 125223 PAUSTI5 & SONS WINE COMPAN VENDOR TOTAL P3995 5694-12 3/14/00 3/i4/00 PBS ~RAPHIC ART DESI6N VENDOR TOTAL -P400-O--4q) ~L-07315 3/14/00 3/i4/00 454.00 UlNE 7i-7100-0520 454.00 631 .~3 631 631.83 91.45 DOWNTOWN REDEV AND Q AND A JRNL-CD H ~-S C E L L-A N E O U $--T-A-X A-13i.~ JRNL-CD 55-5880-3100 1010 -7T--7-1'09-'-~55 O 1010 COMPANY P4021 582895 582894 530905 VENDOR TOTAL 3-/-i-4-/-00 }! }'-4-/-00 31 t-~AQ-0 3-F-t4/00 3 ! 14/g{N.--~-l-~-/-O 0 3 / tJ~ t-O 0-- 3-t4_-4 91.45 122.30 1-2-2. 3,117.50 LI ~UOR ~,117.50 JR~b-iED 1,509.27 LIQUOR 1,509 505.00 WINE 506:00 JT~NL CD WI NE -J~ NL-{-D ..................... 71-7100-9520 71-7100-9510 1010 71-7100-9510 1010 71-7100-9520 5~5016 508.65 LIQUOR :~-/-}.-4-/-00 3/14/00 50d.65 JR NL---CD 5S5 017 332.20 ..................... 3-/~-4-/-0-0 3t-1-~.-/O 0 332 . 20 PHILLIPS ~INE & SPIRITS, ~ VEt:DOR TOTAL 609~.92 P4036 27918 691.47 5/14/00 311&/OO 691.47 2~123 3/14/00 3/14/00 903.87 PINNACLE D1STRIbUIING VENDDR TOTAL I5~5.34 P4049 559949 ............ ~B..90 ~/14/00 ~/l~/gO 3b.90 W ] NE '~ -~: L--C D CIGARETTES JRNL-CD CIb~RETTES Jn'~L-CU FE-B M~RCH, APRIL-2000--£ONT+~OL JR NL-CD 71-7100-9510 -1010 71-7100-9520 ........... t0 lO 71-7100-9550 1010 71-7100-0550 1010 71--7]00--4~ .... lO10 PAGE 13 AP-C02-O1 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. IqVOICE NHBR DATE DATE STATUS PLUNKETT'S, INC VENDOR TOTAL P4109 4!5~ PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 3ZS .90 .......................... 3-/t--4-/-00 PRO LA,,,'NS ON THE LAr. E ASSO VENDOR TOTAL 5764.50 34171 807933-00 808000-00 .......... ~9;-09-i:~,TtLtZAT'ION-AND wEED CONTROL ...... 01-~.3';~0-~*'200 ....... 936.00 FERTILIZATION AND WEED CONTROL 80-o000-3800 4,729.50 FERTILIZATION AND WEED COmTROL 0%-4340-3800 5, ?~ ~ 5~----J~L--C9 ...................................... 610.33 WINE 3/14/00 3/14/00 b10.33 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9520 1010 805378-00 =- 805579-00 806372-00 806441-00 805852-00 1,952.I1 LIQUOR 3/14/00 3/14/00 1,952.11 JPNL-CD 47.32 MIX 3/14/00 3/14/00 47.32 J~NL-CD 2,425.89 LIQUOR 3/14/00 3/14/00 2,425.89 JRNL-CD 27.~0 MIX 3/14/00 3/14/00 27.00 JRNL-CD 375.31 ~INE 3/14/00 3/14/00 375.31 JRNL-CD 1,371.7~ LIOUOR 3/14/00 3/14/00 1,371.78 JRNL-CD 2,735.12 LIQUOR 3/14/00 2,735.12 J~NL-CD 509.32 WINE 509.32 JRNL-CD 810439-00 3/14/0~ 810964-00 3/I4/00 3/I4/00 &UALITY .I~[ & SPIRITS VENDOR 10TAL R-2~&l-R~2~21 3/14/00 3/14/00 REYNOLDS 9ELg~G .S~Y CO VENDOR---T-OTAL R4209 1346 ................. ~-/-i~-tOG RANDY'S SANITATION VENDOR TOTAL k4242 000211 10054.18 38.94 38.94 JRNL-CD 101.26 02-00 TRASH SERVICE 1~"-1-. 26 '-J.~L--{-D- 101.26 ~0~.34 VACCINE SHOTS 23.34 VACCINE SHOTS ............................... 23.32- -VACCINE SNOTS 3/14/00 3/14/00 350.00 JRNL-CD 71-7100-95!0 1010 71-7100-9540 1010 71-7100-9510 1010 71-7100-9540 1 71-7100-9520 1010 71-7100-9510 1010 71-7100-9510 1010 71-7100-9520 1010 22 4170 3~00 1010 01-4320-3750 -- i010 01-428G-3140 73-7300-3140 ................ 7~--7~d}0--~1%~ 1010 RIDGEVI£W 5U$tNESS ~EALIW- ~C-NDDR T~-AL .......... 350.00 - R4290 56790 91.05 MISCELLANEOUS TAXABLE 71-7100-9550 PAGE i4 AP-C02-gl VENDOR ~Nv0iCE DUE NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE 543gl 00U217 SHIRLEY HAWKS 3/14/00 3/14/00 3/14/00 3/14/00 VENDOR TOTAL PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND HOLD STATUS AF, 0UNT D~SCRIPTJ3N ACCOUNT NUP,~E R 91.05 JRNL-CD !010 ........ 99:-55 - 'MI~CEL-LANEOUS TAXAbLe. ............... 71-71~-955g-~ 99.36 JRNL-CD 1010 190 ;~-~ 70.5U O2-&7-gO CDC ~TG SECRETAK]AL -?~ ;5~~ -JRNL-C~3 ......... 70.50 S4~91 2528 2,457.80 3/i4/00 3/14/00 2,457.80 SHORE~OOD TREE SERVICE VENDO~ TOTAL 2457.80 54437--5729 3/14/00 3/14/00 SRE£-J~L~-SC~EEN I NG VEt, DOR TOT AL 54499 143337 STAR-~EST CHEV/OLDS S4508 23,~ 409 STREI CHER 'S 01-4020-3100 3 / 14-/-e,O VENDOR TOTAL RFHOVE TREES DEVON & ISLANDVIE JRNL-CD 7~.-89--~ VE-H! C-LEi DO 0 R- ,-MA GNE'T-S 76.B9 JRNL-CD 8.52 A;¢I I-FREEZE, ETC. ,5 v52-- JP, NL-C-'D 8.52 3/14/00 3/14/00 VENDG~,--~T~ 6.07 IKSPECTION AIR TANK/VALUES 6.67 INSPECTION AIR TANK/VALUES ..... -6 .tt---i~,5P-E C-T tON-- A I-R- ~NK-/V AL UES 20 .(JO JP NL-CD $.~AT£-~F ~INNESGIA S4580 6250 STERNE ELECTRIC CO VENDOR TOTAL 2E3.63 S4600 154067.1 236.59 3/i&/O0 3/14/00 236.59 VENDOR TOTAL 236.59 81-4350-5110 1010 7-3 - ?~-00'--2 1010 01-4140-3810 10T-0 01-4280-4200 73-7300-~200 lOlO 283.03 FUSES, ETC 2~,5~o5-- JPNL-CD ..... 01-4320-3830 CAR SPOTLIGHT, ETC JPNL-CD 01-4140-3810 lOlO G. 5-I--- T t+t£-.I:UBE-GAL-L-(f'N .................... 0t--~80 2250 3.51 TIRE LU~E GALLON 73-7300-2250 3.51 TIRE LUBE GALLON 78-7800-2250 ...... 10.53 Jq N L- C D .... !~J-i-~ II~ES, VAVLE STEHS, .(IMS JR~,L-CD ............... !Q t9 TUBES (3) 01-4280-2310 J~NL-CD ..... 1010 128359 34.~3 ......................... ~/14/00 3/14/O0 ....... 34.3~ SU~Ji{BAt. TIRE COMPANY V~NOOI-¢ TOIAL 1162.97 01-4260-2310 PAGE 15 P U R C H A S ; J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF HOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NHBR [)ATE DATE STATUS A,';OUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER " S4612 000306 .............. 200.00 2000 MEMBERSHIP 1ST HALF ASSES 0i-4020-4130 200;00- JR NiL-C g ........................... 101~ ....... SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY VENDOR TOTAL S4632 000131 · 5/14/00 3/14/00 000229 3/14/00 3/14/00 SPEED~AY SUPERAMERICA LL£ VENDOR TOTAL T 4 ?-03--OOg 224 .... T - C~ E-k---S ¥-ST{-~M S ,.,_C ~ T4730 767 758 769 78947 000205 THE LAKER T 473..5 0002~3 THE MERCER SROUP T-47J4 -1~3731 3/i4/00 3/14/00 V[NDOR TOTAL 3/14/00 3/14/~0 3/14/-00 3/14/00 3/14/~0 3/1~/00 -- 3/14/00 3/14/00 -Z~/-t-4 /.."" '" VENDOR TOTAL 3/14/00 3t14/00 VENDOR TOTAL 3/14/0~ 3/14/00 i~,0622 3/14/00 3/14/00 3/14100 311~100 3/1~/00 3/14/00 3/14/00 3/14/00 200.00 249.12 THRU 01-20-00 GASOLINE CHARGES 22-4170-2210 249.12 JRNL-CD 1010 233.33 THRU 02-17-00 GASOLINE CHARGES 22-4170-2210 233.33 JRNL-CD 1010 482.45 ~25-.~O--TRAN~E~ ~E~-SITE-PU~tI~-ATt-ON ........ 0T-4~2~-~10~-'-- 25.g0 JRNL-CD 1010 25.00 i4.98 SENIOR CENTER LEGAL 01-2300-1038 14.98 JRNL-CD 1010 14.98 SENIOR CENTER LEGAL 01-2300-10~ i~-.--9~--JRNL-CD 16.85 SENIOR CENTER LEGAL 16.85 80.70 WANT AD THREE LINES 80.70 JRNL-CD 01-2300-1088 1010 71-7100-3410 1010 143.60 VALENTINE SPECIAL DISPLAY 71-7100-3500 .-t-/~.-Og---~J.,~,/.L--C~ lOiO 271.11 5,516.98 THIRD PAYMENT CIIY MANAGE~ 0i-~040-3100 5,51~.98 JRNL-C~ 1010 551o.98 - ll.-5~---~.'%C-{~L-~E-OqJ5 11.50 JKNL-CD 1010 24.20 JRNL-CD 1010 ----t~-.-.54}-- -~ E-E~ ................................ 16.50 J'~NL-CD 1010 i,§&5.O0 - BSER - 71-7100-'9530 ....... 1,645.00 JRNL-CD 1010 6,828.35 ~[~ 6,82G.35 J~qL-CD 10!0 16 AP-£02-O1 VENDOR INVOICE DUE MOLD NO. I:,'VOICE N.U. BR DATE DATE STATUS 1~5901 3/14/00 3/l&/O0 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPAN vENDOR TOTAL T&?90 39455 ..... 3/14/00 3114/00 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND A~:OUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 36.30 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-O550 36.30 J~,T~L-CD 1010 T480~ 12&12 ~561.85 t-7-;-25-- - PULt E~f ................................... 73-? Bi)-O ~B 310 3/14/00 3/14/00 3114100 3/14/00 3/14/00 3/14/00 17.23 JPNL-CD l-? ;-25 ..................... 143.38 02-14-00 PLANNING COMM ~,T6 189~5 0 2 -i5-t~0--C O~ -M. E-Ei-i-NG ~32.63 JRNL-CD 81.00 JRNL-CD ~37.63 JRNL-CD ~8&.25 O 2- 2-2 ~U~J-L/HR~ HEET]~G 384.25 JRNL-CD I010 01-~,190-4200 .... 1010 81 -~-3-5t~-%- 200 1010 01 -~-3~--4--2-0, 0 1010 -0-3.~+-0-~ 4-2~Y0 -- 1010 , , 3/14/00 3/14/00 ........... t239~ 3/14/00 3/14100 T4850 046116 3~-t-4~00 3/14/00 TOLTZ ~Ii~6 DgVALL ANDERSON VENDOR TOTAL T4951 055247 3/14/00 3/14/00 vE ND~---T~ TRUE- V~A L~E- T4965 0~229 .... 3t14t00- -3 / 1-4 AO 0 229.-75 02 229.75 JRNL-CD lOlO 258.O3 0 2 --~8 -'~O--{d)U'N(- {-L-t-H R A--'MEE-Ttli~- ........ 258.63 JRNL-CD 1010 1423.89 284.90 01-00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 73-7300-4200 284 .-9~- --JR~H_---C-D 10 284.90 9.5~ HTL CUT HOLE SAW 01-4280-2250 9.57 HTL CUT HOLE SA~ 73-7300-2250 --9~57 HTL C-oCT HOL-E-~A~-- --~-8~-2250 28.72 JRNL-CD I010 28.72 147.92 U3-00 ELEVATOR SERVICE THYSSEN LAGER~UIST ELEV~TO VENDOR TOIAL 147.92-- 3.47 .V2 01-4320-4200 ................. t010 14gd~ 23~51i-0 4.12 OFFICE SUPPLIES ~.12 OFFICE SUPPLIES -~2 UF~<~ 5U~Lq~5 4.12 OFFICE SUPPLIES 4.12 OFFICE SUPPLIES ........................................... i.37~ ~PFICE-~UFH~L. IE5 1.57 OFFICE SUPPLIES 2.04 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4040-2200 01-4090-2200 ~i--4-t4r~-2290 01-4190-2200 01-4340-2200 01--42~o-2200 ........ 71-7100-2200 7)-7300-2200 ·.-,..T ..... .~ ~.-_. ..... PAGE 17 PURCHASE JOURNAL AP-C02-01 CITY OF HOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD Pt NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATdS A~OUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMSER 2.03 OFFICE SUPPLIES 78-7800-22C0 lg.44 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4020-2200 .......................... --3t~t-e~--~-t-l~t) ~-~L-~D ............................................... 244807-0 ~.74 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0~-4040-2200 ............................... 8.~4 - OFfiCE SUPPL-IE$ ..................... ~.7~ OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-41~0-2200 8.74 OrFICE SUPPLIES 01-4190-2200 .......... 8~--OF~-I~E--SUPPL-IES ..................... ~1-~0-220~ ...... 2.91 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0i-4260-2200 2.91 OFFICE SUPPLIES 71-7100-2200 ................................. 4-~ ---OFFtCE'SUPP'LI[S ...................... ~.~5 OFFICE SUPPLIES 7~-7800-2200 3/14/00 3/i4/00 56.23 JRNL-CD 1010 243926-0 22.72 I~DEX CALENDARS 0i-4090-2200 93.23 VHS CASSETTES 01-4020-2200 3/-1~ 311~-/~)0 i1~95 JqNt-C~ .......................... 244807-1 9.32 PAPER 01-4190-2200 3/14/00 3/14-~0 9%~ ~RNL--C9 1010 2~59~5-0 14.13 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0i-4040-2200 3/14/00 3/14/00 TWt-t~.-CIT.¥ OFFIC~-SUPPL~-C~-V'E-NDC~,--~TAL U5090 D00225 UNITED FIRE FIGHTERS VENDOR TOTAL U5134 CTS00326250 ]4~-t-~-'--OF~'CE SB~P~IES 0~4090-22C ]4.13 UFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4140-220, 14.i] OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4190-2200 4.?! OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4280-2200 4.71 OFFICE SUPPLIES 71-7100-2200 7.06 OFFICE SUPPLIES 78-7800-2200 4.75 OFFICE SUPPLIES 71-7100-2200 ....... 64.95--OF-F]C~-$~PP-EIE$ ......................... 0i-~90---2-~00 163.~9 JRNL-CD 1010 30.00 2000 HENBERSHIP DUES 22-4170-4130 3114100 30.00 191.59 REV BDS 1993B 73-7300-6120 2~4.16 REV ~DS 1993~ 78-7800-6120 ~r2-~5--~,',~NL--(~ '10~ ..... US BANK VENDOR TOTAL V5241 10917 VISIUNARY SYSTEMS LTD VEI<DOR TOTAL 425.75 56C.00 03/01/00-03101101 SOFT~ARE SdP 22-4170-4175 560.U0 JRNL-CD ]OlO 560.00 "--W.532~ -44-761 .......... 15 . 55-. MAIL-eO-X 3114100 3114100 !5.55 JP t,'L-CD ........ .... ..... ~L~_~'~ 'z_' --.' ~'~ '~::~'~L~_.:'-::--'~-,~ ......... ' ....... ..... 0-1---42 BO- 2300 1010 PAGE l.B P U R C H A S E J 0 U ,{ N A L AP-C02-Ol CITY OF HOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NM~R DATE DATE STATUS 44762 3/14/00 3/14/00 ~ACONIA bUILDING CENTER VENDOR TOTAL W5492 000229 3/14/00 3/14/00 W E ST -METqR{~-Bd t ED t-N6--M A }NT . VENDOR ~ - W5572 9L91221 ...... 3J~-4/00 3/14/00 · wESTONKA ~EDICAL GROdP VENDOR TOTAL 3/14/00 3/i4/00 VENDOR TOTAL ; w5630 3124 IDLER INC ~20 3/14/00 ~/14/00 ~5690 10~9~ - 15195 ~ ~ 15547 AHOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT 1.92 MAIL bOX 0i-4280-2300 1.92 JRNL-CD 19!0 17.47 ----t ~,-12-6-. 0~-- - 0~3 - 00 -fLEA N I'N6 --SERV gl.33 03-00 CLEANING SERVICE 01-423[,'-4200 91.33 03-00 CLEANING SERVICE 73-7300-4200 9i-~4----0~-00 CL-EANING SERVICE- 1,400.00 JRNL-CD 94.00 PHYSICAL, KESTNER 73-7300-3140 ---~.~-JR~b-C9 '1010 94.00 466.50 REPAIRED CURB STOP TUXEDO ~LVD 73-7300-3800 466.50 JRNL-CD 1010 466.50 30.20 JRNL-CD 1010 3~.~ ............................................... 311.60 BLACKTOP 73-7300-2~40 311.~0 JqNL CD 1010 593.25 CONCRETE 01-4280-2340 5c3.~d~ ..................... 1010 - 1,209.72 CONCRETE 01-4280-2340 ..... ~,2~72- JE-NL-CD ........................ !~10 WM ;;uELL£R & SOf~S VENDOR TOTAL 2114.57 ~ - Z~401 000~02 126.84 REIMBURSEMENT FOR SUPPLIES - 3/14/00 3/14/00 126.S4 JRNL-CD EDWAKD VANEC~K VENDOR TOTAL ;~6~--<~i~0 15~76 GI. ISTAFSON, ~. FIRE COURSE ........... 2-2---~-1~----4~1-0 ..... 150.76 JRNL-CD 1010 165194 4,896.08 3/14/00 3/14/00 _ ..' ~7 ......... ~ ..... ' 3/14/00 3/14/00 HENi;EPI;4 TEC,t;:i(AL COLLEGE VENDOR TOTAL - - 156.7o Z6590 00,9225 134.50 ~JZ-O0 VIDEO COUNCIL ~,EEI'IN~ DOMI~;IC ~'J$INARO 'VEND'JR TOTAL 134.50 ~ELEPHONE SYSTEM JRNL-CD 22-4170-2200 1010 01-4~2,q-3100 id)lO : -- 22-4179-5000 1010 PAGE 19 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF HOUND VENDCR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. I~JVOICE NM~R DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUHBER HCLEOD COUNTY COURTHOLISE VEt,ID(JR TOTAL TOTAL ALL vEN~)ORS 208,933.37 f /; t PARCEL A EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 17, 18, and 19, Block 6, Arden, Hennepln County, Minnesota, containing 18,719 square feet. PARCEL B EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 20, 21, and the Southerly Half of Lot 22, Block 6, Arden, Henneptn Counly, Minnesota, containing 14,731 square feet. PARCEL A PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots t7, 18, and 19, Block 6, Arden, Hennepln County, Minnesota, also the Southerly 6.60 feet · of Lot 20, Block 6, Arden, Hennepln Counly, Mlnneeota as measured at gO degrees to the Southerly line of said Lot 20, containing 19,747 square feet. PARCEL B PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 20, 2t, and the Southerly Halt of Lot 22, Block 6, A~den, Hennepln County, Minnesota, except lhe Southerly 6.60 feet of Lot 20, Block 6, Ardan, Hennepln County, Minnesota as measured at 90 degrees to the Southerly line of said Lot 20, containing 13,703 square feet. I hereby cerlily thM this plan, aurvey or report wal prepared by me or under my direct supervision end that I em e duly Registered Land Surveyor under tho laws al tho Stele o! Mlnnes~. ~/~ 0 . ' Book - Page ~Scela 1"--70 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22. 2000 REOUEST FROM NANCY AND CONRAD STARR TO RF_~ON$IDER TI~. TEMPORARY VARIANCE APPROVED FOR THEIR DETACHED GARAGE TO ALLOW IT TO REMAIN. The City Planner stated the owners have requested the City Council consider the temporary variance approved for their detached garage and allow it to remain. In Resolution ~97-24, it is stated quite clearly the terms of the variance and why the dilapidated detached garage that is in need of great structural repairs needs to be torn down. The City Planner stated the garage is nonconforming, it encroaches on the neighboring property to the north, and it is five feet away from the right-of-way. However, he stated, based on the streamlining code, this could possibly be passed. He further stated the Planning Commission denied this request at its February 14, 2000, meeting. Mayor Meisel questioned if we would have allowed the garage to stay if it had not been previously requested to have it removed in Resolution//97-24. The City Planner stated the City would not have allowed this situation. Councilmember Ahrens stated she is alarmed to have it mentioned that streamlining would apply in a case where an individual has a structure that is nonconforming and the structure encroaches on the neighbor's property. Councilmember Brown agreed with Councilmember Councilmember Hanus asked the City Attorney if the City has the authority to grant permission to keep a structure on someone else's property. The City Attorney stated it does not have this authority. Councilmember Brown recommended that the Council allow an extension until April 1, 2000, before the dilapidated detached garage would need to be tom down. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to DENY the applicants' request for reconsideration of the removal of their detached garage, but to allow an extension until April 1, 2000, to remove the dilapidated garage. Discussion. Councilmember Ahrens clarified the City of Mound would wait until April 1, 2000, to have the applicants tear down the detached garage, but after that point, if the garage has not been removed, the City can remove it. Mayor Meisel directed staff to give the applicants an extension until April 1, 2000. Motion carried..%0. 15 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: February 14, 2000 SUBJECT: Detached Garage Temporary Variance OWNER: Nancy and Conrad Starr CASE NUMBER: 00-03 (97-06) ltKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 3152 Alexander Lane ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREltENS1VE PLAN: Residential BACKGROLTND/I)ISCUSSION: The owner's have requested the City reconsider the temporary variance approved for their detached garage to allow it to remain. The terms of the variance are spelled out in Resolution #97-24 and the accompanying agreement. This will be going to the Council for reconsideration and we would like to get inpm from the Commission on this matter. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, l~innesota 55401 HA'I - 7 1. 97 AGREEMENT ................... / ! CONRAD STARR AND NANCY STARR, husband and wife ("Starrs") and the City o£Mound, a Mim~esota mu~cipal corporation ("Mound"). WHERE.kS, thc Starts are the owners of a parcel of land lying within the corporate limits of Mound which has the street address of 3152 Alexander Lane and which is legally described as follows, to wit: Lots 17, 18 and 19, Block 6, Arden, Hennepin Count', Minnesota ("Propert?) and; WHEREAS, the City Council of Mound did on February 25, 1997 adopt a resolution entitled: "Kesolution to Approve a Temporary Variance for Three Years to Kecogrfize an Existing Nonconforming Detached Garage to Allow a Conforming Addition onto the Dwelling at 3152 Alexander La_ne." and; WHEREAS, one of the conditions precedent imposed upon the granting of said temporary variance was the execution of an agreement "to guarantee the removal of the nonconforming detached garage within three years of the date of approval of this variance." NOW, THEREFORE, in fulfillment of the said requirement, the parties hereto stipulate and agree as follows: 1. Garage Removal. The Starrs agree, for themselves and their successors and assigns to the Property that they will raze and remove the nonconforming detached garage located on the Property; and will have completed the same not later than February 25, 2000. The Starts understand that it is their responsibility to obtain all necessary approvals and permits for such removal. 2. Failure to Remove. The Starts fxtrther understand that should they fail to remove the nonconforming garage structure by said date, Mound may enter on the Property and remove the structure and charge, as an assessment against the Property, all costs and expenses incurred in obtaining removal. The Starrs for themselves and their successors and assigns in the Property hereby consent to the entry onto the Property by Mound and its agents, employees and representatives to accomplish such removal; and further, the Starrs for themselves and their successors and assigns in the Property hereby consent and waive any claim which they may have to challenge the validity of any assessment against the Property. based upon such work performed by Mound. IN TESTIMONY WI:IEREOF, the parties have set their hands as of the day and year first above written. Conrad Start Nancy Start d/ CITY OF MOUND Its Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNE?IN ) F~ day of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this K~ 1997, by Conrad Starr and Nancy Start, husband and wife. ~ i:RNICEI~ C. CLARK4.EISINGER ~ Notary Public STATE OF MEN~N'ESOTA ) )ss. COU,.-N'TY OF HEN~'EPhN ) The foregoing instrument was aclmowled~ed before me this ~ day of t ~ ~c--~4..] , Manager, respective, on behalf of the City of Mound, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation. [-~ ~ FRANCENE C. CLARK-LEiSINGER ~ L~ ~-~'~'-_~.7 HDINEMN COUNTY ~ Notary Public February 25, 1997 ' ' RESOLUTION//97-24 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A TEMPORARY VARIANCE FOR THREE YEAR~ TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE TO AH-OW A CONFORMING ADDITION ONTO THE DWELLING AT 3152 ALEXANDER LANE LOTS 17, 18, AND 19, BLOCK 6, ARDEN, PII) 2~117-2~ 44 0068 P&Z CASE//97.-06 WI-IEREAS, the owners, Nancy and Conrad Starr applied for a Minor Subdivision in order to remove an encroackment of their existing detached ~rage. A vadance was also requested to recognize the existing nonconforming front yard setback to the same detached garage of 15.13 feet to the required 30 foot setback, and; WHEREAS, the application was submitted to allow construction ora second story, addition on both the house and the garage, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R- 1 Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for single family dwellings, a front yard setback of 30 feet. side yard setbacks of t0 feet. and a rear yard setback of 15 feet, and; WI-IEREAS, the property, is conforming to lot area with over 18,000 square feet. and the principal dwelling is conforming to all setback requirements, and; WHEREAS, the existing detached garage encroaches into the nei.ohboring_ property by .6 feet and is setback 15.13 feet from the front property line. If this garage is removed there is enough lot area and buildable footprint for a new garage in a conforming location without the need for a subdivision, and; WHEREAS, the existing detached garage is dilapidated, it is constructed of mnsom'y and is in need of structural repairs, and; WHEREAS, the owners are using the garage to store their possessions until they can finish the house. The garage has existed in that location for 56 years, and; WHEREAS, In addition, there is a shed in the rear yard that does not meet the minimum 4 foot setback to the re. ar lot line. The owners have stated they will remove the shed, and; WHEREAS, approval. the PI.arming Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby gr:.at a temporary three-year variance to recognize the existing nohconforming detached garage with a nonconforming side yard encroachment of .6 feet and a nonconforming front yard setback of 15.13 feet to allow construction ora conforming addition onto the conforming dwelling, subject to the following conditions: a. This variance will expire three-years from the date of City Council approval. bo Aa agreement shall be prepared by the applicant that is suitable to the City Attorney to guarantee removal of the nonconforming detached garage within three-years of date of approval of this variance. This agreement must be executed prior to release of this resolution and prior to building permit issuance for the house addition. February 25, 1997 c. The existing nonconforming shed must be r~moved prior to building permit issumce fo~ th~ house addition. The three-year temporary variance hereby granted is only intended to permit the continuation of the existing garage and is not intended to permit the proposed expansion of the existing garage which proposed expansion is hereby denied. 2. This variance is ,q-anted for the following legally de.,:ribed property: Lots 17, 18, and 19, Block 6, Arden. 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, nonconformh~g use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livabiliry 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: o Construction of various additions onto the dwelling which will expand the footprint of the first floor and add a second floor. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Henaepin 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 Heanepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not b~ issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember A.hrens and seconded by Councilmember Hanus. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Harms, Jenseu Polston and Weycker. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none Attest: City Clerk Mayor~~ Minute~ - Momu~ C~ty Council - February 25, 1997 1.9 CASE REOUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR ADDITION, CONRAD & NANCY STARR, 3152 & 3136 ALEXANDER LANE, LOTS 1741 1/2 OF 22. BLOCK 6. ARDEN. PID F24--117-24 44 0008 & (VARIANCE APPLICATION RELATES TO ALLOWING GARAGE TO REMAIN FOR 3 YEARS). The Building Official explained the request. The existing garage encroaches into the neighboring property and it also is setback 15 feet to the front property line, where a 30 foot setback is required. The garage is in need of structural repairs. The Staff and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of a temporary three year variance to recognize the detached, nonconforming garage in order to allow construction of a conforming addition onto the house. The applicant has now decided to also put an attached garage onto the house which would be conforming. They would like to keep the detached garage for a period of time to allow storage until the new garage is built. They have asked to withdraw their request for a subdivision since it will not be necessary with the removal of the detached garage. They are requesting a refund of their subdivision application fee. Staff has no objection to the subdivision application fee being refunded. The Council agreed to refund the fee. Ahrens moved and II,anus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//97-24 RESOL~ION TO APPROVE A TEaMPORARY VARIANCE FOR THREE YEARS TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING DETA~ GARAGE TO ALLOW A CONFORMING ADDITION ONTO THE DWELLING AT 3152 ALEXANDER LANE, LOTS 17, 18 AND 19, BLOCK 6, ARDEN, PID g24-117-24 44 0068, P & Z//9%06 Also included in this motion is the approval of a refund of the subdivision application fee. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE 97-06: MINOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE FOR ADDITION CONRAD & NANCY STARR, 3152 & 3136 ALEXANDER LANE LOTS 17-21 & 1/2 OF 22, BLOCK 6, ARDEN, 24-117-24 44 0068 & 69 The applicant is seeking a Minor Subdivision in order to remove an encroachment of their existing detached garage. A variance is also requested to recognize an existing nonconforming front yard setback to the same detached garage of 15.13 feet to the required 30 foot setback. The proposal includes construction of a second story addition on both the house and the garage. Both parcels are conforming to lot area. The existing garage on Parcel A is constructed of masonry and is in need of structural repairs. The encroachment into the front yard is in excess of the minimum setback allowed by the recent streamlining provisions which would be 22.5 feet. In addition, there is a shed in the rear yard that does not meet the minimum 4 foot setback to the rear lot line. The owners have stated they will remove the shed. If the existing garage is removed there is enough lot area and buildable footprint for a new garage in a conforming location without the need for a subdivision. Staff recommended the Plarming Commission recommend denial of the variance request due to lack of hardship and due to the fact that the nonconforming garage is dilapidated and could be removed and replaced with a conforming structure. Staff recommended approval of the subdivision based on the fact that all issues are conforming, however it is questionable if it is necessary without approval of the variance. The Planning Commission may wish to consider approval of a variance that would allow the applicant to construct the addition onto the dwelling subject to an agreement suitable to the city attorney to remove the encroachment of the garage within one year. Sutherland further commented on the condition of the garage. He does not know what type of foundation the garage has, it is constructed of masonry so it does not take very well to shifting well, and it needs some structural repair. The applicant stated that the garage has a new roof, a new wall on one side, and new windows. They feel the garage is in better condition thal~the house. They are using the garage to store their possessions until they can finish the house. The garage has existed in that location for 56 years, and it will be nonconforming only to the street setback, and they would like to keep it. Weiland suggested that they could keep the garage for one year until they finish the house.. Sutherland commented that staff would be in favor of extending the amortization period to two years. Hanus explained to the applicant that the City could draft a temporary easement that will allow the City to access the property to remove the garage if the owner does not remove it, and then they will assess the charges to the property. Clapsaddle commented that the garage is not in good shape. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of a variance to allow the garage to remain for three years. The subdivision is not part of this approval as removal of the garage makes it unnecessary. Motion carried unanimously. TMs case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on February 25, 1997. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0§Z0 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: 0068 ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of February 10, 1997 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ---~i% ~ Minor Subdivision and Variance request Conrad and Nancy Starr and Jerry Kraugtkremer 97-06 3152 Alexander Lane, Lots 17, 18, 19, Block 6, Arden, 24-117-2444 3136 Alexander Lane, Lots 20, 21 & 1/2 of 22, Block 6, Arden, 24-117- 24 44 0069 R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a Minor Subdivision in order to remove an encroachment of their existing detached garage and a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming front yard setback of 14.87 feet to the required'30 foot front yard setback for the same detached garage in order to allow construction of a second story addition on both the house and the garage. Minor Subdivision: Both of the proposed parcels as existing and proposed are conforming to the lot area provisions for the R-1 zone and staff would recommend approval of the request for a subdivision, however, we question the need for a subdivision in light of the recommendation for denial of the variance request Variance: The existing garage on Parcel A is constructed of masonry and is in need of structural repairs. The encroachment into the front yard is in excess of the minimum setback allowed by the recent streamlining provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The minimum setback allowed by streamlining would be 22.5 feet, and the garage is located 1 5.13 feet from the front property line. Staff Repor~ - Starr February 1 O, 195 7 Page 2 In addition, there is a shed in the rear yard that does not meet the minimum 4 foot setback to the rear lot line. The owners have stated they will remove the shed. These properties are located in the R-1 zoning district which for non-lots of record require for principal structures a front yard setback of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, and a rear yard setback of 15 feet. COMMENTS: If the existing garage is removed there is enough lot area and buildable footprint to locate a new garage in a conforming location on Parcel A without the need for a minor subdivision. This would eliminate the need for a variance for this property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance request due to lack of hardship and due ~o the fact that the nonconforming garage is dilapidated and could be removed and replaced with a conforming structure. Staff recommends approval of the subdivision request based on the fact that all issues are conforming, however it is questionable if it is necessary without approval of the variance. The Planning Commission may wish to consider approval of a variance that would allow the applicant to construct the addition onto the dwelling subject to an agreement suitable to the city attorney to remove the encroachment of the garage within one year. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on February 25, 1997. co g Commi~ion Da~: uncil Dam: Application for M~OR SUBDIVI~ON OF LAND . Ci~ of Mound, $341 Maywood Road, Mound, ~ 5=36~J ': Phone: 4724600, Fax: 472-0620 Distribution: 103 .ti -~ City Plarmer DNR -~f~' '-9 ,, Public Works Other ? ,~ .i~ City Engineer i - 2.~]~..'7 Application F~: Escrow Deposit: Deficient Unit Charges7 0F-'b',.:}UND Delinquent Tax~? ~ ~) VARI.~.'qC'~_ REQUIRED? V~ Please type or print the following iGt"ornmtion: PROPERTY INFORMATION EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION ZONING DISTRICT APPUCANT OWNER other ~han applicantl SURVEYOR/ ENGINEER The applicant is: '~owner ., other: Phone (H} 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. Th/s appEcat/on must be s/gned by all owners of the sub/ect prol~erty, or an exp/anat/on g/ven why th/s /s not the case. net's Signature Owner's Signatu~ I Date Date VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: ~72-0620 ('FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council. Date: ¢-1o4'7 Distribution: SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DF. SC. PROPERTY OWNER city City Engin~r " Public Works Subdivision ~c'Cd:~ I% ZONING DISTRICT (~ R-IA R-2 Name Address '~1 ~ ~- Phone (~)/~/~.- ~?~--7 :~-~ R-3 B-I Case No. DN'R Block Plat # B-2 B-3 APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Addr~s ~ Phone O~ER) (w) ~) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes,A<Y..no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): -/-P,,-E /4,0~ I°~-e-s~'"'-"rt-'/ H'.,~, qTO $,f42"r' o,o -.r't+e (_o,~.oca~ /,_~-V~t.- ,'~ 'O ariauce Application, P. 2 Ca.se No. 3. Do the existing structures comply with all ar~, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~ If no, specif7 each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED (or existiu~) VARIANCE Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ~-~O Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) 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. iq Gu-% sq ft ft. ff. ff. ft. ft. ft. sqft sq ff Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located2 Yes (), No,I<L If no, specify each non-conforraing use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too nan'ow ( ) topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape soil. existing situation other: specify Please describe: (Rev. 10/21/96) '~ariance 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: e Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such aa the 'relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: o Axe the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance p~uliar only to the property..' described in this petition? Yes~; No'(). If no, list some other proper'des which are similarly afl. ted? 9. Comments: 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. Owner's Signature ~~:7 S\~ Applicant's Signature Date / -- ~L 3 -(~ '9 ,/ PARCEL A EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION lois ! ?, t 8, and 19. Block 6, Arden, Hennepin County, Minnesota. containing 18.719 square leeL PARCEL B EXISTING L~L DESCRIPTION Lot 20. 21, and the So~ Hall Gl Lot 22, Bioc~ 6, Arden, Hef~nepin Counly, Minnesota. containing 14,731 PARCEL A PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION lots 17, 18, and 19, Blocfc 6, Arden, Henflepin County. Minnesota. also the Southerly 6.60 feet Gl lot 20, Block 6, Arclen, Hennel~n County, Minnesota es measured at 90 degrees to the Southarly line of said Lol 20, cofltai~ 19,747 square feel PARCEL {~ PROPOSED LEGAL O~'5CRtPTION Lot 20. 21, and the Southerly Half Gl Lot 22, Bloc~ 6, Arden, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except Ihe Soulhefly 6.60 leer of LOI 20. Block 6. Arden. Hennepin County. Minnesota as measured at gO da~rees to the Southerly llne o~ said Lot 20, containing 13.703 square leeL I!r.( t'~, ,.,, FEB - 5 I39/ ~ SCHOBORG L~ND SURVEYING INC. I Illllby CerlJly thll Ihis plln. Survey o! report wit duty Rlglsterld Lind Surveyor undIr the IIWS Gl Iht SIIII ..) / I / / prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am I ' I.~ND SURVEYING adu? Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State I INC. ....- Scale i~iC~y. Re. laSE Date: kc".. ~'i/~,~1~' Registration No. 14700 '" ' CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA LOT LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% SQ. FT. X 40% SQ-FT. X 15% = (for all lots) .............. I = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I = (for detached buildings only) . . eExisting 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 submi~ed and approved by the Building Official. ,, LENGTH WIDTH HOUSE t~ )-'~ ~J(~ 3~,~3 X ~. ~ TOTAL ~OUS= D~ACHED BLDGS ~ X ~ (GARAGE/SHED) X TOTAL D~ACHED BLDGS ................. DRIVEWAY, PARKING ~.~ X ] ~ AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ~ X ~0' ~C. X DECKS Open decks {1/4" min. opening between boards} with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... J , PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA LOT AREA / '~ '~ LOT AREA CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) SQ. FT. X 30% SQ. FT. X 40% SQ. FT. X 15% (for ali lots) .............. (for Lots of Record~) ....... (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 submit:ed and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE LENGTH WIDTH SC FT q. ~ x ~ = X = X = TOTAL HOUSE ......................... ' X = X TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. x = q x q = X = / oq.z- DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..... - ............. X = X -- X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... DECKS Open decks [114" min. opening between boards} with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE --' I UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) I J~ , i. IIIttISE ......... FRONT FRONT SiDE SiDE REAR LAKE TOP OF RI.UFF 10' OR 30' ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTI|: ~ ' ~o,ooo/so-2 ,,~. Rz~ ~. uuu/eu B2 20,000/80 6. 000/40 B.1 14,000/B0 Sgg O~. Z! 30,000/100 IEXI,~'TINC/PRO I~.1 SED FRONT N S E w LAKE N S E w 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' EXISTING LOT SIZE: 18,, GOO LOF WIDTH: LOT L) EP'Ii-I: VARIANCE ! PREMIUM SUMMARY PROPERTY INLAND MARINE I.IABHJTY/E&O AUTO LIABIIJTY AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE CRIME WORICER'S COMPENSATION BOII.IER & MACHYNERY AD&D BENEFIT LIQUOR LIABILITY EMPirE DISHONESTY OPEN MEETING LAW 1999 9,009 2,319 44,860 14,626 16,044 444 24,733 1,470 350 3,713 1,414 787 2000 9,336 2,382 49,764 17,881 19,527 Included 26,870 1,511 35O 3,958 1,353 796 TOTALS 119,769 130,128 YOUNGDAHL COMPANIES February 17, 2000 Mr. Gino Businaro City of M°und 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Gino, Your LMCIT Insurance renewal premium is 8.6% higher than the renewal premiums were last year. This is primarily due to: LMCIT Package Policy 1. Property - the LMCIT increase the building, contents, and equipment values by 2.8% to offset inflation. e Municipal Liability - including Public Officials Liability_ - this premium increased due to higher claims experience, plus a surcharge for the two Land Use claims (see attached). The defense cost alone for each of these Land Use claims is greater than the annual premium for the municipal liability. Automobile - there are two more vehicles this year. In addition the liability increase reflects the City's overall municipal liability loss experience. The physical damage is higher due to the two additional vehicles, a 5% rate increase, and the correction of two rating errors that benefited the City last year. LMCIT Workers Comoensation The increased premium is due to the higher payroll estimates. The experience modification went from .70 to .71, which is still considered 29 points better than the average Minnesota municipality. You will recall that the original modification effective 2/1/00 was issued at .93, but I was able to convince the Workers' Compensation carrier to close some open claims, and recalculate the experience modification. This resulted in a $8,179 premium savings. The LMCIT program continues to provide the broadest coverages for a municipality, while at the same time returning substantial dividends to the municipal members. The dividends are an indication of the LMCIT's excellent management of this program. 10261 Yellow~ Circle Drive * Mlnnetonka, MN 55343-9507 o 612-933-7488 * 800-888-5324 * Fox: 612-935-0916 The enclosed "Insurance Summary" will explain the coverage and premiums in greater detail. As always, I am looking forward to working with the City on their insurance program during the coming year. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this renewal, or any other matter that may pertain to the City's Insurance Risk Management efforts. Sincerely, _ a~ Carl A. Bennetsen Commercial Represemative CAB/cmv Enclosures CITY OF MOUND CLAIMS ANALYSIS (AS OF 1/31/00) 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 PAID LOSSES 20,112 32,223 17,602 39,281 17,865 PAID EXPENSES 806 951 74,953 72,171 0 RESERVE LOSSES 0 0 0 5,000 22,880 RESERVE EXPENSES 0 4,049 20,128 , 12,829 25,100 TOTAL I~CURREDAMOUNT 20,918 37,223 112,683 129,281 65,845 SAL/SUBRO AMOUNT -1,006 0 0 -75 0 DEDUCTIBLE RECOVERY -5,200 -4,500 -8,050 -8,818 -4,798 DEDUCTIBLE: $500 PRIOR TO 2/1/97, AND $1,000 TI~EREAFTER. CLAIMS: (CLOSED OVER $5,000 COST AND SELECTED OPEN CLAIMS) CLAIM # DATE DESCRIWrION 11012124 02/02/96 11015148 08/08/96 11016835A-C 01/13/97 11019873 02/01/92 11022581 05/15/98 11022635 11/25/97 11025400 01/04/99 11026123AD 03/08/99 11028118 08/19/99 11029780 04/21/98 Water tower overflowed (Paid Loss $5,570) Bike rider fell on street sealcoating (reopened) Insured's plow hit claimant's vehicle, which struck garage (Paid Loss $4,649 + $1,308) (Claim made 8/14/97) land use easement rights (Open) Property storm debris removal (Paid Loss A $16,706) (Claim made 5/13/98) land use, Writ of Mandamus(Open) Lift station motor explosion (Paid Loss $10,712) Insured's vehicle hit utility pole (Paid Loss $12,398) Park swing broke (Open)' (Claim made 5/21/99) Alleged Breach of Contract (Open) Remarks: This information is provided for loss control analysis purposes only, and should be disseminated to others with discrimination for confidentiality. r/w~nword/cad/mound4 7 LMCIT LIABILTI¥ COVERAGE - WAIVER FORM Cities obtainivg liability covrmgr from th; lxaguc of Minn~ota Cities Insuranc~ Trust must clocu:~ ~hether or no~ zo ~ive the statutory ~orr liabihry hrmrs m the exzem of the coverage pur,'~ext. The dec~si~n m waive or not m waive tie s't. amw~ limits has r2~ following effects. If the c~ry does not wazve the statutory tort hrmts, an mdiviflual claimant would be able to recover no more than $300,000 on any claun w which the smmwry ton limits apply. The :oral which all claimants would be able :o r~oover for a single occurrr, n~ to which th~ smvawry ton limits apply would be bruited ro $1,000,000. These statutory tort limits would apply regardless of wimffmr or not city purvh-~es Iht optional cxr~ss liab~i:y coverage. .if the c~ty wa, yes the statutory tort limits and does not purcha~'e excess habthry coverage, a single claimant could po~ntially recover up to $1,000,000 ou a ~ingle occurrence. The loral wh~ all claunants would be able xo recover for a single occurrence m which flu: statutory :orr limits apply would also be lirnittxl m $1,000,000, regardless of:i~ number of claimant. If the c~ry watve$ the statutory tort l~rmt$ and purchases excess ltaMl~ty coverage, a single claimant could im~enfially re,~ver an amount up xo the linat of the coverage purchased. Th~ ~oral which all claimmts would be able to recover for a single oecarrmee w which the statutory tort limits apply would also be limit~xt m ~ amount of coverage purchased, regardless of the number of claimants. Claims w which ~ statutory municipal ton limits do no~ apply' are not affecuxl by this d~cisicm. The &c~sion must be rwae by r~ city councal. Cities purchasing coverage must complete and return this form to the LMCIT before the effective date of the coverage. For further irrforrnalion, contact LMC1T. You may also wish w discuss T~Se issues ~iT~ your city anomey. The City of Mound & FIRA accepts liability covtragt bruits of $ from the I~ague of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMC1T). Check one: X The city DOES NOT WAIVE ~ mom'mO' limits on rv~nicipal mn liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04. Th~ city WAIVES th~ mon~ta~ limits on ton liability establislmt by Minnesola Sratu~es 466.04, to 11~ tx~ of the limits of ibc liability coverage obtainexl from LMC1T. Dare of city council meeting Position Return th~$ completed from to ].MC1T, I45 Umvermry Ave. IF.. Sr. PauI 3,1N $$I O$.20,~4 Page 1 of 1 LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 TO: FROM: SUB/F_,CT: Fran Clark Chief Len Harrell Monthly Report for January, 2000 I. STATISTIC ... The police ct~ent responded to 503 ca~°~ iervice during the monlh of January'. There were 9 Pan I onenses rep&ted. Those offenses . included ,1 homicide, 2 b~rglmT, 3 ~es,' 1 vehicle theft, and 2 arsoa. There w~e43aVan--It offenses repoP,~t ~offemes incl~ded 1 child abuse/neglect, 4 criminal dama~ ~o property, 1 narcotics, 7 liquor law violations, 4 DUI's, 4 sim~~ 11 domestics (3 with assails), 3 violatio~~ fg/'~-~ar~ional_s3 ticke~s2,War~inss wer~ issued to There ~ 27 adulls and $ juvemlcs ~ for misdemeanors. There were 3 misdemeanor adult .warrant ~ Mound "' ? ~ ......... ' ....... ;':~" '~ 'Yanuary and requested MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - January, 2000 Vo INVESTIGATIONS The investigators worked on 5 child protection issues in January accounting for over 20 hours. Officer Michelle Alexander replaced Investigator Swensen and will be working with Investigator Niccum. Other cases included a fatal accident, burglary, damage to property, theft, assault, absenting, deprivation of parental rights, indecent exposure, missing person, harassment, domestic assault, arson, and theft of a motor vehicle. Formal complaints were issued for Gross Misdemeanor DWI and gross driving after cancellation, false information to police, assault, domestic assault, driving after revocation, disorderly conduct, and hit and run accident. Personnel/Staffing The department used approximately 23 hours of overtime during the month of January. Officers used 59 hours of comp-time, 17 hours of sick time, 24 hours of funeral leave, 103 hours of vacation, and 28 holidays. Officers earned 42 hours of comp time. I attended a the first Chief Law Enforcement Officer and Command School sponsored by the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association at Camp Ripley in January. I was responsible for presenting the instruction in the area of Leadership and Ethics for the initial block of instruction. The sergeants each attended a one day seminar on "risk management" with a nationally noted speaker. COMM-UNITY SERVICES OFFICERS CSO Cams was involved in 17 animal calls, 19 ordinance violations, and 162 miscellaneous contacts. Two citations were issued. VI. RESERVES The reserves donated 174 hours of community service in the month of January. The unit currently has seven members. MINUTES - EDC - FEBRUARY 17, 2000 The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:05 a.m. by Paul Meisel. Members present: Sharon McMenamy-Cook, Jerry Pietrowski, Lonnie Weber, and Mark Brewer. Others present were Gino Businaro, Fran Clark, Bob Brown, and Bruce Chamberlain. Approval of Minutes Mark Brewer made a correction in last month's minutes. During the discussion on the effects of Sharon McMenamy-Cook retiring, the minutes read for her to continue attending the meetings and giving input, but would no longer be a voting member. The Commission wanted it stated they wished for her to remain a voting member. MOTION made by Lonnie Weber and seconded by Mark Brewer to approve the January 20, 2000 minutes as corrected. The motion was unanimously approved. Discussion on EDC Opening Appointment 'The Commission invited the three candidates who had not been able to attend the last meeting to come to this meeting to be interviewed. Kim Blievernicht did not return any of the phone calls made to her. John Royer stated he did not feel he could be on the Commission at this time and Mark Winter stated he again had a prior commitment and would not be able to come. After a discussion of the two final candidates, a vote was taken and Suzanne Claywell was unanimously voted by the Commission to be presented to the City Council for their approval of her to the Economic Development Commission. General Updates on Development Projects Metro Plains Development had been to the last City Council meeting and presented their concept plan regarding the Community Center site. Bob Brown stated the Council was very concerned about the high density of 159 units in 11 areas of land in the middle of downtown Mound. Bruce Chamberlain explained that if their preliminary plan is not approved, there is a good chance of losing ~A million dollars in grant money, because we do not have another site the post office could move to. He also explained that with the soil test results, it would not be cost effective to attempt to build single or even double family homes on this site. He stated this was simply a preliminary plan and he would be working with them to make several changes, suggesting that the residential area be of moderate density instead of the high density shown to the Council. Each member was concerned about the high density residential area shown on his preliminary plan and did not feel that this would be in concert with the City's plan for that area. There was a discussion of a special meeting possibly being set with the other commissions to discuss concerns and possible solutions. Fran explained that the commissions are advisory groups but the Council needs to make decisions based on what they believe is best for the City. Mark Brewer again asked if it was possible for the City to purchase the 19 acres of property that the school owns. He asked if it was possible to condemn the school property, but was told that could take years. Bruce explained that the City Council continues to guide that open space as public. If we condemned that property the City will be viewed as pushing out the developer, who had a purchase agreement with the school district. This would harm the relations between the City and the school district. Bruce Chamberlain stated there needs to be an alternative to this development concept. He suggested we attempt to get the property guided through the Comp Plan as medium density residential, then we can begin discussions with the developer as to how those changes can occur and what the City is interested in getting. Several of the EDC members offered to visit some of the developed housing properties constructed and maintained by Metroplains Development, LLC. Again, we need to keep in mind of the time table and the post office's need to be given a site very quickly. It was agreed that we poll the Planning Commission of their thoughts, and that as many of the EDC members as possible be at the upcoming City Council meeting in case there are any questions the Commission can answer to the Council members. New Business The draft for the Mound Redevelopment Communications Plan was submitted to each member. Fran Clark suggested that if anyone had any input regarding the plan, they should contact her so it can be presented to the Council. Bob Brown commented that in regards to page 4 under Communication Goals, we should take advantage of our access to use equipment belonging to the cable company to put together a documentary to be shown on our cable television station. He suggested we video buildings as they are being torn down and the progress of development at different sites. This P.R. tool would keep the citizens informed on what's happening in Mound. It was suggested we look into having a photography class from the high school do this as a project. They would bring excitement to the project and would learn about the City at the same time. Paul Meisel suggested each member read over the draft so they can give input next month. Mark Brewer commented his concern that if the post office isn't moved and the dredge isn't completed, it will affect the proposed timing for the building project on that block, which in turn will affect Beard's project. In other words, it will have a dominos affect on the entire project. Bob Brown stated that if we polled the planning commissioners, he believed we would have a 4/3, possibly 5/2 vote to go forward and visit the next stage. He also stated the City Council has only seen the Comp Plan, which they have been discussing along with the Surface Water Management Plan for six months. Brewer asked how much the school is asking for the community site property. Fran Clark stated they are presently being offered 2.6 million dollars. Bob Brown stated we offered 1.8 million, which was the assessed value. Brewer stated he wished to revisit the possibility of the City purchasing this land so that we would have control on what is put on it and to make sure there will be the proper amount of green space. It was pointed out that with the school now having had an offer for 2.6 million dollars, they probably would not even consider an amount as low as the City would offer. Brewer stated that with the commercial area, the City could make money by purchasing the land for $7.00 a foot and that would assure a spot for the post office. New Business Fran Clark submitted a Downtown Redevelopment Project Report which gives some dates on when various tasks are due. She pointed out that the dates are not cast in stone, but will help in assessing the progress. Paul Meisel explained to the Commission it is extremely important that everyone keep a very upbeat attitude when we talk to citizens. We need to be positive when answering questions and point out the projects that are going forward, i.e. Beard's project, Coast to Coast building. Adjournment MOTION made by Mark Brewer, seconded by Lonnie Weber to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 a.m. The next meeting will be March 16a'. Lonnie Weber will bring rolls. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION January 13, 2000 Present were: Commissioners Peter Meyer, Norman Domholt, Tom Casey, John Beise; and City Council Representative Leah Weycker. Also present were Park Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary Kristine Kitzman, Thomas Stokes, Rochard Oliver and Steve Behnke. Absent: Commissioner Christina Cooper 1. APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 9, 1999 POSC MINUTES Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Beise to approve the minutes of the December 9, 1999 Park and Open Space Commission (POSC) meeting, as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 2. AGENDA CHANGES The agenda was approved as presented. 3. ELECTION OF NEW OFFICERS Councilmember Weycker nominated Commissioner Domholt for the position of Chair. Domholt respectfully declined, due to the fact that he is moving to Minnetrista in July. Motion made by Councilmember Weycker to nominate Commissioner Casey for the position of Chair. Commissioner Casey stated he would rather see the Chair be filled by one of the newer members, as it introduces new ideas and leadership styles, and gives people the chance to try new skills. Commissioner Casey then suggested rotating the position of Chair. Councilmember Weycker withdrew her nomination of Commissioner Casey. Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Casey to rotate the position of Chair, with Commissioner Domholt acting as Chair for February, March and April, and Commissioner Beise acting as Chair for May through August. The last 4 months of the year to be determined. Motion carried unanimously. Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission January 13, 2000 Motion made by Meyer, seconded by Weycker to rotate the position of Vice Chair, to be held by the next Commissioner in the rotation for the position of Chair. Motion carried unanimously. Councilmember Weycker took the opportunity to present Commissioner Meyer with a "green thumb, brown hand" award, in thanks for his service as Chair for the last two years. 4. REVIEW: 2000 CALENDAR Motion made by Beise, seconded by Weycker to approve the 2000 POSC Agenda Calendar. Motion carried unanimously 5. DISCUSS: STREET VACATION ADJACENT TO 2537 & 2541 WATERFORD RD. Mr. Steve Behnke, Mr. Thomas Stokes, and Mr. Oliver were in attendance to discuss this issue. Park Director Fackler summarized the request for vacation in order to put in a dock. This request did pass at the Planning Commission. However, they did not have the memo from Fackler, and the letter from Martha Reger who is with the Department of Natural Resources, both of which are not in favor of the vacation of the property. However, staff does recommend supporting a side setback variance from the LMCD. The reason for this is that the City of Mound is getting rather close to having to count every BSU right now, and lineal footage is the key factor in this equation. Vacation of this property would cost the City 38 feet of lakeshore, which may have an impact on the total number of BSU's the City of Mound can license. Commissioner Casey asked for clarification on what variance the City of Mound would need to grant. Park Director Fackler clarified that the variances needed would actually be from the LMCD. The City of Mound would supply a supporting statement to the LMCD regarding the variances needed in order to avoid the necessity of vacating the property but still allowing the applicant's the ability to build their dock. Councilmember Weycker questioned why the stem of the dock could not be moved south, thereby avoiding the need for vacation or variances. Mr. Behnke then addressed the Commission, stating that the LMCD would like to keep the length of the dock as short as possible, and moving the stem would lengthen the stem quite a bit. 2 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission January 13, 2000 Commissioner Casey questioned whether the vacation of the property was a benefit to the citizens of Mound, as that is the criteria needed for the POSC to support this application. Mr. Behnke stated that, while the City would lose 38 linear feet of its shoreline, it would effectively gain three docksites. While the 38 linear feet may cost the City one public docksite, it would allow the 3-finger dock to be installed, thereby providing a place for at least one, possibly two boats that are now in the dock program to move to this private dock. There would be a net increase in the dock sites in the City, whether public or private. Councilmember Weycker stated that with a side setback variance from the LMCD, the applicants would be able to build their dock, and the City would keep the 38 feet of lakeshore in their BSU equation, and this seems to be the best situation all the way around. Commissioner Domholt questioned whether this 38 feet would be much of a loss, since it is rather marshy and cannot be used to install a city dock. Councilmember Weycker stated that the city uses a lot of "unusable" shoreline in it's equation, as the BSU's are figured on a total number of linear feet, not on any specific area. Unusable shoreline is figured in, and docks are more dense in usable areas. Commissioners Casey and Meyer both stated that vacating this property does not seem to be in the best interest of the citizens of Mound, especially since a side setback variance would accomplish much the same thing. Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Casey to recommend denial of the vacation of the Waterford Road property. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioners Casey and Beise stated that if the variances were not granted from the LMCD allowing this dock, it would affect the attitude of what is in the public's best interest. The side setback variance would be a much better answer for the City of Mound. If the variances are not granted, this issue should be revisited. 6. REVIEW: WORK RULES Item D3: Change start time from 7:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Beise suggested stressing item B7, setting a 15-minute time limit on each item. Motion made by Meyer to extend the meeting end time to 10:30 p.m. No second was made to this motion. 3 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission January 13, 2000 Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Beise to accept the Work Rules as amended. Motion carried unanimously. 7. UPDATE: THE REX ALWIN PROPERTY Park Director Fackler stated that there is an agreement between Rottlund and Rex Alwin for sale of the property for single family homes. No further details are known as yet. They want to come in front of the Commission in February to find out what the feelings are regarding park dedication, money or land. Councilmember Weycker stated that the City Council had stated they would prefer a park dedication of land, rather than money. Fackler stated that would be his preference as well. Commissioner Casey stated his disappointment that the City cannot obtain this land for park space. Commissioner Meyer stated this would be a good subject for discussion at the Committee of the Whole meeting on January 18, 2000 that the Park Commissioners were invited to. Meyer questioned whether the Commissioners were going to be present at this meeting. All present stated their intention to attend. 8. UPDATE: STORM MANAGEMENT PLAN Commissioner Meyer reported that the Planning Commission has a subcommittee working on this issue right now. Some of the concerns in the plan were the buffering and possibly adopting a "no phosphorous" ordinance for all of the buffer zones, and actually everywhere in Mound as all the water from all the yards that eventually runs into the lake. Councilmember Weycker stated that she has been told this is mandatory, dictated by the State, or the Watershed District. It may not even take discussion at this level. Commissioner Casey stated that the purpose here is to agree that the City take over some of the regulatory structure, which is conforming to the Watershed District rules. Some suggestions on how to improve on what is mandated by the Watershed District may also be discussed. Commissioner Beise stated he was not in agreement with the buffer zones as they are defined right now. His belief is it hinders the property value to the property owner, as they cannot improve their yard right up to the water. Regulating that people cannot make adjustments to the property that they own should not be allowed by any government. Commissioner Meyer disagreed, noting if there are no regulations, people do not take into account any long term effects of what they do on this land. 4 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission January 13,2000 Discussion followed by all regarding the disagreement on these buffer zones. Many differing opinions were presented, but no agreements were reached. Beise stated he supports buffer zones on most commercial property, but on personal property, people buy lakeshore in order to use it. Commissioner Meyer stated he was under the impression that if the City makes the decision to not uphold the buffer zones, and any restrictions on phosphorous, the Watershed District would then uphold these rules themselves. So, what the City decides may not make much of a difference in the final outcome. Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Beise to support the concept of the Surface Water Management Plan. Motion carried unanimously. Motion made by Casey, seconded by Meyer to approve and endorse the language contained on page 48, draft number 2 of the Surface Water Management Plan, section C, paragraph 1: The City will require natural, unmaintained wetland buffers around lakes, wetlands and waterways in development proposals. In addition, the City will encourage the placement of 20 foot natural buffers around all City lakes, wetlands and water bodies. Buffer widths will be based on the size of the abutting wetland, as shown on table 6. Motion carried 411 (Beise opposed). 10:15 p.m. Chair Domholt tabled the meeting. Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Beise to continue the meeting for an additional 15 minutes. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion followed regarding the disagreement with the buffer zone, the definition of "development proposals," and the definition of "the City will encourage." No agreements were reached. Councilmember Weycker did state that there is a variance system in place, and each case would be examined on its own merits. The Surface Water Management Plan is a planning document, not an ordinance. Commissioner Beise would like to hear a little bit more about this plan, receive an updated plan, and any additional information and decisions that have been made. This subject could be revisited at the next meeting. Park Director Fackler stated he would make sure that any additional information is in the packet for the February meeting. 9. POSC FEBRUARY AGENDA 5 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission January 13, 2000 Some items for the February POSC agenda are: 2. 3. 4. 5. REVIEW: SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE: REX ALWIN PROPERTY 2001 CAPITAL OUTLAY REQUESTS DEPOT REPORT BRICK COUNT 10:30 p.m. Chair Domholt tabled the meeting. Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Beise to extend the meeting an additional 15 minutes, or to finish the agenda, whichever is shorter. Motion passed unanimously. 10. FOR YOUR INFORMATION: a. City Council Minutes b. DCAC Minutes c. Planning Commission Minutes d. Wellhead Protection Plan e. Capital Improvement Plan f. Donation from V.F.W. (For $500.00, in response to the letter sent by the POSC). g. Park Dedication Account ($117,892 currently) h. Variance Granted for Sunset Landing & letter to City asking if there is interest by the City for purchase of property 1 t. REPORTS: a. City Council Representative Councilmember Weycker stated she hopes to see all Commissioners present at the Committee of the Whole meeting on January 18, 2000. b. Park Director No report at this time. Motion made by Domholt, seconded by Weycker to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 6 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2000 Present were: Commissioners Peter Meyer, Norman Domholt, John Beise, Christina Cooper;, and City Council Representative Leah Weycker. Also present were Park Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary Kristine Kitzman. Absent: Commissioner Tom Casey Also present was Mayor Pat Meisel. Chair Domholt called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Chair Domholt took the opportunity to state that the joint meeting held by the POSC and the City Council was very beneficial. APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 13. 2000 POSC MINUTES Motion nmde by Beise, seconded by Meyer to approve the minutes of the January 13, 2000 Park and Open Space Commission (POSC) meeting, as amended below. Motion carried unanimously. Page 1, Motion, the words "last 3 months of the year to be determined' should be 'last 4 months of the year to be determined' Item #4, the word "DCAC' should be 'POSC' 2. AGENDA CHANGES The agenda was approved as presented/with the following amendments: 1. Add Item # 6a: March for Parks 2. Add Item ~6b: Representative at DCAC 3. PRESENTATION FROM ROTTLUND HOMES ON THE REX ALWIN PROPERTY Tim VVhitten, Rottlund Homes, was present and addressed the Commissioners regarding the development of the Rex Alwin property. Eighty (80) lots of single family homes are planned for the property, selling in the $250,000 price range. An internal perk is planned, in addition to park space on the land that is across the current railroad track, which is lakeshore. Chair Domholt questioned whether sidewalks would be part of the plan. Mr. Whitten replied that trails have taken over recently. However, in this development sidewalks are part of the plan. Commissioner Meyer questioned if having sidewalks has any bearing on the width of the street. Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission February 10, 2000 Mr. Whitten replied that the City would determine what the width of the streets are, especially if the streets are going to be public. Councilmember Weycker stated her satisfaction with the fact that they are planning to bring back the front porches, and downplaying the garages. The work done shows planning, and stands to be a very nice neighborhood. She asked if the original house is going to be saved. Mr. Whitten stated that if there is any way to save the house, it will be saved. However, it has never been improved, and it may not be possible to bring it up to code. Park Director Fackler questioned what size the internal neighborhood park would be. Mr. Whitten stated that it would be approximately 2.4 acres total. There are many ways that the developer handles the parks, and that is an issue that can be discussed with the City. He suggested the best way is to find out what the City wants, and then respond. Regarding the equipment, again the City input is very important, but the developer would definitely like to see something that fits in with the style of the neighborhood. Park Director Fackler stated that it would be better to have any trails established, and a park with equipment established before people move into the homes. He noted that once they move in and get used to an open space, it becomes somewhat difficult to begin adding things. Commissioner Meyer stated that right now the Park Commission could not emphatically state that they would prefer the trail anywhere, as there is not enough information. Mr. Whitten stated that right now the developer is just looking for some direction so that they can gather the correct information to pursue areas the City is interested in. If the Park Commission has any preference, the developer will pursue the information needed. He advised that the developer is very interested in saving as many trees as possible, and will put forth every effort to do this. Park Director Fackler questioned whether the developer.gives any type of warranty to the City if a tree is left in a right-of-way and dies in the space of a couple years. He asked if the developer would take the responsibility of removing them. Mr. Whitten stated that could definitely be discussed and some amount could likely be put in escrow for that purpose. Councilmember Weycker cautioned Mr. Whitten to double check the location of any Indian Mounds, as it is a Federal offence to disturb those areas. She does not believe there are any there, but it would not hurt to make sure. 2 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission February 10, 2000 4. DISCUSS: REQUEST FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS ON CAPITAL OUTLAY Park Director Fackler stated that the end of May is when the listings are made, and the requests go to the City Manager the first part of June. Chair Domholt stated that the current list needs to be reviewed, as this list will be discussed with the Mayor in April, and each item needs to be firm. Mayor Pat Meisel stated that the City Council will discuss the direction that will be given to the Park Commission so some firm direction can be provided. This will be discussed in the March meeting. Commissioner Beise stated that after that information is received, the Park Commission can then compare that to the current list, and be ready to discuss line items in April. This could be the major discussion for the March POSC meeting. Commissioner Meyer stated that for the last several years, there has been a special workshop regarding the prioritizing of park improvements, as it takes a lot of time. Commissioner Beise stated that the list has been prioritized, and it simply needs to be reviewed, noting the list from last year is a fairly solid list. Councilmember Weycker stated that the list could possibly be presented better as well, which may help when the Council looks at it. Right now it is just kind of a 'this is what we want" list. Importance, safety issues, and other funding options could be included. Commissioner Meyer stated that the public input is needed before the list is complete. Chair Domholt stated that the direction from the City Council and the following discussion regarding items that were on the list last year should probably be discussed first, before even more ideas are presented. The public input could be encouraged in April, which gives the Commission the March meeting to discuss the current items, with Council direction. 5. REVIEW: 1999 DEPOT RENTAL Commissioner Meyer shared an unofficial tally he prepared regarding the various uses for the Depot. Motion made by Beise, seconded by Weycker to recommend that all proceeds and interest from the rental of the Mound Depot be dedicated to a park improvement and recreation fund. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Domholt stated that this is a creative way for the Park Commission to receive funding to accomplish some of the park improvements. 3 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission February 10, 2000 Park Director Fackler stated that it seems to be a logical way to use these funds and the motion could go before the City Council to see what happens. Commissioner Meyer questioned whether Depot upkeep would suffer if these funds went directly to parks. Councilmember Weycker stated that these funds get lost in the general fund right now. They are not dedicated to the upkeep of the depot. 6. UPDATE: SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Councilmember Weycker stated that this issue was tabled at the last City Council meeting, as the Planning Commission had not completed their final draft as yet. 6a. MARCH FOR PARKS Commissioner Meyer reported on the proceeds last year and the three (3) trees that were planted as a result. Generally, the Boy Scouts are included in this event, but last year the dates fell when they had other commitments. Chair Domholt suggested adding funds from this event to the new park improvement and recreation account discussed earlier. He also suggested that the proceeds be split with the Boy Scouts, to encourage their participation. Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Beiss to hold March for Parks 2000, if other communities can be included. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Domholt stated he would also like to see some kind of event be planned for Arbor Day. Councilmember Weycker stated that the Boy Scouts may not need to split the proceeds either, as they are required to provide some community services and this could fall into that category for them. Commissioner Cooper stated that this. event could maybe be more local, if other communities are not going to be involved in March for Parks this year. An Arbor Day event could still be planned, but more locally. 613. DCAC REPRESENTATION Commissioner Meyer summarized various issues that are brought before the DCAC that directly affect the City .parks. Even if the issues are not directly related, more communication between the Docks Commission and the Parks Commission may help in getting issues resolved and things done. If the Park Commissioners rotate these 4 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission February 10, 2000 meetings, it would only be approximately two (2) nights per year. which is not a huge amount of time, but the benefit may be great. Counciimember Weycker suggested asking that Park Director Fackler pass along any information he deems pertinent to the Park Commission, as he already attends the Dock Commission meetings. Park Director Fackler stated that it may need to be re-emphasized that anything that may affect the Park Commission be brought before the Park Commission, rather than leaving it to the Park Commissioners to hopefully stumble across issues while reading minutes from the other Commission meetings. Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Meyer to be sure that the Planning Department advise, the Park Commission of all issues relating to parks and open spaces. Motion carried unanimously. 7. POSC MARCH AGENDA Some items for the March POSC agenda are: 1. Discuss: POSC Capital Outlay and Line Item Requests for 2001 2. Update: March for Parks Some items for the April POSC agenda are: 1. Discuss: Parks/beach program with community education & services 8. MARCH CALENDAR Same as previous. 9. FOR YOUR INFORMATION 10. REPORTS DCAC Minutes Planning Commission Minutes Letter to Upper Tonka Little League Revised Park and Open Space Commission Work Rules Buy a Brick Rotating Chair LMCD Information ~ City Council Representative 10:00 p.n~ Chair Domholt tabled the meeting. 5 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission February 10, 2000 Motion made by Weycker, seconded·by MeYer to extend the meeting for an additional 10 minutes. Motion carried unanimously. Councilmember Weycker reported that the street was vacated, against recommendation. Also, an E-mail was received regarding an association that provides funding for park equipment and so on, which was 'Kaboom.org', and she is looking into this opportunity. b. Park Director Park Director Fackler reported that staff is beginning to gear up in preparation for Spring. Two (2) extra people are going to be hired this summer, and the new truck is ordered. Commissioner Cooper announced her resignation from the Parks Commission, stating that she would stay until a replacement can be found. Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Cooper to adjoum the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 6 CITY OF MOUND DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION FEBRUARY t7, 2000 Present were: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners Gerald Jones and Greg Eurich, and Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present were Park Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Kristine Kitzman. Absent and excused were: Commissioners Mark Goldberg and Frank Ahrens. Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 1, MINUTES Page 3, 6038 Chestnut is the correct address for Gerald Jones. Motion was made by Funk, seconded by Eurich, to approve the minutes of the January 20, 2000 DCAC meeting as amended. Motion carried unanimously. 2. AGENDA CHANGES Agenda approved as presented. Orv Burma was present and requested item #8 be discussed early. 3. WELCOME THE NEW COMMISSION MEMBER GERALD JONES Chair Funk welcomed new Commissioner Gerald Jones to the DCAC. 4. DISCUSS: MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK OBJECTIVES AND TRANSITIONS Councilmember Hanus suggested the following changes: A1; "...commons dock program where possible.' ~ A2.; "...distance from their homes where possible.' A4; "...without reducina nonabutters ability to have dockage on the Lakeshore commons." D7; Hanus stated he does not have a suggested change, but this item is the stem of problems between neighbors. This issue could possibly be revisited at a later date if the Commission feels it could change. Commissioner Jones stated that the words "all individuals affected' in this paragraph also seems to open a "can of worms,' as it is open to opinion, and in some peoples' opinion, the entire population of the City of Mound is affected. Chair Funk suggested changing it to read "...all individuals affected as determined by the DCAC.' Commissioner Eurich suggested the following change to this paragraph: '...public headng will be held at the DCAC.' (delete the rest of the last line). Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission February 17, 1999 F2.4; Councilmember Hanus stated that this item may not be needed at all, as there is no Ordinance support to charge different fees for multiple slip docks, which is where a change such as this would have to be made, not in the Dock Objectives and Transitions. Chair Funk suggested the following language for F2.4: 'Fees will follow the same fee structure as single user docks. These fees will be reassessed each year by the DCAC and the City Council.' C3; Park Director Fackler pointed out that this sentence did not make a lot of sense, and asked for clarification. Counciimember Hanus suggested rewording this sentence as follows: "Topographical, or constrictive quarters creating undesirable dockage, inconvenient access, or undue burden on adjacent abutting homes.' This sentence should be C5.c, and item C3 can be deleted. Councilmember Hanus stated that this list is not a completely comprehensive list, and new issues will be added as they arise. This should possibly be stated in the document. Introduction: At the top of the document, add the statement 'Including but not limited to the following:' Motion made by Funk, seconded by Hanus, to approve the Dock Objectives and Transitions document as amended above. Motion carried' unanimously. 5. REVIEW: 2000 CALENDAR Park Director Fackler stated that the 2000 Dock Commission Capital Outlay Request discussion can be moved to March. Other changes include: August: September:. July: October:. April: July: April: June: March: Delete 'Kenmore Commons Multiple Slip Dock and Possible Other Site Locations." Fackler questioned whether 'possible other site locations for multiple slip docks' should remain in August, just delete Kenmore. Delete 'Discuss Devon Access Multiple Slip Dock.' "2000 Budgeted Capital Outlay' should be "2001.' Delete 'Evaluate the Pembroke multiple slip dock.' Delete "New multiple docks & evaluation of current." Delete 'Review survey on multiple slip dock.' Move to March 'Existing multiple slip dock location at Devon.' "Public land permits' is listed twice - remove one. Add: Discuss: Joint ownership of boats in the Dock Program Councilmember Hanus stated that this is not clear right now, as the issue at Woodland Point will play a part in whether more multiple slip docks are an option for the upcoming year. Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission February 17, 1999 Commissioners Eurich and Jones asked for a brief history and update on Woodland Point, which Councilmember Hanus provided to the best of his ability, as some information is still confidential. Chair Funk suggested keeping the ~Review: possible other site locations for multiple slip docks' on the agenda for now, with the ability to change this at a later date. Motion made by Funk, seconded by Jones, to approve the 2000 agenda as amended above. Motion carried unanimously. 6. REVIEW: WORK RULES Motion made by Funk, seconded by Jones, to approve the work rules as they exist. Motion carried unanimously. 7. DISCUSS: DOCK REPAIR MAINTENANCE PROGRAM Park Director Fackler presented the revised draft of possible improvements to docking areas, dated December 6, 1999. Councilmember Hanus advised caution regarding any budgeting for the next year or two, as there may be financial changes that will affect any decisions made now. Commissioner Jones questioned if it would be possible to target areas where there will not be a problem performing the maintenance, as pertains to the current litigation, and concentrate efforts in these areas. Park Director Fackler stated this could be done, as some areas are fairly certain to not be affected by the current situations. The current draft simply identifies all areas that can be maintained, but does not reflect any type of prioritizing at all. Councilmember Hanus brought up the issue of stairways and railing. Many people spot the green railing that the City uses, and assume that these stairways are public accesses to the water. Hanus suggested that the Commissioners ponder this dilemma, and possibly present any ideas they come up with. Park Director Fackler suggested discussing this subject again in April, when there may be more information available regarding Woodland Point. 8. UPDATE: PEMBROKE MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK Orvin Burma addressed the Commission stating that the neighborhood has not previded feedback as yet. The fifth person, an affected citizen, has not been found yet. The same people are still looking, but there is not much interest beyond these people. Mr. Burma asked the Commission for direction to either pursue this issue, or simply drep it since the neighborhood is showing such little interest. Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission February 17, 1999 Councilmember Hanus stated that he has spoken to the Mayor, and the intention of the meeting of the neighborhood is to bring their issues before the City Council, not before the DCAC. The information brought by Mr. Burma is to be viewed only as an update. Mr. Burma agreed to continue representing the neighborhood before the City Council for as long as they would like him to continue, and to continue updating the DCAC as the situation progresses. 9. DISCUSS: MARCH DCAC AGENDA To be included on the March agenda are: 1. 2000 Dock Commission Capital Outlay Request 2. Existing Multiple Slip Dock LOcation at Devon 3. Discuss: Joint Ownership of boats in the Dock Program To be included on the April agenda are: 1. Discuss: Dock Repair Maintenance Program Motion made by Funk, seconded by Eurich, to*accePt the March agenda items listed above. Motion carried unanimously. 10. A) B) C) D) E) CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES MONTHLY CALENDAR 2000 DOCK LOCATION MAP LMCD INFORMATION 11. REPORTS A) CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE No report at this time. B) PARK DIRECTOR No report at this time. C) DOCK INSPECTOR No report at this time. 12. ADJOURN Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission February 17, 1999 Motion made by Funk, seconded by Jones, to adjoum the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously, CALL TO ORDER LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, February 23, 2000 Gray Freshwater Center ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock · 2/9/00 Executive Session- The Board directed LMCD Prosecuting Attorney to prepare petition to the MN Supreme Court to review Appellate Court decision on LMCD v. Lynn Horner READING OF MINUTES - 219/00 LMCD Regular Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) Dr. Glen Nelson, Consideration of new multiple dock license application to reconfigure a conforming multiple dock facility. 1. Public Hearing. 2. Discussion and/or Consideration. ,.~ Park Hill & Park Island Apartments, Consideration of new multiple dock license application to increase dock length and add an additional six Boat Storage Units (BSU's) at a conforming multiple dock facility. 1. Public Hearing. 2. Discussion and/or Consideration ,~ Cruiser's Cove, Consideration of Big Island Task Force recommendation to establish public safety access lanes through the rafting area for the 2000 boating season. 1. Public Hearing. 2. Discussion and/or Consideration ' 1. WATER STRUCTURES A) City of Wayzata, consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of new multiple dock and special density license applications; B) Discussion of possible Code amendments for Boat Storage Density on Lake Minnetonka; C) Additional Business; 2. FINANCIAL A) Audit of vouchers (2/1100 - 2/15100); B) January financial summary and balance sheet; e C) Additional Business; LAKE USE & RECREATION A) Staff update on 2000 Boat Density & User Attitude Survey; B) Additional Business; EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE A) Hydraulic Boat Company, Inc., update on the construction of the neW Aquatic Plant Harvester ordered; B) Review of draft 2000 Zebra Mussel Budget (handout); C) Additional Business; SAVE THE LAKE A) Review of draft 2000 "Save the Lake' Budget; B) Additional Business; ADMINISTRATION 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. ADJOURNMENT D AFT LAKE MINtlETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:00 PM, Wednesday, February 9, 2000 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Greg Kitchak, Minnetonka; Lili McMillan, Orono; Bob Rascop, Shorewood; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Sheldon Wert, Greenwood. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director; Roger Winberg, Administrative Technician. Members absent:r Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Craig Nelson, Spring Park. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock Babcock reminded the Board that the Save the Lake Recognition Banquet is on Thursday, 2/10/00, at Lord Fletcher's of the Lake.' · Nybeck advised the Beard thatthe next meeting is scheduled for 2/23/00 atthe Gray Freshwater Center in Navarre at 7:00 pm. · Ambrose stated that legislation for the approprialion of funding for public access on Grays Bay has been introduced to the State Senate and that it should he introduced into the State House of Representatives in the near future. McMillan arrived at 7:01 p.m. READING OF MINUTES. 1126/00 LMCD Regular Board Meeting. MOTION: Foster moved, Gilman seconded to approve the minutes of the 1126/00 Regulai' Board Meeting as 'submitted. Babcock proposed two friendly amendments to the minutes. He staled on the top of page 7, the minutes do not reflect the respohs, es from the City of Greenwood on the questions posed by Gilman and himself. He added in the last paragraph On page 7, the words 'due to the lack of an application' should be inserted at the end of the sentence. Foster and Gilman agreed to these friendly amendments. VOTE: Ayes (9), Abstained (2; Wert and Ahems); motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda (5 minutes). There were no (iomments from the public on subjects not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA-Consent agenda items idenlJlied with a (') will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. Lake Minnetonka Conservation Diat~ct · Regular Board Meeting February 9, 2000 Gilman moved, Ambrose seconded to approve the consent agenda items as submitted. .,.,. Page2 Motion carried unanimously. Items so approved include: IA, 2000 Multiple Dock/District Mooring Area (DMA) Licenses, staff recommends approval of 2000 multiple docldDMA license applications as outlined in 2/2/00 staff memo; and 3A, Minutes from the 1/18/00 'STL' Advisory Committee meelJng. ~ PUBLIC HEARING · City of Wayzata, Consideration of new multiple dock and special density license applications to increase two BSU's at the Broadway location of the conforming multiple dock facility. Additionally, the applicant has requested a variance from LMCD Code for dock width. Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. He asked the representative of the applicant if he had.any comments or would like to provide background at this time. Mr. Terry Schwalbe, Project Coordinator for the City of Wayzata, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He made the following comments: Ms. Sarah Smith, Wayzata City Planner, was also in altendance for the applicant. · The City of Wayzata has docking in three separate locations, with the proposed changes at the Broadway location. He provided some background on the Wayzata docking facilities, noting that changes were made to the Depot location in 1996 for the Minnehaha and that changes were made to the Broadway location in 1997 to install floating docks. He stated the Broadway location is currently not working because boats that are too large are being stored at this location, which has resulted in damaged docking. He added other concerns at this location include unstable docks and handicap accessibility. He noted the Wayzata City Council had directed staff to make applicalJon for permanent docking at this location. · The City of Wayzata proposes to increase transient BSU's at this IocalJon by two, from 116 to 118, to increase the size of these transient BSU's to 16' x 48', and to make them permanent in nature. He stated the City of Wayzata looks at the proposed project as a long-term inveslment and that they would like to improvehandicap accessibility at this location. He noted the proposed 8' wide docks at this location are to enhance handicap accessibility at this location. He stated that charter boat traffic in the City of Wayzata is proposed to be maintained at the Depot location. · He reviewed the lighlJng plan associated with the proposed dock. He stated shepherd lights would be utilized which would result in indirect lighting of the structure. He noted the lights would be focused down and would have minimal impact on boat tralfic on the lake at night. Nybeck stated he believed it would beneficial for the applicant to clarify what part of the proposed dock structure would require a dock width variance. He added he believed the applicant should update the Board on the discussion they had with the MN DNR on the proposed variance application. Foster asked Schwalbe to clarify what width the City of Wayza,~ is proposing in this projecL Schwalbe stated the proposed design is fnr 8' wide dock sections. He added there are other sections of the* proposed docking that ',,mild be wider tha. 8'. He added they are proposing switchback ramping, similar to the Depot location, for. handicap accessibility purposes. Foster stated he believed the Board should '. apport the proposed project because the City of Wayzata is doing the right thing by trying to comply with ADA requirements. He added he believed that the 8' width f~r the entire dock makes sense because it is a municipal dock that is entirely transient ia) nature. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ~ Regular Board Meeting ~. ~ .... .";.' February 9, 2000 Page 3 Gilman concurred with Foster because he believed the proposed project is essentially a Public amenity. Babcock suggested the City of Wayzata might want to consider removing the benches in corners of the dock because they are generally in high traffic areas. Schwalbe stated they would enhance safety along the shoreline side of the main walkWay by having some type of a railing, such as a chain with a framing arOund it. Weft questioned why an application for variance has been submitted. Nybeck stated the Code currently prohibits a dock that exceeds 6' in both width and length."": '= ' Babcock asked LeFevere what the District did to accommodate for the increased dock width at*the transient charter dock piers in Wayzata and Excelsior. ' .... LeFevere stated he was unsure whether a variance was approved by the Board or whether a Code amendment was adopted. He noted there are provisions in the Code that allow the Board to grant variances for a hardship of handicap accessibility. Nybeck stated he believed LMCD Code Section 2.03, subd. 16 was adopted to accommodate the Wayzata and Excelsior charter boat piers. He noted there are special rules for municipal docks, provided a number of criteria are reel He stated it appears as though the proposed dock meets all these criteria. He added this Code section would allow for the proposed dock to be approved, without a variance, subject to approval by the MN DNR. Schwalbe stated the City of Wayzata is working with the railroad to improve the pedestrian crossing at this location. There being no further comments, Babcock closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. MOTION: Wert moved, Ambrose seconded to approve the new multiple dock and special density license applications for the City of Wayzata for the 2000 season. Kitchak recommended a friendly amendment that would include MN DNR approval as a contingency. Wert and Ambrose agreed to this friendly amendmenL Rascop stated since the Board is considering approval of the proposed project through a Code amendment rather than a variance, he suggested the Board should not accept their variance applica'don and refund the fee. Nybeck recommended the Board approve Findings of Fact and Order for approval of these applications. LeFevere stated typically Findings of Fact and Order are drafted for special density licenses; however, he believed the proposed changes are minor. He noted because the applicant is updati~g their associated public amenities, it might be worthwhile to update the Findings to include this. Babcock stated he feels a few other minor issues need to be clarified by the applicant. He suggested the applicant work with staff to clarify the Location and Use breakdown of the BSU's on the new multiple dock license Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting. February 9, 2000 Page 4 applicaUon. He also suggested the 100' contour line on the proposed site plan should be highlighted and it should be noted that deicing of' these docks would require a permit from the DistricL VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. MOTION: Foster moved, Rascop seconded to return the vadance application and refund the $500 variance fees to the City of Wayzata. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. WATER STRUCTURES B. Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance relating to density of watercraft storage on Lake Minnetonka; amending LMCD Code Section 2.02, subds. 1 and 4. Babcock introduced the agenda item and asked for background from LeFevere on why the Board is considering this ordinance amendment. LeFevere stated over the years, the District has made inquiry and conducted investigations with regards to how many boats were being stored at a given facility in 1978 for grandfathedng purposes. He noted this has been done f* .. multiple dock facilities on the lake; however, it is not limited to them. He stated this is true for residential sites aroUnd the lake and that currently there is not a mechanism for the Board t.n determine how many boats existed in 1978 for facilities that do not require a multiple dock license. He stated in a recent. case, a judge determined that it was not sufficiently clear for criminal purposes that the grandfathering was for both docks and the number of boats being stored in 1978. He explained the Code revision would make this clear and wOuld create a procedure to bdng this matter before the Board before it would go to court. Babcock clarified that the adoption of this ordinance would introduce a new permit process for the District in limited cases. He asked how many sites that this might affect. LeFevere stated this would not affect the multiple dock license sites around the lake because this process has already been done. He noted this would affect residential sites that were platted and in existence in 1978 and that he believed there would be a limited number of them. Gilman asked if the grandfathered status would change with new residents. LeFevere stated the grandfathered right would go with the property. He added the intent is not to create new rights but to determine what the grandfathered rights were. MOTION: Foster'moved, 'Gilman seconded to approve first reading of the ordinance amendment. Rascop recommended*a friendly amendment to waive second and third readings of the Ore.. ance amendment, and to adOpt it. Foster and Gilman agreed to this friendly amendment. '. VOTE: ' MotiOn!carded unanimously. = ~' C. Additional BUsiheS~' : There was no addilJonal business. ' Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February g, 2000 .' Page5 2. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers (2/1/00 - 2/15/00). Nybeck reviewed the audit of vouchers for payment as submitted. MOTION: Gilman moved, Foster seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for payment as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Staff update on LMCD Investments. Nybeck stated that a Dis~ct CD had recenlJy matured at Century Bank and that it has been re-invested at Americana Community Bank at County Road 101 and Minnetonka Blvd. He added when Board member Nelson is available, staff would like to check into whether it is feasible to move the checking and CMA accounts to Americana Community Bank because of, its convenience to the office. He concluded the staff memo summarizes where District funds are currenliy being invested. Rascop stated he believed a full-service Merrill Lynch office is going to be located in downtown Wayzata in the near future. Ce Additional Business. There was no additional business. 3. SAVE THE LAKE B, Review of draft 2000 Save The Lake Budget. McMillan reviewed the draft 2000 'STL' budget for the Board. She stated postage and printing has been increased from the 1999 to allow for the solicitation letters to become informational to the donors. She noted the Advisory Committee recommended that the Water Patrol requests for four new fire pumps and three cold water emersion suits be funded in 2000. She stated this would total $9,000 and that it would be higher than what had been funded for public safety equipment in recent years. She noted it might be appropriate to scale back the requests from the Water Patrol to be more consistent with the amount of funding in recent years. Babcock asked if the Save the Lake funds were usec~ in recent years to fund cold water emersion suits. McMillan stated she believed funds might have been used and that she would have to further check into this. She noted that Hennepin Parks has requested $2,500 in 2000 to continue the Water Clarity Testing Program in 2000. She added that some of the bays being sampled would be reduced slighlJy in 2000. Babcock asked how many years would it be until there is good statistical data for all bays on Lake Minnetonka. He recalled that John Barten in years past had indicated that prior sampling methodologies did not allow for reliable statistical trend analysis because them were insufficient data points to do trend analysis. He stated he believed that five years of data collection was the minimum needed to do trend analysis. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 9, 2000 Page $ Rascop concurred that he believed Utem is a need for continuity in water quality data collected. He added he believed the best water quality sampling done on Lake Minnetonka has been done by He~:l~epin Parks. He noted if they needed more funds, he would be open to consider a request from Hennepin Parks. Nybeck stated that the fifth year of water quality sampling was completed in 1999. He added that Barren is currenlJy working on a preliminary trend analysis report and that he would present it at a B~3rd meeting in the near future. He suggested the Board might want to approve the $2,500 request from Hennepin Parks and ask Barren if they need additional funding when he reports on the preliminary trend analysis. Babcock asked McMillan if contingency funds had been budgeted in. McMillan stated that contingency funds !':ad not been budgeted in that part of the proposed budget. She added the budget could be adjusted to have contingency funds in this part of the budget Babcock stated he was aware of a number of water quality programs on Lake Minnetonka. He believed it might be appropriate for Barten to provide some bac~3round on these programs. He stated he wanted to be sure that the data being collected is in one place. McMillan stated the other significant expense in the proposed budget is $10,000 for the zebra mussel program. She noted ideas being considered for 2000 include the zebra mussel billboard campaign, zebra mussel posters, andthe placement of boating equipment in Lake Peppin for future educational purposes on Lake Minnetonka. She concluded by stating she would report back to the Board at the next meeting on the Water Patrol request Nybeck stated he would like to have Board approval for the $10,000 zebra mussel part of thc budget because staff needed to begin secudng locations for the 2000 zebra mussel billboard campaign. He recommended the District pursue six, four-week cycles, at a total cost of $9,000, with the billboard posters that have already been printed. MOTION: Foster moved, Wert seconded to approve a $10,000 zebra mussel program expenditure for 2000 · from the Save the Lake budget. VOTE: MolJon carried unanimously. MOTION: Foster moved, Gilman seconded to approve $2500 for the Hennepin Parks Water Clarity Testing Program for 2000. VOTE: Molion carried unanimously. C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 4. ADMINISTRATION A. Staff update on appointment of Board representalives whose terms expire in 1999. Nybeck stated terms for Board members from the cities of Excelsior, Minnetrista, Orono, Shorewood, and Woodland expired in 1999. He noted that correspondence was sent out to these cities in August notifying Lake Minnetonka ConaervatJon District Regular Board Meeting February 9, 2000 Page 7 them of this. He indicated that the District has received written confirmation that Gilman, Partyka, and Suerth have been re-appointed by their respective cities. He added that staff has received verbal confirmation that McMillan and Rascop have been re-appointed by their respective cities. B. Report from nominating committee with recommendations for Board Officers for 2000. Babcock asked for an update from Gilman on the recommendations of the nominating committee. Gilman stated the nominating committee has met and recommends the Board maintain the status quo for Board Officers for 2000. He noted this would include. Douglas Babcock as Chariman, Bert Foster as Vice Chairman, Eugene Partyka as Secretary, and Craig ~elson as Treasurer. MOTION: Rascop moved, Ambrose seconded to accept the nominations for 2000 Board Officers from the nominating committee. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously Babcock stated he would like to open up nominations from the floor for Board Officers. MOTION: Foster moved, Gilman seconded to open up nominations from the fioor. Babcock indicated there were no nominations from the floor. MOTION: Foster moved, Partyka seconded to close nominations from the floor. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. MOTION: Gilman moved, McMillan seconded to accept the nominations from the nominating committee for 2000 Board Officers. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. C. Staff update of the issuance of on-sale, intoxicating liquor licenses for 2000. Nybeck stated at the 1/26100 Regular meeting, staff informed the Board that the demand for liquor licenses in 2000 might exceed the supply allowed by state law, 14. He indicated that all 13 renewal liquor license applications from 1999 licensees were received by the 2/1/00 deadline for 2000 and that an addiiJonal two new intoxicating liquor license applications have been received for 2000. He recommended that the 13 renewal license from 1999 be given pdority for 2000, provided they have satisfactory investigation reports from Hennepin County. He stated staff needs direction on how to process the remaining two new applications received for the one liquor license available, whether it be first come, first served or based on a lottery system. He added that staff would like direction from the Board on how to handle a liquor license if a ch3rter boat is sold, whether the person who purchases the boat should be given first priodty or whether they should have to go through either the first come, first served or lottery basis. Rascop asked if a liquor license is considered to be part of the assets of the business. Laka Minnatonka Conservation District Regular Board Mee'dng ~ February 9, 2000 Page 8 LeFevere stated on land a city would generally allow transfer of the liquor license with the sale of a business. He noted there are some differences between an establishment on land and on*the water. He stated one of these differences is that it is not as simple on the water because some charter boat owners might be upgrading boats and expect the liquor license to be transferred to the new boat. Babcock stated that example causes a problem because the individual buying the existing boat would probably also like the opportunity to have first priority on a liquor license. Wert stated he believed the liquor license should go with the operator of the boat, not with the boat itself. LeFevere stated the basic question for which staff is looking for Board direction is whether the liquor license can be transferred with an individual or whether it goes with a charter boat. . . Foster stated h~ believed if an individual has a charter boat with a liquor license and decides to upgrade boats, it should be transferred because there should not be a disincentive to upgrade boats. He added if an individual sells both the business and a boat, he believed the person who purchased them should be given first priority. LeFevere stated the issuance of a liquor license on a charter boat is different than an establishment on land. He noted a liquor license is a limited asset, which is available to the public, and is a privilege. He stated it becomes more of a personal license on the water when compared to land. Kitchak stated he believed the District should encourage charter boat owners to upgrade boats and that they should not have to worry whether they get a liquor license. He added for 2000, he believed the new liquor licenSe applications should be processed on a first-come, first-served basis because the District has historically done this. He continued that after 2000, he believed any available new liquor licenses should be handled on a lottery system. Nybeck stated staff is basic looking for direction this evening on how to process the new liquor license for 2000, Whether it be first come, first served or on a lottery system. He added he believed the Board does not need to decide whether a liquor license is transferred with a charter boat at this meeting. He stated he believed staff could work with LeFevere on drafting a policy for Board consideration at a future meeting. MOTION: Gilman moved, Kitchak seconded to process new liquor license applications for the 2000 season in the order in which they were received. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Randy Chouanard, owner of Sunboats of Lake Minnetonka, addressed the issue of whether a liquor license should be transferred when a charter boat company decides to upgrade boats. He stated he is currently in the process of upgrading a charter by constructing it so it meets U.S. Coast Guard and A.D.A. handicap requirements. He expressed concern about the purchase of a new charter boat if he was unable to transfer a liquor license from an existing charter boat. Babcock stated he believe that decision had not been yet resolved. Foster stated he believed it was the intent of the Board that if a charter boat owner decides to upgrade boats, that the liquor license from another charter boat could be transferred. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 9, 2000 Page 9 Chouanard encouraged the Board to suppori ch~.er boat owners who desire to upgrade safety standards by complying with U.S. Coat Guard standards. Kitchak stated he believed the District should consider approaching the State of Minnesota to have the legislation changed so that the District could issue a larger number of intoxicalJng liquor licenses on Lake Minnetonka. He noted he believed a controlled liquor environment on a charter boat is in the best interest of the lake. Babcock stated if the District decided to approach the legislature, he believed there should be open dialogue with the member cities to see if they want the District pursuing this. D. Additional Business. There was no addilJonal business. 5. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE Suer*th stated he believed there is a need for the EWM Harvesting Improvement Task Force to meet in the near future to discuss aspects of the program that could be improved for the 2000 season. He added he has worked with staff on a 2000 Zebra Mussel budget and that he believed it would be reported on at the next Board meeting. Babcock asked if there was any update on the construclJon of the new harvester. The consensus of the Board was for staff to receive a written update on the harvester once a month. Babcock asked if the funding from the MN DNR for the 2000 EWM Harvesting Program would still be available. Suerth stated he believed it would be. 6. LAKE USE & RECREATION Nybeck stated a News Release that announced the Big Island public hearing at the 2/23/00 Regular Board meeting was included in the handout folders. He asked for Board comments on it because he intended to send it out to the local newspapers on 2/10100. There were no comments from the Board on the News Release. 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT There was no Executive Director Report. 8. OLD BUSINESS Foster stated he would like to bring up Board discussion on the re-development of the Cochrane's Marina property. He noted based on the discussion at the Kent Carlson public hearing, he believed the consensus of the Board was that they would like to have the project move'forward and to look at alternative ways to handle this situation. He stated he and Babcock had recenlJy met with Cadson to discuss some possible options. He noted one of these options was to continue maintaining the commercial marina on St. Nbans Bay, similar to Chapman Place Marina. He stated a second option would be to draft an ordinance that would allow re-developments to occur, by amending the conversion of use Code provisions, subject to a number of conditions being met by the re- Lake Minnetonka Conserv~on District Regular Board Meeting February 9, 2000 Page t0' development such as a reduction in overall density and a facility being in existence for at least 10 year~ He stated other Board members might have some other options to consider and he encouraged discussion of them. Babcock addressed the two options outJined by Foster. He made the following comments: · One of the triggers for the current conversion of use Code provisions was a commercia! marina that converted to a homeowners facility. He noted the first example of this type of conversion vJas at the Excelsior Bay Gables with the density at the commercial facility grandfathered at the homeowners facility. He added the second e× ~mple was in Mound at Chapman Place Marina, at the site previously known as the Surfside. He stated the owner of this restaurant sold the business but maintained the docking dghts as a separate entity. He noted some one purchased the land later and constructed condominiums, which resulted in pressure to use these dock;, for the condominium owr~urs. He stated the District required the owner of the docks to operate at arms length from the condominiums, to maintain it as a public facility, and to require an independent operator of it. He stated the ordinances have been strengthened since this occurred and questioned whether this could even be done at Cochrane's Marina. He stated he would not prefer this option. · If the Board decides to review possible Code amendment for re-development activities, he believed the Board should consider adoption of a new re-development philosophy, such as a PUD ordinance, rather than amending the conversion of use Code provisions. He stated possible areas of the Code to amend include the multiple dock and special density license Sections of the Code. Partyka stated he would'prefer the District consider a PUD ordinance that ~,ould allow for greater density of the multi-family dwellings. Gilman expressed concern in allowing a greater density to be transferred in a re-development project because that creates a price tag on docks that are in existence. Foster stated over the years, there are a large number of facilities that do not meet District Code boat storage density requirements. He noted in several of these facililJes, it would be a large leap to come into compliance with Code. He suggested re-development might allow this do be done in stages because it would result in improvements to the property. Babcock stated District Code is currently quite clear on what is allowed at this site. He'added the City of Greenwood has indicated they believe this is a good development and that they do not want to give it up because it does not meet the strict requirements of the Code. He noted he believed the District is in the deal making mode. Gilman expressed concern that the District might be dratfing policy changes specifically for this project. Weft stated although he is for the proposed re-development at the Cochrane's Marina property, the District should adopt policy changes on a lakewide basis that would take the proposal into account. Babcock stated one of the basic questions that the Board needs to address is whether to treat re- developments differenlJy than new developments by allo';~ing greater boat storage density at them. Partyka stated he would like to consider an adjustment in the Code for special density licenses that addresses the PUD element. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 9, 2000 ~ Page 11' McMillan stated if the Board decides to make some basic policy changes, she would rather see clustering of docks with greater side setbacks rather than an arbitrary reduction in the number slips at a grandfathered facility. Kitchak stated in re-development situations, there might be a need for greater density if the current situation is being greal]y improved because it is a blighted area. He added in a new PUD development, the District might not need different requirements and might not want to grant this high of a density. Gilman questioned whether there would any difference in those situations because both are city driven. LeFevere stated the Board is getting caught up in PUD and re-development language concepts. He noted what is a PUD concept in one city could be a permitted use in another. He stated the danger in tying the PUD concept into re-development is that there has been lillie discussion on how the PUD would improve the lake on a qualitative basis. Babcock stated for this to work, both the cities and the District need to see some benefits, although they probably would be different. He added he believed what LeFevere was stating was that the District should focus on lake issues and not focus on land issues. LeFevere stated the general practice on land is that a no, n-conforming use cannot be expanded and it cannot be converted to another use. He noted in this case, conversion of use was not prohibited until the conversion of use Section of the Code wa~, adopted by the Board. He stated he believed the Board had a range of options to consider including allowing free conversion, not allowing them to convert, or to choose some middle ground. McMillan stated she would like to see the Board consider a formula that is consistent with boat density with the cities residential areas. Rascop suggested the Board should focus its discussion on the water. Wert stated he believed the focus of the discussion should be on identifying how the entire lake would benefit from re-development projects and use them as criteria for analyzing these projects. He suggested it would be beneficial for the Board to work of a draft ordinance amendmenL Babcock stated if this is done, he would like to see it done in the context that it would apply to any property on the lake, not just those that exist today. Rascop asked LeFevere if the District has a process where the Board could grant a conditional use permit (CUP) on the water. LeFevere stated some of the subjective condilions that could be applied in a CUP are already in existence in the multiple dock license section of the Code. He added objective conditions that could be applied in a CUP have already been done at the Pelican Point HO^ multiple dock facility. He stated he believed a CUP mechanism could be created for the cimumstances being discussed. Eascop stated he believed that might be the direction the Board might want to consider. Gilman reminded the Board that the proposed reduction in slips at the Cochrane's Marina site on St. Albans Bay would also totally eliminate slips that are currenliy available to the public. He stated any criteria need to objective, not subjective. Lake Minnetonka Conserv~on District Regular Board Meeting February 9, 2000 Paget2 LeFevere reminded the Board that Current conversion of use Code provisions ~pPJy to all uses on the lake, not just commercial. He stated the focus of current Code provisions is to bring grandfathered facilities into compliance with Code. Foster stated based on the discussion, he believed LeFevere should draft an ordinance amendment for special cases under the conversi°n of use Code section. He ad[led the criteria that should be oulJined in the draft Code amendment have been outlined in the discussion. Babcock stated he would prefer making changes to the 1:50' General Rule rather than the convercion of use Section of the Code. Mr. Gabbdel Jabbour, owner of Tonka Bay Marina, suggested it would be beneficial to have a scientific measure of what is good for the lake, not an arbitrary measure. The consensus of the Board was for LeFevere to prepare some draft policy changes and to bring them back to the next scheduled Board meeting. 9. NEW BUSINESS Babcock stated he had recently received a complaint about snowmobiles skipping over open water. He noted the Board might want to con§ider adopting an ordinance that would prohibit this activity.. The Board directed staff to check with the Water P~ol on this and to report back to the Board. 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION- Update Eom Steve Tallen on LMCD v. Lynn Homer litigation. Foster stated he and Tallen had recentiy met with the officials from Hennepin County Sheriffs Depa~lment to discuss the recent Appellate Court decision. He asked Steve Tallen, LMCD Prosecuting Attorney, to provide an overview to the 8oard. Ahems left at 9:50 p.m. Tallen stated the meeting was set up to address the adverse ruling from the Appellate Court. He noted that CapL Bill Chandler has issued a memo to the Special Deputies indicating what they can and cannot do. He added there was discussion on approaching the legislature and that Sheriff Pat McGowan was going to further check into this. He stated he believed the main issue for the Board is whether to authorize him to petition the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the Appellate Court decision. The Board asked for an overview of the Appellate Court decision. Tallen stated the Appellate Court ruled that Special Deputies couid make stops if there was probable cause, but that they could not detain an individual to conduct further investigation beyond probable cause. I-P '~oted if the Board authorizes him to pelJtion the Minnesota Supreme Court, he would prepare it and that the other side would have the opportunity to review it. He addod if the petition is granted, both sides would provide biicfs. He stated if the petition is prepared, it would indicate that it is an important ruling, that the ruling is in direct con,!ct with previous precedent, and that is has statewide effects. He concluded he believed there is a good chance that the petition to review the Appellate Court rulif,g would be granted by the State Supreme Court. Lake Minnetonka Conservation Dist]'ict Regular Board Meeting February 9, 2000 Page 13 MOTION: Rascop moved, Partyka seconded to go close the meeting and convene into Executive ,Session to discuss pending litigation with Lynn Homer at 10:10 p.m. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Gilman moved, Rascop seconded to close the Executive Session and re.convene the Board moeting at 10:29 p.m. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourr~ed the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Douglas Babcock, Chairman Eugene A. Partyka, Secretap/ LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, March 8, 2000 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Vice Chair Foster READING OF MINUTES - 2/23/00 LMCD Regular Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) 1. LAKE USE & RECREATION A) Hennepin Parks, 1999 Water Quality of Lake Minnetonka Report (Informational- to be presented by John Barten at a future meeting); B) Big Island Task Force, staff update on 3/7/00 meeting; C) Staff update on 2000 Boat Density & User Attitude Survey; D) Additional Business; 2. FINANCIAL A) Audit of vouchers (2/15/00 - 2129100); B) Additional Business; 3. WATER STRUCTURES A) Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance relating to the density of watercraft storage on Lake Minnetonka; amending LMCD Code Section 2.11 by adding new Subd. 6; B) Additional Business; 4. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE A) Review of draft 2000 Zebra Mussel Budget; B) Review of recommendations for 2000 from the EWM Harvesting Program Improvement Task Force; C) Additional Business; 5. ADMINISTRATION A) Status update on District printer and copy machine in the office; B) Additional Business; 6. SAVE THE LAKE 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. ADJOURNMENT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:00 PM, Wednesday, February 23, 2000 Gray Freshwater Center CALL TO ORDER Chair Babcock called the meelJng to order at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Tom Giiman, Excelsior; Greg Kitchak, Minnetonka; Lili UcUillan, Orono; Bob Rascop, Shorewood; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Kent Dahlen, Uinnetonka Beach; Craig Eggers, Victoria. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director; Roger Winberg, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Andrea Ahems, Mound; Craig Nelson, Spdng Par~; Gene Partyka, Uinnetrista; Sheldon We~ Greenwood. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock Babcock stated that at the 2/9/00 Executive Session, the Board directed the LMCD Prosecuting Attorney to petition the }MN Supreme Court to review the Appellate Court decision in LMCD v. Horner. READING OF MINUTES- 2/9/00 LMCD Regular Board Meeting. MOTION: Foster moved, Ambrose seconded to approve the minutes of the 2/9/00 Regular Board Meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes (7), Abstained (2; Dahlen and Eggers); motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda (5 minutes). There were no comments from the public on subjects not on the agenda. Gilman arrived at'7:05 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS · Dr. Glen Nelson, Consideration of new multiple dock license application to reconfigure a conforming multiple dock facility. Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. He asked the representative of the applicant if he had any comments or would like to provide background at this time. Mr. Marc Kreger, property manager of the applicant, stated they have submitted an application for Board consideration to reconfigure the existing dock and to it from 95' to 100'. He added he was present to address any questions the Board might have regarding the proposed application. There being no further comments, Babcock closed the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. MOTION: Foster moved, McMillan seconded to approve the new multiple dock license application for Dr. Glen Nelson for the 2000 season. Babcock asked staff if there had been feedback from the MN DNR and the City of Orono on the proposed application. Nybeck stated that the MN DNR has expressed no objections and that staff has not heard from the City of Orono. Babcock recommended a friendly amendment that approval of this application be contingent upon approval of the City of Orono. Foster and UcUillan agreed to this friendly amendment. VOTE: Motion carried unanimGusly. · Park Hill & Park Island Apartments, Consideration of new multiple dock license application to increase dock length and add an additional six Boat Storage Units (BSU's) at a conforming multiple dock facility. Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. He asked the representative of the applicant if he had any comments or would like to provide background at this time. Mr. Richard Gorra, representing the applicant, requested the Board to approve the application as submitted. There being no further comments, Babcock closed the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. MOTION: Gilman moved, Foster seconded to approve the new multiple dock license application for Pa~'k Hill & Park Island Apartments for the 2000 season. Babcock asked staff if there had been feedback from the MN DNR and the City of Spring Park on the proposed application. Nybeck stated that the MN DNR has expressed no objections and that staff has not heard from the City of Spring Park. Babcock recommended a friendly amendment to the motion. Babcock stated that approval of the application should be contingent upon approval by the City of Spring Park and the submittal of an as-built survey. Gilman and Foster agreed to this friendly amendment. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. · Cruisers Cove, Consideration of Big Island Task Force recommendation to establish public safety lanes through the rating area for the 2000 boating season. Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m, He asked Foster to provide an update on what has been discussed at the Task Force. Foster stated that the Board established a Big Island Task Force this past fall to address some concerns expressed about Cruiser's Cove. He noted a number of interested governmental bodies had some concerns and participated in Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 23, 2000 Page2 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 23, 2000 Page3 this Task Force. He stated two options, the use of public safety lanes and a lakewide rardng ordinance, were considered by the Task Force, with the recommendation that public safety lanes be established to assist the Water Patrol in their public safety efforts in this area of the lake. He added this has been communicated to the Board at a previous meeting and that the Board directed staft to schedule a public hearing to get feedback and views from the public. Babcock stated he believed the Board would like feedback on how the proposed change would affect the use of the area and suggestions on whether something different should be considered by the Board. He encouraged the public to provide solutions to the problems if they objected to the proposal of the Task Force. Mr. Bruce Kelly, a resident of Plymouth, expressed concern with the restrictiveness and administration of these buoys. He stated law enforcement agencies have the authority, by law, to place tape between the buoys that would prohibit the public from crossing this tape. He expressed concern that some boats that are rafting co~ld drift across these buoys. Foster asked LeFevere if the District had ordinances that would allow the Water Patrol to have tape placed between buoys as testified by the public. LeFevere stated he would have to check into this. Babcock stated he believed the intent of the public safety lanes is to improve access from them. He added he believed that taping between the buoys would prevent this. He stated the objective of the proposed plan would be to keep the public safety lanes free of boats that are rafting. Foster stated he believed that Cruiser's Cove is an asset to Lake Minnetonka because it is a destination point He added there were a few problems this past year and that those are being addressed at the request of the Water Patrol. Mr. Jerry Clark, a resident of Orono, asked the Board when they expected to address these problems. Foster stated he believed these problems are being addressed with the proposed public safety lanes. He noted he believed these lanes would address excessive congestion in the area because of rafting activities and that it would allow the Water Patrol access for public safety purposes. He added if special events occur in 2000 and a permit is not secured for it, he believed the Water Patrol would stop the event. Clark asked if the proposed lanes are a direct result of the parties that occurred this past year. Babcock stated he believed the lanes have been proposed to provide a public safety aspect for large gatherings of boats that are rafting. He added a concern of the Board and some Lake Minnetonka communities is that these events have scaled up in recent years to a level not seen before. Clark asked how many emergency calls or personal injury reports were reported for this area last year, Lt Ken Schilling, representing the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol, stated he believed the problem has been building up over the last few years. He noted the area has generally been self-policing in the past; however, it has become an increasingly congested gathering point in recent years. He stated the proposed public safety lanes is strictly a public safety issue because they currently cannot get into the inner depths of the boats that are congregating toget~her..' He noted they currently cannot address a number of public safety issues properly because IOl'-I Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 23, 2000 Page 4 of the congestion. He stated some of these public safety issues include heart attack victims, ass;;ults, fights, and illicit activities. He added they would like to take proacfive approach by allowing them to get in amon~';t these boats. He noted he did not know the exact number of calls received from this area last year; however, there were a substantial number. He concluded the Water Patrol did not want to shut the activities down; how6'Jer, he wanted this to be an area in which a family could enjoy without subjecting their children to nudity and any other such activities that might be occurring. Clark stated he believed this area might b~ :ess oft family atmosphere. He suggested other areas of ,:ia lake might be more appropriate. Schilling stated the Water Patrol is not going to segregate the lake because it is public water and thi.~ is up to the individual. Clark questioned whether th~ '~mation of these safety lanes would create a further public safety hazard because boat traffic would be moving ough these lanes. He stated boaters might park on one side of the lane and need swim to the other side to recreate in the area. Foster asked Clark how far out he believed the proposed lane that parallels the shoreline should be from a depth standpoint. Clark stated he was not sure and that he wo,~ld like the discussion to be continued to the next meeting. He added he believed there are some accessibility issLles in the area; however, they are generally a result of the larger parties. Mr. Bill Baker, a resident of Mound, stated he believed the Board would be creating a bigger problem than the one that exists. He expressed' concern with the width of the proposed lanes and he stated he believed the Water Patrol has access in the area. He noted the depth ;~f the water where the proposed public safety lanes would be placed is currently being Used for recreation. He concluded that if these safety lanes are approved, he believed these activities could relocate to other areas of the lake. Mr. John Townsend, a resident of Eden Praide stated he did not believe the activity in Cruiser's Cove has increased in the past 24 years. He noted he believed some of the illicit activities have increased over the years, but he expressed similar safety concerns to those expressed by Baker. He expressed concern about a bo~.~ter possibly hooking the anchor of one of these buoys, especially in bad weather conditions. He concluded he believed the Water Patrol does not have access problems in the area and that they should be able to navigate within it. Kitchak stated the Board has received feedbacl~ that some boaters have been involved in the rafting area and cannot get out, using kids swimming in the arC ~ as an ~ ~mple. He a."ked Townsend how he would react to this as a parent, stating the public should have a right to get in and out of the area. Townsend stated that if a 40' houseboat can be maneuvered in this area by walking it, he belie,.,ed it is reasonable for his son to walk out a 14' alumacraft. Babcock stated he believed it is not reasonable to require the public to walk a boat around a fie-up s;',uation in this area. Town~ '~qd stated he believed there are a few boats in the area that are causing the majority of the problems. He suggested:the Boa~dshould enforce the laws that currently exist. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 23, 2000 Page 5 Foster stated the Task Force has considered a lakewide rardng ordinance and determined at this point that it currently is not necessary. He added he believed it would be appropriate to try the safety lanes in Cruiser's Cove and then evaluate them at the end of the season. Babcock stated if a lakewide rating ordinance was adopted by the Board, issues such as education and enforcement would become key issues for the Water Patrol. He added he believed this could pla~,e undue burden on the Water Patrol. He noted based on the testimony received from the public, there might be a need to re-address the layout of the public safety lanes. Townsend suggested it might be appropriate to table the discussion on the buoys be tabled and I:lace more emphasis on a higher profile of the Water Patrol in the area. Mr. Curt Pflug, a resident of Mound, stated he believed the proposed layout of the public safety lanes ',vould result in the congregation of a large number of boats in certain areas. He added if a special event permit is secured, he believed the coordinator would work with the Water Patrol in establishing these public safety lanes by making this a condition. Mr. John O'Neil, a resident of Minnetonka, stated he concurred with the previous public testimony on the placement of public safety lanes in the area. He added he would like to see a higher presence of the Water Patrol in the future and that funds might be better used to enhance their efforts. Mr. Steve Johnson, a resident of Golden Valley, stated he believed it might be appropriate to place the buoys that delineate these public safety lanes only during special events. He added the sponsor of the special event would need to work with the Water Patrol on the placement of these buoys. Mr. Brad Peterson, a resident of Tonka Bay, stated he believed the public has been educated on the need for a special event permit for the big parties. He questioned whether a special event permit would be issued for these pa~es and whether this would solve the need for these public safety lanes. He recommended the Board not establish these public safety lanes. Mr. Bob Hailer, a resident of Bloomington, asked what activities require a special permit on the lake. LeFevere stated a number of criteria are used to determine whether a special event permit is needed. He noted one of these criteria is whether an event would require the assistance of the Water Patrol for safe opera[ion. He added that events such as fishing tournaments, sailing regattas, and firework displays are organized events that require a special permit. Mr. Ron Cloud, a homeowner of Crystal Bay, stated he is a retired volunteer fireman from Long Lake. He stated he believed if these safety lanes are approved, a result would be smaller boats going through them at high rates of speed. He added he believed for big events, there might be a number of volunteers who would be first responders to assist the Water Patrol. Mr. Steve Sexton, a resident of Mound, stated he believed safety lanes that were unmarked were created in the big events last year. He added he would like to know the incidence for accidents at Big Island and Crusier's Cove, for both weekdays and weekends, as compared to the rest of the lake. Mr. Mark Overland, a resident of Mound, thanked the Board for gathering public input on this topic. He stated he believed the public would benefit from the lanes, but that the pitchfork design might be a problem. He noted Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 23, 2000 Page6 currently, lanes are created based on'the way that boats are fled up. He stated if the I~.. ~es are designed; pedy to fake this into account, he would not oppose the establishment of public safety lanes. He suggested that h:.* would like to see the activities be continued in the future, provided they are safe and legal, with the presence of the Water Patrol. He .;onclu~-*,d it mir!hr be =.opropriate to have lanes in this area that run perpendicula- ~"am the shore. Mr. Steve ,:.:hnson stated he believed the proposed ~ .]fety lanes would create a cruising problem. Mr. Dave Romness, a resident of ;,40 .,d, stated he had three pelt:ts he would like ;o make. He nc; ,d hr believed the area was self-policed, he questioned whether asp .edal event permit would be issued for these parL , and that no law can protect ~' :ainst idiots and fools. Mr. Dick Krueger, a resident of De.~ ',hav.-~, stated he be!i,,ved the "0' width of the propr,,,ed public safety lanes is excess~/e. Ms. Reth Ashing~ Iai' -'are owner, stated she believed the Board is overreacting to s~,m~ ,ired. ations. She questioned what the ~oard is trying to accomplish and whether the actions are appropriate. Mr. Marry Woody, a resident of Orono, start ~ he bP~ieved the proposed lanes would cause co~,ge,;tion in the area and that boater would attempt to swim '~cross them. r',lr. Dan Sh? 3hne~,' V. a res,uent of Minnetonka, ~xpressed concern that the proposed layout wouk~ :' ~use a bot'deneck. He added he believed they would be eded for only about 10 days out of the year and ti]at t~ ..~ would be excessive. ~s. Ids Hecker, a resident of the lake, stated she believed other members of the p,.~'; did not atte~d th3 meeting :':,ecause it would not make a ,~=fference qbe asked the Board if their presence would make a difference. gabcock · .,d he believed :J" .' comments received from the public woulu ,~e sent back to the Task Force for further discussio[~. Mr. Mike Cadbou,'a resi .d- ".t of the lake, stated he did not support the idea of public safety ~nes at [nis location. He recommended that this s, ;t back to the Task Force to identify what the problems are and what cap be d'--'~e realistically to address th,..:]. He. oncluded if the plan if approved, he bel:-;ve,~ the activity, might move t,. a different ar,,~ r~f the lake. Mr. Jamie ,r;emarais, a resident of Mound, stated he had an interesting perspective because he is both a participant in this area and he is a Special Deputy for the Water Patrol. He noted the idea of a h;"'~er presence might not be realistic because the Water Patrol oversees 108 lakes and three dv~,,~ in the ~ounty, n~,[just Lake Uinnetonka. He stated on a normal weekend. *here might b.-' ;'!',' two or' .,e bo; the lake because of limited .-.sc' ?ces Rnd concluded the Water Patrol, ,,.,~Js more volur~ers to assist in the [,~,;sence on Lake Uinnetonka. A resident :rem ~ ' City of ~, one asked if t, )uoys have already been p sed. Babcock stated he belier-~. *he buoys have t- ~n purchased from the MN I')NR. Mr. Klm El,~erum, MN D! tated ,.nly o? buoy has been Purchased at this time and that the others h=,'~, ri. one out on bid. - Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 23, 2000 Page 7 Kelly asked if there is room for public membership on the Task Force. Foster stated he was a Task Force member and that he believed public membership might be helpful. He recommended those members of the public who might be interested should notify the office so they can be notified of the meetings. Babcock stated these meetings are open to the public; however, the discussion at them stays within the Task Force. He added any input from the public at these meetings is up to the Task Force. He noted that notice for this meeting would be posted at the office and on the WebPage. Rascop stated that written testimony would be accepted by the public. Mr. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor of Orono, stated he believed that the public is missing the point that the local communities are losing their caretaking authority. He noted the Water Patrol has limited amount of resources and there is a need to divert more resources to them. He expressed concern that the public might be abandoning their responsibility to the resource when problems exist that are not addressed. He stated that the people are the eyes and ears of the Water Patrol and that people should apply for permits when required by law. He concluded if the public wants to use this area of the lake for their enjoyment, they should do so in a responsible manner. Mr. Bob Sansevere, an Orono City Council member, stated in an ideal world, there would not be a need for buoys. He noted he did not know if the preposed configuration of the safety lanes is ideal and he suggested other ideas should be considered. He stated he believed there is a need for safety lanes to assist the Water Patrol in their efforts, especially when they request this. Mr. Dan Goldman, a resident of Plymouth, stated he believed in safety and that there is a need for the Water Patrol to be able to get to somebody fast when there is an emergency. He expressed concern with the proposed configuration because of drifting boats and the creation of a busy thoroughfare. He stated he was in favor for good access for emergencies; however, he believed the proposed layout should be re-addressed. Ms. Robin Mueller, a resident of Minneapolis, stated she believed that a few people that have been irresponsible are precipitatin~ the preposed safety lanes. She recommended responding to the people who are causing the problems. There being no further comments from the public, Babcock closed the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. Gilman stated he believed District has an enforcement problem on the lake. He questioned whether the establishment of safety lanes would solve the problem because the activity would move to another location. He stated he believed that the problem is that there are not enough Special Deputies out on the lake to properly enforce the prohibition of such activity. Babcock stated to some extent, the Water Patrol needs to prioritize their calls because of limited funds. He believed the challenge of the lake communities is to get additional funds from the Hennepin County Board. He noted the District has the ability to put more enforcement out on the lake; however, this would require full participation from the 14 lake communities.' McMillan stated she believed there is a need to allow other boaters to access Cruiser's Cove. She reminded the Board that ghere is a resident in the area who needs access to their dock. Lake Minneto;~ka Conservation District Regular Boar;: Meeting February 23, 2000 Page8 Foster stated he woulo like to see the public safety lanes tried for one year with a sunset clause. ; added he believed the 50' width of these lanes is t~o wide and that the Task Force should consider other pos. !b~e layouts, He recommended the Board table this project back to the Task Force for further discussion. MOTION: Foster moved, Gilman seconded to table the further discussion of the public safety lane'; ta the Big Island Task Force. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. The meeting was recessed at 8:40 p.m. and re-convened at 8:55 p.m. 1. WATER STRUCTURES A. City of Wayzata, consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of new multiple dock an ~ special density license applications. B ~'cock introduced the agenda item and asked if there were any comments from the City of".'.';yzata or staff. Nybeck pointed out that a condition of the Order is that the granting of the license is contingent upon approval by the MN DNR. He stated he believed that the City of Wayzat~ has not finalized the site plan with the MN DNR. MOTION: Foster:moved, Gilman seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Order ~r apnrnval of new multiplP dock and special J.=.nsity license application, contingent upon approval by .tN DNR on the site pi; .... VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. Babcock stated if*here are substantial changes based on review by the MN DNR, he believeO that staff should bring it back to the Board for review. B. Discussion of possible Code amendments for Boat Storage Density on Lake ']innetonka. Babcock introduced the agenda item by asking for background from LeFeverc LeFevere made the following comments: · The direction from the Board at past meetings has been that the Board mig~.' '-" willinn to consider some changes to the Code for, ~:-development of legal, non-conforming facilities .,,,,u~d the ;ake, provided they make sense on a !~kewide basis. · There are three options for the Board to consider to provide this flexibility. He noted they included changing the 1:50' Gener31 Rule on a lakewide basis, creating a ~- w special permit program under the specia! density section of the Code, or allowing conversion of use to some extcnt even if the facility does not comply with the curre"t Code provisions. · Draft Code amendments have been prepared for board revi,~t, for possible change of the I 50' General Rule and the conversion of use Code provisions. Fie state;' ; he did not prepare a d~aft Code to create a new sPecial permit program under the existing special der.,- ~..' section of the C,;de beccuse he did not receive sufficient direction from the Board. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting Februaw 23, 2000 Page 9 · The conversion of use ordinance amendment would be relaxed to allow, under certain circumstances, a conversion that does not comply with the current General Rule, but would move closer towards it. He noted these circumstances need to be discussed by the Board. · There are advantages to amending the Code relating to conversion of use because it would only apply to non-conforming docks and would result in a decrease in the number of boats. He noted the changing of the General Rule or the creation of a special permit program under the special density section of the Code would apply on a lakewide basis, with the end result of increased boat storage on the lake. · He asked for questions or comments by the Board. Foster stated at previous meeting, there had been discussion on a criteria that a facility'needed to be in existence for at least 10 years before they could qualify for the relaxed conversion of use Code provisions. He asked for LeFevere to comment on this. LeFevere stated th'e ordinance was drafted so that conforming facilities would not be alloWed greater densities. He noted this would only apply to legal, non-conforming structures that are converting their use. Foster stated there could be some commercial facilities around the lake that currently have a conforming, special density license who might want density greater than 1:50' if they decide to convert in the future. He noted the Code amendment might need to apply to both conforming and non-conforming facilities. Babcock stated the requirement for a facility to be in existence for at least 10 years is to prevent a property from receiving approval under current Code and then making application to convert its use in a short time frame. LeFevere stated th~ Code section that the draft ordinance fits within would not benefit anyone who was not in existence in'19781 He noted a paragraph could be added indicating the storage numbers at the facility needed to be grandfathered in 1978. He stated he believed there is a difference when a developer purchased a parcel of land after 1978 because the developer understood up front that they needed to apply for conforming licenses and that conversion of use was not permitted. McMillan stated sheviewed this as a change of use from commercial to residential purposes. She added she believed it should take into account what exists in the pa~cular city and should respect the city's situation. Gilman asked if anyone was aware of how much change the City of Greenwood needed to accommodate for the proposed project. Babcock stated that in 1992, the MN DNR asked the cities to adopt a uniform set of shoreline ordinances. He noted he believed the City of Greenwood has a minimum lot width of 75' and that they asked for exception from the MN DNR On this. He noted back in 1992, the District asked for review from the cities on variances on land but this was denied. He stated although he was sensitive to a certain type of development in the City of Greenwood, he was concerned that they and the MN DNR did not live up to the obligations they agreed to in 1992. He recommended the Board focus on the proposed development and the benefits it would provide for the lake. Gilman asked' McMillan how she believed the District should design an ordinance that would take into account a different density for each city. Lake Minnet~.~ka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 23, 2000 Page l0 McMillan stated she was not prepared to address that question. She suggested this is unique because it is a Planned ~ · .it Development (PUD) and that the ordinance might w~nt to take into account that up to four watercraft are a! ~.d to be stored at private, single residences. Foster stated he personally supported allowinc 3randfathered facilities to be able to convert thcir use and not require them to come into compliance with the 1:50' "' '~eral Rule. He s~:~;igested it might be ·appropriate to ct~ their densities back to 1:20' bec' e ti' se facilities could make aPr -ation for a special density license that would allow a ~ ~at 3e dep' of up to 1:10', He added he believed one ofthe criteria in th3 ordinance ~uld be to ~;-~it th~ ~. of the. oats stored at these facilities. Babcock 9xpressed concern about allowing bcat storage density at a multiple dock facility that would parallel what is allowed at a single, family residence. Gil~: ~n expressed concern about drafting an ordinance that is specifically tailored for the proposed project in St. Albans Bay. I~''' ;k stated staff has prepared a spreadsheet that identifi(.., current facilities on the lake that are 9.. ;l~a°' red and could potential!y be converted. He noted this spreadsheet identifies the name of these facilities, ~,·]e amount of shoreline, associated with them, the number of BSU's currently approved, and calculaUons at a 50 percent redL. ion, the 1:50' General Rule, a 1:37.5' General Rule, and a 1:25' General Rule. He stated he believed this spreadsheet needs to be further re~,.'~.d to include specific zoning laws of multi-family developments of all 14 cities on the lake. He noted he beliew '; co,ld be prepared for the next meeting. LeFevere stat~',d the 1:37.5' General Rule number w~ 'cluded in the draft ordinance with the Pelican HOA development in rain" Babcocl~ stated he believed the 1:37.5' number made some sense for Greenwood because the minimum lot widthin .the: City is 75' and that single family, private residence" ~re allowed to store two boats without regards to ownership. The conSensus of the Board was ,.~ ,~iscuss the draft amendment for conversion of use Code provisions at a future meeting. MOTION: Foster moved, Dahlen seconde'~ tn ccntinue the discussion of this agenda item to the next meeting. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. Mr. Gabdel Jabbour, owner of Tonka Bay Madna, pointeJ out: :the discussion should take i~,~.o account ram[:: an~ ~ff-lake storage -' private developments with ramps at the previous commercial prcperty. LeFevere stated anyone from the public could mal(e application for a commercial f~ 'ty that complio~ ,~4th the 1:50' General Rule and has a ramp for people of' 'ake. He n~ted tl,ere are some facilities that have off-lake storage counted ir., their grandf:','~ered ';-,~sity a~';,~ ,le Board needs to determine how this would work in a conversion of use situation. Babcock statc .... at LeFevere should include this in the new amendment. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 23, 2000 Page11 Mr. Paul Pedersen, owner of Grays Bay Uadna, stated he was encouraged to hear comments on reasonable reduction of boats and taking into account the individual cities' needs. He suggested the Board might want to include in the ordinance amendment that the parcel of property needs to be contiguous. Gilman asked how dense the proposed project is on land. Babcock stated he believed the proposed project is 20 units on approximately two acres of land. C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 2. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers (2/1/00- 2/15/00). Nybeck reviewed the audit of vouchers for payment as submitted. MOTION: Foster moved, Gilman seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for payment as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B, January financial summary and balance sheet. Nybeck reviewed the January financial summary and balance sheet. MOTION: Gilman moved, Dahlen seconded to accept the January financial summary and balance sheet as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C, Additional Business. There was no additional business. 3. LAKE IJSE & RECREATION A. Staff update on 2000 Boat Density & User Atlitude Survey. Babcock asked staff to update the Board on this agenda item. Nybeck stated one proposal was received to conduct this project from Schoell and Madson, Inc. in the amount of $36,120.10. He noted because the project was budgeted for $30,000, staff needs direction from the Board on how to proceed. He stated he believed the options the Board has are to approve the proposal as submitted, to deny the proposal and direct staff to begin direct negotiations with either Schoell and Madson, or to deny the proposal and direct staff to re-submit an amended RFP for this project. He indicated that the MN DNR has budgeted for $15,000 and it appears as though they cannot locate additional funds. He recommended the Board either approve the proposal as submitted or to deny the proposal and to direct staff to begin direct negotiations to conduct the project. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 23, 2000 Page 12 MOTION: Gilman moved, Foster seconded to deny the proposal received from Schoell and Madson, Inc., and to direct staff to begin direct negotiations with Schoell and Madson or other companies to perform the project in 2000. Foster stated he believed staff should work with Tim Kelly, MN DNR Planner, and sit down with Schoell and Madson to see what could be done for $30,000. Babcock stated if there are overrun of expenses after direct negotiations, he would like to see these expenses equally split. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 4. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE A. Hydraulic Boat Company, Inc., update on the cons~ction of the new Aquatic Plant Har,~este? :lered. Babcock stated that staff has included an update on the construction of the new harvester as an informational item. B. Review of draft 2000 Zebra Mussel Budget. Babcock stated staff.has recommended this agenda item be tabled to the 3/8".0 Regular Boa,~ meeting. MOTIO~J: Gilman moved, Foster seconded to table this agenda item to the next Regular Board meeting. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. ,5. SAVE THE LAKE A. Review of draft 2000 "Save the Lake' Budget. McUillan updated the Board on ~e request from the Water Patrol for p~,blic safety equipment. She stated the District purchased three cold water err~ersion suits in 1999, but she ind~ 9d some of the older suits are decaying. She noted she adjusted the previous recommendalJon of the Advisory Committee t~, ~nur new fire l~"mps and one new cold water emersion suit, in the amount of $7,350. She noted if the Board believes this is too' ~]h a figure, she would willing to adjust it down. She reviewed the remaining aspects of the budget highlighti;,~ the key aspects of it. MOTION: UcUillan moved, Foster seconded to approve the disbursement of $7,350 to the Water Patrol for ';ur new fire pumps and one new cold water emersion suit for 2000. VOTE: UotJon carried unanimously. Lake Minnetonka Conserv~on District Regular Board Meeting Febn ary 23, 2000 Page 13 MOTION: Rascop moved, Ambrose seconded to approve the 2000 Save the Lake Budget as presented. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. B. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 6. ADMINISTRATION There was no business. 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Nybeck stated that the Executive Director quarterly newsletter is included in the handout folders for informational purposes. He noted this has already been sent out to the city halls and mayors of the 14 lake communitJes. 8. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 9. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Douglas Babcock, Chairman Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary THIS PAGE IS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK