2000-09-13PLEASE TURN OFF ALL PAGERS & CELL PHONES IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 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 Council Member or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed
from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
PAGE
2. APPROVE AGENDA
CANVASSING OF ELECTION RESULTS, OPEN SPACE REFERENDUM
( TO BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY EVENING).
*CONSENT AGENDA
*A. APPROVE MINUTES: AUGUST 22, 2000, REGULAR
MEETING .................................. 3716-3728
*B. APPROVE PAYMENT OF BILLS ................... 3729-3745
*C.
APPROVE MOVING OCT 3, SPECIAL MEETING FOR 2001
BUDGET WORKSHOP TO 6:00 P.M., OCTOBER 16, 2000.
*D.
SET PUBLIC HEARINGS: Oct 10. 2000
1. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS:
UNPAID TREE REMOVAL BILL; AND UNPAID DRIVEWAY
APRON BILLS ........................... 3746-3753
2. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR CBD PARKING .......... 3754
*E.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
1. CASE #00-41: MINOR SUBDIVISION - 6301 LYNWOOD
BOULEVARD - JENNIE CARLSON BALTUTIS ......
3755-3765
2. SIGN PERMIT: OUR LADY OF THE LAKE - 2385
COMMERCE BOULEVARD -
'INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL'. ................... 3766-3770
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY
ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. (LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SPEAKER.)
PLEASE TURN OFF ALL PAGERS & CELL PHONES IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
DISCUSSION/ACTION ON PETITION FOR SWENSON PARK PLAY
STRUCTURE .................................... 3771-3776
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. ORDINANCE CHANGING SUNDAY ON-SALE HOURS FOR
LIQUOR SALES ............................... 3777-3780
Be
CASE g00-42: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 1000 ROBIN LANE -
JENNIE CARLSON BALTUTIS ..................... 3781-3789
STAFF REPORT: MEETING WITH CITY OF MINNETRISTA ON
WEST EDGE BOULEVARD AND WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS FOR
LANGDON BAY SUBDIVISION.
o
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
A. CASE//00-50: FINAL PLAT - GILLESPIE ADDITION - 2590
COMMERCE BOULEVARD -
WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER ..................... 3790-3817
10. WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER REQUEST .................. 3818-3819
11.
ACTION ON MUELLER-LANSING PROPERTIES REQUEST FOR
WITHDRAWAL FROM CBD PARKING PROGRAM ............ 3820-3821
12.
WORKSHOP: DISCUSSION ON GUIDELINES FOR AN ETHICS
POLICY ........................................ 3822-3827
13.
DISCUSSION/APPROVAL OF 2001 BUDGETS AND GENERAL FUND
LEVY AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATES ............. 3828-3830
DISCUSSION/APPRQyA, L OF 2001 HRA LEVY ............... 3831-3832
~INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. Dock and Commons Advisory Commission meeting minutes:
Aug 17 ..................................... 3833-3838
Be
Advisory Park and Open Space Commission meeting minutes:
Aug 10 ..................................... 3839-3843
C. Economic Development Commission meeting minutes: Aug 17. . . 3844-3852
D. Planning Commission Minutes of Aug. 14 ................ 3853-3864
E. FYI: Consolidation proceedings for St Bonifacius and Minnetrista. 3865-3868
F. Article: Clues to Small Town Survival .................. 3869-3870
Go
Announcement: Mound Police Department Community
Policing Award ................................ 3871-3885
PLEASE TURN OFF ALL PAGERS & CELL PHONES IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
H. Mound Police Department Monthly Report: Aug 2000 ........ 3886-3893
I. FYI: Resolution for appointments to advisory commissions ......... 3894
J. LMCD Correspondence ........................... 3895-3908
K. Notice of appointment to Metropolitan Council ................ 3909
L. LMC call for NLC Board of Directors ..................... 3910
M. Letters regarding supporting expanded water patrol .......... 3911-3914
N. Resolution from Lafayette Club in Minnetonka Beach opposing trail. . . 3915
This is a preliminary agenda and subject to change. The Council will set a final agenda the
night of the meeting. More current meeting agendas may be viewed at City Hall or at the
City of Mound web site: www. cityofmound, corn
COUNCIL BRIEFING
September 13, 2000
#8. Meeting with City of Minnetrista
John Cameron, Loren Gordon and I will meet with the City of Minnetrista in a workshop at 5:30
p.m., Monday, Sept 11 to discuss the water main loop and their acceptance of improvements to
West Edge Boulevard. Staff will make an oral report.
#10. Westonka Senior Center Request
John Dean recommended against considering this request as part of the Final Plat approval for
the Westonka Senior Center. He further recommended taking it apart and considering each
separate request and its implications. See his opinion letter. Incidentally, John will not be
present at this meeting. Mac LaFevre will be covering for him.
#11. Mueller-Lansing Properties
A meeting was recently set by Staff and Mueller-Lansing Properties to discuss the development
of their property. They seemed enthusiastic about the idea, but then canceled without
explanation. In the same ~veek, they requested confirmation of their involvement in the CBD
Parking program, tbllowed by the request to be removed from the program. ????
#12. Workshop on Ethics Guidelines
This is one in the series of Administrative Workshops I promised early on. Cities will
commonly have an Ethics Policy, which places pertinent local and state rules for order in one
place for easy reference. Such a policy will be used as an orientation tool for newly elected
officials, as well. One of the questions to ponder is the form an Ethics Policy should take: an
ordinance, a resolution or a policy. Mac LaFevre will assist with the discussion.
#13. 2001 Budget
With the percentage levy increase dropping to 6%, the fund balance is now at 18%. Would
Council consider funding the fund balance to a safer level before taking action on this budget and
levy? This low of a fund balance is certain to suffer the scrutiny of our auditors upon their
review. It would pay to beef it up before action on this item.
Other:
City Manager Review
My six-month anniversary as City Manager for the City of Mound is October 17. Within the
next few weeks you will be receiving a packet of information requesting your comments for the
review. Comments will also be taken from others coming in contact with my work during that
time--employees, consultants, customers, and business owners. This is called a 360-degree
evaluation. The formal evaluation will take place at a regular Council meeting as close to the
anniversary date as possible, time permitting.
Thanks for your consideration of these issues. Call me with any questions.
Kandis
RESOLUTION #00- ~;~
September I$, 2000
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE RESULTS OF THE
MUNICIPAL QUESTIONS ELECTION AS PRESENTED AT THE
CANVASS OF VOTE OF THE SEPTEMBER 12, 2000, ELECTION
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND,
MINNESOTA:
That the City Council does hereby certify the results of the Municipal
Questions Election as presented on the Canvass of Votes for the September 12, 2000,
Election as follows:
Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. TOTAL
QUESTION #1
YES 92 51 181 142 185 212 863
NO 119 85 221 213 203 117 958
QUESTION #2
YES 84 43 162 142 168 192 791
128 90 238 213 ,/~216134 1019
NO
The Canvassing Board hereby certifies that Question #1 was defeated and
Question #2 was defeated.
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 22, 2000
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on
Tuesday, August 22, 2000, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in
said City.
Those present Mayor Pat Meisel; Council Members: Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, and Leah
Weycket. Absent and excused: Council Member Andrea Ahrens. Also in attendance were City
Manager Kandis Hanson, City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney John Dean, City Planner Loren
Gordon, City Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Recording Secretary Diana Mestad. Others
present: Ken Custer; Jo Longpre; Lorrie Ham, The Laker; Dawn Donofro; Margi Raines; Barry
and Joan DeSmet; Marie Fueseon; Toby Fuers; F. Herman; Brian Meagher; Peter Meyer; Jim and
Denise Crawford; Katin Flar; William Nobraster; Todd Hansen; Steven Behnke; Bill Bline;
Thomas and Tara Stokes; Steve and Deb Graud; Stephen and Deb Vertnik.
*Consent Agenda: All items fisted w~der the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There n,ill be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Council ]Vlember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed
from the Consent Agenda and considered in notw~al sequence.
OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Meisel opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and welcomed the people in attendance. The
pledge of allegiance was recited.
APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
The City Attorney removed Item 8B from the Consent Agenda. Council Member Hanus removed
Item F and changed it to 7A on the Agenda. The City Clerk added a new item F to the Consent
Agenda.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to approve the agenda and consent
agenda with the changes noted above. The roll call vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried. 4-0.
CONSENT AGENDA
*1.0 APPROVE MINUTES: AUGUST 8, 2000 REGULAR MEETING.
*1.1 APPROVE PAYMENT OF BILLS.
'1.2 APPROVE A RESOLUTION OPPOSING WINE I'N GROCERY STORES.
'1.3
SET MEETING DATES:
Mound City Council Minutes, August 22, 2000
A. ACTION MOVING SEPT. 12, REGULAR MEETING TO SEPT. 13, TO
INCLUDE ELECTION CAVASSING, DUE TO PRlMARY ELECTION.
B. ACTION SETTING SPECIAL MEETINGS FOR 2001 BUDGET
WORKSHOP: 6:00 P.M., AUG 29 & OCT. 3
C. ACTION SETTING APPRECIATION EVENT FOR BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS: OCT. 3.
'1.4 APPROVE PAYMENT REQUESTS:
A. PAYMENT #1 TO KUSSKE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. FOR AUDITOR'S
ROAD.
B. FINAL PAYMENT TO ALLIED BLACKTOP COMPANY FOR ANNUAL
SEAL COAT PROJECT.
'1.5
SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 TO CONSIDER AN
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 800.05 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO THE
HOURS OF SALE FOR ON-SALE SUNDAY INTOXICATING LIOUOR.
1.6
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ABOUT
SUBJECTS NOT ON THE AGENDA. (PLEASE LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER
SUBJECT3
Pete Meyers, 5748 Sunset Road, wished to inform the Council and the community that Eastern
Bluebirds have nested successfully at the Hatter's field site. Council Member Hanus asked where
in the field the birds had nested. Mr. Meyer's stated it was the north side of the football field.
1.7
PARK AND OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
FOR APPOINTMENT.
Council Member Hanus stated that he felt that the Park Commission has been complaining for a
long time that the Council does not listen to their opinions. He stated that he felt it was a natural
progression for Commissions to change over the years as members come and go, but that the Park
Commission had not changed its views on parkland in years. Council Member Hanus felt that the
Park Commission should strive to have more diversity on the board to allow for debate.
Mayor Meisel stated that she could understand Council Member Hanus' point and that she felt it
was valid. She further stated that other commissions do have more diversity in their members, but
that the Park Commission is always in agreement on issues.
Mound City Council Minutes, August 22, 2000
Council Member Weycker stated that she felt that the minutes from the meetings do reflect that
discussion takes place.
Council Member Hanus stated that he read in the minutes that the other candidate for the open
position had stated that he felt the City was not able to take care of the parks it currently had.
Council Member Brown stated that he felt there was a problem with the interview process in that
the candidates were not asked the same questions.
Council Member Weycker stated that the questions asked of the applicants were related to
statements previously made. She further stated that Schelly Young was clearly the better
candidate. She.also stated that she was offended by the lack of trust by the Council.
Council Member Weycker stated that not one budget item for park improvement has been
approved. Council Member Brown stated that parks would be discussed in this year's budget.
Council Member Hanus stated that while he thinks it is natural for a seated body to appoint like-
minded people, he likes the idea of re-advertising and re-interviewing for the opening.
Council Member Weycker pointed out that the previous ad ran for several months with no
applicants.
MOTION, by Brown, seconded by Hanus, to re-interview the two candidates and
re-advertise for new candidates.
Discussion:
The City Manager suggested inviting people to apply in order to encourage more diversity.
Council Member Hanus stated that he would like to know in advance when board members are
planning to leave.
Peter Meyer, Park Commission member, stated that this was the first interview where Council
was not invited, but that the Commission does want Council's input. He suggested that Council
review the tapes from the interviews rather than repeating them. He further stated that at the time
the Dock Commission was created, the Park Commission was reduced from 8 members to 5
members. Mr. Meyer stated that he had opposed that reduction as it resulted is less input.
Council Member Hanus asked whether the seats could be filled on a larger board. Mr. Meyer
stated he thought the seats could be filled.
Council Member Hanus stated that if the reduced size of the Commission was a detriment,
Council could entertain increasing the size in the future.
3
Mound City Council Minutes, August 22, 2000
Mr. Meyer stated that the Commission has been one member short since January. Council
Member Hanus stated that no one is questioning the work being done by the Commission, but
rather they were trying to identify a longstanding problem.
Mayor Meisel called the question.
AYES: 3
NAYS: 1 (Weycker)
Motion carried. 3-1.
1.9
DISCUSSION ON CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR FINAL PLAT
APPROVAL, INCLUDING CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR
WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER: SEPT. 13.
The City Manager stated that it had been brought to her attention by the City Planner that the
policy was to forgo public hearings at the final plat approval level. Council Member Hanus stated
that the preliminary plat approval would still have a public hearing and that this is where the main
issues are worked out. He felt that a public hearing at the final approval stage was not necessary.
Mayor Meisel stated that she had checked with builders around Mound on this issue and they felt
that the final plat public hearing was an additional hoop to jump through.
MOTION, by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to proceed with policy as written. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0.
1.10 CASE #00-47: VARIANCE - TOM STOKES - 5212 WATERBURY BOARD.
The City Planner pointed out that the Minutes from the Planning Commission regarding this issue
were included in the packet. He reviewed the issues of the case stating that the west garage side
is too close to the side yard. The neighbors alerted the City to this. The Planning Commission
had a 3-2 vote to not approve a variance. Staff wants the house to adhere to a conforming 10-
foot setback.
Council Member Brown stated that he disagrees with Staff's recommendation. He felt that
because both Staff and the Planning Commission had missed the setback, this was not the
builder's problem. He further stated that the City is allowing a PUD with 6-foot setbacks. He
also pointed out that this was only a 4-foot variance.
Mayor Meisel requested that Mr. Stokes and the public speak at this time.
Tom Stokes, the builder on this project, stated that he was given direction by the City and gave
the following timeline for this issue:
4
Mound City Council Minutes, August 22, 2000
1. Originally Steve Banke (the home designer) contacted the City. Mr. Banke,
Fineline Design Group, stated that in reviewing the document regarding the
splitting of this parcel into two lots he found the following discrepancies:
Whereas No. 3 refers to parcels A and B and the numbers therein do not match
the survey; whereas Nos. 4 and 5 have conflicting statements. Because these
items did not make sense, Mr. Banke called the City. He stated that he has
spoken with Peggy, Chris and Rhonda. He was told that the side yard setback
was 6 feet.
2. Mr. Stokes stated that his staff.called the City and was told it was a 6-foot
setback and that he considered information given to him by the City to be
accurate.
3. The lot survey company called the City and was told that the side yard setback
was 6 feet.
4. Mr. Stokes presented the building permit package that includes a survey
indicating the 6-foot setback. He further stated that the house to the west is
52.2 feet from the property line.
5. Mr. Stokes stated that his staff.called Rhonda for the address of the lot and
received that information by mail, which included a setback sheet that was
incomplete. His staff.member called Rhonda and was told that the setback was
6 feet.
6. Mr. Stokes then showed his building permit application with approval and
signature by J. Sutherland. He also showed the actual permit signed by
Rhonda.
Mr. Stokes stated that he felt that he has met his obligation for due diligence in this matter and
resents the implication that he, as the builder, brought this on. He feels that he has a good
reputation in the City of Mound.
Mr. Stokes stated that even though the intent of the Resolution was confusing, he, as the builder,
followed due diligence. He feels that he has worked through the years to follow the ordinances in
the City and feels that this situation has damaged his reputation.
Mr. Stokes also pointed out that the Planning Commission Minutes stated that Mr. Crawford also
called the City and was told that the side yard set back was 6 feet.
Mr. Stokes stated that this neighborhood has a history of variances for setbacks for side and front
yards. He stated that the property to the north was given a front yard setback of 20 feet in 1992.
He stated that there is a history of variances for construction of new properties.
Mr. Stokes stated that he lives across the street from this property and after doing the research on
constructing a one-car garage; he found it would lower the price of the house by $33,000. He
also felt that a one-car garage would encourage outside storage on the lot.
Mound City Council Minutes, August 22, 2000
Mr. Stokes stated to the Council that he is asking for a variance on this property along with a
refund of the fee he was asked to pay. He also wants a public apology for the harm this has
caused his reputation.
The City Building Official stated that the builder had made an honest mistake in this situation. He
further stated that Staff had also made an honest mistake and that he takes full responsibility for
this. He admitted that he missed this setback issue on the permit process. Mr. Sutherland
apologized for his part in this situation. He stated that he understood the recommendation made
by the Planning Commission.
Mayor Meisel reminded everyone that Jon Sutherland has been in his position for ten years and
this is simply a human mistake.
Council Member Brown stated that Mr. Sutherland was not the only person at fault as the
Planning Commission had also reviewed this.
Denise Crawford, property owner on the west side, stated that mistakes have been made and time
has been wasted. She stated that she had to put her own remodeling projects on hold while this
was resolved. She feels that the City needs to do its job correctly. Ms. Crawford stated that she
felt that the builder was aware of the problem all along. She stated that the neighbors were not
notified of the property sale because the City has not updated the plat since 1995. Ms. Crawf'ord
stated that Mr. Stokes was aware of the 10-foot setback because he had built his own house in the
neighborhood. She stated that after the issue was brought to the City's attention, the house went
up very quickly. She stated that she is the one who will suffer if the house is allowed to remain
and requested that any future building such as a deck be required to comply with the code.
Margie Reins, Minnetonka Realty, stated that she lives two blocks from this property. She stated
that Mr. Stokes is a high quality builder. She asked why if the City had missed the setback, was
the builder being punished. She felt that a one-car garage was not an option because outside
storage was already a problem on the island.
Stephen Vertnik, north side neighbor, wondered about the side drainage. Council Member Hanus
stated that even if the house were moved, the water flow would remain the same.
Mr. Vertnik stated that because Mr. Stokes had been building in the area for ten years, he must
have been aware of the setbacks. Council Member Hanus pointed out that City Staff who are
very familiar with the code missed the setback in this case.
Debbie Vestnik, 5217 Windsor, stated that she felt this was the fault of the City of Mound, but the
Crawfords would be the ones to suffer. She stated that she felt the City Council likes to pile
houses on top of one another in order to increase the City's tax base.
Council Member Hanus stated that Ms. Vestnik's comments were out of line and asked her how
the Crawfords would suffer in this situation.
6
Mound City Council Minutes, August 22, 2000
Ms. Vertnik stated that they would have this house on top of them and that there was a reason for
setbacks.
Fran Herman, 2537 Westford Lane. Mr. Herman stated that Mr. Stokes built a high quality home
for him and followed all codes.
Deb Ride, Evergreen, stated that mistakes were made in this situation, but everyone would come
out okay in the long run. She stated that she felt Mr. Stokes had shown due diligence.
Jack Shusts, 3644 Kildare, stated that he is a customer and friend of Mr. Stokes. He has observed
that Mr. Stokes has always fixed his mistakes in the past, but does not feel that this was his
mistake.
Bill Bline, 5560 Windsor Road, stated that he is one of Mr. Stokes' customers who had issues
with setbacks and that Mr. Stokes was diligent in making sure the house conformed. He did not
feel Mr. Stokes should suffer for the City's mistakes.
Steve Graud, 6323 Evergreen, stated that Mr. Stokes added drainage and retaining walls in his
neighborhood over and above what the City required. He stated that he is a subcontractor for Mr.
Stokes and feels that he is diligent in applying the rules. He felt that the word of the City official
should be trusted and that the City should do the right thing so that Mr. Stokes would not lose
money. Mr. Graud stated that the house was framed by the standard crew and not slapped
together. He felt that Mr. Stokes is ethical and should be granted the variance.
Mr. Stokes stated that he has not seen an official stop work order to date. He was asked by
Rhonda to voluntarily stop work on a Thursday and he did so through the following Monday
morning until he had spoken with Jon Sutherland who okayed his continuing on the house, but
not the garage.
Mr. Banke confirmed for Council that it was the garage that required the variance and not the
house.
MOTION, by Brown, to direct Staff to prepare a Resolution to approve a variance
with 6-foot setbacks with the understanding that this issue would be reviewed in the
future to prevent further problems. Seconded by Hanus with the following
amendments:
1. Return to Mr. Stokes of the variance fee.
2. Address the drainage issue.
Mound City Council Minutes, August 22. 2000
Discussion:
Council Member Weycker suggested that a privacy fence be added to the west property line. Mr.
Stokes stated that he had no objection to building such a fence and would work with the neighbor
on the location. The City Building Official pointed out that the drainage was already approved at
the 6-foot setback.
Amendment by Weycker:
3. Builder will work with neighbor to install a privacy fence on the west property line.
Brown and Hanus agreed with this amendment.
Mayor Meisel called the question.
AYES: 4. Motion carried.
MOTION, by Hanus, seconded by Brown to direct Staff to allow the builder to
resume construction, but not the landscaping, before the Resolution is passed. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0.
Both Council Members Hanus and Brown stated their apologies to Mr. Stokes and the neighbors
involved for this situation. Mayor Meisel pointed out that Jon Sutherland has not made mistakes
on the hundreds of plans that he has reviewed in the past. She further stated that Mr. Stokes was
not to blame for this problem.
1.11 CASE #00-39: VARIANCE - TODD HOVREN - 4552 DENBIGH ROAD.
The City Planner stated that the Planning Commission reviewed this and felt the house was
already at the setback and that the deck could be located in a different place.
Council Member Hanus stated that he asked for this to be pulled because denials are never on the
Consent Agenda.
Todd Hovren stated that he is applying for a 12x10 deck. He stated that the sliding door was
already in that spot when he bought the house. This would give him an additional entrance and a
more direct access to the basement, which has only an outside entry. He stated that his house is
the only one on the block that does not have a lakeside deck.
Council Member Hanus pointed out that the lakeside does have 3 feet of flat grade before
dropping off, but the survey indicates that the edge of the house is at the top of the steep slope.
Mr. Hovren stated that the deck posts would be about 10 feet high. He stated that he did not
wish to put the deck on the west side because it would then face the garage.
8
Mound City Council Minutes, August 22, 2000
Council Member Hanus stated that the applicant's statement that he would be tearing the house
down in five years makes it harder to grant the variance. He suggested using steps to get the deck
closer to grade or putting a 3 foot walkway on the front of the house with a deck on the side.
Mr. Hovren stated that the point was to have a deck facing the lake but he would be willing to
downsize it to 80 square feet.
Council Member Hanus stated that if the home was in good shape and going to remain, Council
could probably grant this request.
Mr. Howen stated that when he rebuilt, he would be following the setbacks.
Mayor Meisel asked about approving the deck for a limited time. Mr. Hovren was agreeable to
this suggestion.
Council Member Hanus asked whether Mr. Hovren was willing to sign a written agreement
stating the date by which the existing house would be torn down. Council Member Hanus stated
that the current arrangement regarding temporary garages was that an easement was given to the
City allowing it to remove the garage and charge the cost back to the owner on the taxes. Mr.
Hovren stated that this would work for him and that five years would be enough time.
Council Member Weycker stated that she was more in favor of a side/corner location for the deck
as the whole ideas is to protect the bluff.
Mr. Hovren stated that all of his neighbors needed and received variances to build their decks. He
further stated that if he built the deck on the west side, a 40 foot oak tree would need to be
removed.
Council Member Hanus pointed out that the tree would most likely be removed when the new
house was built. Council Member Brown stated that he did not want to see the tree cut down,
and that he liked the idea ora five-year term for taking down the house and proposed deck.
Council Member Hanus stated that type of agreement had never been done before in these
situations. He stated that he had reservations about adding new structures to an old one in such
poor condition.
Council Member Brown pointed out that it might be better to deny this at this point. Council
Member Hanus stated there was still the option of placing the deck on the side with a front
walkway.
Council Member Brown suggested tabling this so that the applicant could work with Staff to find
a better option.
Mound City Council Minutes, August 22, 2000
MOTION, by Brown, seconded by Hanus to table this until applicant can work with
Staffto find a better solution. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
4-0.
1.11 RAYMAR PROPERTIES, INC.
A. ACTION AMENDING RESOLUTION.
The City Attorney stated that an amendment to the Resolution was necessary to item 4 to include
the following: The Building Official will not authorize construction until permits are secured, o_!r
in the reasonable judgment of the Building Official. are likely to be secured prior to the issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy
Mayor Meisel asked whether Raymar had reviewed this change and the City Attorney conformed
that Raymar had reviewed it.
MOTION, by Hanns, seconded by Brown to approve the amendment to the
Resolution. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0.
1.12 DISCUSSION OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT POLICY ISSUES.
Dan Parks, McCombs, Frank Roos Associates, Inc., stated that he and the City Manager had met
with staff from the Watershed District about two weeks ago. The Watershed District feels that
they have a different set of priorities than the City. Currently, the law says that the Watershed can
make the rules including local plans. Mr. Parks feels that the functions and values assessment is
going to be required by the Watershed. He feels that there are 30 to 35 wetlands in Mound and
did try to stress to the Watershed that the City is fully developed.
Mr. Parks stated that he did not want to spend $15,000 to $20,000 of City money on the
functions and values assessment, as he did not feel the report would be useful to the City. Mr.
Parks does feel the Watershed will require this report and will not approve the City's plan without
it. He has received a message from Jack Frost of the Met Council indicating that they may share
the cost of the assessment on a 50/50 basis up to $10,000. At this point, Mr. Parks is not sure if
the Met Council will place any requirements on this money.
Mr. Parks' recommendation is to approve the minimum buffers, prepare the ordinances, and take
responsibility for the Watershed.
The City Manager pointed out that there is value in doing this now because the Watershed is
looking at increasing the buffers. Mr. Parks confirmed this in that the current minimum buffer is
30 feet, but the Watershed is considering increasing that to 50 feet.
Council Member Weycker asked whether conducting the wetland study would allow the City to
determine the size of the buffers. Mr. Parks stated that it would not, but it would allow technical
10
Mound City Council Minutes, August 22, 2000
reasons to be brought out that may allow deviations. He further stated that the Watershed feels
this is an important tool for the City to have.
Council Member Hanus asked how often the assessment would need to be done. Mr. Parks
stated it was a one-time shot and that most of the wetlands in Mound are primarily functioning as
storm ponds. He further stated that the main reason for doing the assessment would be to get the
plan approved. The City Manager added that it would also allow the City to have permitting
authority.
Council Member Hanus asked for confirmation that if the plan was approved with a 30-foot
buffer, the Watershed could not change that. Mr. Parks stated that it was the City Attorney's
opinion that this was true, but that the rules were unclear about what the future Watershed
authority could be.
Council Member Hanus stated that he was concerned about the ambiguous nature of the wetland
definition and how that could affect the lakes. Mr. Parks stated that he did not feel the wetland
definition was ambiguous, and that there has been a move over the last few years to disband the
Watershed.
Council Member Weycker stated that the bottom line in all of this was who would have the future
permitting authority.
Council Member Hanus stated that he agreed that the City should be the permitting authority, but
was concerned about a way to word the document to achieve flexibility in interpretation. He
wondered if the City could use its own language.
Mr. Parks suggested incorporating the word average into the document, for example, stating an
average amount of buffer required. He further suggested that a subcommittee be formed to get
opinions on the issues.
Mayor Meisel stated that she felt that the time was better spent working out the wording on the
buffer. She stated that she did not want to do the study because she did not feel the information
would be used.
Council Member Hanus agreed with this and felt the Watershed should do the study. He further
stated that he felt this was a land taking issue and an unfunded mandate.
Council Member Brown suggested the City could file suit against the Watershed. Council
Member Hanus felt that would be too expensive.
Mayor Meisel suggested looking for other sources to pay for the study. Council Member Hanus
stated that he felt the Watershed should be forced to pay for the study. Mr. Parks stated that the
Watershed is hesitant to pay because of an issue of fairness with the other cities.
11
Mound City Council Minutes, Aueust 22, 2000
Council Member Brown suggested approaching the Watershed with the fact that the City did not
have the money to do this study at this time. Council Member Hanus agreed again stating this
was an unfunded mandate.
Council Member Weycker stated her mind was made up on this issue and that the other Council
Members should participate on a committee to get more information in order to come to a
decision.
Mr. Parks stated that the original intent was to get the plan approved on September 14. The new
option study would take a couple of months and he does not feel the City is in a position to ask
for plan approval now. He suggested the City send a letter to the Watershed stating its inability to
finance the study at this time. The proposed funding from the Met Council along with the need
for money from the Watershed could be the basis for the presentation on September 14. This
would provide the City with feedback on this plan.
Council Member Hanus asked when the need for this study was first brought out by the
Watershed. Mr. Parks stated that he did mention this to Council originally, but it was not the
focus as it was considered a technical issue.
Mr. Parks stated that he did see value in building a wetlands management plan, but he did not
think Mound needed one.
Mayor Meisel proposed that Mr. Parks put together a letter to the Watershed as stated. She
wondered if there were any other ways to lower the cost. Mr. Parks stated that he would get a
dollar commitment from the wetlands expert, but that he thinks the cost would be $15,000.
Mayor Meisel stated that currently that would be $7,500 from the Met Council and $3,500 each
from the Watershed and the City.
Council Member Hanus stated that the Watershed is looking at towns in different stages of
development and is currently addressing the issue of new construction. He questioned whether it
would be beneficial to try to convince them that Mound is fully developed. Mr. Parks stated that
this has been tried.
Council Member Hanus asked when the wording on the buffer would need to be complete. Mr.
Parks stated that he did not want to commit to any wording at the September 14 meeting, but that
Council should begin discussing this and be ready in September.
1.13 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. AMM FAX NEWS
B. LETTER ON WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER FUND DRIVE
12
Mound City Council Minutes, August 22, 2000
WESTONKA HEALTHY COMMUNITY COLLABORTIVE MINUTES:
JUNE 16.
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES: AUGUST 14. 2000.
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT NEWSLETTER:
AUGUST 9.
POLICY REMINDER: WATER SHORTAGES.
ARTICLE: HOW FAIR ARE YOUR ZONING HEARINGS?
OPEN SPACE OPEN HOUSE TALLIES AND COMMENTS.
FINANCIAL REPORTS THROUGH JULY 1. 2000.
POSSIBLE LITIGATION.
Fo
G.
H.
I.
1.14 EXECUTIVE SESSION:
At 10:15 p.m. the City Council moved into executive session.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by , seconded by __., to adjourn the meeting at ~
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0.
p.m. The vote
Kandis Hanson, City Manager
Attest: Mayor Meisel
13
PAYMENT BILLS
DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
BILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
BATCH #
~;0083
AMOUNT
$197,051.69
TOTAL BILLS
$197,051.69
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF HOUND
FNDOR IN'VOICE DUE HOLD
N3. INVOICE NNBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
C'lll 000820 53.7& THRU 0~-20-00
9/12/00 9/12/00 53.?g JRNL-£D
:I[,:TOUCH CELLULAR/BELLEVOE VENDOR TOTAL 53.78
:0190 3413 27,315.10 GRANITE, ETC.
9/12/0'0 9/13/00 27,315.10 JRNL-CD
:LLI~D BLACKTOP CO VENDOR TOTAL 27315.10
:0260 000828 258.42
258.42
:.MERICAN LEGION
~0404 12776
581-6405
9/12/00 9/12/00.
POST ~39~ VENOOR TOTAL 25g.42
....... 25~0'0 iEN~ERvIEk' B~ACH TIP OVER
9/12/00 9/12/00 25.00 JRNL-CD
1309i 134.59 MOUND bAY PORTABLE TOILET
9/12/00 9/12/00 134.59 JRNL-CD
ASPE N--kN~ I-ROi~M EN T AL VENDOR TOTAL 159.59
[<_2A118 ..................... 59.00 .... REKEX .ROLJ CE AREA
9/12/00 9/12/00 59.00 JRNL-CD
STEAKS EE APPRECIATION PARTY
JRNL-CD _
59.00
CARPET CLEANING
JRNL-CD.
~,SSLI.~E~ SECURITY _ VENDOR TOTAL_
~0431 2132 724.20
9/12/00 9/12/00 724.20
:IHENA CARPEI CLEANING VENDOR IOTAL 724.20
:,0475 7~9~1 ..... 83.84
9/12/00 9/12/00 83.84
~VR, INCORPORATED ~ENDOR ~oIAL 83
9/12/00 9/12~00
SHO~T LO/ED CONCRETE
JRNL-CD
i:0549 32450700
9112/00
234.73 BAGS
234.73 JRNL-CD
19599400
1,95g~05_ LIQUOR
9/12/00 1,958.05 JRNL-CD
RELLbOY CORPORATION
50567 176282
9/12/00
COMPANY
VENDOR.TOTAL 2192.7~
33.00 COFFEE
16.50 COFFEE
16.50 COFFEE
66.00 JRNL-CD
66.00
mERRY COFFEE
9/12/00
9/12/00
VENDOR TOTAL
78.02 SOD -
78.02 SOD
156.04 JRNL-CD
~0723. 6957
9/i2/00
ACCULINT NuwBER
01-4140-3220
1010
27-5800-2340
iOlO
01-4020-4100
1010
01-4340-3900
1010
01-4340-3900
1010
01-4320-3~30
1010
01-4320-3800
1010
01-4340-2310
10]0
71-7100-2200
1010
71-7100-9510
1010
01-4020-4120
01-4140-4120
01-4340-4120
1010
73-7300-2300
7~-7800-2300
lO10
PRE-
qP-C02-O1
NO. INVOICE NMBR
P U R C H A S E J 0 U R
CITY OF MOUND
INVoIcE DUE HOLD
DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
N A L
6930 16g.70 SOD
9/12/00 9/12/00 16B.70 JRNL-CD
5ROWN, JIM SOD FARM VENDOR TOTAL 324.74
C085~-D5~ 127.78 MIS 31/2 TON ETC.
9/12/00 9/12/00 127.78 JRNL-CD
'-5~'4~8~ ' ~34.0~' X-~'R-kILTER~ ~ND oil FILTERS
9/12/00 9/12/00 134.09 JRNL-CD
C~-~0 ...... gENOoR To~AL 261.B7
C%9_60 09~810 ....................
9/12/00 9/12/00
3BS.94._.199912DO0.-£BD .........
585.94 JRNL-CD
COAST ............. V.ENDOR _T_O T AL ........ 585._94 ............................
C0970 64817191
............... ~ 212/0~ _~Z12JDD
61332103
........ 9/12/00. 9/~2/00
64828123
..... 9/12/00 9/12/00
259.75 MIX TAXABLE
_259.?~_ _JB_NL~CD
129.20 MIX TAXABLE
129.20_. JRNL-CD ........
181.76 MiX TAXABLE
181.76 JRNL-CD
COCA COLA BOTTLING-MIDWEST VENDOR TOTAL 570.71
C09g~ 00(82~ ................ 113.4~ M~L~AG~' RE'IMB'URSEMENT
191.69 CONFERENCE MN/CERK/FINANCE
iO.7B FILM DEVELOPING
9/12/00 9/12/00 315.90 JRNL-CD
COLLETTE ROBERTS.. VENDOR TOTAL. 315.90 .
000814 650.00 5701 LYNWOOD DRIVEWAY
350.00 LAKEWOOD/BARTLETT LIFT STATION
-- 9/12/00 9/~2/00 1,OOO.O0 JRNL-CD
CRETE WORKS 1NC VENDOR TOTAL 1000.00
[)1172 329736 258.00 HELMET AND FIREWEAR
9/12/00 9/I2/00 258.00 JRNL-CD_
2ANKO
g1200
EMERGENCY E~UIPMENT
100438
~05949
VENDOR TOTAL 258.00
62.40 BEER
9112/00 9/12/00 62.40 JRNL-CD
1,542.40 BEER
9/~2/00 9/12/00 1,542.40 JRNL-CD
15.75
v/12/OO 9/12/00 15.75
MISCELLANEOUS NON-TAXA6LE
JRNL-CU
ACCOUNT NUMBER
?&-7800-231~
1010
01-4340-2200
lulO
01-4340-3810
lOIO
01-4280-4200
iOlO
71-7100-9540
1010
71-7100-9540
1010
71-7100-9540
1010
01-4090-3340
01-4090-4110
01-4140-2200
1010
73-7300-4200
78-7800-5000
lOlO
22-4170-2200
1010
71-7100-9530
1010
71-7100-9530
1010
71-7100-9550
IO1C
PRE-
Al,,
:AGE 3 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R
'~.P-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND
',' 5 ND O-R- .... I NVOI C-E D~E .... HOLD
NO. 1NVO]CF NI. BR DATE DATE STATUS AHOUNT DESCRIPTION
N A L
106692 1,857.64 BEER
9/12/06 9/12/00 1,857.64 JRNL-CD
107463 2,829.05 BEER
.......... 9/12/00 9/12/00 . 2,829,05 JRNL-CD
107474 47.25 MI SCELLANSOUS NON-TAXABLE
......... 9/12/00_ 9/12Z00 _ 47,25 -JRNL-CD
107476 691.20 BEER
............ 9/12/0D_. 9/12/00 - . 691.20- JRNL-CD
]AY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 7045.69
{1420 670410 341.00 BEER KEGS
9/12/00 9/12/00 341.00 JRNL-CD
671512 203.00 BEER
9/12/00 9/12/00 203.00 JRNL-CD
672075 2,510.75 SEER
9/12/00 9/12/00 2,510.75 JRNL-CD
672076 12.i5 MISCELLANEOUS TAXABLE
12.i5 JRNL-CD
675317 7,135.70 BEER
7,135.70 JRNL-CD
675318 75.50 MISCELLANEOUS
9/12/00 9/12/00 75.50 JRNL-CD
9/12/00 9/12/00
9/12/00 9/12/00
3673513
676704
%iD~' bEVERAGE
321.00 BEER
9112100 9112100 321.00 JRNL-CD
74.00 BEER KEGS
9/12/00 9/12/00 74.00 JRNL-CD
VENDOR TOTAL ' 10673.~0 ......
T1450 17576
3,030.00
9/12/00 9/12/00 3,030.00
07-00 TIF_i~2 PRO SERVICES
JRNL-CD
17577
250.00 07-00 LANGDON PROFESSIONAL SER
9112/00 9112/00 250.00 JRNL-CD
17578
125.00 07-00 TRUE VALUE PRO SERVICES
9/12/00 9/12/00 125.00 JRNL-CD
17579
250.00 07-00 AUDITORS RD PRO SERVICES
9/12/00 9112/00 250.00 JRNL-CD
17580
210.00 07-00 METRO PLAINS PRO SERVICE
9/12/00 9/12/00 210.00 JRNL-CD
ACCOUKT NuMbER
71-7100-9630
1010
71-7100-9530
1010
71-7!00-9550
1010
71-7100-9530
1010
71-7100-9530
1010
71-7100-9530
1010
71-7100-9530
lOiO
71-7100-9550
1010
71-7100-9530
1010
71-7100-9550
1010
71-7100-9530
1010
71-7100-0530
1010
55-5880-3100
1010
55-5862-3100
1010
55-5881-3100
1010
55-58~3-3100
1010
55-58~4-3100
1010
PRE
A~
]AGE 4 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L
~o-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND
/ENDoR INVOICE DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NHBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
'-i~551 -' 7,938.75 07'-00 OPEN SPACE PEFERANDUM 01-4020-3100
9/12/00 9/12/00 7,938.75 JRNL-CD iOlO
~HLERS g ASSOCIATES INC VENDOR TOTAL 11803.75
z1550_69056 456.02 GENERAL. MAINTENAN£E 22-4170-2200
' 9/12/00 9/12/00 456.02 JRNL-CD 1010
TIRE._CONTROL EXTINGUISHER VENDOR TOIAL 456.02 .
F1732 14602 260.00 THRU 08-15-00 PRO SERVICES 55-5861-3100
9/!2/00_ 9/12/00 _. 260.00 JRNL-CD .... lOlO
FUTRELL FIRE CONSULT &DE¢ VENDOR TOTAL 260.00
31750 404553 12.76 08-15-00 MATS 01-4280-2250
i2.76 08-15-00 MATS 73-7300-2250
........................................................ ~2.7.6__..~8~0~.~A~S ............ 7~-7800-2250
23.36 08-15-00 UNFORHS 01-4280-2240
23.36 08-15-00 UNFORMS 73-7300-2240
· 2~.36 .... 08~.i5~_O~_.~FDR~S ..................... 78-7800-2240
9/12/00 9/12/00 108.36 JRNL-CD 1010
...... 409~28 ......................... 29.58 _08m22~g£ HATS
9/i2/00 9/12/00 29.58 JRNL-CD
22-4i70-2230
1010
...... 35.65_ 08-22~O0_.KATS ............ 01-4340-2230
_____4.0.9127 . .. ~i2/00 9712/00 35.65 JRNL-CD 1010
.___ ~0~1.29 .......... 20.65__ 08-22-0_0 HATS ............ 9/i2/00 9/12/00 20.65 JRNL-CD
71-7100-4210
1010
__ _31~66~ .......
9/12/00 9/~2/~
96.29._.0~r29.00 HATS 01-~320-4210
98.29 JRNL-CD 1010
S &_K SERVICES .. VENDOR TOTAL . 292.53
SiB90 000831-A 34.43 08-00 ~ATER 01-4020-2200
34.42 .... Q~..OO..WAT~ ......... 01-4140-4100
.... 9/12/00. 9/i2/00 68.85 JRNL-CD 1010
O00B31-B 20.90 08~00. WATER .... 01-4320-2200
9/12/00 9/12/00 20.90 JRNL-CD 1010
...... 900831-C
9/12/00 9112/00
6.93_ O~tOD..~AT£R ...... 01-4280-2200
2.84 08-00 wATER 73-7300-2200
2.83 08-00 ~ATER 7~-7800-2200
12.60 JRNL-CD 1010
GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD VENDOR TOTAL
G1'972 2~'5~08
9/12/00 9/12/00
102.35
595.03 ~INE 71-7100-9520
595.03 JRNL-CD 1010
255494
730.00 ~ZN£ 71-7100-o520
730.00 J°NL-CD 101¢
PRE-
AM
PAGE 5 P U
AP-C02-01
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS
AMOUNT
256206 1,009.93
9/12/00 9/12/00 1,009.93
258354 470.05
9/12/00 9/12/00 470.05
259025 1,170.99
9/12/00 9/12/00 1,170.99
261260 507.94
..... 9/.i2/00 9_/12/00 507.94
261201 955.93
........ 9!12/00 9/!2/00 . 95~.93
262095 59.90
.................. 9/12/00__ 9~12Z0.0 ...... 59.90_
SRIGGS COOPER & COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 5499.77
R C H A S E JO
CITY OF HOUND
DESCRIPTION
LINUOR
JRNL-CD
WINE
JRNL-CD
LICUOR
JRNL-CD
WINE
JRNL-CD
LIQUOR
JRNL-CD _
WINE
.JRNL-CD
01977 000819-A 974.97 THRU 08-19-00
9/12/00 9/12/00 974.97 JRNL-CD
' ' 0008~9-B- .........................
U R N A L
............ 9 i~/-b 0-' -9/12/66 ..... i,078.58
..... oopsl9-C
9/12/00 9/12/00
......................000819-D 2~87--~H~O ~o-8-~9~'0-0 -~ARYLE~'T PUMP ST
9112/00
~ T E MINNESOTA
H2120 000831
302.0i THRU 08-i9-00 TELEPHONE SERVIC
364.56 THRU 08-19-00 TELEPHONE SERVIC
412.01_.T~RU 0_6-19~00 TELEPHONE SERVIC
JRNL-CD
~ENNEP I N - ~UN T ¥
H2135 20077030
ACCOUNT NuMbER
71-7100-9510
1010
71-7100-9520
1UiO
71-7100-9510
lOlO
71-7100-9520
lOlO
71-7100-9510
1010
71-7100-9520
1010
01-4320-3220
lO10
01-4280-3220
73-7300-3220
78-7800-3220
1010
849.22 TH~U_OSrl9~O0 REGULATED SERVIC 01-4140-3220
61.98 THRU 08-19-00 SELECT SERVICES 01-4140-3220
911.20 JRNL-CD 1010
73-7300-3220
29.86 ]HRU 08-19-00 BARTLETT PUMP ST 78-7800-3220
9/12/.00. _ . 59.73_ JRNL-CD . _ 1010
VENDOR TOTAL 3024.48
- 53~80 - FORFEITURE FUND 01-2300-0223
9/12/00 9/12/00 53.30 JRNL-CD !010
ATTORNEY ~ VENDOR TOTAL - 53.80
35.00 07-00 NcT¢ORK CHARGES 01-~095-3800
-- 9/1~/00 9/12/00 35.00 JRNL-CD 1010
~ENNEPlN CTY. INFO TECH VENDOR TOTAL 35.00
q2140 000829 317.i6 07-00 BOOK FEE 01-4140-4250
~ 9/12/00 9/i2/00 317.i6 JRNL-CD 1010
HENN CO SHERIFFS DEPI VENDOR TOTAL 317.16
H2i60 '06~'~35 ...... 2,473.7~ 07-00 ROOM AND BOARD' 01-4110-4250
~/i2/00 9/12/00 2,473.75 JRNL-CD 1010
PAGE 6 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L
AP-CO2-01 CITY OF HOUND
'¢ E-NDoR INVOICE DO-~ HOLD
NO. INVOICE NNSR DATE DATE STATUS ANOUNT DESCRIPTION
qENN CO TREASURER VERDOR TOTAL 2473.75
H~2~-~00494/50217 - ' 52.06 STUDS FOR GARBAGE CANS
9/12/00 9/!2/00 52.06 JRNL-CD
H0'~'~'-~E-~T/G~CF " VENDOR TOTAL- ' 52~0-~ ..........................
9/12/oo' ~/'12/oo
297~5.0_~ 08,1~00 J3PJJ 09-LO-DO COPIER
297.50 JRNL-CD
9/12/00 9/I2/00
.99.79_. O.8~24-J).O___T}JRU 09-24-00. COPIER
99.79 JRNL-CD
I~O]3_O_E[!.~E._SOLUTIONS . VENDOR TOTAL .... 3~7.29
I2400 5761
37.41 REPLACE REAR HEAT Y'S
9/12~00_..9/i2/00 ......... ]?~41.__JRNL~_CD ..........................
5791 454.50 REPLACE RADIATOR
.......... ~!~/00___9/I2!00 ............ 4.5~.50 .... JRNL-_CJ)
ISLAND PARK SKELLY VENDOR TOTAL 491.91
J24g0 000828 80.97 CLOTHING ALLOWANCE
9/12/00 9/12/00 80.97 JRNL-CD
JA~ES FAcK~ER ..... VENDOR-'TOTAL 80.97
J2579 1150234 132.50. LIQUOR
9/12/00 9/12/00 132.50 JRNL-CD
1150235 83.85 . WINE _ .
9/12/00 9/i2/00 83.85 JRNL-CD
1~502~ ~89.~0 wINE
9)i2/00 9/I2/00 ' 289.50 JRNL-C'D '
1150237 88.95 LI@UOR
9/12/00 9/12/00 88.95 JRNL-CD
1150238 1,037.80 WINE.
9/12/00 9/1~/00 1,037.80 JRNL-CD
1150~47 57.90 WINE
9/12/00 9/12/00 57.90 JRNL-CD
1084774-A lO0.O0 LIQUOR
9/12/00 9/12/00 100.00 JRNL-CD
11~2893_ 557.65~ LIQUOR .....
9/12/00 9/12/00 557.65 JRNL-CD
1152894 2,217.85 WINE
9/12/00 9/12/00 2,217.85 JRNL-CD
ACCOUNT NUMBER
01-4280-3750
1010
01-4320-3800
1010
01-4140-2140
1010
22-4170-3820
1010
22-4170-3820
1010
01-4340-2240
1010
71-7100-9510
1010
71-7100-9520
1010
71-7100-9520
lOlO
71-7100-9510
1010
71-7100-952o
1010
71-7100-952o
1010
71-7100-9510
1010
71-7100-9510
1010
71-7100-9520
lO10
PRE-
A~
~AGE ?
AP-C02-O1
NO. INVOICE
i155615
INVOICE DUE HOLD
NMBR DAlE DATE STATUS
9112100 9/12/00
1155616
9/12/00 9/12/00
1155617
9/12/00 9/12/00
JbH~56;--sROTHERs LIQUOR ~ENDdR TOTA[
PURCHASE JO
CITY OF MOUND
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
267.25 WINE
267.25 JRNL-CD
417.24 LIOUOR
417.24 JRNL-CD
1,2g2.80 WINE
1,282.80 JRNL-CD
6533.29
URN
A L
ACCuUNT NUMBER
71-7100-9520
1010
71-7100-9510
1010
71-7100-9520
1010
J2610_ 000831
97.50 EE APPRECIATION PARTY
35.88 OPEN HOUSE REFERANDUM
....... 21.48__ DREN HOUSE.RE.FERANDUM.
9.98 BUDGET MEETING
9/12/00 9/12/00 166.41 JRNL-CD
JUBILEE FOODS VENDOR TOTAL 166.41
1.57...FINANCE CHARGE
22-4170-410o
01-4020-4100
01-4020-4100
01-4020-4100
01-4020-4120
1010
9/12/00 9/12/00
36.00 OZ.OD..BAiL£Y..%S_LIT¥ ....
36.00 JRNL-CD
01-4110-3100
1010
..... ~A~17~ ............................................. 60.09___ QZ-_O_O._SCHOO~_D}S~i£!.DEVELOP
9/12/00 9/12/00 60.00 JRNL-CD
55-5884-3100
1010
34117-C ................. 246.00 _O%-OQ_5_T]~E][I_~ACA.TiDi. N.MORTON
9/12/00 9/12/00 246.00 JRNL-CD
01-4280-3100
1010
.... 34117-D _
1,880.[0 ..... 07~00 COMMUNITY_CENTER BOND
1,880.70 JRNL-CD
55-5884-3100
1010
~ 4_i_~ 7_-_ E i, 482.39_ __]ZT~ 00 Z F,.EC U31 V£ ..........
9/12/66--9/~'~/0~ ..... 1,482.30 JRNL-CD
01-4110-3100
1010
34117-F 1,583..20 _OZrO0 ADMINISTRATIVE
9/lJiO0 9/12/00 1,583.20 JRNL-CD
01-4110-3100
1010
9112100 9112/00 48.00
_ O!rDO_PUBLiC SAFETY
JRNL-CD
01-4110-3100
1010
34117-H 360.00 .07-OP PUBLIC_WORKS _ 01-4280-3100
' 9/12/00 9/12/00 36U.00 JRNL-CD lOlO
34!17-! 529.00 07-O0.~LANIN~ _AND ZONING 01-4190-3100
......... 9/12/00 9/1~/~0' 52~.00 JRNL-CD 1010
<ENNEDY g GRAVEN VENDOR TOTAL 6224.20
L2812 000814 5,000.00 WIRE NEN' CONTROL LIFE STATION 7~-7800-5000
9/12/00 9/12/00 5,000.00 JRNL-CD iOlO
LANOUX ELECTRIC VENDOR TOTAL 5000.00
L29'~6 01~4~4 ..... 12.26 RIDER PLATE, ETC
9/12/00 9/12/00 12.26 JRNL-CD
01-42~0-2300
1010
PRE
A
~AG~- F
AP-C02-01
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF HOUND
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NHBR DATE DAVE STATUS
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
LUNG LAKE POWER E@UIPMENT VENDOR TOTAL
L2930 5-296960
9/12/00 9/i2/00
5~9}o02
9112/oo 9/12/oo
5-297393
9/12/00 9/i2/00
12.26
79.92 BRAKE SHOES, ETC
79.92 JRNL-CD
190.91 BRAKE DRUM, ETC
190.9I JRNL-CD
17.33 BULB
17.33 JRNL-CD
5-297864 145.10 CALIPER,DISK PAD SET, ETC
9/12/00 9/12/00 145.10 JRNL-CD
5-298458 98.61 ROIAR DISK PAD SET
9/12/00 9/12/00 98.6i JRNL-CD
5-296465 16.62 CLR LIGHT
9/12/00 9/12/00 16.62 JRNL-CD
5-297933 34.86 WIRE BLUE SOLENDID
9/12/00 9/12/00 34.86 JRNL-CD
5-209691
9/12/00 9/12/00 59.22 JRNL-CD
5-297034 3.56 MINI LAMP
9/12/00 9/12/00 3.56 JRNL-CD
5-298463 150.03 OIL, PAD, ETC
9/12/0U 9/I2/~0 150.03 JRNL-CD
5~297031
9/12/00 9/12/00
188.5i MINI LAMPS
188.51 JRNL-CD
' ~-~EEL'S-'kOTOHOTIVE/ZITCO,:: vEnDoR TOTAL'
984.67
.,30lb 7965
9/12100 9112/00
115.50 05-03-0~ DELIVERY CHARGE
115.50 JRNL-CD
i3.30 08-07-00 DELIVERY CHARGE
13.30 JRNL-CD
110.60 08-10-00 DELIVERY CHARGE
110.60 JRNL-CD
7979
9112/00 9112/00
80UO
9/12100 9/12/00
8015
9/12100 9/12/00
22.40 06-14-00 DELIVERY CHARGE
22.40 JRNL-CD
HARLIN'S TRUCK1NO
VENDOR TOTAL
261.80
M3025_000908
9/12/00 9/12/00
701.00 NLC CONFERENCE ADVANCE
701.00 JRNL-CD
MARK HANUS
TOTAL
701.00
ACCOUNT ~UMBER
01-4140-3810
1010
01-4140-3B10
1010
01-4140-3810
1010
01-4190-3810
1010
01-4140-3810
1010
01-4140-3810
1010
'22-4170-3820
IOlC
22-4170-3820
lOlO
22-4170-3820
1010
22-4170-3520
1010
22-4170-3820
1010
71-7100-9600
1010
71-7100-9600
1010
71-7100-9600
1010
71-7100-9o00
lOlO
01-4020-4110
1010
PRE'
O,~GE 9
AP-C02-O1
NO. INVOICE
~3030 187470
187471
187472
NHdR DATE
P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N
CITY OF MOUND
DUE HOLD
DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
9112100 9/12/00
9/12/00 9/12/00
...... 911210.0_ 9/i2/00
190043
9/i2/00 9/12/00
~ARK VII DISTRIBUTOR VENDOR TOTAL
1,839.85 BEER
1,839.85 JRNL,C_D ....
39.25 BEER
39.25 JRNL-CD
92.00 BEER
92.00 JRNL-CD
3,430.60 BEER
3,430.60 JRNL-CD _
5401.70
5171_.o0o81~ ............................ 1,.660.oo ._O7~QO BUILDING .INSPECTIONS
9/12/00 9/12/00 1,660.00 JRNL-CD
A L
P_W~S~_!_IJSPECTI_O]4 SER$_VENDOR TOTAL ._ . 1660.~0
~33~6 000930 4,195.00 07-01-00 THRU 09-30-00
............ 9/i2/00 _9/12/00 _ _. 4,1~5.0Q JRNL,CD ..........
Mt, DEPT OF HEALTH VENDOR TOTAL 4195.00
~3350 2000330 127.80 DOME LIDS
9/12/00 9/I2/00 127.&0 JRNL-CD
MN P[~Y~ROUND INC VENDdR 'TOTAL' ~2~:'~'0 .............
ACCOUNT NUMBER
71-7100-9530
1010
71-7100-9530
1010
71-7100-9530
lOIO
71-7100-9530
1010
01-4040-4120
1010
01-4040-4130
1010
01-4190-3100
1010
73-3590-0000
1010
0i-4340-375~
1010
~3~50 000831 26.90. FORFEITURE FUND 01-2300-0223
9/12/00 9/12/00 26.90 JRNL-CD 1010
~INNESOTA, STATE OF
~3470 51983
VALLEY IESIING
~3500 000930'
VENDOR. TOTAL 26.90
MF-NATER 10 TESTS
9112/00
72.50 COLIFOR?
9/12/00 72.50 JRNL.CD
MOUND FIRE RELIEF
N3740 TI-0053264
LABORATO VENDOR TOTAL
9/12/00 9/12/00
ASSN VENDOR TOTAL
9/12/00 9/12/00
72.50
8,484'~17 "0~00 FIR[ PELiEF
8,484.17 JRNL-CD
8484.i7
17.58 NO OUTLET SIGN
17.58 JPNL-CD
73-7300-4215
1010
95-9500-1400
10!0
01-42~0-2360
1010
',~-C32-01
,'ENDOR
NO. INVOICE NMBR
SIGNS
33~70 102024876-00
PURCHASE
CITY OF MOUND
INVOICE DUE HOLD
DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
VENDbR TOTAL 17.5~
9112700 9/12/00
VENDOR TOTAL
b~FIC~_DEPOT..
:'3945 115532
......... 9/12/00 9/12/00
~ AND L AUTOMOTIVE, INC. VENDOR TOTAL
JOURNAL
172.84 . OFFICE SUPPLIES
172.84 JRNL-CD
172.84
372.75 BED LINER SPRAY ON
372.75_ JRNL-£D ..................
372.75
~3956 000395161 18.Bg 08-14-00 THRU 09-13-00
9/12/00 9/12/00 18.89 JRNL-CD
2AGE~T OF H~-N~ESOTA ' - ' VE~DbR TOTAL - ~8-:~ .............................
~39~9~_13~.0 ............................ &,~40~.O.O__W.LNE ...........................
9/12/00 9/12/00 1,040.00 JRNL-CD
P6~S~Ii,~_.~,~NS WiNE _COHBAN_VENDOR_TO_TAL IOAO.OA .......
:'3995 5790-02 646.24 MOUND @&A LAYOUT AND DESIGN
............... 9/12~00 9/12/00 .... 646.2~ .... JBNLr£D ....................
GRAPHIC ART DESIGN VENDOR TOTAL 646.24
639023
639024
b41226
1,661.40 LIQUOR
9/12/00 9/12/00 1,661.40 JRNL-CD
203.30 ~INE
9/12/00 9/i2/00 203.30 JRNL-CD
125.00 MISCELLANEOUS NoN TA~ABLE
9112/00 9112/00
9/12/00 9/12/00
9/12/00 9/12/00
9/12/00 9/12/00
')HILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS, ~ VENDOR TOTAL
n4038 33834
34077
9112100 9/12/00
9/i2/00 9112/00
9/12/00 9/12/00
34078
125.00 JRNL-CD
625.45 JRNL-CD
90.60 MI-X NON'~AXAiLE
90.00 JRNL-CD
89.85 WINE
89.85 JRNL-CD
2795.00
i,i34.18 CIGARETTES
1,134.i8 JRNL-CD
794.99. CIGARETTES .
794.99 JRNL-CD
31.95 MISCELLANEOUS TAXABLE
31.95 JRNL-CD
ACCOUNT NUNBER
22-4170-2100
1010
01-4340-5000
1010
01-4140-3950
1010
71-7100-9530
1010
55-5880-3100
1010
71-7100-9510
lO]O
7i-7Z00-9520
1010
71-7100-9550
lOlO
71-7100-9510
1010
71-7100-9540
1010
71-7100-9520
1010
71-7100-9550
1010
71-7100-9550
1010
71-7100-9550
1010
PRE-
AM
11
AP-C02-O]
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR
kg. INVOICE
~4370'
34371
INVOICE
DATE
9/12/00
9/12/00
DuE HOLD
DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NJHBER
' 105.00_ CIGARS' 71-7100-9550
9/12/00 105.00 JRNL-CD 1010
880.46 CIGARETTES 71-7100-9550
9/12/00 880.46 JRNL-CD 1010
2946.58
~]NNAC~E DiSTrIBUTING VENDO~ TOTAL
]417~1__ 867~439-00
9/12/00 9/12/00
22.33 ~I% ..........
22.33 JRNL-CD
867455-00 5,709.46 _ LIQUOR
'~)12/0§ 9/1~-/0~ ..... 5,709.46 JRNL-CD
868149-00 1,046.5~_
9/12/00 9/i2/00 1,046.54
WINE ..................
JRNL-CD
.......................... 1,~56.7_3 ..... L I ~U_O.R .....................
9/12/00 9/12/00 1,356.73 JRNL-CD
.... _8_ 6 9~91_3 ._- 0 q ........................... 27 - O.Q_ ~ I_S C E L.L.~A N_E 0 U S NON-T_A_XABLE _.
9/12/00 9/12/00 27.00 JRNL-CD
.... 8_6~99_9_32.-- 0_0_ ................................ S ,_2.6 k~5 8__.L LQ__U_O. R .......................
9/2_2/00 9/~2/00 5,261.48 JRNL-CD
9/12/00 9/12/00 1,535.59 JRNL-CD
872267-00
....... 47.5_~ _~!~CELL_ANE~ .........
9/12/00 9/12/00 47.50 JRNL-CD
872288-00
9/12/00 9/12/00
3,902.41 . LI@UOE ..........
3,902.41 JRNL-CD
..... ~8~2~420-00 ............. 548.Q~ . W!.NE
9/12/00 9/12/00 548.0~ JRNL-CD
872765-00 &2.7_3__L!~O~___
9/&2/00 9/12/00 82.73 JRNL-CD
gUALITY WINE & SPIEtTS
VENDOR __T. OT A L _ 19_532.7_{~
R4199 000823
;/12/00 9/12/00
75.00 REPAIR SOCKET BY ELEVATOR
75.00 _~JR NL.-C.D~ ............
71-7100-9540
1010
71-72.00-9510
1010
71-7100-9520
1010
72.-7100-9510
1010
71-7100-9550
1010
71-7100-9510
1010
71-7100-9520
1010
71-7100-9550
1010
71-7100-9510
1010
71-7100-9520
1010
71-7100-9510
1010
01-A320-3~30
1010
6502 148.37 REPAIR UNIT #25 01-4280-3810
9/12/00 9/12/00 148.37 JRNL-CD 1010
OB-O0 TRASH SERVICE
JRNL-CD
:~.C. ELECTRIC, INC. VENDOR TOTAL 223.37
~42~i~i5 - i06.52
9/i2/00 9/12/00 i06.52
RANDY'5 SANITATION '- -~ENDOR T'OTAL-'- lO~,52
01-4320-3750
1010
PA&E 12
AP-C02-O1
VENDOR
NO. I~;VO]CE
ROADRUNNER ~RANSPROTATION~ VENDOR TOTAL
INVOICE DUE HOLD
NMBR DATE DATE STATUS
9/i2/00 9/i2/00
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
AMOU¢-;T DESCRIPTION
23.A5 07-3:1-00 DELIVERY SERVICE
23.45 JRNL-CD
23.45
RA290 7268_5_ ....... 130.84 ICE
9/12/00 9/12/00 130.84 JRNL-CD
._ 7294~
9/12/00
..... 145.04 ICE_ _
9/~'2/00 145.04 JRNL-CD
__ Z~53i ............ 120.10 _ 1CE ............
9/12/00 9/12/00 120.10 JRNL-CD
..... 73~11 .............................. 138.62___ICE .................
9/12/00 9/12/00 i38.62 JRNL-CD
.... _7~4_323 ..................................... 160.90 ICE
9/12/00 9/12/00 160.90 JRNL-CD
.................................... lO D~.76__ ICE ............................
9/12/00 9/12/00 100.76 JRNL-CD
RON'S .ICE_£OMPANY ..... VENDOR TOTAL _ _ 796.26
54345 000821 39B.i2 TUITION CRIMINAL JUSTICE CLASS
............ 9/12/00.___9/12_/00 .... 398.I~._.JRNL-CD ........
SAM NELSON VENDOR TOTAL
S4349 02017933
9/12/00 9/Z2/00
o2~?~2o
9/~/00 9/~2/00
sCH&-~R -& SUNS vENDoR-TOTA~'
398.i2
i33.22 BLADE AND THERMOSTAT
Z33.22 JRNL-CD
1.46 GASKET
1.46 JRNL-CD
i34.68
sA~:1_29o78
9/12/00 9/12/00
319.50 EVERGREEN BY WSATEET.OWER
319.50 JRNL-CD
2908
9/i2/00 9/12/00
319.50 RIDGE~OOD PARK DEAD TREE
319.50 JRNL-CD
2925
9/12/00 9/12/00
372.75 5..917 RiDGEWOOD RD REMOVE TREE
372.75 JRNL-CD
2929
9/i2/00 9/12)00
5~.25__. RIDGEWOOD_?ARK £HIPRED STUMP
53.25 JRNL-CD
SHOREWOOD. IREE SERVICE
VENDOR.TOTAL_
)065.00
54427- 000810
9/I2/00 9/12/00
16,689.11 1999 MN TRAILS
16,689.i1 JRNL-CD
'--,OdT.~WLST TRAIL ASS,:)CII, T!O v£14pr~P TOTAL
ACCOUNT NUMBER
55-5880-3100
71-7:100-9550
10:10
71-7~00-9550
i0:10
71-7100-9550
1010
71-?100-95S0
1010
?1-7100-9~50
1010
71-7100-9550
1010
01-4140-4110
1010
01-4340-3820
1010
01-4340-3820
1010
0i-4340-5110
1010
01-4340-5110
1010
01-4340-5110
1010
01-4340-5110
1010
01-2300-0000
lOlO
PAGE 13
AP-C02-01
VEND-OR- ..... INVOICE' DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS
54430 62113
9/12/00 9112100
SOS PRINTING
.... 7~9 s66
STAR-WEST CHEV/OLDS
VENDOR TOTAL
9/12/00 9/12/00
9/12/00 9/12/00
..... VENDO~--iOTAL
54600 177412-1
9/12/00 9/12/00
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUNO
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
153.76 PROPERTY CONTPOL CARD, WIRE
153.75 JRNL-CD_
i53.76
107.19 REPAIR A~TO
107.19 JRNL-CD
' 16.00 -PIN ASM-S
16.00 JRNL-CD
123.19
2,.279.90 .K,9 E~UIPMENI _ . -
2,279.90 JRNL-CD
.... _1~3_185rl ................... 255.28 ~669 BOOKING_FiLH
9/12/00 9/12/00 255.28 JRNL-CD
3~RE.ICHER'S .......... VENDOR TOTAL ._ 2535.18
49.14 CARLISLE RIB, ETC
S4610 135857
...................... ~ ~.12_/_0~__9_~12 / Q.~ .......... 49.14 __JRNLrCD
54630 000821 958.77 THRU 08-31-00 GASOLINE CHARGES
302.82 IHRU 06-31-00 GASOLINE CHARGES
211.12 THRU 08r31-O0 GASOLINE CHARGES
605.66 THRU 08-31-00 GASOLINE CHARGES
9/i2/00 9/i2/00 2,078.57 JRNL-CD
SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC VENDOR TOTAL 2078.57
54631 000821 1,004.38 THRU 08-21-00 GASOLINE CHARGES
9/12)00 9/12/00 1,004.38 JRNL-£D
ACCOUNT NUMBER
01-4140-2100
1010
01-4280-3810
1010
73-7300-3810
1010
01-4140-2100
1010
01-4140-2100
lOlO
01-4340-3820
1010
01-4280-2210
73-7300-2210
76-7800-2210
01-4340-2210
1010
01-4140-2210
1010
SPEEDWAY SUPERAHERICA LLC VENDOR TOTAL
54632 000820
~/12/00 9/12/00
SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC VENDOR TOTAL
%4645 5i~1
9712/00 9/12/00
5~46
9/12/00 9/12/00
SWEEPER SERVICES - - VENDOR TOTAL
1004.38 ..........
403.55 THRU 08-20-00 GASOLINE CHARGES 22-4170-2210
403.55 JRNL-CD ..... 1010
403.55
374.72 REPAIR STREET SWEEPER 01-4280-3810
374.72 JRNL-CD 1010
394.81 REPAIR STREET SWEEPER 01-4280-3810
394.61 JRNL-CD 1010
769:'53
T47~_0__18_5 ....................... ll.2~...ACCURACY_~EST PUBLICATION
9/12/00 9/12/00 11.24 JPNL-CD
0~-4060-3510
i010
PAGE IL
AP-C 02-01
V E N ~ -6-R
NO. INVOI£E NM~R
167
214
PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND
INVoIcE D-UE HOLD .......
DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
37.45 CUP 100 ROBIN LANE 01-2300-1106
9/12/00 9/12/00 37.4S JRNL-CD 1010
37.45 PubLIC .EJ~N~ 10~°0 ~6~N ~A~E 01-2300-110~
9/i2/00 9/12/00 37.45 JRNC-CD iOlO
THE LAKER
VENDOR ToTA~ ..... 86.i~ ...............
T477.9_~23393
272.00... ~EER KEGS
272.00 JRNL-CD
7L-7100-9530
lOlO
173~.3~ ..... _ 344..0Q BE.E~_KEG~ ................ 71-7100-9530
9/12/00 9/12/00 344.00 JRNL-CD 1010
203111 ........... !2.10_ MISCELLANEOUS_IAXA~LE_ .
9/12/00 9/12/00 12.10 JRNL-CD
_~,62.2.10 .... ~E_E8 ............................
7,622.10 JRNL-CD
2o31k2 .......................
9/12/00 9/12/00
203117 ..................................... }_~_.9~__B__E_E_R~ .............
9/12/00 9/12/00 316.00 JRNL-CD
............................. 6~_021.O_5__BE.E~ ............................
9/12/00 9/12/00 6,023.05 JRNL-CD
203835
71-7100-9550
1010
71-7100-9530
1010
71-7100-9530
1010
71-7100-9530
1010
........... 2A.ZO__M[SCELL.ANEOUS_~AXABLE __ 71-7100-9550
9/12/00 9/12/00 24.20 JRNL-CD lOlO
14613.45
TH__O~P_E~DIS]I'RIBU. TING COMPAN VENDOR TOTAL
T4801 00025 700.00 SUMMER 2000 CITY CONTACT 01-4020-310C
9/12/00 9/12/00 700.00 JRNLrCD 1010
TIM ~USSE VENDOR TOTAL 700.00
T480~ 12909-A 317.75 08-0~-00 COUNCIL HRA MEETING
9/12/00 9/12/00 317.75 JPNL-CD
12909-B 112.00 08LIO-O0 POSC HEET]NG
9/12/00 9/12/00 112.00 JRNL-CD
12909-C 167.75 08'14-00 ~LANNING COM~ MEETING
?/i2/00 9/12/00 167.75 JRNL-CD
126.88 08-17~0 DCAC MEETING
9/12/00 9/12/00 126.88 JRNL-CD
1293!-A
12931-B 281.38 08-22-00 COUNCIL HRA MEETING
9/12/00 9/12/00 281.38 JRNL-CD
TIME SAVER OFF SITE SECRE* VENDOR TOTAL 1005.76
T4869 000807 45.50 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
9112/00 9112/00 45.50 JRNL-CD
01-4020-4200
1010
01-4340-4200
1010
01-4190-4200
lOlO
81-4350-4200
1010
01-4020-4200
lOiO
22-4170-4110
1010
~AGE 1S
AP-C02-01
vENDOR
NO. INVOICE NMBR
TONY MYERS
P U R C H A S E J O U R N
CITY OF MOUND
INVoicE DUE HOLD
DATE DATE STATUS At". OU NT DESCRIPTION
' VENDOR TOTAL 45.50
A L
T4940 19126
2,112.45 REPAIR MOTOR iN LIFT STATION
V/12/O0 9/12/00 2,112.45 JRNL-CD
ACCOUNT N UT`', g, E R
78-7800-4200
1010
19136 95.85. DAiLER BATTERY 75-7800-2310
9/12/00 9/~2~00 95.a5 JRNL-CD 1010
TRi-STATE PUMp & CONTROL I VENDOR TOTAL _ 2208.30.
ELECTRICAL MOTOR
JRNL-CD ....
SAND BOLTS, ETC
J R NL-CD
T4951 066651 129.00
9/12/06 9/12/00 _ 129.00
066266 21.00
9/12/00_ 9/12/00 21.00
TRUE VALUE VENDOR TOTAL 150.00
T~-~-~O~5 ............ 147.92 09-00 ELEVATOR SERVI~E'
9/12/00 9/12/00 147.92 JRNL-CD
~ ~ S S E ~-L ~G-~ Q ~ i ~ ~- E ~-E ~-~ ~N gO~ -~ O~A ~- ~47~2
;5 _2j. 7~17-0 ...................... 100.8S .... CAR]RID.GES EOR~RINTER.
9/12/0o 9/~2/o0 10o.55 JRNL-CD
.... 2 _6~7_516 - 0 .............. 17.30 _EIJ..E _ BOX _~_
9/12/00 9/12/00 17.30 JRNL-CD
TWIN CITY OFFICE SUPPLY CO VENDOR TOTAL . . 11B.18
U5030 6621044 2,488.54
9/12100 9/12/00 2,456.54
9/12/00_ 9/12/00
MISCSELLANEOUS ITEMS
JRNL-CD .....
6522120
dS FILTER
V5242 9045
VENDOR TOTAL
9/12/00 9112100
VENDOR TOTAL
236.93 FLOW GUAGE
_ 235.93__JRNL~£D
v I ~=F-U A-L-P~O-NE I NC"
~/12/00 9/12)00
2727.47
64.1~ JRNL-CD
64.18
uS49Z 000930
5UILDING MAINT. VENDOR TOTAL
9/12/00 9/12/00
1,107.o0_ 0~-00 CLEANING
97.27 09-00 CLEANING
97.27 09-00 CLEANING
97.27_ 09-00 _CLEANING
1,399.41 JRNL-CD
wEST METRO
W5630 3517
VENDOR TOTAL
1399.41
632.50 07-16-00 WATER~AIN BREAK
632.50 JRNL-CD
~ I D~ ER INC
632.50
7~-7800-2300
1010
01-4320-2300
1010
01-4320-4200
1010
01-4140-2200
lO10
01-4060-2200
1010
73-7300-2300
1010
73-7300-2310
1010
01-4340-3220
1010
01-4320-4210
01-4280-4200
73-7300-4200
78-7800-4200
1010
73-7300-3B00
iOlO
PRE-
Al'
DA6E 16
AP-C02-OI
VENDOR
NO. INVOICE
NMBR
ZSg53 541097312
iNvOIcE DUE
DATE DATE
9/12/00 9/12/00
ZEE .EDICAL SERVICE COMPAN VENDOR TOTAL
~6,_4 i9908
9/12/00 9/Z2/00
,MINNESOTA MANDATORY VENDOR TOTAL
PURCHASE
CITY OF MOUND
HOLD
STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
2S.93 EMERGENCY KIT
25.93 JRNL-CD
25.93
55.25 POSTER5
55.25 JRNL-CD
55~25
JOURNAL
ACCOUNT NUMBER
01-4340-2200
1010
22-4170-410U
lOlU
Z671~ 00081? .... 399.03 WINDSHIEgD DAMAGE 01-4340-3610
9/12/00 9/i2/00 3~9.03 JRNL-CD 1010
DETERS, LAVONNE . VENDOR.TOTAL 399.
Z6717 000807 10.00 REFUND 01-3251-0000
............................................... 1,.O00~60_.~EFUND_f$CAON ..... 01-2300-1104
250.00 REFUND CONDITIONAL USE PERHIT 01-3510-0000
9/12/00 9/12/00 1,260.00 JRNL-CD 1010
PLATZER, DWAYNE VENDOR TOTAL 1260.00
Zb7%8._pO~.20 ...................................... 21.60._REFUND_ ....................
21.60 JRNL-CD
. 21.60 ..............
100.00 REFUND VARIANCE
iO0.O0...JRNL-CD
i00.00
9/12/00 9/12/00
FITZGERALD. JOHN ...... VENDOR TOTAL
20719 000901
...... 9/12/00 9/12/00_
,'Eb~k, MARSHALL VENDOR TOTAL
79-3895-0000
1010
01-2300-1105
10!0
PRE-
Al'
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS
UNPAID WATER AND SEWER BILLS;
UNPAID TREE REMOVEL BILL;
INPAID GARBAGE REMOVAL BILL.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin
County, Minnesota will meet in the City Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30
P.M. on October 10, 2000, to hear, consider and pass on all written and oral objections, if any,
to the proposed assessments on the following parcels of land for:
UNPAID WATER AND SEWER BILLS: AMOUNT TO BE SPREAD OVER 1
YEAR
PROPERTY
IDENTIFICATION #
AMOUNT
12-117-24-43-0037 121.68
12-117-24-43-0038 93.13
13-117-24-12-0128 229.31
13-117-24-21-0092 215.16
13-117-24 21 0026 268.13
13-117-24-24-0014 119.83
13-117-24 12 0052 200.57
13-117-24 12 0042 224.46
13-117-24-13-0003 151.91
12-117-24-43-0004 330.71
12-117-24-43-0019 176.72
13-117-24-13-0009 97.37
12-117-24-43-0001 240.71
13-117-24 12 0009 368.46
13-117-24 12-0014 280.83
13-117-24-11-0061 537.21
13-117-24-11-0054 193.84
13-117-24-12-0231 333.34
13-117-24-14-0037 139.06
13-117-24 11 0056 239.85
13-117-24-14 0029 625.89
13-117-24-14-0029 326.55
13-117-24-14-0030 123.60
13-117-24 11-0060 138.25
13-117-24-12-0097
13-117-24-12-0096
13-117-24-11-0076
13-117-24-11-0003
18-117-23-23-0062
18-117-23 23 0004
18-117-23 23 0012
18-117-23-23-0034
13-117-24-11-0122
13-117-24 11 0120
13-117-24 11 0039
13-117-24-12-0075
13-117-24-12-0072
14-117-24 42 0082
14-117-24-42-0010
14-117-24-14-0043
14-117-24-14-0032
14-117-24-13-0004
14-117-24 42 O110
14-117-24-41-0038
14-117-24-42 O117
14-117-24-42-0077
14-117-24-42-0016
14-117-24 42 0028
14-117-24-42-0030
14-117-24-42-0035
14-117-24 42 0042
14-117-24-43 0029
14-117-24-31-0020
14-117-24 31 0031
14-117-24 32 0032
14-117-24 34 0041
14-117-24-34-0038
14-117-24-34-0015
14-117-24 44 0032
14-117-24 44 0031
14-117-24 42 0023
14-117-24-34-0005
13-117-24-32-0044
13-117-24-32-0057
13-117-24-32-0170
13-117-24-32-0066
13-117-24-31-0077
13-117-24-34-0004
13-117-24 32 0106
13-117-24 32 0116
13-117-24-32-0115
97.37
212.81
389.52
102.41
174.69
422.46
474.71
340.34
470.09
146.97
170.13
387.59
1155.08
540.34
414.96
452.83
165.22
372.21
659.22
150.05
487.09
140.78
551.84
644.96
254.09
416.21
838.47
152.78
1651.96
209.90
179.46
430.24
285.97
424.47
253.97
516.37
475.84
416.56
387.71
356.84
114.49
354.01
560.51
283.09
369.34
100.37
254.97
13-117-24-32-0154
13-117-24-32-0155
13-117-24 31 0052
13-117-24-31-0044
13-117-24-31-0068
13-117-24-34-0014
13-117-24 43 0072
13-117-24-43-0063
13-117-24 43 0086
13-117-24-43-0089
24-117-24 12 0055
24-117-24 12 0056
13-117-24-43 0090
24-117-24 12 0053
13-117-24-41-0048
13-117-24 -41-0053
13-117-24 41 0042
13-117-24-41-0055
13-117-24-41-0057
13-117-24-41 0012
13-117-24-43-0118
13-117-24 42 0017
13-117-24-43 0122
13-117-24 41 0031
13-117-24-44 0095
13-117-24-44 0035
13-117-24-44-0007
24-117-24 21 0010
24-117-24-23-0024
23-117-24-13-0012
23-117-24-42-0005
22-117-24-43-0010
23-117-24-41-0018
23-117-24-41-0021
23-117-24-44-0007
23-117-24-44-0008
23-117-24-43-0003
23-117-24 42 0083
23-117-24 42 0020
23-117-24-42-0045
23-117-24-31-0012
23-117-24 43 0008
23-117-24 34 0086
23-117-24-34-0036
23-117-24 31 0037
23-117-24 34 0090
23-117-24 31 0041
159.09
184.81
299.47
316.99
387.46
263.56
136.77
306.96
692.46
605.21
417.84
201.68
355.74
210.53
347.77
185.40
227.81
291.13
168.99
677.78
385.74
296.89
430.03
145.15
421.59
134.87
164.91
120.43
300.52
539.64
425.72
316.32
332.65
355.72
367.72
389.37
159.53
289.28
415.71
410.80
376.99
485.34
181.00
400.37
278.06
310.65
214.12
23-117-24-34-0102
23-117-24 24 0013
23-117-24-23-0110
23-117-24 24 0008
23-117-24 31 0054
23-117-24 34 0065
23-117-24-34-0062
23-117-24-34-0061
23-117-24 23 0001
23-117-24-32-0025
23-117-24-33-0027
22-117-24-44-0005
23-117-24 23 0095
23-117-24 32 0043
23-117-24 32 0050
22-117-24-43-0007
23-117-24 31 0066
23-117-24-32-0064
23-117-24 32 0063
23-117-24 23 0109
23-117-24 13 0071
23-117-24 13 0046
13-117-24-32 0143
24-117-24-22-0028
24-117-24-21-0005
13-117-24-34-0098
13 - 117-24 -34-0098
13-117-24-34-0098
13-117-24 34 0098
13-117-24 43 0022
13-117-24 43 0025
13-117-24 44 0037
24-117-24 13 0009
24-117-24 12 0020
13-117-24-43-0004
19-117-23 23 0124
19-117-23 23 0135
19-117-23 23 0082
19-117-23 23 0004
19-117-23-24-0022
19-117-23-24-0033
19-117-23-31-0138
19-117-23 31 0027
19-117-23-32-0015
19-117-23-23-0064
19-117-23 32 0159
19-117-23-23-0108
493.21
334.04
371.21
328.22
475.99
542.41
160.81
171.67
165.59
137.81
694.34
145.31
1146.83
347.96
430.81
149.44
334.78
141.97
404.34
386.63
1506.28
136.72
313.40
194.35
504.86
530.07
372.46
292.75
497.21
272.84
173.00
191.34
1544.84
520.09
461.45
515.11
281.44
528.18
648.90
378.02
127.50
331.68
444.15
336.06
1567.59
173.57
1567.71
4
24-I 17-24-41-0064
24-117-24-41-0066
24-117-24 14 0044
19-117-23 -24-0023
19-117-23 24 0024
19-117-23-24-0095
19-117-23 32 0033
19-117-23-32-0031
19-117-23-32-0216
24-117-24-41-0063
24-117-24 41 0042
24-117-24 41 0087
24-117-24 41 0032
19-117-23-31-0107
19-117-23-32-0101
19-117-23 -32-0204
19 - 117-23 -31-0096
19-117-23 31 0062
19-117-23 32 0076
19-117-23 32 0082
19-117-23 32 0086
19-117-23-32-0110
24-117-24 41 0162
19-117-23 31 0128
19-117-23-34-0024/0025
19-117-23-34-0100
19-117-23-34-0063
19-117-23-34-0064
19-117-23-33 0172
19-117-23 33 0026
19-117-23-33-0020
19-117-23-33-0051
25-117-24 11 0133
24-117-24 43 0079
24-117-24-43-0047
19-117-23-33-0208
19-117-23 33 0196
19-117-23-33-0108
19-117-23-32-0210
24-117-24-44-0022
24-117-24-44-0021
19-117-23-34-0122
19-117-23 34 0044
19-117-23-34-0049
19-117-23 33 0010
19-117-23 33 0235
19-117-23 33 0075
5
172.81
160.44
248.78
201.gl
557.59
275.18
531.78
274.84
142.56
446.94
384.53
564.64
536.15
149.09
178.37
1638.21
605.46
576.15
519.08
398.77
191.51
329.90
496.93
556.71
260.81
217.40
347.09
1900.96
372.15
434.43
136.72
465.97
405.99
304.18
421.52
222.65
299.05
236.41
632.93
131.19
422.78
367.74
609.52
269.86
466.02
385.64
144.98
19-117-23-33-0055
19-117-23 33 0129
19-117-23-33-0161
24-117-24-44-0181
24-117-24-44-0041
24-117-24 44 0187
24-117-24 44 0035
24-117-24 44 0061
24-117-24-44-0176
24-117-24-44-0111
24-117-24 44 0182
24-117-24 44 0188
24-117-24-44-0202
24-117-24 44 0073
24-117-24-44-0211
24-117-24-44-0027
24-117-24-44-0234
24-117-24 41 0160
24-117-24-41-0017
24-117-24-41-0177
24-117-24-41-01 O0
24-117-24-41-0168
24-117-24 41 0070
24-117-24 41 0084
24-117-24-41-0102
24-117-24 42 0007
24-117-24 44 0166
24-117-24-43-0015
24-117-24 44 0171
24-117-24 41 0175
24-117-24 43 0091
25-117-24 12-0125
25-117-24 12 0230
25-117-24-12-0113
25-117-24 21 0035
24-117-24-21-0025
19-117-23-33-0033
30-117-23 22 0034
30-117-23 22 0036
24-117-24-43-0097
25-117-24 12 0244
25-117-24-12-0200
25-117-24-11-0070
30-117-23-21-0001
30-117-23 21 0007
30-117-32-22-0078
25-117-24 11 0035
418.74
726.27
171.58
132.59
901.84
337.15
789.31
495.80
358.78
1639.97
575.03
353.02
247.10
453.65
273.18
555.53
209.93
159.06
394.25
301.98
734.73
269.60
307.56
500.15
533.07
1248.59
202.14
233.31
321.26
353.43
210.25
214.60
355.75
160.44
388.13
148.52
564.52
478.53
336.64
129.25
326.15
552.65
1020.84
452.77
470.50
169.37
353.56
6
25-117-24 I1 0043
25-117-24 11 0115
24-117-24-34-0009
25-117-24-12-0134
25-117-24-21 0007
25-117-24 21 0080
19-117-23-21-0043
19-117-23 23 0142
13-117-24 32 0091
13-117-24 32 0094
13-117-24 33 0073
14-117-24-44-0038
13-117-24-33-0047
13-117-24 33 0057
13-117-24 33 0005
13-117-24 33 0014
13-117-24-34-0022
403.98
360.41
188.30
471.14
518.90
1552.83
244.56
219.57
1706.58
816.37
344.43
706.26
385.40
270.95
1784.66
290.99
583.61
UNPAID TREE REMOVAL BILL: AMOUNT TO BE SPREAD OVER 1 YEAR
13-117-24 32 0095 394.05
UNPAID DRIVEWAY APRON BILL: AMOUNT TO BE SPREAD OVER 1 YEAR
23-117-24 32 0064 324.00
23-117-24 32 0040 288.00
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.011 to 429.110, all property lying within the above
described limits and benefiting therefrom is proposed to be assessed. The proposed assessment
is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's office. Written or oral objections will be
considered at the hearing, but the Council may consider any objections to the amount of the
proposed individual assessments at an adjourned meeting upon such further notice to the affected
property owners as it deems advisable.
An owner may appeal an assessment to District Court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk of the City-within 30 days
after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the District Court within ten days
after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk.
No such appeal as to the amount of an assessment as to a specific parcel of land may be made
unless the owner has either filed a signed written objection to that assessment with the City
Clerk prior to the hearing or has presented the written objection to the presiding officer at the
hearing.
The City Council has adopted, pursuant to the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes 435.193
to 435.195, a resolution (//89-77) containing standards and guidelines for deferring the
7
assessments for senior citizens four.whom it would be a hardship to make ~e payments on
homestead property. The standards and guidelines are on file with the City Clerk for your
inspection. '
Francene C. Clark, City Clerk
Publish in The Laker September 25, 2000.
CITY OF MOUND
NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT:
CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE - 1999-2000
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin
County, Minnesota will meet in the City Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Rd., at 7:30 P.M.
on October 10, 2000, to hear, consider and pass on all written and oral objections, if any, to the
proposed assessment. The general nature of the improvements to be assessed are as follows:
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING MAINTENANCE - 1999-2000 - Area
within the following boundaries proposed to be assessed:
Belmont Lane on the East
Lynwood Boulevard to the North
700 feet West of Commerce Boulevard
700 feet South of Shoreline Drive
Total Cost to be Assessed
$1,248.01
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.011 to 429.110, all property lying within the above
described limits and benefiting therefrom is proposed to be assessed. The proposed assessment
is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's office. Written or oral objections will be
considered at the hearing, but the Council may consider any objections to the amount of the
proposed individual assessments at an adjourned meeting upon such further notice to the affected
property owners as it deems advisable.
An owner may appeal an assessment to District Court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk of the City within 30 days
after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the District Court within ten days
after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk.
No such appeal as to the amount of an assessment as to a specific parcel of land may be made
unless the owner has either filed a signed written objection to that assessment with the City
Clerk prior to the hearing or has presented the written objection to the presiding officer at the
hearing.
Francene C. Clark, City Clerk
Publish in The Laker September 25, 2000.
RESOLUTION # 00-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDMSION TO CREATE ONE
ADDITIONAL LOT FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6301 LYNWOOD BLVD,
LOT 1, BLOCK 11, MOUND TERRACE,
P & Z CASE # 00-41
WHEREAS, Jennie Carlson Baltutis, the applicant, has submitted a request for a minor
subdivision to create a lot from the existing parcel; and,
WltEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Zoning District
6,000 square feet lot area, 20 feet front yard setbacks, and 10 feet side yard lots
of record. The existing patcel has over one acre of lot area; and,
WI-IEREAS, the ~roposed parcel meets all zoning code for non lots of
record in the R-1 Zoning Dt~ct; and,
WItEREAS, the rema~ng portion of the existing parcel split would conform to
the standards of the R-1 Zoning I~strict but would change in to a non lot of record; and,
WltEREAS, the Planning (h~mmission has ' the request and recommended
approval of the minor subdivision as f~,commended by s >nditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
Minnesota as follows:
by the City Council of the City of Mound,
The City does hereby grant a subdivision of the property pursuant to Section
330:20, Subdivision 1 .B with owing conditions:
a. A new survey be indic\ting the proposed fight-of-way along Robin
Road. The recordin the minor sS{bdivision will also need to be coordinated
with the Langdofl/~ project to ensut~ both plans reflect the same fight-of-way
areas. / ~
b. Water and se%er service locations be apl~oved by the City Engineer. This could
include necessary escrow monies if needed to allow future connections to
services in Robin Lane and/or Lynwood Blvd.
c. Final grading, drainage and erosion contro~ plan be approved by the City
Engineer prior to release of an approved resolut~n.
d. Provide utility and drainage easements consi~ent with the City Engineer's
recommendation. ~
e. Include any other recommendations of the City [ngineer's August 10, 2000
report and Public Works report. .. . . ~
f. Park dedication fee of $500 be paid atthe time at th~time of building permit
application. ~
This Minor Subdivision is granted for the following new legally ~,~cribed property:
The property owner shall have the res~ty of filing this resoluffon and
easements with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording.
RESOLUTION # 00-~'C)
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDMSION TO CREATE ONE
ADDITIONAL LOT FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6301 LYNWOOD BLVD,
LOT 1, BLOCK 11, MOUND TERRACE,
P & Z CASE # 00-41
WHEREAS, Jennie Carlson Baltutis, the applicant, has submitted a request for a minor
subdivision to create a lot fi.om the existing parcel; and,
WI-W~REAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Zoning District that requires a
10,000 square feet lot area, 30 feet front yard setbacks, and 10 feet side yard setbacks for non lots
of record. The existing parcel has over one acre of lot area; and,
WglEREAS, the proposed parcel meets all zoning code requirements for non lots of
record in the R-1 Zoning District; and,
WHEREAS, the remaining portion of the existing parcel being split would conform to
the standards of the R-1 Zoning District but would change in status to a non lot of record; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended
approval of the minor subdivision as recommended by staff with conditions.
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:
a. A new survey be submitted indicating the proposed right-of-way along Robin
Road. The recording of the minor subdivision will also need to be coordinated
with the Langdon Bay project to ensure both plans reflect the same right-of-way
areas.
b. Water and sewer service locations be approved by the City Engineer. This could
include necessary escrow monies if needed to allow future connections to
services in Robin Lane and/or Lynwood Blvd.
c. Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan be approved by the City
Engineer prior to release of an approved resolution.
d. Provide utility and drainage easements consistent with the City Engineer's
recommendation.
e. Include any other recommendations of the City Engineer's August 10, 2000
report and Public Works report.
f. Park dedication fee of $500 be paid at the time at the time of building permit
application.
2. This Minor Subdivision is granted for the following new legally described property:
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution and
easements with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording.
DRAFT
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, AUGUST 14, 2000
Those present: Acting Chair Bill Voss; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Jerry Clappsaddle,
Cklair Hasse, and Frank Weiland. Absent and excused: Commissioners Becky Gligter,
Bob Brown, Geoff Michael, and Michael Mueller; Staff present: City Planner Loren
Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Recording Secretary Diana Mestad.
The following public were present: Jennie Carlson Baltutis, 4845 l0th Ave S,
Minneapolis; Gerald D Babb, 2169 Birch Drive; Jim Crawford, 5224 Waterbury Road;
Dennis Hildebrandt 5229 Waterbury Road; Todd Hovron, 4552 Denbigh Road; Stephen
L. Vertnik, 5217 Windsor Road; Phil Mitchson, 2232 Westedge Blvd.; Nicholas Espiritu,
5413 Church Road; Thomas Stul, 5201 Waterbury Road; Randy Beyrets, 5200
Waterbury Road; Betsy Alwin, 1000 Robin Lane; Rex Alwin 1000 Robin Lane; Milt
Hentges, 6400 County Road 15; Debra Vertnik, 5217 Windsor Road.
1.1
CASE #00-41: MINOR SUBDIVISION JENNIE CARLSON BALTUTIS.
6301 LYNWOOD BLVI), LOT 1, BLOCK 11, MOUND TERRACE, PID#14-
117-23 33 0002.
The City Planner showed a survey of the property involved. He stated that the lot split is
just over one acre in size and meets lot width minimums. In reference to the location of
the water service, Lynwood is being resurfaced and Staff feels the County will not allow
it to be dug up. Staff suggestion is to tie into Robin Lane when that service goes in.
Clapsaddle asked if the county could withhold the tap on Lynwood. The City Planner
stated that the City Engineer thought that the County would not do it. Clapsaddle pointed
out that if it were the only option, the County would have to allow the hookup.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the minor
subdivision as requested with the following conditions:
1. A new survey be submitted indicating the proposed right-of-way along Robin
Road. The recording of the minor subdivision will also need to be coordinated
with the Langdon Bay project to ensure both plans reflect the same right-of-way
areas.
2. Water and sewer service locations be approved by the City Engineer. This could
include necessary escrow monies if needed to allow future connections to services
in Robin Lane and/or Lynwood Blvd.
3. Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan be approved by the City Engineer
prior to release of an approved resolution.
4. Provide utility and drainage easements consistent with the City Engineer's
recommendation.
5. Include any other recommendations of the City Engineer's and Public Works
reports.
DRAFT
6. Park dedication fee of $500 be paid at the time at the time of building permit
application.
Weiland asked for more verbiage on number 2 on page 20 and stated that theoretically
this distance would be 20 feet. The City Planner stated this would need to be done after
the legal description is completed.
Clapsaddle stated that the language contained in number 5 on page 20 was too loose. The
City Planner stated that the date of the City Building Official's letter could be referenced.
Voss asked in reference to No. 2 on page 18, who determines necessary escrow monies.
The City Planner stated that Staff, specifically the City Engineer, would determine the
amount.
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland, to approve Staff
recommendation. Motion carried. 4-0.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
nth
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: August 14, 2000
SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision
OWNER: Donald Carlson
CASE NUMBER: 00-41
I-IKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5
LOCATION: 6301 Lynwood Blvd.
ZONING: Residential District R-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant, Jennie Carlson Baltutis, has requested a minor subdivision to
split property for a buildable homesite. The existing parcel is owned by Donald Carlson and
contains about 5.1 acres. The proposal is to split off lot 1 of the parcel for a homesite for the Rex
Alwin house that would be moved. The lot is just over an acre in size and meets all R-1 District
minimums. Proposed access is from Robin Lane that would be improved with the pending
Langdon Bay project.
As shown on the survey, the Robin Lane right-of-way is 30 feet. The Landon Bay development
plans show a 50 feet right-of-way as an entry to the development. At present, a purchase
agreement between R.H. Development and Don Carlson is in place to secure an additional 10
feet of right-of-way fi-om the property. An updated survey should be provided to staff for review
to reflect the purchase agreement and Langdon Bay development plans. A reduction of about
1500 square feet of lot area would result, but would not appear to impact zoning district
minimums or proposed building locations.
Water and sewer service connections are proposed at Lynwood Blvd. A County road resurfacing
project is currently underway. Additionally, if the Langdon Bay project moves forward as
expected, a new 10" waterline will be installed on the south side of Lynwood Blvd. It seems
unnecessary to connect to the existing main if a future main would be installed. A more
reasonable approach may be to connect to future services in Robin Lane.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838
p. 2
gO0-41 Minor Subdivision-6301 Ljmwood Blvd.
August 14, 2000
RECOlVlMENI)ATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approve the minor subdivision as requested with the following conditions:
1. A new survey be submitted indicating the proposed fight-of-way along Robin Road. The
recording of the minor subdivision will also need to be coordinated with the Langdon
Bay project to ensure both plans reflect the same fight-of-way areas.
2. Water and sewer service locations be approved by the City Engineer. This could include
necessary escrow monies if needed to allow future connections to services in Robin Lane
and/or Lynwood Blvd.
3. Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan be approved by the City Engineer prior
to release of an approved resolution.
4. Provide utility and drainage easements consistent with the City Engineer's
recommendation.
5. Include any other recommendations of the City Engineer's and Public Works reports.
6. Park dedication fee of $500 be paid at the time at the time of building permit application.
123 North Third Sl~eet, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
10, 2000 12'22PM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS
No. 9775--P, 2/3
Eng~eering · Planning o Surveying
RECEIVED
AUG i~'~ 2t~[~
Iv!,0UND PLANNING & INSP.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 10, 2000
Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning
John Cameron, City Engineer
City of Mound
Minor Subdivision - Carlson Property
Case #00-41
MFKA #12982
Th.c survey submitted with the application shows a proposed location for the dwelling to be
moved omo Lot 1. Addition grading information will need to be provided before the permit
can be issued, including the proposed grades for the new street construction within Robin
Lane.
It is our understanding that the developers of Langdon Bay have negotiated with the
Carlson's for an additional 10 feet of street right-of-way along the west side of Robin La.nc.
This should be reflected in any approval for this minor subdivision.
The original plat of Mound Terrace did not include any drainage and utility easements along
lot lines. Therefore, :drainage and utility easements should be provided along ail new lot
lines. On the east side, adjacent to Robin Lane, the easements would be in addition to the 10
feet of additional ri~t-of-way provided for Robin Lane.
The City's utility records do not show either sanitary sewer or a water service for lot 1. The
survey indicates the new services are to be connected to the City mains in Lynwood
Boulevard (County Road 15). This is the only sanitary sewer main available to this lot,
15050 23r# Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447
phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532
e-mail: mfra~mfra, com
Au¢, 10, 2000 12:23PM MCCOMB$ FRAN~i ROOS No. g775--P, 3/3'
Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning
August 10, 2000
Page 2
however the development of Langdon Bay will include construction of a new watermain in
Robin Lane. This house should be connected to the new watermain if at all possible, however
if the sequencing requires water prior to the new main being constructed, a new service could
be installed from the main in County Road 15 a.s shown. This service should be larger than
the standard ! inch diameter required by City Code because of the length and lower pressures
in this area of town. The sewer service will require a minimum of two cleanouts, also due to
the length. All work within the right-of-way will require a utility permit from Hennepin
County Public Works, which could be a problem since the City watermain is under the
bituminous of which the County is presently overlaying with a new mat.
The original sanitary sewer and watermain assessment records should be checked for any
deficient charges.
Recommendations
Final grading and drainage plan to be approved by the City Engineer a! time of building
permit application.
Provide drainage and utility easements along all new lot lines, five feet wide on side lot lines
~nd ten feet in width along the street side and rear lot lines.
The new sanitary sewer and water service either be installed or some type of financial
~arantee provided, such ~s cash escrow or performance bond. If at all possible the new
water service shall be connected to the new watermain in Robin Lane. Applicant is
responsible for obtcining permits form Hennepin County.
4. Any deficient sanitary sewer or watennain charge shall be paid.
s:L,'nain :',mou 12 9i~2~orrcspondenc e~u ther] andS. 9
Commission Date:
Coundl Date:
RECEIVED
dOUN[! PLANNINU & INSP.
Case No.
Application for
MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND
City of Mound, 53~ Maywood Road, Mound, MN
Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620
~-;Pff ~'i: ! ?~. '~' :":": Application Fee: $75.00
Distribution:
.C":- City Planner .-::i .~':- DNR
~ Public Works -Other ....
.-~P- City Engineer -~f
Escrow Deposit:
Deficient Unit Charges?
Delinquent Taxes?
$1.000
VARIANCE REQUIRED?
Please type or print the following information:
INFORMATION
EXISTING Lot I Block J i Plat#
ZONING
DISTRICT
APPLICANT
OWNER
(if other than
applicant)
Circle: ~._~' R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3
·
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, condrdonal 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~e~d b~rs of ~he subject proper/y, or an exp/anation g/yen why ~his is not ~he case.
Description of Proposed Use:
EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity,
including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate
or eliminate the impacts. ~.)~'~ i l
applicable, a development sche~ule shall~e
reasonable guarantees
attached to this
providing
application
for the completion of the proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project:
$
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for
this property?. ( ) yes,~ no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide
copies of resolutions.
This application must be signed by all owners of the subject properb/, or an explanation given why this is not
the case.
rint Applicant's Name Applicants sigl~u~e~ /'3
Print Owner's ,N, am. , ~2~w-ne~ ~a~re' /,,/~. /~/~ ~Date
,. ." -,i 111 . ~
Print OWner's Name Owner's Sighature Date
Rev. 10-26-99
L o t
~io
i
2
i i
CII'Y t)F MOUND · ZONING INFORMATION $tlEET
SURVEY, ON FILE? Y~E'~' I NO
LOT OERECORD? YES / NO
YARD .' [
IIOUSR .........
FRONT
FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
REAR
TOP OF BLUFF
DIRE(.'TION
NS E W
N S E W
NS E W
N S E W
N $ E W
N SEW
RiA
R2
R2
R3
REQUIRIH)
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
xo,ooo/eo] ~z '~,soo/o
e,00o14o Ba 20,000/e0
e.ooo/lo Ba xo.ooo/eo
14,000/80.
SEE ORD. Il 30,000/100
EXISTING/PROPOSED
I0' OR 30'
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
LoT WID'IH:
LO'I' DUP i'll:
VARIANCE
'1
GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACIIED BUll.DINGS
FRONT N S E W
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S E W
SIDE N S E W
REAR N $ E W
LAKE N S E W
TOP OF BLUFF
4' OR 6*
4' OR 6'
4'
~0'
10' OR
"ARmOrER 3o~ oR
CONrORMINC;? YES ! NO I ? lB'r: JO^TED:
I
I
.m....____P_lannil~ i_)epnttmcn! al 472-0600,
Thi.~ 7xmtn$ Infmmation Sheet only summarizes # pottio, of d~e tequiremen~ ~tli~ tn ~ City of Mou~ Zoulng Otdi~. For luther info~ation, con.ct ~ City of Mou~
...... " ';-, ..... "' ~ _ "- ' '' I
o ,., ~~ .... -.' '.... .... ~.: ~ .... ~-~ ~.
~ ~ ' ' ', L-".' ~ ~/ ~' L..--"~
, / / ,.
· ~ , ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~" '~ .
. .
~ . ~ ~ ~~ ," /~ ,
O ~ ~ / % ..
4
(5)
to
$
(4)
SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION
QUASI PUBLIC FUNCTION - PORTABLE SIGN
City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600 FAX: 472-0620
Portable signs used for the purpose of directing the public used in conjunction with a
governmental unit or quasi-public functions. The period of use shall not exceed ten
(1 O) consecutive days and requires approval of the City Council. Signs shall be placed
on the premises of the advertised event, and/or on such other premises as approved
by the City Council when granting the permit. A permit is required, however is
exempt from all fees.
ADDRESS OF SIGN LOCATION ~ 385
(If more than one, please list on separate sheet of paper)
NAME OF APPLICANT~i/IR ~ ~
APPLICANT' S ADDRESS
NUMBER OF SIGNS:
TYPE OF SIGN:
SIZE OF SIGN:
DATES OF USE:
~banner wall mount
temporary permanent
~ feet high x ~ feet wide =
free standing ~-~Z~/L~
/~ square feet
DESCRIBE REASON/PURPOSE FOR REQUEST:
DESCRIBE S[G~ (messeGe~ ~a[e=[a[s, ~ [~ illuminated, e~c.):
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON:
SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION
City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600 FAX: 472-0620
ADDRESS OF SIGN LOCATION
BUILDING OWNER /
(if other than owner)
SIGN CONTRACTOR /
ZONE
PHONE
PHONE
PHONE
(if more than one wall sign is
PLEASE INDICATE NUMBER OF SIGNS APPLYING FOR:
being requested, see back):
TYPE OF SIGN: wall mount free standing/Jemporary-- __.permanent
SIZE OF SIGN REQUESTED: ~ ft highxj ft wide = J /%~ J sg ft
SEASONAL SIGN: DATES TO BE EREC?ED: FROM 9/ / / ~b TO 9/ / ~/00
FREE STANDING: HOW HIGH WILL SIGN BE FROM GROUND LEVEL TO THE TOP? V(~
~ ~,:~ ~. '6' '
WALL SIGN: WALL AREA: ft high x ft wide = sq ft
NUMBER OF EXISTING WALL SIGNS:
LIST SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EACH EXISTING SIGN:
TOTAL SQ. FT. OF ALL EXISTING WALL SIGNS: sq ft
PERCENTAGE OF WALL AREA COVERED BY SIGNS: percent
DESCRIBE SIGN (message, materials, is it illuminated, etc.):
Oer-
A~icant's Signature ' Date
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Comments/Conditions:
RECEIVED BY & DATE:
APPROVED BY PLANNER:
APPROVED BY BUILDING OFFICIAL:
*A*
LOCATIONS OF-A- FRAME SIGNS:
-by Depot
-by Super America
-by Crow River Bank
-by vacant lot across from PDC~
-by Our Lady of the Lake Church
OVER-STREET SIGN/BANNER:
-across #1 I0 by Highland Blvd.
*B*
As in the previous several year, we will have a gin held up by a
crane, owned and operated by Mr. Bernie Hanson of Rocket
Crane Service. The crane is mounted on a truck (about the
same size as a garbage truck), and the boom can be raised
anywhere from 30 feet to I IO feet. The truck will be
positioned in an enclosed area, by our pastor's garage. The
only access is from Commerce Blvd. The truck will be locked,
and will be secure. If inclement weather- such as high winds
or storms - appear, the boom will be lowered. We would like
the truck here to advertise to the passer-by that a festival and
carnival are happening around the back of our property. It will
be put up on Friday, Sept. ].Sth, and taken down on Sunday,
Sept. 17th. if there are any questions about the crane, Mr.
Hanson of 3555 Tuxedo Rd. in Mound would be glad to
answer them. I can also assist with any other questions you
may have.
Rhonda M. Eurich
Administrator
Our Lady of the Lake Church
952.472.12~4
below:
(1) DESCRIBE TYPE OF SIGN (message, materials, etc.):
SIZE OF SIGN: high x wide = sq. ft.
WALL AREA: high x wide = sq. ft.
comments:
(2) DESCRIBE TYPE OF SIGN (message, materials, etc.):
SIZE OF SIGN: high x wide = sq. ft.
WALL AREA: high x wide = sq. ft.
comments:
(3) DESCRIBE TYPE OF SIGN (message, materials, etc.):
SIZE OF SIGN: high x wide = sq. ft.
WALL AREA: high x wide = sq. ft.
comments:
(4) DESCRIBE TYPE OF SIGN (message, materials, etc.):
SIZE OF SIGN: high x wide = sq. ft.
WALL AREA: high x wide = sq. ft.
comments:
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
NUMBER OF EXISTING WALL SIGNS:
TOTAL SQ. FT. OF EXISTING SIGNS:
TOTAL SQ. FT. OF NEW SIGNS:
ALLOWABLE SIGNAGE: 10% / 15% x wall area @ sq ft = sq ft
TOTAL SQ. FT. OF EXISTING SIGNS + NEW SIGNS = sq ft
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAY/NOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1667
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
August 3, 2000
Memorandum
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Park & Open Space Advisory Co~m~ssio~
Jim Fackler, Park Director ( \A /
Swenson Park Play Structure. ~-~
A petition has been received for support of the replacement
of the play structure at Swenson Park.
To update you on this matter the 2001 Capital Outlay
requests were submitted by staff on June 26, 2000. In this
first draft the C/O the POSAC has requested $30,000.00 to be
designated for Swenson Park.
We currently have a plan for a play structure that was
looked at in preparation for the 2000 budget. I will bring
this to the POSAC meeting on August 10, 2000.
cc: Kandis Hanson, City Manager
~ p~'inted on recycled paper
FA
To.'
Kandis Hanson
City of Mound
From:
Date:
Brace Chamberlain
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
123 North 3ra Street, Suite 100
Minneapolis, MN 55401
voice: 612.338.0800
fax: 612.338.6838
Livable Communities application
September 11, 2000
Kandis,
This resolution needs to be approved by the Council and submitted with our application
by September 22.
Bruce
ATTACHMENT E
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY OF , MINNESOTA
AUTHORIZING APPLICATION
FOR THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS the City of is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's Housing
Incentives Program for 1999 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible to make
application for funds under the Livable Communities Demonstration Account; and
WHEREAS the City has identified a proposed project within the City that meets the Demonstration Account's
purpose/s and criteria; and
WHEREAS the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project
administration; and
WHEREAS The City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract
agreements; and
WHEREAS the City Council of , Minnesota agrees to act as legal sponsor for the project
contained in the Demonstration Account application submitted on ,1999;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to apply to the Metropolitan Council
for this funding on behalf of the City of and to execute such agreements as are necessary
to implement the project on behalf of the applicant.
Mayor Clerk
V:~LIBRARY~COMMUNDV~LCA2000\Icda application ABC2OOO. doc
Company:
Attention:
Fax #:
From:
Date:
No. of pages
Anderberg-Lund Printing Company
FAX COVER SHEET
including cover sheet:
If you have not received all the pages, please contact us immediately.
Member of PIM
\
6999 Oxford Street, St. Louis Parle, MN 55426
612-920-9720 · FAX: 612-920-I 10_3 · !-800-231-9777
e-mail: sales(~nderberglund.com · prepress@anderberglund.com
JULY 2000
We, the neighbors of Swenson Park, located on Island Park
in Mound Minnesota are requesting that the playground equipment
be upgraded to minimumly match if not exceed due to the size of
the park, that of other upgraded parks througout Mound. Please
give this request serious consideration. Thank you.
NAME ADDRESS
ii. :; i
- -, ,_ c.,:,.:~.. ~ ~-..,,.. ........
1) .,.i ,,,,
!
2) -~ .:.
"-._~._ :" ,,~_~ ';_. ..... .,~ \--? '-: F ' ~
....... .... . . .~,~, , -~ r. . .L
PHONE
~2)
13)
..... :._.:~, ........... :.;~__..~:+.:.. ................... ~ ...... : ...................................
'. . .. I, ~ ~-. · ,. :~ ' i. ' ~ ~t '
N.MM E, . / ADDRESS PHONE
29)
30)
31)
32)
33)
34)
35)
36)
38i
3'9)
40)
42)
43)
44)
46)
47)
48)
49)
~' '~-i'7 .........................
[;2')'
JULY 2000
We, the neighbors of Swenson Park, located on Island Park
in Mound Minnesota are requesting that the playground equipment
be upgraded to minimumly match if not exceed due to the size of
the park, that of other upgraded parks througout Mound. Please
give th s request serious consideration. Thank you.
NAME ,~ ADDRESS PHONE
2)
t
.~ ~' ~= .................................
6) i~ Lk ~ X ur~ -,~ X . ', " "
~' ' ) I . ,~ . , . ~ ~ . ~ ~,.~
........ ~'--~'-'~' ~ ~"~ ......... ~ ~.~ ~.~. ~ L'~'~'~F--',~' '-~ ' , [ ~-~' ~ ~_ /
' ' ':~ . ~;o, i 7 ~ / , -"%~-~"-'-
;~~~ ~,,~.,~ ~, / ,, ,~ ,.,1
....... /-..7 -. ~ ~__ . ~/~ .-~ . .....~1 .-~ .... ~-._.:; /__
....... :-..~ .... :~-~-. :...z .~ :~~~ ....... ~__/ ...... L._~::..~.~. ~ ...... ~.._C..~. ~...~._.~..
· ..,,
.... ~.~ ~.---~-
' 3) , -,.
~. ' ,.4~ ~ ~ ~ j ,
18)
NAME ADDRESS
29) '//- '"
PHONE
~ ~ ~"" , .... :.2 :..
.d ' .,,,:; ,-'.,
' ¢:; '-'" L,. ,_I.',_
%,: ":,:.,..,-:. .................... , . ,:
: :,"-,;/F .0 :.,,: ;~' ':" ': "~':' ""
, ,.!x. :]~, ' ....... "
v.,-.'~~t' :..g_:? "/'''''':" ..'~:':--t--. '" -:r..~-
37)
39)
4o)
4~)
42)
43)
44)
45)
46)
47)
48)
49)
50)
51)
52)
ORDINANCE # -2000
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 800.05, SUBD. 5 OF THE
CITY CODE RELATING TO HOURS FOR CLASS B. ON-SALE
SUNDAY SALE
The City of Mound does ordain.
Section 800.05, Subd. 5 is hereby amended to add the following:
A club, hotel or restaurant holding a Class B, On-Sale, Sunday Sale intoxicating
liquor license, with a seating capacity for serving not less than 30 guests may serve
alcoholic beverages in conj unction with the serving of food between the hours of
11:00 A.M. and 12:00 midnight on Sundays in conjunction with the serving of food,
provided the licensee's establishment is in conformance with the Minnesota Clean Air
Act.
RESOLUTION #00
September 15, 2000
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE RESULTS OF THE
MUNICIPAL QUESTIONS ELECTION AS PRESENTED AT THE
CANVASS OF VOTE OF THE SEPTEMBER 12, 2000, ELECTION
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND,
MINNESOTA:
That the City Council does hereby certify the results of the Municipal
Questions Election as presented on the Canvass of Votes for the September 12, 2000,
Election as follows:
Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. TOTAL
QUESTION #1
YES 92 51 181 142 185 212 863
NO 119 85 221 213 203 117 958
QUESTION #2
YES 84 43 162 142 168 192 791
NO 128 90 238 213 3216 134 1019
The Canvassing Board hereby certifies that Question #1 was defeated and
Question #2 was defeated.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmem ber
by Councilmem ber.
and seconded
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
Memorandum
To.'
From:
Date:
Subject:
Mayor, City Council, City Manager
Fran Clark, City Clerk
August 21, 2000
CHANGING SUNDAY ON-SALE HOURS
I have been approached by both the American Legion and the VFW to request that the
Sunday On-Sale hours for intoxicating liquor be changed from Noon to 11 A.M.
According to MN Statute 340A.504, subdivision (b) "The governing body of a municipality
may after one public hearing by ordinance permit a restaurant, hotel, bowling center, or club
to sell intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises in conjunction with the sale of
food between the hours of 10:00 a.m. on Sundays and 1:00 a.m. on Mondays, provided that
the licensee is in conformance with the Minnesota clean air act."
I've attached a list of the bars in other municipalities in the area to show what others are
doing. They have asked for this so their members can come in prior to noon for televised
sporting events.
We could set a public hearing for the first meeting in September for an ordinance amendment
to allow this.
pnnte~ on recycled paper
!t:oo
I0:00
.bOO
,0 :oo,
',O:O.O. ..
.'I
t~:oo
· ,. 0.:o0.
l
Io.:.oo.,
I
CITY OF MOUND
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Mound will hold a public
hearing on Wednesday, September 13, 2000, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341
Maywood Road, in said City. The purpose of this public hearing will be to consider an
amendment to Section 800.05 of the City Code relating to the hours of sale for On-Sale
Sunday intoxicating liquor.
Francene C. Clark, CMC
City Clerk
Publish in The Laker September 2, 2000
RESOLUTION # 00-
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
RELOCATE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FROM
1000 ROBIN LANE TO 6301 LYNWOOD BLVD.
P&Z CASE # 00-42
WHEREAS, Jennie Carlson Baltutis, the applicant, is requesting a conditional use permit to
relocate a single family residence from its present location at 1000 Robin Lane to the adjacent
property at 6301 Lynwood Blvd; and,
WHEREAS, the house is a craftsman style built in 1916. A pending single family
development would have caused the house to be demolished if not moved from the property or
protected by some other means; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed move to the neighboring property will not involve crossing city
roadways or public utilities; and,
WI:IEREAS, the house will fit with the character of the neighborhood; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously
recommend approval of the Conditional Use permit as recommended by staff; and,
NOW, TltEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City does hereby grant a conditional use permit and variances with the following conditions:
a. Remove only those trees necessary along the west side of the driveway at 1000 Robin Lane.
b. All applicable building codes be adhered to at the proposed location.
2. The Conditional Use Permit and variances are granted for the following new legally described
property:
Lot 1, Block 11, Mound Terrace, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
3. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County
and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not
be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk.
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, AUGUST 14, 2000
Those present: Acting Chair Bill Voss; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Jerry Clappsaddle,
Cklair Hassc, and Frank Weiland. Absent and excused: Commissioners Becky Gligter,
Bob Brown, GeoffMichael, and Michael Mueller; Staff present: City Planner Loren
Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Recording Secretary Diana Mestad.
The following public were present: Jennie Carlson Baltutis, 4845 l0th Ave S,
Minneapolis; Gerald D Babb, 2169 Birch Drive; Jim Crawford, 5224 Waterbury Road;
Dennis Hildebrandt 5229 Waterbury Road; Todd Hovron, 4552 Denbigh Road; Stephen
L. Vertnik, 5217 Windsor Road; Phil Mitchson, 2232 Westedge Blvd.; Nicholas Espiritu,
5413 Church Road; Thomas Stul, 5201 Waterbury Road; Randy Beyrets, 5200
Waterbury Road; Betsy Alwin, 1000 Robin Lane; Rex Alwin 1000 Robin Lane; Milt
Hentges, 6400 County Road 15; Debra Vertnik, 5217 Windsor Road.
1.0
CASE #00-42: CONDITIONAL USE, PUBLIC HEARING JENNIE
CARLSON BALTUTIS, 1000 ROBIN LANE, LOTS l& 2, AUDITOR'S
SUBDIVISION #231, PID #14-117-24 33 0001.
The City Planner stated that this case involves moving a house from an adjacent lot. This
action has been prompted by the Langdon proposal. The Rex Alwin home is being given
to the applicant and she wants to take the house off the foundation and move it to the
property on the comer of Robin Lane and Lynwood. A conditional use permit is
necessary for this case to allow for a more definite review of the issues involved
including public utilities, infrastructure, road surfaces, overhead wires, and neighborhood
integration. Staff feels this is an ideal situation.
Staff is concerned about protecting as many trees as possible and is suggesting that if tree
removal is necessary, the trees that are located in future home sites should be removed
first. Staff feels that there will be no impact on public utilities or road surfaces.
Weiland asked about bringing the house up to code and whether the law does not require
this when a house is moved. The City Building Official confirmed that the law did not
apply in this case. He further stated that the applicant is ready to do substantial work on
the house to bring it into code.
The City Building Official stated that the house does not have a second story and the new
basement would be conforming. Two difficulties noted are headroom down the basement
stairs and the bedroom windows needing to be egress.
Voss asked about sewer and water in the new location. The City Building Official stated
the City Engineer had gone over this aspect of the project. The sewer will connect at
Robin Lane, and the water will connect at Robin Lane to the new water main that will be
installed for the Langdon project.
D AFT
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the request
with the following conditions:
1. Remove only those trees on the west side of the driveway as needed to
accommodate the move.
Acting Chair Voss opened the Public Heating at 7:45 p.m.
Acting Chair Voss closed the Public Hearing at 7:46 p.m.
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Burma, to approve Staff
recommendation with the noted condition.
Discussion:
Weiland amended Staff's recommendation to include adding recommendation No. 2 "All
building codes will be enforced as new construction. No variances will be granted."
The City Building official stated that the amendment is a good recommendation, but the
state statute would supercede the City regulation. He further stated that the energy code
does not apply to moved buildings.
Clapsaddle and Burma agreed to Weiland's amendment.
Acting Chair Voss called the question.
Motion carried. 5-0.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: August 14, 2000
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit
APPLICANT: Jennie Carlson Baltutis
CASE NUMBER: 00-42
HKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5
LOCATION: 6301 Lynwood Blvd.
ZONING: Residential R- 1 District
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to move the Rex Alwin home to an
adjacent property at the comer of Robin Lane and Lynwood Blvd. The house would have most
likely been demolished with the pending Langdon Bay residential subdivision. The home is a
fairly large craftsman style design built in 1916 with a foundation size of 1750 square feet (35' x
50'). A minor subdivision is also requested (#00-41) to allow an appropriate site for the house.
With house moves, the important items to consider are the impacts on public infrastructure and
utilities. Locations of overhead power, telephone, and cable lines all need to be factored when
determining an appropriate transport route. Pavement conditions and assurances to protect the
pavement should also be factored. The proposed route will follow the existing driveway and not
involve the use of City roadway's. There are no overhead wires in this route, except for the
service to the existing residence. It would be anticipated that the wires would be removed.
The roadway alignment of the pending Langdon Bay development will be west of the existing
driveway location. Part of the Langdon Bay program is to protect as many trees as possible
throughout the development. It seems that it will be necessary to remove trees along the existing
driveway to move the house. Staff would recommend trees along the west side of the drive be
removed to accommodate this move. Every attempt should be made to leave the trees along the
east side of the lane alone.
A wetland area is located on either side of the existing driveway just south of Robin Lane. This
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
#00-42 -6301 Lynwood Blvd. CUP
August 14, 2000
should be noted as something for the movers to be aware of as it could impact the route and
equipment used.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the request with the following conditions:
1. Remove only those trees on the west side of the driveway as needed to accommodate the
move.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838
Application for
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
City of Mou~d
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472~)607, Fax: 472~)620
Planning Commission Date: ,~L~.~
City Council Date: '~'- £'~- ....
RECEIVED
JUL ~ 8 2000
MOUND PLAt~N~(~ & IiVS~.
Case No.
Conditional Use Permit Fee: $250.00
Fire Dept. ~'/ ~ ' ~ r
Other:
Distribution:
City Planner: /' ' / ""
i' ,, ~ ... Public Works:
City Engineer: / {," '-' ,, Parks:
Please type or print the following information:
PROPERTY Subject
,. ORMA ,O.
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION
APPLICANT
Name of Business
~e appli~ is: ~ner ~ othen
Pho~ '
O~ER ,
appliant}
Phoae ~
ARCH~ECT,
SURVEYO~ OR
ENGINEER
ZONING
DISTRICT
Name '~"\(~ ~ ¢.
Address
Phone
(H)
Cimle: ~ R-lA
R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3
(M)
CHANGE OF
USE
Revised 1~26-99
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD, MOUND, MN
472-0600
55364
FEE:
(House $50 / Garage $10)
APPLICATION FOR MOVING A BUII DING
(Please print or type the following information. )
Permit must be posted with moving vehicle.
Applicant's Address %ff5 10% AVe. 5.
Name of Mover .b~..,..'~_ ~.,¥~,? L~
Address of Mover
Present location of building:
Owner of Property: L~,Qu~ A)~'l~%
Address ~ O f~C2 ~..~", ?, ~
/_~ ~A ~_ Block
Owner of Property: ~O~i~ ~. O.~W(~3~
Address &%O ~ kiA~~~ ~ Block
Addition ~0,~3,~. ~VVaC~ Plat~.j~.~
Dimensions of Building: Length ,~: Width ~(3 ' Height
To be moved (out of , into , or within ~ ) the City of Mound.
Proposed Route: (~i,~;~(& ~D%;~ ~_
Time of move: How long to be on Street:
Weight of vehicle: Weight of load: Total Weight:
Type of method to secure load:
IMPORTANT: 48 HOUR NOTICE PRIOR TO MOVING STRUCTURE TO POLICE DEPARTMENT,
CALL 472-0621 BETWEEN 8:00 AM AND 4:30 PM (AFTER HOURS 544-9511).
UTILITIES WARNING NOTICE: 454-0002
DEPOSIT. REQUIRED OF $ TO INSURE AGAINST DAMAGE TO STREETS
(deposi~ will be returned if no damage has occurred).
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE REQUIRED: Minimum amount of B.I. $200,000/
$600,000, P.D. $50,000, or Cash Bond $1,000
Applicant's Signature
~PPROVED BY: Bldg Official__ Police Chief Public Works Dir.
I/////////////I///////I///I/////I///I/I//11////11/I///I/111/I/11111111/1111
OFFICE USE ONLY:
Received: State License
Insurance Certificate
Distribution: Bldg Official
Police Chief
Public Works
Mover
RELEASE OF BOND APPROVED:
Public Works Director, 472-0635
Date
Conditional Use Permit Application
Moving the house at 1000 Robin Land
Jennie Carlson Baltutis
Case ~ 00-~2
August 5, 2000
RECEIVED
AUG O .9 2000
MOUND & INSP.
Narrative of Plans to ..Move the House
The house will be moved approximately one month after the ~Mund City
Council approves the two applications for this project. The first
application is for subdivision of lot ~1 from the property at 6301
Lynwood Boulevard. The second application is this conditional use
permit to move the house from its site at 1000 Robin Lane to lot ~1
which lies to the w~st of Robin Lane and is adjacent to County Road
15 or Lynwood Boulevard. To facilitate ~hi~ move, Robin Iane will have
to be widened to pmovide a minimumroad~~ 24 feet. Vegetation
and trees will have to be removed to provide 60 feet of clearance. The
house will be moved all in one piece and requires this much clearance.
Excavation and footings for the foundation will be ready on lot ~1
in the location indicated on the survey for the house site. The house
will be connected to city sewer and water. The survey shows that
this connection will be on Lynwood Boulevard because that is where
present connection stubs are located. The preferred site for connection
is Robin Lane but no connection stubs exist there at this time. The
present boiler in the house will be disconnected and reinstalled at the
new site, The house has hot water-radiator heat and ~11 continue with
this system at the new site. The boiler is presently fired by fuel
oil or wood. It will be connected to natural gas at the new site.
A new electric'.al fuse box will be installed and the electricall system
willbe updated to meet code.
Jennie Baltutis is not planning to occupy the house until the summer
of the year 2001. She would like a variance from the Planning Commis-
sion and the City Council to have until: August 1, 2001 to bring the
house up to code.
The total cost for movLug ~e house and bringing it up to code is
$127,000.
CiI'Y ()i: MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SItEET
SURVEY, ON FILE. ~1 NO
LOTOF RECORD7 YES / NO
FRONT N S E w
FRONT N S E w
SIDE N S E W
SIDE N S E W
REAl{ N S E W
LAKI:I N S E W
TOP OF BLUFF
GARAiIF~. $11~.D ..... DETACIIIiD BUILDIN(~S
FRONT N $ E W
FRONT N $ E W
SIDE N S E W
SIDE N S E W
REAR N S E w
LAKE N $ Ii W
TOP OF BLUFF
~--')[~ ~L ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZEIWIDTH::
C~ ~ xo,ooo/so3 nl ~.soo/o
R1A ~,000/40 B2 20,000/80
R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60
R2 14,000/80.
R3 SBE ORD. I1 30,000/100
I ,,QtBREI, [EXISTING/PROPOSED
!~'
I0' OR 30'
4' OR 6'
4' OR 6'
4'
SO'
I0' OR 30'
EXISTING LOT SIZE: , · '-
LOT WIDTH:
LOT DEPIH:
YARIANCg
Thi.~ Zoning Infmmatlms Sheet md¥ summarizes I~ postitm o{ thc trquiremems outlinad in rite City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound
Plnnnh.~s.~Deparm~ent at 472-0600.
'"1
%ri
'o'1
I
,.,,j
0
0
-h
~1~ 0
0 ~
0
0
rtl
I
I
I,-,,
~05.), 10 '.'
(5)
3
(4)
RESOLUTION #00-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GILLESPIE ADDITION
FINAL PLAT AND VARIANCES FOR THE GILLESPIE SENIOR
CENTER LOCATED AT 2600 COMMERCE BLVD.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Chester Yanik and Associates, have submitted applications on
behalf of the Westonka Senior Foundation for a new facility which will become the Gillespie Senior
Center. The property encompasses approximately 1.2 acres and is located at the intersection of
Commerce and Bush Road. The project will require redevelopment of site removing 3 existing
residences and vacating the street to accommodate a 12,000 square feet building, parking lot and
other site improvements; and,
WHEREAS, the Final Plat has been reviewed under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State
Statue and as defined by City Code Section 330:00. All proceedings have been duly conducted
thereunder; and,
WHEREAS, the Final Plat includes 1.2 acres of land described as:
SOUTHERLY PARCEL
Lots 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and the north half of lots 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49, Block 9, MOUND BAY PARK,
according to the recoded plat thereof and situate in Hermepin County, Minnesota.
and
NORTHERLY PARCEL
Lot 31, Auditor's Subdivision No. 167. Hennepin County, Minnesota.
and
PROPOSED BUSH ROAD VACATION PARCEL
That part of Bush Road, formerly known as Langdon Avenue as dedicated in the plat of MOUND BAY PARK,
according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying east of Commerce Boulevard and
west of a line drawn northerly and at right angles to the center line of said Bush Road from the northeast corner
of Lot 38, Block 8, said MOUND BAY PARK
;and,
WHEREAS, the site plan proposes a 62 space parking area is located in front of the building
and also provides for drop off traffic and internal circulation. Parking spaces are proposed to be
stripped at 9 feet by 18 feet. Driveway aisles meet the 24 feet code maximum at the right-of-way.
Driveway access to an adjacent garage will be provided through the site; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed landscaping plan meets code requirements for planting numbers,
varieties, and sizes; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed drainage plan will route storm water to existing facilities in
County Road 110 and a proposed storm water pond located east of the site on City property; and,
WHEREAS, as proposed the project would relinquish the need to maintain Bush Road as
a public street as it would no longer serve as access to the existing residences. Public utilities within
the public right-of-way would be reclassified to a private status and the easement would serve no
public purpose; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed building location will require variances in addition to hardcover
and parking stall size as indicated below:
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Side Yard 13' 50' 37'
Side Yard 23' 50' 27'
Rear Yard 16' 50' 34'
Parking Stalls 9' x 18' 10' x 20' 1' x 2'
Hardcover 38,196 sf 16,522 sf 21,674 sf
; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on May 8, 2000, held a public hearing pursuant to
Section 330:00 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, to consider the approval of the Final Plat for
the Gillespie Addition Major Subdivision as described above; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have studied the practicability of
the Final plat, taking into consideration the requirements of the City, topography, water supply,
sewage disposal, drainage, lot size and arrangement, the present and future development of adjoining
lands and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and other official controls; and,
WHEREAS, the City has considered traffic and other aspects of the proposed project as it
might affect public health, safety or welfare and imposed conditions upon the approval addressing
those considerations; and,
WHEREAS, the physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the type of development
contemplated subject to the conditions imposed herein, and the proposed subdivision as conditioned
is consistent with the existing land use in the area and the future downtown redevelopment goals as
stated in the City's Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities as
required by the City subdivision regulations are being provided; and,
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and
the regulations and the requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code of
Ordinances of the City of Mound; and,
WHEREAS, at the Planning Commission has recommended Council approval of the Final
plat and variances with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the preliminary plat and variance requests at the
May 23, 2000 meeting, recommending approval with conditions.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota approves the Final Plat and variances for the Gillespie Addition with the following
findings and conditions:
The final plat is consistent with the preliminary plat with the following conditions:
a. Lot 2 be held in common ownership with Lot 1.
b. Lot 2 be restricted in use for parking purposes associated with the use of Lot 1.
2. All conditions of approval contained in the resolution approving the preliminary plat be
satisfied prior to release of the final plat, site grading, and building permit issuance.
3. The resolution vacating Bush Road be released for recording.
4. The City enact the ordinance rezoning portions of the property from R-1 to B-2.
5. The September 5, 2000 memorandum from the City Engineer be included as conditions of
final approval.
BE IT RESOLVED that such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the Mayor and
City Manager shall be conclusive showing compliance therewith by the subdivider and City Officials
and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality, all in
compliance with Minnesota Statute Chapter 462 and the City of Mound Code of Ordinances.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
by Councilmember
and seconded
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
Engineering , Planning · Surveying.
RECEIVED
SEP n 5 ?-~
~vlOUND PLANI~1I~ & INSP.
September 5, 2000
Mr. Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
Final Plat - Gillespie Addition
Case #00-50
MFRA #12785
Dear Jon:
Enclosed is the Engineer's Report for the final plat of Gillespie Addition, the new Senior Citizen
Center.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
MFRA
John Cameron, City Engineer
JC:pry
Enclosure
cc: Loren Gordon, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc.
s:\main:Wlou 12785 :\CorrespondenceLsutherland9-5
15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth. Minnesota · 55447
phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532
e-mail: mfra@mfra, com
CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA
ENGINEER'S MEMO
TO
THE MOUND CITY COUNCIL
DATE:
CASE NO:
PETITIONER:
FINAL PLAT:
LOCATION:
September 5, 2000
00-50
Westonka Senior Citizens Foundation
Gillespie Addition
2590 Commerce Boulevard
ASSESSMENT RECORDS:
N/A Yes No
x [51
2. x IZI I-I
3. U] x [3
4. X [-']
5. X [-t
Watermain area assessments have been levied based on
proposed use.
Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on
proposed use.
SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building
permits are issued.
Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are
reviewed annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be
that in effect at the time of final plat approval.
Area assessments.
Other additional assessments estimated:
LEGAL / EASEMENTS / PERMITS:
6. [-'l [--] X
7. X [-] [-]
Complies with standard utility/drainage easements -
The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet
(10') in width adjoining all streets and five feet (5') in width
adjoining side and rear lot lines. Need to add 5 foot wide
utility, and drainage easements along side and rear lot
lines.
All standard utility easements required for construction are
provided -
The City will require twenty feet (20') utility and drainage
easements for proposed utilities along the lot lines were these
utilities are proposed to be installed. This item has been
N/A Yes No
o
X
reviewed with the final construction plans and the following
changes are necessary:
Complies with ponding requirements -
The City will require the dedication of drainage easements for
ponding purposes on all property below the established 100-
year high water elevation and conformance with the City's
comprehensive stormwater drainage plan. Pond located on
City Property - See Item No. 25 of Special Conditions.
10.
11.
X
X
X
All existing unnecessary easements and rights-of-way have
been vacated -
It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/right-of-
way to facilitate the development. This is not an automatic
process in conjunction with the platting process. It is the
Owner's responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal
descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated.
The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted
to the City with this application - If it is subsequently
determined that the subject property is abstract property, then
this requirement does not apply.
It will be necessary for the property Owner to provide the City
Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in
order that he may file the required easements referred to
above.
All necessary permits for this project have been obtained -
The following permits must be obtained by the Developer:
x Hennepin County
x MPCA
x State Health Department
x Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
[-'] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
x Other
City permit for construction on public land (storm water
pond).
The Developer must comply with all conditions contained
within any permit.
N/A Yes No
TRANSPORTATION:
x C]
Conforms with the City's grid system for street names -
The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to
the City grid system for street names. The following changes
will be necessary:
23. x D C]
x [] []
Conforms with the City's Thoroughfare Guide Plan -
The following revisions must be made to conform with the
City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan.
Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided -
Acceleration/deceleration and turn lanes are required at the
intersection of and
All existing street fights-of-way are required width -
Additional right-of-way will be required on-Commerce
Boulevard as required by Hennepin County and as shown
on Final Plat.
UTILITIES:
16. ~]
X
17.
X
Conforms with City standards requiting the Developer to
construct utilities necessary to serve this plat -
In accordance with City standards, the Developer shall be
responsible for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer,
water, storm sewer, and streets needed to serve this plat. A
registered professional engineer must prepare the plans and
profiles of the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer
facilities and streets to serve the development.
Final utility plans submitted comply with all City requirements-
The Developer has submitted the required construction plans
for the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer
facilities; and has also furnished profiles of these utilities as
well as the proposed street system (public and private). See
additional requirements under Item #23.
N/A
18. X
Yes N__~o
19. [~] X ['-1
Per the Developer's request, final plans will be prepared by the
City.
If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities as
part of its Capital Improvement Program, a petition must be
submitted to the City. The cutoff date for petitions is October
1st of the year preceding construction, if the Developer is
paying 100% of the cost.
The construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Comprehensive Water Distribution Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
20. Z] x 7q
The construction plans conform to the City's adopted
Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan -
The following revisions will be required:
21. [] x
It will be necessary to contact Greg Skinner, the City's Public
Works Superintendent, 24 hours in advance of making any
proposed utility connections to the City's sanitary sewer and
water systems. The Developer shall also be responsible for
contacting the Public Works Department for an excavating
permit prior to any digging within the City fight-of-way.
GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL:
22. [--] X ~-]
Minimum basement elevations - 933.0
Minimum basement elevations must be established
following lots: lower level floor.
for the
23. [--] X
Complies with Storm Drainage Plan -
The grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been
submitted to the City's Consulting Engineer for review to see if
it is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Storm
Drainage Plan. All of their recommendations shall be
incorporated in a revised plan. The Grading and Drainage Plan
shall also indicate proposed methods of erosion control,
including the placement of silt fence in strategic locations.
Additionally, the following revisions will be necessary:
a. Add erosion control fence along south side of pond at
City/private property line, connecting ends shown.
%--Iq'7 -4-
N/A Yes No
de
Pond is too close to private property at south end and
does not provide area for adequate maintenance - must
have minimum of 10 feet between HWL and property
line.
Additional elevations, both existing and proposed, are
required to adequately review proposed grading for
pond construction. Existing and proposed contours
must be shown complete.
See Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD)
letter of July 14, 2000 for additional requirements. The
City of Mound will need to be a partner in the
maintenance agreement since the pond is located on
City property and the City will be responsible for
maintenance of said pond and its outfall line. The
Foundation will retain responsibility of the storm sewer
within their property and the pond inlet line on City
property.
24.
Section 330:140 of the Mound City Code requires the
Developer enter into a Development Contract with the City
of Mound for construction of the Storm Water Pond
located on City property. The Developer shall also provide
a financial guarantee for construction of said pond in the
form of a cash deposit, certified check, irrevocable letter of
credit or performance bond as set forth in Section 330:145.
25.
An access easement through the site to the City property
for pond maintenance must be provided as required by the
Preliminary Plat approval under Resolution #00-51. Also
required is an easement for access to the future Greenway
Trail. It only makes sense to construct an 8 foot wide trail
at this time from the parking lot around the south side of
the building to the south end of the pond. Adjustments to
location of hydrant and PIV may be required to
accommodate trail.
26.
New sidewalks to be installed along Commerce Boulevard
in area of old City street. Pedestrian curb ramps shall be
provided at both sides of new entrance to parking lot.
N/A
Yes
No
27.
28.
Plan does not meet south side building setback of 23 feet as
required by Preliminary Plat approval. (Condition #5 of
Resolution #00-51).
The final plat shows an additional lot that was not on the
approved preliminary plat. Can not see any reason for this
Lot 2 and suggest it needs to be removed from the final
plat.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REOLr[RED:
Submitted by: ~~. ~.~. ~"
John Cameron, City Engineer
s:\main :hMou 12785 :\Correspondence\en gineersmerno9-5
-6-
C;I't'Y L)V IILJLII51U ~ uu/
UU/ZU/UU
MAJt~R m~nlVl.~iON
6341 1'.~&.I~01 ROOd, Momld, MN 5~
LE~
$ 2~o
,$
$100
ZONING
OI,TTRICT
APPLICAHT
Name
OWNER
~ other than Address
Phone
(H)
E~GINEER
Major Suadlvlslon Appfr. atlon
- · Page 2
35)o
Description of Pmpceed Use:
EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: Ust impKts ~e proposed use will have on property in the v~ni~7,
including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps baken to mitigate or
e~iminate the impacts.
I
If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to Ihis application providing reasonable guarantees for the
comple§on of the proposed deveiopme~L Estimated Development Cost of the Project: $
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS:
Number of Structures:
Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit:
sq. fi.
Number of Dwelling Units/Structure:
Total Lot Area: sq. ff.
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 app. lication, action ~ken, resolutio~ number(s) and provb:le copies of
resolutions.
This eppticaUon must be s~gned by ~ owners of the/sub~ property, or an explanation given why U~is is not the
? : ,. j · _~ ' , ~ .?
Print Applicant'l Name AppliCailfl Ilgnature '~ Data
P~nt Owner'~ Neme Own~r'~ ~iGrmtum
Print Owner's Name
Owner's $1gnatt~t Oat.
i "
--0-
OOMMER~.! ~VARD
· ,50.31 60.47 ~ NO0'01'44'W ....... '9(~;0~ - ........
'~-- .... I S01'SS'48"W 99.88
r IIIIIIIIIP' I[
:l
eee
lllllllll~~ l! i
r IIIIIIIII1~
,,, ,, ,,
, ','! ,:'
Ii, ,h,, ,, ,~ I~,:~,
il~ IjJjj l!'_. ~!_.Jj]~i ,jji !I i.l JJ j J I ! ~
j~ .l . . Jl I'
,'il ,l~l~, ~i,'~ "~, J l'l, Il ill' I ' _!J
, J, I,: I j'll, il I,,t"l "-i, !11 ll-i~i! j I!'~', ii! !' J~ ,-
', J' ', ii l~'l
:J hl,~ ii. !~' JiJl~! Jb.i , :, I
.,~'' i., j; .~, I,, ~, , I,
· , ii
: ,'J,. ~,,
'~,~ 'Ii J~
:,~ :, J~i: .
I~.. i' IIIIIIIIII~ ! ;? -
CERTIFICATE
City of Mound
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)SS
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and Clerk of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
hereby attest and certify that:
As such officer, I have the legal custody of the original record from which the attached
and foregoing extract was transcribed.
2. I have carefully compared said extract with said original record.
o
I find said extract to be a true, correct and complete transcript from the original minutes
of a meeting of the City Council of said City held on the date indicated in said extract,
including any resolution adopted at such meeting, insofar as they relate to:
RESOLUTION//00-51
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GILLESPIE ADDITION
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCES FOR THE GILLESPIE SENIOR
CENTER LOCATED AT 2600 BUSH
Said meeting was duly held, pursuant to call and notice thereof as required by law on
May 23. 2000
WITNESS my hand officially as such Clerk, and the seal of said City, this 1st day of
September, 2000.
CITY CLERK
SEAL
TRANSFER
HENNEP N CO, NTY
May 23, 2000
RESOLUTION//00-51
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GILLESPIE ADDITION
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCES FOR THE GILLESPIE SENIOR
CENTER LOCATED AT 2600 BUSH ROAD
WH~AS, the applicant, Chester Yanik and Associates, have submitted applications
on behalf of the Westonka Senior Foundation for a new facility which will become the Gillespie
Senior Center. The property encompasses approximately 1.2 acres and is located at the
intersection of Commerce and Bush Road. The project will require redevelopment of site
removing 3 existing residences and vacating the street to accommodate a 12,000 square feet
building, parking lot and other site improvements; and,
WHEREAS, the Preliminary Plat has been reviewed under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota
State Statue and as defined by City Code Section 330:00. All proceedings have been duly
conducted thereunder; and,
WHEREAS, the Preliminary Plat includes 1.2 acres of land described as:
SOUTHERLY PARCEL
Lots 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and the north half of lots 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49, Block 9, MOUND BAY
PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof and situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
and
NORTHERLY PARCEL
Lot 31, Auditor's Subdivision No. 167. Hennepin County, Minnesota.
and
PROPOSED BUSH ROAD VACATION PARCEL
That part of Bush Road, formerly known as Langdon Avenue as dedicated in the plat of MOUND BAY
PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying east of Commerce
Boulevard and west of a line drawn northerly and at right angles to the center line of said Bush Road from
the northeast comer of Lot 38, Block 8, said MOUND BAY PARK
;and,
WHEREAS, the site plan proposes a 62 space parking area is located in front of the
building and also provides for drop off traffic and internal circulation. Parking spaces are
proposed to be stripped at 9 feet by 18 feet. Driveway aisles meet the 24 feet code maximum
at the right-of-way. Driveway access to an adjacent garage will be provided through the site;
and,
WHEREAS, the proposed landscaping plan meets code requirements for planting
numbers, varieties, and sizes; and,
May 23, 2000
WltEREAS, the proposed drainage plan will route storm water to existing facilities in
County Road 110 and a proposed storm water pond located east of the site on City property;
and,
WHEREAS, as proposed the project would relinquish the need to maintain Bush Road
as a public street as it would no longer serve as access to the existing residences. Public utilities
within the public right-of-way would be reclassified to a private status and the easement would
serve no public purpose; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed building location will require variances in addition to
hardcover and parking stall size as indicated below:
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Side Yard 13' 50' 37'
Side Yard 23' 50' 27'
Rear Yard 16' 50' 34'
Parking Stalls 9' x 18' 10' x 20' 1' x 2'
Hardcover 38,196 sf 16,522 sf 21,674 sf
; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on May 8, 2000, held a public hearing pursuant
to Section 330:00 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, to consider the approval of the
Preliminary Plat for the Gillespie Addition Major Subdivision as described above; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have studied the practicability
of the preliminary plat, taking into consideration the requirements of the City, topography, water
supply, sewage disposal, drainage, lot size and arrangement, the present and future development
of adjoining lands and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and other official controls; and,
WHEREAS, the City has considered traffic and other aspects of the proposed project as
it might affect public health, safety or welfare and imposed conditions upon the approval
addressing those considerations; and,
WHEREAS, the physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the type of
development contemplated subject to the conditions imposed herein, and the proposed
subdivision as conditioned is consistent with the existing land use in the area and the future
downtown redevelopment goals as stated in the City's Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities as
required by the City subdivision regulations are being provided; and,
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan
and the regulations and the requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code
of Ordinances of the City of Mound; and,
May 23, 2000
14.
The plat shall be filed with Hennepin County within one hundred eighty (180)
days of the City Council approving the final plat. If the plat is not filed within
that time period, it shall become null and void.
15.
The Developer shall secure and provide the City with a copy of a stormwater
permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior to the City releasing
the final plat. The parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement which may
include the following matters relating to the storm water ponding area: Design,
capacity , maintenance, construction, cost sharing for the construction and
maintenance of the pond, and other issues that need to be addressed in connection
with the pond.
16.
The MPCA's Best Management Practices shall be applied to the development and
subsequent management of the property.
17.
The developer obtain a construction on public lands permit as stated in Section
320.
18.
Provide an access easement for the residential garage on the south side of the site.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such execution of the certificate upon said plat by
the Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive showing compliance therewith by the
subdivider and City Officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without
further formality, all in compliance with Minnesota Statute Chapter 462 and the City of Mound
Code of Ordinances.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Brown and seconded by
Councilmember Hanus.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Brown, Hanus, Meisel and Weycker.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none.
Councilmember Ahrens was absent and excused.
Attest: City Clerk
SS/PAT MEISEL
Mayor
4
YAxWIK
Development · D~i~a Build · Proj~t Management
Chester J. Yanik & Associates, Inc.
3701 Shoreline Drive Suite 206
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
phone 612-471-9199
fax 612-471-9196
TO:
FROM:
PROJECT NAME:
TOTAL # OF PAGES
COMMENTS: Jon,
TRANSMITTAL
Jon Sutherland, Building Official, City of Mound
Lowell Olson
The Gillespie Cemer
Mound, Minnesota
4
INCLUDING CO VER SHEET.
PROJECT #:
9-12-00
D ATE/TIME:
2000-20
Attached is the executed original document conveying to the City of Mound two
easements as required in the final plak
This document addresses the easement required by Public Works for cleanout access to
the pond and also for public access to the future green way walking path.
If any further information is required please call ma
Thanks, Lowell
c :\windows\desktop\gillespie ctr\transjonseasmnts9-12-00.doc
Form No. 3'I-M
QUIT CLAIM DEED -
CORPORATION OR PARTNERSHIP TO CORPORATION OR PARTNERSHIP
No delinquent taxes and transfer entered;
Certificate of Real Estate Value
( ) filed
( ) not required
Certificate of Real Estate Value No.
,19
by
County Auditor
Deputy
State Deed Tax Due:
Dated: ,2000
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Westonka Senior Citizens Foundation, a non-profit
corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, Grantor, hereby conveys and
quitclaims to City of Mound, Grantee, a municipal corporation under the laws of
Minnesota, real property in Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows:
A non-exclusive easement for access to maintain a storm water retention pond and a
non-exclusive easement for pedestrian access to a future walkway to be known as the
Greenway Trail, both easements located as described in Exhibit A attached hereto.
together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto.
-1-
The Seller certifies that the Seller does not know of any wells on the described property.
Sharon Cook
Its President
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I ~'- day of.,~-,,_~ 2000,
by Sharon Cook the President of Westonka Senior Citizens Foundation, a non-profit
corporation, under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
This instrument was drafted by REED & POND, LTD., 5424 Shoreline Drive, P.O. Box 9,
Mound MN 55364-0009.
Tax statement for the real property described in this instrument should be sent to:
-2-
EXHIBIT A
That part of Lot 1, Block 1, GILLESPIE ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof and situate
in Hennepin County, Minnesota lying southerly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point in the east line of said Lot 1, distant 10.00 feet north, as measured at right
angles to the south line of said Lot 1; thence South 80 degrees 17 minutes 26 seconds West
parallel with said south line a distance of 139.80 feet; thence North 1 degree 56 minutes 10
seconds East a distance of 50.11 feet; thence South 80 degrees 21 minutes 47 seconds West a
distance of 161.42 feet to the west line of said Lot 1 and said line there terminating.
CERTIFICATE
City of Mound
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)SS
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and Clerk of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
hereby attest and certify that:
As such officer, I have the legal custody of the original record from which the attached
and foregoing extract was transcribed.
2. I have carefully compared said extract with said original record.
I find said extract to be a true, correct and complete transcript from the original minutes
of a meeting of the City Council of said City held on the date indicated in said extract,
including any resolution adopted at such meeting, insofar as they relate to:
RESOLUTION//00-51
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GILLESPIE ADDITION
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCES FOR THE GILLESPIE SEaNIOR
CEaNTER LOCATED AT 2600 BUSH
Said meeting was duly held, pursuant to call and notice thereof as required by law on
May 23. 2000
WITNESS my hand officially as such Clerk, and the seal of said City, this 1st day of
September, 2000.
'?,,(..~.~~~
CITY CLERK
SEAL
May 23, 2000
RESOLUTION #00-51
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GILLESPIE ADDITION
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCES FOR THE GILLESPIE SENIOR
CENTER LOCATED AT 2600 BUSH ROAD
WHEREAS, the applicant, Chester Yanik and Associates, have submitted applications
on behalf of the Westonka Senior Foundation for a new facility which will become the Gillespie
Senior Center. The property encompasses approximately 1.2 acres and is located at the
intersection of Commerce and Bush Road. The project will require redevelopment of site
removing 3 existing residences and vacating the street to accommodate a 12,000 square feet
building, parking lot and other site improvements; and,
WHEREAS, the Preliminary Plat has been reviewed under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota
State Statue and as defined by City Code Section 330:00. All proceedings have been duly
conducted thereunder; and,
WHEREAS, the Preliminary Plat includes 1.2 acres of land described as:
SOUTHERLY PARCEL
Lots 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and the north half of lots 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49, Block 9, MOUND BAY
PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof and situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
and
NORTHERLY PARCEL
Lot 3 I, Auditor's Subdivision No. 167. Hennepin County, Minnesota.
and
PROPOSED BUSH ROAD VACATION PARCEL
That part of Bush Road, formerly known as Langdon Avenue as dedicated in the plat of MOUND BAY
PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying east of Commerce
Boulevard and west of a line drawn northerly and at right angles to the center line of said Bush Road from
the northeast comer of Lot 38, Block 8, said MOUND BAY PARK
;and,
WHEREAS, the site plan proposes a 62 space parking area is located in front of the
building and also provides for drop off traffic and internal circulation. Parking spaces are
proposed to be stripped at 9 feet by 18 feet. Driveway aisles meet the 24 feet code maximum
at the right-of-way. Driveway access to an adjacent garage will be provided through the site;
and,
WHEREAS, the proposed landscaping plan meets code requirements for planting
numbers, varieties, and sizes; and,
May 23, 2000
WHEREAS, the proposed drainage plan will route storm water to existing facilities in
County Road 110 and a proposed storm water pond located east of the site on City property;
and,
WHEREAS, as proposed the project would relinquish the need to maintain Bush Road
as a public street as it would no longer serve as access to the existing residences. Public utilities
within the public right-of-way would be reclassified to a private status and the easement would
serve no public purpose; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed building location will require variances in addition to
hardcover and parking stall size as indicated below:
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Side Yard 13' 50' 37'
Side Yard 23' 50' 27'
Rear Yard 16' 50' 34'
Parking Stalls 9' x 18' 10' x 20' 1' x 2'
Hardcover 38,196 sf 16,522 sf 21,674 sf
; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on May 8, 2000, held a public heating pursuant
to Section 330:00 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, to consider the approval of the
Preliminary Plat for the Gillespie Addition Major Subdivision as described above; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have studied the practicability
of the preliminary plat, taking into consideration the requirements of the City, topography, water
supply, sewage disposal, drainage, lot size and arrangement, the present and future development
of adjoining lands and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and other official controls; and,
WHEREAS, the City has considered traffic and other aspects of the proposed project as
it might affect public health, safety or welfare and imposed conditions upon the approval
addressing those considerations; and,
WHEREAS, the physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the type of
development contemplated subject to the conditions imposed herein, and the proposed
subdivision as conditioned is consistent with the existing land use in the area and the future
downtown redevelopment goals as stated in the City's Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities as
required by the City subdivision regulations are being provided; and,
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan
and the regulations and the requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code
of Ordinances of the City of Mound; and,
May 23, 2O00
Wltl*~S, at the Planning Commission has recommended Council approval of the
preliminary plat and variances with conditions; and,
NOW TItEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota approves the Preliminary Plat and variances for the Gillespie Addition with the
following conditions:
1. Determination of County Road 110 right-of-way needs by Hennepin County at the time
of the Final Plat.
2. Provide easements for utilities and drainage on the final plat.
3. Approve a parking size variance of 9 feet by 18 feet
4. Approve a hardcover variance of 40 percent.
5. The south side yard setback be not less than 23 feet.
6. Provide tree plantings on the south side of the building to be reviewed and approved by
Staff.
o
Applicant is to work with the adjacent property owner and attempt to reach a resolution
for the removal of or resolution retaining wall design located south of the proposed
driveway.
8. Provide an access easement through the site to the City property and storm water pond.
9. Provide an access easement for access to the future Greenway Trail.
10.
The City Engineer review and approve the final drainage, grading and erosion
control plan.
11.
The developer shall be responsible for the installation of private utilities. The
utilities shall not be installed until the boulevard or utility easements have been
graded and the grade elevations are approved by the City Engineer. All utilities
shall be located underground.
12.
The Developer shall secure and provide copies to the City's Building Official of
all required and reviews and permits from the Minnesota Department of Health
and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, or any other applicable permits,
prior to beginning construction. The Building Official will not authorize
construction until permits are secured.
13.
The City Attorney shall examine title to the property and shall render a title
opinion to the city showing the ownership status of the property prior to filing.
3
May 23, 2000
14.
The plat shall be filed with Hennepin County within one hundred eighty (180)
days of the City Council approving the final plat. If the plat is not filed within
that time period, it shall become null and void.
15.
The Developer shall secure and provide the City with a copy of a stormwater
permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior to the City releasing
the final plat. The parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement which may
include the following matters relating to the storm water ponding area: Design,
capacity , maintenance, construction, cost sharing for the construction and
maintenance of the pond, and other issues that need to be addressed in connection
with the pond.
16.
The MPCA's Best Management Practices shall be applied to the development and
subsequent management of the property.
17.
The developer obtain a construction on public lands permit as stated in Section
320.
18.
Provide an access easement for the residential garage on the south side of the site.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such execution of the certificate upon said plat by
the Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive showing compliance therewith by the
subdivider and City Officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without
further formality, all in compliance with Minnesota Statute Chapter 462 and the City of Mound
Code of Ordinances.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Brown and seconded by
Councilmember Hanus.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Brown, Hanus, Meisel and Weycker.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Hone.
Councilmember Ahrens was absent and excused.
Attest: City Clerk
SS/PAT MEISEL
Mayor
4
0~-08-00
11:07 From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +61Z33?g310 T-?gg P.O3/O3
SENIOR CI~A~I~-]~S FOUNDATION
September 7, 2000
Kan~s Hanson
Mourgt City Manager
Mayor Pat Meisel
Mound Ci~ Council Members Andrea Attrens, Bob ~Brown, Mark Harms, and l..eah Rfeyck~r
D~ar Cio~ ManagEr, Ma'yor ~md ~5, Council 3~lcmbcr~,
We are writing th~s letter of request for help with our new zvnior center tlgrt is being con.nructed
in Mound Could you please consider the -following:
Reimbursement for pondmg expenses
Waiver of P~rmu F~cs
Inclusion of tntr new parldng lot m Mound's city z'now removal program
We realize haw generous the City of Mound has already been with helping secure the funding
-from the CDBG funds and other tn-kind services and are deeply a2ppreciat~ve of this generosity.
However, we are now trying to close the gap.for the funding o-f the new senior center and are in
a po.~tion of asking for all the help we can get to finalize ~hi$ project. The center will be a
valuable asset for not only today's sentqr, populattor~ lntt for many generations of elderly tn the
future. Our hope ha~' been that our entire community will.feel the pride of accomplishment with
~ts completion next year.
With ~9~de for this considercmon,
Sharon Cook
Pre.dent
]7Yestonlca Senior Citizens .g'oundation
09-08-00 11:07 From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +61Z3379310 T-799 P.OZ/03 F-018
MEMOKANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
Subject Westonka Senior Cit/z~n's Foundation Requests
By letter dated September 7, 2000, Sharon Cook, the President et' the Westnnka Senior
Citizen's Foundauon, has requested that the City assist the Foundation by reducing certain expenses
that the Foundation would otherwise face in connection with thc consLruction and operation of thc
new semor center. A copy of the letter is atxached.
The letter seeks assistance in three tbrms:
"1. Reimbursement for pending expenses
2. Waiver of Pem]it Fees
3. Inclusion of our new parking lot in Mound's city snow removal program."
An analysis of the economic impact of the requ~s is underway and will be provided to you
by the September 13 meeting. However, the following observations may be of guidance.
Reimbursement for trending exvenses. The preliminary plat requires the Foundauon to
construe% at its expense, the stormwater holding pond. Maintenance expenses will be the
responsibility of the City. The Foundation's engineering tirm has been contacted and asked to
provide, with the consem of the Foundauon, a cost estimate for the construction of the pond. The
pond, as currently designed is of sufficient size to handle the stonnwater from the senmr center. It
is recommended that no decision be made on this request until cost estimates have been obtained
and reviewed.
Waiver of Permit Fees_ Very preUminarv calculations show that the building permit tee
will be $6,643; and plan check fee will be $3,814 and the state surcharge will be $797. The
surcharge cannot be waived.
Inclusion sinew parking lot ~ Maund's city snow removal l~rm~ram. The reference is
probably to the CBD program, which has an uncertain I~mre. Among the objectives of that
program is to induce landowners in the downtown area to put their lots in the program so that other
businesses in the downtown ama could use the excess parktng capacity. The progam costs were
then assessed back against downtown businesses participating in the program with a credit Ibr
excess parking spaces put into the program.
Although the requesu are unusual, the council could conclude some or all of them have
merit based upon the eatraordmary nature of the project. Should that be the conclusion, ir will be
important for the Council to carefully an'icula~ the reasons for its acnon; and be aware that others
may be inclined to make similar requesu in the future.
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
PROI:£SSIONAL ASSOCIATION
September 1, 2000
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Re: Mueller-Lansing Properties
Dear Mayor Meisel and Councilmembers:
Our office represents Mueller-Lansing Properties in connection with their ownership of a parking
lot located to the west of their building at 2242-44-44B Commerce Boulevard.
It is my understanding that this parking lot is presently involved in the City's Central Business
District Parking Program. I am writing to advise you that Mueller-Lansing Properties hereby
withdraws from that Program. It is the intent of Mueller-Lansing Properties to retain the
property for the use of their tenants. A recent email from Mr. Mueller to the City, requesting
confirmation of Mueller-Lansing Properties' participation in the Program, is rescinded. This
letter will serve as notice that whatever leasehold agreement exists between the City and
Mueller-Lansing Properties, with respect to the parking lot property, is terminated effective 30
days after your receipt of this letter.
Please confirm in writing your receipt of this notice and the removal of the parking lot property
from the Central Business District Parking Program.
Thank you for your assistance.
V~ruly ~our/s,~,
ra~i;y J. Gunn
150 SOUTH FIFTH STREET SUITE 2300 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TEL 612-335-I5OO FAX 612-335-I657
LAW OFFICES IN MINNEAPOLIS, SAINT PAUL AND MANKATO
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
September 14, 2000
Mr. Bradley J. Gunn
Leonard, Street and Deinard
150 South Fifth Street
Suite 2300
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Re: Mueller-Lansing Properties
Dear Mr. Gunn:
The City of Mound is in receipt of your letter dated September 1, 2000 relating to the Mueller-
Lansing Properties with their ownership of the parking lot located to the west of their building at
2242-44-44b Commerce Boulevard in Mound. This parking lot is presently involved in the City's
Central Business District Parking Program.
With this letter I am confirming that the above referred to parking lot property will be removed
from the Central Business District Parking Program effective October 1, 2000. It is our
understanding that the leasehold agreement with the City will terminate as of the same date.
If you have any additional questions on this matter, you can call me at 952-472-0600.
Sincerely,
Kandis M. Hanson, City Manager
cc: Gino Businaro, City Finance Director
Greg Skinner, City Public Works Superintendent
prmted on recycled paper
CITY OF MOUND
DRAFT
ETHICS GUIDELINES FOR CITY COUNCIL
BACKGROUND:
The Mound City Council makes the following findings:
1. The confidence that the community has in its public institutions is directly related to
the standards followed by the elected officials.
2. Not only is it important that elected officials act ethically in their public lives; but it
is equally important that they establish and follow clear principles and guidelines to guide them in
their actions.
3. The existence and adherence to such guidelines can result in a high level of public
trust and acceptance in the actions of elected officials.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the City Council has adopted the following Ethics
Guidelines, to be observed and followed by the City Council.
ETHICS GUIDELINES
1. No Council member shall misuse the office to secure special privileges or exemptions for
such person or any other person.
2. No Council member shall directly of indirectly receive or agree to receive or solicit, any
compensation, gift, reward or gratuity in payment for the performance of his or her official duties
except as may be provided by law.
3. No Council member shall enter into any contract with the City that is prohibited by law.
Any public official who has a proprietary interest in an entity doing business with the City shall
make known that interest in writing to the City Council and the City Clerk.
4. Any Council member who in the discharge of said member's duties would be required to
take an action or make a decision which would substantially affect such official's financial interest
or those of a business with which such official is associated (except as the City's representative),
unless the effect on such official is no greater than on any other citizens or other members of such
official's business classification, profession, or occupation, shall take the following actions:
a. A written statement shall be prepared which will include the name, address, office
held, action presenting the potential conflict of interest, the nature of the £mancial interest, the
person notified of the potential conflict of interest, the member's signature and the date;
b. Said member shall deliver copies of the statement to the City Clerk;
DRAFT
c. If a potential conflict presents itself and there is insufficient time to comply with the
provisions of clauses "a" and "b" of this section, the member shall verbally inform the City Clerk of
the potential conflict. The member shall then file a written statement with the City Clerk within one
week after the potential conflict presents itself which statement shall state the reason for the delay.
5. A Council member must not act as an agent or attorney for another before the City Council
or a board or commission in a matter where a conflict of interest exists or may exist.
6. A Council member may accept compensation or expense reimbursement for the
performance of the member's public duties as Council member only from the sources listed below.
a. Compensation and expenses paid by the City.
b. Compensation and expenses from other employment, if the person happens to
conduct public business while being paid for the other employment and if the other employment
does not interfere with, influence, or compromise the person's public position, and
c. Compensation and expenses paid by another governmental agency or municipal
association to a Council member who serves as a City representative for that agency, but only if the
City does not also pay the person for the same activity.
7. A Council member must not use public money, time, personnel, facilities, or equipment for
private gain or political campaign activities except when:
a. the use is required or authorized by law, or
b. the use is no greater than that allowed for the general public.
This paragraph does not prohibit correspondence at any time to individual residents in response to
the resident's specific inquiries, or general surveys of residents that are conducted before the time of
filing for candidacy for elective office.
8. It is important to public confidence in the operation of govemment that decisions of the City
Council (unless subject to certain specific exceptions) be made in public, following discussion
among members also taking place in public. For that reason, the following guidelines will be
followed by Council members:
a. At any gathering that is attended by a majority of the Council ( unless such gathering
has been duly noticed as a meeting of the Council), the members will refrain from participating in
any discussion, either between themselves, or others in attendance at the gathering, involving
matters that are pending, or are likely to come before the Council.
b. At any special meeting of the Council, the members will refrain from engaging in
discussion or taking action on any matter which was not contained on, or reasonably related to, the
items in the meeting notice.
JBD-185381 v2 2
MU220-1
· ~0 -¥,
DRAFT
c. The Council will, from time to time, and at the recommendation of the City
Manager, conduct study sessions to familiarize new members and update other members with the
requirements of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law.
9. While openness is an important cornerstone of good government, it is occasionally
necessary to limit disclosure of certain types of data that may come into the hands of Council
members. For that reason, Council members will become familiar with the requirements of the
Minnesota Data Practices Act, and will seek advice prior to disclosing data in their possession that
might be considered as not public. Further, a Council member must not disclose information
received, discussed, or decided in conference with the City Attorney that is protected by the
attorney/client privilege, unless a majority of the Council has authorized that disclosure.
DISCLOSURES:
Within 30 days after taking the oath of office, each Council member must file a report with the City
Clerk, on a form prepared by the clerk, which contains the information specified below for the
preceding year. Subsequently, each person must file a supplemental report on the first day of
February of each year in office and within 30 days after any change in information provided under
paragraph 5. The information must be for the individual, the individual's spouse, all minor children
(collectively referred to below as "person").
a. A business entity in which the person is an officer, director, member, or employee,
and the position held.
b. A business entity in which the person has an ownership interest, either legal or
equitable, greater than 50%.
Sources of income, compensation, fees, or commissions that are received from employment,
for services rendered, or from pensions, except the employment of minor children.
d. Non-profit organizations in which the person serves on the governing body, and the
position held, except if serving in that capacity as the City's representative.
e. Real property within the City owned by the person or in which the person has a
beneficial interest and that has an assessed valuation in excess of $20,000. The person's homestead
need not be included.
The term "business entity" includes any business, proprietorship, firm, partnership, person in
representative or fiduciary capacity, association, venture, trust or corporation.
HEARING:
The council may hold a hearing after receiving a wriUen complaint questioning adherence to these
principles or alleging a conflict of interest or failure to file a required disclosure statement, or on the
Council's own volition. At the hearing, the person accursed must have the opportunity to be heard.
A hearing will be held only if the City Council determines (1) upon advice of the City Attorney,
designee or other attorney appointed by the Council, that the allegations, if proven, could reasonably
be found to rise to the level of a violation of these principles or to the level of a legally-recognized
JBD-lSS381v2 3
MU220-1
DRAFT
conflict of interest, and (2) that the complaint has been lodged in good faith and not for
impermissible purposes such as delay. If after the hearing, the council £mds that a conflict of
interest, failure to frle a required disclosure, or violation of these principles does exist, the Council
may take whatever action it deems appropriate, including referring the matter for criminal
prosecution, imposing a civil penalty not exceeding $2,000 per violation, directing an official not to
participate in a decision. A council member or member must not participate in a decision ff the
council prohibits the participation.
JBD-185381 v2 4
MU220-1
Exactly Does Ethical Leadership Mean These Days?
~hn Hawkins, president and founder of Leadership Edge Inc., helps universily
o~§on~ leaders across Arner~a wrestJe ~ ~3e issue of
'leadership lifestyle"--a posiOon Haw~ns believes is essen~ for
~=~,e, long-term leadership in today's chao~c organiza~ons and corpo~.
3nsortium: Is the American public generally trusting of individu-
s who put themselves forward as ethical leaders?
Hawkins: I believe that the public is confused by and suspicious of those
¢ividuals that put themselves forward as ethical leaders be they politicians,
rperate CEOs or nonprofit executives. We are confused as we try to under-
znd what "ethical" means in Amedca anymore. One of the sources of this
;nfusion lies in the example of self-proclaimed "ethical leaders" who have
~if-destructed because of moral and ethical failure. Their failure fuels our
,spicion of any other leaders that make the claim of ethical leadership.
'hat has caused us to become so cynical about our
~ntemporary leaders?
Hawkins: A major source of our cynicism comes from the belief that
Jr leaders regard us as naive and therefore try to fool us rather than lead
;. Instead of leading the people to own and solve adaptive challenges in
air communities and businesses, many of our leaders want us to believe
at our work is to elect them so that they can solve our problems for us.
ath in political and corporate contexts, we have been duped too many
'~es by leaders who say they want to solve our problems for us.
But at a deeper level, we are cynical about our leaders because we real-
a that our leaders are a reflection of what we as a nation have become.
are trained in our families, communities and schools and are
us. The misguided leadership and ethical confusion that we see
some of our leaders forces us to confront our own misguided and unethi-
~i ways. It is much easier to cynically critique our leaders than it is to
~come the kind of people that will foster and require ethical leadership.
Community Links is published by the Community Policing Consortium,
a training and technical assistance partnership of five of the leading
police organizations in the United States. The Consortium is committed
to the advancement of community policing nationwide and encourages
city and county government officials, community activists, and crime
prevention and civic group leaders to partner with law enforcement in
community policing initiatives.
Consortium Members
Intarna~anal Assocation of Chiefs of Poiice (IACP)
N~onaJ OrganLz~on of Bac~ Law
Enforcement Executives (NOBLE)
N~onal Sheriffs' AssocatJon (NSA)
Police ExecuWe Research Forum (PERF)
Police Foundation (PF)
Reproduction Rights
Reproou¢on of any pan of Commun~ bhks is
enc~Jraged by the Community Policing Consodium
unless othe~se in~iicate~. P~rtts of vmW or 0p~nions
expressed in this Dub~icatz~n are those of the authors
and do not necessaniy represent the officiaJ position or
policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Publications Monager
Usa Lee HocXman, Associate Editor
Stm:~anie Ranc~s, Program Asastant
Tom Rhatigan, NSA Program Director
Mom Information is Available
To learn mom about Consortium gu~ica~ons, how
to submit an article, request w~iter's guidelines, add
y~ur name to our ma~iing list or send us information on
)'our upcormng event, c~ntact us at:
The Community Policing Consortium, 1726 M St. NW.. Surte 801. Washington. DC 20036 ·
Toll Free: 800.833.3085 · Fax: 202.833.9295 · E-mail: ns&oul3s@communitypoliC~ng.org
What qualities are required of an
ethical leader?
Hawkins: It is my belief that an ethical
leader must have a philosophical or theologi-
cal basis from which he or she derives his or
her understanding of ethics. Without this
basis, one's practice of ethical behavior will
be constantly changing as a result of chang-
ing circumstances and personal preferences.
it can be likened to building a house on a
reinforced foundation or building it on shifting
sand. Those who do the hard work of building
their ethical behavior upon philosophically or theologically derived moral
absolutes are like the house built upon the reinforced foundation.
Secondly, for a leader to be trustworthy, he or she must possess
character, competence and commitment. Character is the combination
of moral qualities by which a person is judged apart from intellect and
talent, it is the alignment of one's speech and actions with one's core
beliefs about reality, life and truth. More simply, character has to do with
one's demonstration of virtue.
Leaders must prove themselves competent in positively and effective-
ly leading people to accomplish significant tasks that are tied to com-
pelling visions. In their book. The Leadership Challenge, authors James
Kouzes and Barry Posner put forward five basic leadership competencies
that they gleaned from interviewing hundreds of organizational leaders.
These five competencies are: Challenging the Process, Inspiring a
Shared Vision, Enabling Others to ACt, Modeling the Way and Encouraging
the Heart. Along with these five competencies, I would add Maintaining
Accountability, and Maintaining Personal Perspective and Balance.
Proficiency in all these competencies, along with others specific to par-
ticular contexts, is a minimum requirement for any organizational leader.
Finally, trustworthy leaders must make strong commitments to their
organizations, their constituents, their values and to the work of leadership.
Without commitment, the character and competence of the leader remains
disengaged. With commitment, the leader's character and competence are
engaged in a specific place with a specific purpose to accomplish.
What suggestions can you offer to those individuals who seek to
win the trust and respect of their constituents?
Hawkins: For those who desire to be moral and credible leaders,
they must demonstrate virtuous leadership in speech and actions, pub-
licly and privately, 24 hours a day. No leader will ever become a spotless
moral paragon. And yet, each must be committed to doing what it takes
to do what is right. What a leader does in private does matter and will
ultimately establish or undermine the credibility of his or her influence.
The motivation of the leader must be the message of his or her entire
life rather than the method by which that person hides his or her secrets.
Individuals aspiring to be moral leaders must also recognize that the
test of time is compelling; it builds patience, and in some, a rich humility.
Time proves both the value of one's virtues and the consistency with
which they are displayed. Time is the acid test that determines the credi-
bility and morality of any leader. In establishing one's trustworthiness,
the current fad of ropes courses and executive retreats are no substi-
tutes for months and years of daily collaboration. Working with others in
the trenches over time is the context in which the leader's virtue is
proven and his or her patience and humility are forged.
Another suggestion is to forgo the pursuit of media exposure;
it is of limited value in putting forward and establishing one's
Ethical Leadership
(Continued from page 3)
virtue. ~ishment of moral authority comes from building a credible
reputation in a relatively small culture. From this culture there is the
chance of multiplied influence as one's reputation becomes legendary.
Ultimately, it is futile to attempt building one's moral authority in front of
the camera. This is why, though rarely in front of television cameras,
Mother Teresa was internationally known as a virtuous leader, whereas
many of our U.S. politicians spend an entire campaign and millions of
dollars in failed media attempts to establish their moral credibility.
Finally, every principled leader will encounter at least a few times
when he or she must choose "to die right rather than live wrong."
Ethical leadership cannot be separated from hard and costly choices.
Leaders must keep clearly in mind the ethical boundaries that they will
not violate, no matter the cost. In the course of one's career, there will
most likely be several occasions in which the leader must choose to
take his or her personal losses and walk away from an ethically com-
promised endeavor. It is tragic and destructive when a leader holds on
to a position or to personal gain at the expense of his or her integrity.
For more information, contact John Hawkins, President,
Leadership Edge Inc., RO. Box 5165'7, Durham, NC 27717. Phone:
919.493.6607 Fax: 919.493.5135 E-Mail: jhawkins~lead-edge.com
Website: www.lead-edge.com
September 13, 2000
RESOLUTION #00-
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2001 PRELIMINARY GENERAL FUND
BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,526,940;
SETTING THE PRELIMINARY LEVY AT $2,065,800
LESS THE HOMESTEAD AGRICULTURAL CREDIT (HACA)
OF $502,920, RESULTING IN A PRELIMINARY
CERTIFIED LEVY OF $1,562,880;
APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY OVERALL BUDGET FOR 2001;
AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATES
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
does hereby adopt the following preliminary 2001 General Fund Budget appropriations:
City Council
Promotions
Cable TV
City Manager/Clerk
Elections/Registration
Assessing
Finance
Computer
Legal
Police
Emergency Preparedness
Planning/Inspections
Street
City Property/Buildings
Parks
Recreation
Contingencies
Transfers
82,320
4,000
48000
231,280
2 300
73,450
198,830
18,950
118980
1,141,740
7 450
303,900
567,610
154,940
312,340
43,260
41,580
176,010
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 3,526,940
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, does hereby direct the County Auditor to levy the following preliminary taxes for
collection in 2001:
SPECIAL LEVIES
Bonded Indebtedness
Unfunded Accrued Liability of Public Pension Funds
Total Special Levies
TOTAL PRELIMINARY LEVY
PRELIMINARY TOTAL TO BE LEVIED FOR 2001
Less Homestead Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA)
Preliminary Certified Levy
September 13, 2000
84,590
33.350
117.940
1.947.860
2,065,800
-502.920
1,562,880
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, does hereby adopt the preliminary overall budget for 2001 as follows:
GENERAL FUND
As per above
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Area Fire Service Fund
Capital Improvement Fund
Cemetery Fund
Dock Fund
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
3,526,940
403,270
24,150
8,500
89,000
524,920
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Recycling Fund
Liquor Fund
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
Storm Water Utility Fund
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS
133,980
496,550
483,750
952,940
712.000
2,779,220
2
September I~, 2000
SUMMARY
General Fund
Special Revenue Funds
Enterprise Funds
3,526,940
524,920
2.779.220
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
6,831,080
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, hereby sets Monday, December 4, 2000 and Monday, December 11, 2000, as the
public hearing dates for consideration of the 2001 Proposed Budget.
3
,September 13, 2000
RESOLUTION NO. 00-
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEVY NOT TO
EXCEED $53,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING
THE COST OF OPERATION, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
MSA 469, OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF
THE CITY OF MOUND FOR THE YEAR 2001
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mound is the governing body of
the City of Mound; and
WltEREAS, the City Council has received a resolution from the Housing &
Redevelopment Authority of the City of Mound, entitled, "Resolution Approving the Mound
Housing and Redevelopment Authority Budget for the Year 2001 Pursuant to MSA Chapter
469"; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469, must
by resolution consent to the proposed tax levy of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
of the City of Mound.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City
of Mound, Minnesota, that a special tax be levied upon real and personal property within the
City of Mound in the amount not to exceed $53,000.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the said levy, not to exceed $53,000 is
approved by this Council to be used for the operation of the Mound Housing &
Redevelopment Authority pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469, and shall be certified as a
tax levy to the County Auditor of Hennepin County on or before September 15, 2000.
City of Mound
HRA 2001 Levy
Residential
Value
Levy
$24,000
Max Levy
$82,054
$100,000
2.15
10.54
$125,000
2.92
14.30
$150,000
3.69
14.82
$200,000
5.23
25.59
$300,000
8.30
40.63
Notes
Tax Capacity
2001 HACA
Taxable Market Value
Max Rate
Max Levy
8,001,104
9,092
569,818,500
0.0144
82,054
percent
These are estimates based on proposed amounts.
Final values and rates are certified to the County Auditor
later in the year.
Gino
08~23~2000
CITY OF MOUND
DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
AUGUST 17, 2000
DRAFT
Present were: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners Mark Goldberg, Gerald Jones, Frank
Ahrens, and Greg Eurich, and Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present were
Park Director Jim Fackler, and Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey.
Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
1. MINUTES
Motion was made by Ahrens, seconded by Jones, to approve the minutes of
the July 20, 2000 DCAC meeting as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Agenda approved as presented.
DISCUSS: THE STAIRWAYS AT WIOTA COMMONS ON BLUEBIRD AND
CANARY
City Manager Kandis Hanson introduced herself and addressed the Commission regarding
complaints she has received earlier this summer regarding a stairway that has been
removed by the City due to deterioration. An unknown individual has dug "stair-like" steps
into the hillside that the City had regraded when the stairway was removed.
Mary Pierce, 1741 Bluebird Lane then addressed the Commission regarding the erosion
on this hillside. Ms. Pierce is asking that this location for steps be re-evaluated and
possibly new steps put in.
Park Director Fackler stated that there had been annual repairs done to both of these
areas, but eventually one was taken out, and the other needs extensive repair at this time.
One of the concerns was the financial impact of Woodland Point before any decision could
be made on this issue. In addition to Bluebird and Canary, there is another stairway
needing to be replaced at Gull.
Councilmember Hanus stated that the rumor is that this area is lined up for the next
litigation, after Woodland Point is done. One of the attitudes of the City is to not put
additional funds into this area now when the City may lose it completely in the near future.
Commissioner Goldberg stated that just because this is a possibility may not be a reason
for the City to not go ahead and improve the access, especially for safety issues. He
asked what would keep the City from going ahead and fixing these areas.
Councilmember Hanus stated that one consideration is the value of it since these areas
are accessible by other means. These other means may not be as convenient, but they
are available.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission
Commissioner Jones stated that there is an approved budged for 2000, and out of that
some docks have been purchased and so on, and none of this money had been set aside
for stairs. For 2001, a figure of $5,000 was set aside for stairs. The estimate for these
repairs and replacements is approximately $23,000. Also, the settlement for Woodland
Point is going to include stairs as well. In some of these areas, the stairs were not
originally built by the City and in one of these areas, the bank was filled in and seeded but
someone went in and dug stairs. Commissioner Jones suggested a way to take care of
this is for the City to put up some kind of fencing to keep the people from using this grade.
Commissioner Ahrens questioned the estimated cost for stairs that may need to be
installed at Woodland Point.
Park Director Fackler stated it would probably be under $40,000 and right now there is
about $13,200 left in the Capital Outlay for 2000.
Commissioner Goldberg stated if the City is going to have docks down there that people
have to get to, access does have to be provided. Liability is less important than making
sure that the dock program is being run well. Also, this area has been paying dock fees
for quite some time, and has probably built up a balance that could then be spent on their
area. One of the main reasons raising dock fees is justifiable is the raising costs in this
system. Commissioner Goldberg suggested if the dock program is over funded, one of the
issues may be that there is under spending and in looking at these stairs, he felt that was
obvious.
Councilmember Hanus stated he disagreed, as there was a reason that these stairs were
not repaired or replaced when removed. Right or wrong, there was a reason and it was
not simply the neglect of the dock program.
Julie Weisenhorn, 1733 Bluebird Lane, then addressed the Commission, adding that the
stairs were not in horrible condition until the City drained the fire hydrant and basically blew
them out. She stated that site has been taken care of by the users, and suggested the City
could then come in and repair the steps.
Commissioner Goldberg suggested not putting the stair offthe end of Canary and Bluebird
since it would not be that much of an inconvenience to put stairs at the end of one which
can be used for both.
Ms. Weisenhorn replied that this situation would probably not work, as the people would
have to walk through two properties, and this may lead to even more problems.
Ms. Pierce questioned whether these repairs could be written into the budget for repair in
2001, as it is close to the end of the boating season this year.
Councilmember Hanus replied that this was discussed, but the initial proposed budget has
to be done in September, and is then finalized in December, which does not leave much
time for estimates and other necessary information to be gathered.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission
DJ~A~lust 17,2000
CommissionerAhrens questioned what areas were included in Woodland Point, and asked
if the stairs under discussion were included in any existing litigation right now.
Councilmember Hanus answered the litigation ran from Eagle to Jennings Bay, but the
Bluebird and Canary sites are not included in this litigation. However, there is talk that they
will bring a lawsuit when Woodland Point has been settled.
Chair Funk stated that safety should probably be the overriding factor in this decision, and
not the outcome of the suit. The money is in the dock fund to use, although there may
have to be some trading with other spending that is wanted.
Commissioner Ahrens stated that $23,000 or more is the amount being discussed, but he
would prefer to have more bids before going ahead with the stairs. He suggested the
specs can be sent out and staff can come back to the next meeting with additional bids.
Commissioner Jones suggested finding a different way to flush the hydrants in the future
as well, in order to not blow out new stairs that are installed.
Commissioner Goldberg suggested that in addition to more bids, optional materials could
be looked into as well.
City Manager Hanson stated that staff would work on getting competitive bids for both
sites, and using different materials as well. That information would be presented at the
next Dock Commission meeting.
Commissioner Goldberg asked if there was a possibility that these two stairways could be
done this year.
Park Director Fackler stated that fall is actually the best season to have these types of
projects done. He noted that Spring is the prime season so prices tend to be higher and
the wait tends to be longer. He stated it could definitely be done this year.
DISCUSS: PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT
Mark J. Smith, 4665 Island View Drive
Dock Site 41824, Devon Commons
Park Director Fackler summarized the request for Pubic Lands Permit by Mark Smith to
use an existing light pole to attach a light and electrical sockets. As the pole is in good
condition and has been at this location since at least 1972, staff recommends approval with
the condition that all electrical work be done by a qualified electrical contractor and be
approved by the State Electrical Inspector.
Motion made by Goldberg, seconded by Jones, to approve the staff
recommendation to grant the public lands permit to Mark J. Smith, 4665
Island View Drive, Dock Site 41824, Devon Commons. Motion carried
unanimously.
Augu~ 17,2000
5. DISCUSS: DOCK FEES
Park Director Fackler presented information from a sub-committee which discussed dock
fees, briefly explaining each group and each option. Staff is recommending Option I of
Group A, the equal distribution between abutter and non-abutter.
Discussion followed regarding the specifics of the report, such as how the numbers shown
were arrived at. Questions were answered by members of the sub-committee who were
present. Some concern about the high balance was expressed, but CommissionerAhrens
pointed out that only the income was shown. Expenditures are yet to be determined. It
was mentioned that more maintenance and improvements can be done, and the General
Fund subsidies can be covered. Ahrens also stressed the fact that the recommendation
is from staff, not from the sub-committee. The purpose of the sub-committee was to
present all options to the Dock Commission.
9:35 p.m. Commissioner Gerald Jones is excused from the rest of the
meeting.
Discussion then turned to where the dock funds should be spent and if the money should
go to only docks, or upkeep of the commons, some to the General Fund, to parks, and so
on. Chair Funk pointed out that this discussion could take place at another time, as there
are many options to look into, and a clear and concise recommendation would need to be
made to the City Council.
Consensus was reached that the above subject should be discussed at a future meeting.
Commissioner Goldberg stated that no matter what decision is made, there will be some
people who are not going to be happy with the change. The best plan would be to try very
hard not to create additional friction between abutters and non-abutters. It was mentioned
that over the years, the Dock Commission has worked very hard to keep the scales even,
and this could bring some bad feeling back.
10:00 p.m. Chair Funk tabled the meeting.
Motion made by Funk, seconded by Ahrens to extend the meeting for 30
minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
10:00 p.m. Council member Mark Hanus is excused from the rest of the
meeting.
Commissioner Goldberg stated one thing that cannot happen is that multiple dock holders
be made to pay more than the straight dock holder, as just a year or two ago the people
who moved to the multiple dock were told that would not happen. They were told that
moving to a multiple dock will not change the fee they would have to pay. The multiple slip
dock fee was promised to be equal to the straight dock fee.
City Manager Hanson informed the Commissioners that the City Council has set a goal for
her to have new dock fees in place for January 1, 2001.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission
DRAFTAU US ?, ooo
Park Director Fackler stated that a recommendation tonight would be his preference due
to the fact that a public hearing had been discussed for September.
City Manager Hanson stated that since the Commission is getting "hit" with this for the first
time tonight, she would recommend a workshop to discuss this issue only, as there are
many, many facets of this decision and it is too much to discuss and come up with a
recommendation in one night. She advised the sub-committee is fairly confident in what
they have come up with, but the Dock Commission may need some time to digest all of the
information presented.
Commissioner Ahrens stated that tonight, two members of the Commission had to leave
already, so no decision is going to happen tonight. He agreed that a workshop dedicated
to this discussion is a very good idea.
Consensus was reached to schedule a workshop on Wednesday, August 23rd, at 7:00
p.m. If another meeting is needed, Wednesday, August 30th would be the second option.
There would be enough time to notify for this meeting, and there would also be time to
change any information that is discussed before the September 21 st public hearing date.
6. DISCUSS: 200'1 DOCK APPLICATION FORMS
Park Director Fackler requested that the Commissioners look at the new multiple slip
application and advised that this issue can be discussed next month.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey also pointed out the Wayzata application which requires proof
of insurance, and suggested the Commissioners decide whether Mound would like to add
this type of requirement to their application.
7. REVIEW: ORDINANCE 437
Agenda Item moved to September meeting.
8. FYI
A)
B)
C)
D)
City Council Minutes July 25, 2000
Park & Open Space Advisory Commission Minutes July 13, 2000
Planning Commission Minutes
Memo from Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector
9. REPORTS
A) CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE
No report at this time.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission
UkAFT
August 17, 2000
B) PARK DIRECTOR
Park Director Fackler stated the multiple slip dock at Highland End will have to be
discussed, as there is an abutting property owner who would like that dock moved.
Hopefully, this discussion can take place at the October meeting if the property
owner is agreeable.
10. ADJOURN
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Funk, to adjourn the meeting at 10:45
p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
MOUND ADVISORY PARK OMMISSIO
AUGUST 10, 2000
Present were: Commissioners Peter Meyer, Norman Domholt, John Beise, Tom Casey;
and City Council Representative Leah Weycker. Also present were Park Director Jim
Fackler, and Secretary Kristine Kitzman.
Chair Beise called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
1. APPROVAL OF THE JULY 13, 2000 POSC MINUTES
Motion made by Casey, seconded by Weycker to approve the minutes of the
July 13, 2000 Park and Open Space Commission (POSC) meeting, as amended
below. Motion carried unanimously.
1. Eliminate Absent: Commissioner Christina Cooper, as she had resigned before
the date of this meeting.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
The agenda was approved as presented/with the following amendments:
1. Item 7 moved to September meeting.
2. Item 6 moved to September meeting.
3. PRESENTATION BY: MOUND TOBACCO FREE FUTURE FOR YOUTH
Ms. Carol Weber gave a presentation regarding social exposure to tobacco, and the goal
of the Mound Tobacco Free Future For Youth of reducing the use of tobacco by young
people. This group has drafted a "Clean Outdoor Air Ordinance" which was presented to
the Park Commission.
Dr. Carlson then addressed the Commission regarding the dangers of smoking, and
expressed his opinion that smoke free parks would be a wonderful movement for the youth
of Mound. In addition to trying to reduce the use of tobacco, it is just as important to
protect the youth from the second hand smoke which is nearly as damaging as the direct
cigarette smoke.
Tony Lockin then addressed the Commission expressing concern about kids smoking, and
his desire to lessen the exposure to this behavior, especially at playgrounds where kids
tend to copy behavior and try to act like the adults around them.
Mary Harrell addressed the Commission also expressing desire to have playgrounds and
parks be smoke free. She indicated that kids go to the parks and playgrounds to play, and
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission
August
do not need to have adults around smoking. Ms. Harrell commented that the parks she
has been to that are tobacco free are much cleaner, and do not promote tobacco use.
Elaine Winter addressed the Commission and read a letter from a senior who lives in the
area regarding the smoking that is taking place at Music in the Park. The letter mentioned
that young children and teens were among the smokers at the park.
Councilmember Weycker asked about Section 3, citing the penalty for breaking the
proposed Ordinance which was left blank, and what penalty she would like to see.
Ms. Weber stated that it was her understanding that enforcement would be a City Council
decision, but she would like to see a fine, and possibly immediate ejection from the
park/sporting event.
Commissioner Casey questioned whether immediate ejection is legal short of an arrest.
Jean Carls, Intervention Coordinator of the Tobacco Prevention Project, addressed this
concern, stating that generally the first offense would be asking the person to extinguish
their materials, the second offense would be to ask them to leave. The third offense would
then be a fine for a petty misdemeanor.
Chair Beise questioned if there were other cities which have adopted an ordinance such
as this one.
Ms. Carls stated the City of Bloomington is currently working on an ordinance to ban
smoking on one of their beaches, and has banned smoking at their "Arts in the Park"
events. Other cities are considering an Ordinance such as this one, but currently there are
no communities that have passed the Ordinance.
Commissioner Casey stated in Bloomington, they currently have a Resolution and are
working on an Ordinance. Also, Casey questioned whether the City of Mound has the
authority to pass a Clean Air Act like this one.
Ms. Carls replied that this spring, the Attorney General's Office issued a statement that
municipalities can pass ordinances regarding smoking that are stronger than the State
Ordinances.
Commissioner Casey made some suggestions of language changes on the draft ordinance
presented, noted by Ms. Weber, and suggested these changes be made before presenting
the draft to the City Council.
Chair Beise asked the Commissioners what changes would need to be made to the draft
ordinance for them to vote to recommend approval. Wording changes were suggested and
noted by Ms. Weber on her copy of the draft ordinance. Sections 3 through 6 will likely
2
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission A~i~j 0,2000
have to be examined by the City Attorney, but Chair Beise would still like to produce a draft
that could be considered by the City Council at this meeting.
Commissioner Domholt stressed that whether enforced or not, the fact that there is a law
will show the youth that the community does care, and is trying to reduce tobacco use in
places they go for recreation.
Commissioner Casey mentioned the warning issues discussed earlier, and stated that
perhaps it would be better to just leave this out. It was suggested that warning the
individual can be left up to the police officers' discretion. The final penalty would be the
same as the other city ordinances, which is a misdemeanor.
Page 1:
2nd line from top, change "policy" to "ordinance.
"Be it resolved" changed to "Whereas"
First "Whereas" clause, strike "death and disease" and change to "cancer"
"Be it decreed" changed to "be it ordained."
Motion made by Casey, seconded by Weycker to approve Page 1 with the
above amendments. Motion carried unanimously.
(B) ...within a Public Park...
(C) ..."or outdoor festival which is operated by the City of Mound." and strike "trails."
(D) add "cigars" and "pipes" to the list
Motion made by Casey, seconded by Meyer to approve Section 1 with the
above amendments, Motion carried unanimously,
Section 2: Change "youth athletic fields" to "recreational facilities"
Section 3: Change to: "Any person found violating this Ordinance is guilty of a
misdemeanor."
Section 4: change "youth athletic fields" to "recreational facilities."
Section 5: Change "policy" to "ordinance."
Section 6: ...forward a copy of this ordinance to the City of Mound's Athletic/Civic/Private
Organizations; Strike the rest of this paragraph.
Motion made by Casey, seconded by Domholt to approve Sections 2, 3, 4, 5
and 6 with the above amendments. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion made by Domholt, seconded by Casey to recommend adoption of the
Clean Air Ordinance, as amended above, to the City Council. Motion carried
unanimously.
3
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission
10, 2000
4. UPDATE: SWENSON PARK PLAY STRUCTURE
Park Director Fackler presented the petition by the Swenson Park neighborhood for
improvements to the play structure at the park. The funding was requested for this project,
but not approved. The petition will be presented to the City Council in hope that they will
reconsider approving funding for this project.
Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Casey to move pages 9 through 14,
in their entirety, to the City Council packet for their next meeting. Motion
carried unanimously.
5. DISCUSS: ARBOR DAY EVENT
Chair Beise stated that at the last meeting, the request was made that the City Planner
consolidate the other cities ordinances into a draft pertinent to the City of Mound for the
Park Commission to examine.
Park Director Fackler replied that tree protection is addressed in the Mound City Code,
Section 350:725, Landscaping and Tree Preservation.
Chair Beise stated that there is a lot of information before the Commission right now, and
questioned the Commissioners about what direction to take to tighten the existing
ordinance, write a new ordinance, or the interest of becoming a "Tree City USA."
Currently, the Park Commission is not sure how to proceed.
Councilmember Weycker suggested drafting specific questions for Loren Gordon which
would help with discussion of how to change or add to the existing ordinance in order to
protect existing trees, not pertaining solely to new development, as the current ordinance
seems to.
Chair Beise requested that the minutes to this meeting be forwarded to Loren Gordon so
he knows what direction the Commission is trying to go, and then request that he attend
the next Park Commission meeting to make some suggestions and field questions that the
Commission has.
Commissioner Casey stated he has three questions for Mr. Gordon: 1) What are the
features of a good, broad tree preservation ordinance; 2) How does Mound fall short of
having such an ordinance; and, 3) What other communities could Mound receive
information from that would help develop such an ordinance.
Chair Beise would direct the question to Mr. Gorden: What does Mound have to do to
become a Tree City USA.
4
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission
DISCUSS: SOCCER FIELD NEEDS
Item moved to September agenda.
August 10, 2000
7. DISCUSS: SAFE PLAY AREA AT WOLNER FIELD
Item moved to September agenda.
8. POSC SEPTEMBER AGENDA
Some items for the September POSC agenda are: 1. Discuss: Soccer Field Needs
2. Discuss: Safe Play Area at Wolner Field
3. Discuss: Bond Referendum Results
9. FOR YOUR INFORMATION
City Council Minutes July 25, 2000
Dock and Commons Advisory Commission Minutes July 20, 2000
Planning Commission Minutes
LMC Information
City Contact
Mound Downtown Redevelopment Questions & Answers
10. REPORTS:
a. City Council Representative
Councilmember Weycker reported on the changes to the Alwin property preliminary plat,
which ended up to be a good deal for the Parks, as there is a larger space for the park,
which includes shoreline. Weycker also reported on the downtown development project,
stating that the developer has backed out, and the City is looking for a new developer.
b. Park Director
Park Director Fackler reported that the budget request has been submitted, and the City
Manager is in the process of doing the first evaluation. The biggest concern is staffing, but
other areas will also be discussed at the next meeting, including park maintenance and
park equipment.
Motion made by Domholt, seconded by Weycker to adjourn the meeting at
9:55 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
The meeting was called to order by Mark Brewer at approximately 7:15 a.m. Members
present were Jerry Pietrowski, Suzanne Claywell, Stan Drahos, and Mark Brewer.
Others present were Kandis Hanson, Bob Brown, Bruce Chamberlain, Gino Businaro,
Fran Clark and Ken Custer. Absent were Paul Meisel and Sharon McMenamy-Cook.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION made by Stan Drahos and seconded by Jerry Pietrowski to
approve the July 20th meeting and the July 27, 2000 special meeting. The
motion passed unanimously.
PROJECT UPDATES
MOUND FAMILY HARDWARE: The City Manager reported everything is going well,
the steel is up and they are making good progress. One problem was they did not
apply for a permit from the MCWD, however, the application has now been submitted.
We were first told they would not entertain this permit until September 14th, however,
there has been some positive indicators that they actually handed it over to the staff
earlier this week and it will be dealt with it at their next meeting. The City Manager
stated they routinely put every application into a 21 day holding pattern while a review
is made, however there is a provision in the resolution that was adopted that needs
only minor amending in order to allow the project to proceed. This will be back on the
council agenda for next Tuesday.
The City Manager reported they are also applying for the Health Department permits
that are needed.
There was a discussion of the problems that have had to be overcome in this project.
Jerry advised all projects, especially of this size, have obstacles to overcome. Mark
asked if there was anything we could do to assist them at this point. The City Manager
reported that she was not aware of anything.
Mark shared that he has been through many MCWD district meetings. He asked if
there was any reason to believe they had any objection to the project. Stan Draho$
stated he did not believe so. The City Manager stated that the only time they would be
opposed to seeing it move forward would be if the project is proceeding without their
permit. It was mentioned that they did suggest the City issue a stop work order on the
project because they did not have a MCWD permit. The City Manager stated that it is
in our best interest as well as Mound True Valu to see the project move forward.
POST OFFICE PROJECT: Bruce Chamberlain reported that we will be closing on the
land this week. He stated it is likely one site will be obtained through condemnation
with the quick take occurring on Friday. The post office is proceeding with their plans,
though the city has not yet received a formal submittal from them. We have, however,
received drawings of the building and the site and we have given them back with our
comments. Bruce stated he believed they are incorporating some of those ideas as
well as working out some of the issues brought forth. Bruce stated he is trying to get a
more definitive schedule for their bid date and start of construction.
Stan asked if both lands were being purchased in the same way. Bruce stated offers
have been presented to both property owners but they have also filed for
condemnation. Bruce stated he has stayed completely out of the negotiation process
so he has not received any comments from Willette.
Mark asked if we would be able to review their design. Bruce answered that he would
have the plans available from the postal service for the next meeting. Mark asked how
much influence we will be able to have regarding their design guidelines or for that
matter, the design and guidelines of any other developer. Bruce stated we do have
some influence because we can put Tax Increment Financing dollars towards the
project. Bruce said that the post office has not asked for any TIF money, but TIF is a
means the City can use to encourage developers to incorporate the design ideas the
City wants to accomplish. Bruce acknowledge that the City has less influence over
design in the post office as it would with a project like Langdon or Auditors because
we're not as intricately involved in the development process.
Bruce went on to explain that when the post office goes up for bid, they will select the
contractor and the new owner of the property. Construction is suppose to start this fall
with their completion date set for the end of March 2001 but it will probably be pushed
back one or two months. Stan was concerned about the actual completion date being
2
pushed back indefinitely. Bruce explained that the City really has no way to demand a
specific date for it to be completed unless we demand the post office be out of the
building by a certain date. He was concerned about doing that because the post office
really has three more years on their lease. As soon as the post office has moved the
city can go in and demolish the existing building. Bruce explained that we will be using
MSA dollars to tear the building down.
The construction of County Rd. 15 is on the county's 2002 CIP. Bruce stated the
Auditor's Road extension will be completed with the county road project and the
Greenway project will be completed next summer. We have a permit application into
the MCWD right now for that Greenway project, which is the last permit needed. Bruce
said the plans are almost completed on that project so we are about ready to go out for
bids.
Bruce stated that United Property who is one of the property owners, has expressed
interest in developing the post office so they may be bidding on the project. They
would like to work out an arrangement where they would not have to give up ownership
of their site. There are a series of options that would allow them, if they were the
successful bidder, to hold onto the property and not have to sell it and then repurchase
it. They have been informed that obviously, the only way this can be done is if a
negotiated price was worked out for the property, rather than having to go through
condemnation.
BEARD DEVELOPMENT: The City Manager reported that Bill Beard attended the last
HRA meeting and expressed his regrets for his inability to be our developer at this time.
The City manager stated there was an accurate account of this in the Laker
Newspaper. She stated we regretted this happened and preferred to work with Bill
Beard over anyone else but pointed out she is optimistic that everything will work out
for the best. She explained that in Beard's letter he requested that if he could get the
numbers to work out he would like to be reconsidered. She stated the council felt
positive about him and his project so if he works out the numbers while we are
regrouping, we would be willing to reconsider him.
The City Manager further explained Bill Beard had asked for another extension but it
was denied because it could possibly just prolong the wait and this way, we can use
this period of time to step back, take another look, and see if there is possibly another
developer for us on this project. She said that Beard had indicated in his letter that he
3
had put a significant amount of money and emotional investment into the project.
Bruce explained that it is likely Beard had over $100,000 invested in the project.
The City Manager stated that most of what we have spent would have been spent
regardless of who we were working with so it is still money worth spent. Kandis
explained that Beard had come to the City requesting an extension and he was given a
55 day extension. She stated during that time he continued to work his spread sheets
relentlessly manipulating them in an attempt to close the dollar gap. She stated that at
one point he was $3,100,000 apart but by the time he submitted his letter to us, he was
$2,000,000 apart. We continued working with him on a weekly basis at the project
team meetings and Bruce met with him individually attempting to close that gap. With
this in mind, the writing was really on the wall at the time he asked for the extension.
She explained that it was good for the City to give him the first extension but a second
extension was not a practical thing for the City to entertain.
Stan stated that Scott from Scotty B's requested him to mention that because of what
has happened, he is interested in starting a development on his own. He stated there
may be others that are also interested in doing the same. He stated he would be
willing to keep the same scheme that the City wants. He expressed to Stan that he
would like an opportunity to meet with the City to pursue this endeavor. Stan explained
that Scott is concerned about his building being torn down without him having a new
location for his business. Bruce told Start that he was aware of this and was also
working with Ken Custer on an option that includes business and property owners.
Bruce stated this is one scenario that is being explored. The City Manager stated the
Project Team met with Ken yesterday and is scheduled to meet with Scotty B's next
week. She also explained that by allowing the agreement with Beard to lapse, we can
now entertain other proposals.
REDEVELOPMENT OF AUDITORS ROAD DISTRICT AND LANGDON DISTRICT:
The City Manager shared that we have regrouped and established a work program
establishing a schedule in locating a subsequent developer. There will be a very
concentrated effort for the next five to six months to establish who would be the best
developer for the Mound Vision Project. She stated there will be a packet of
information that will be given to interested developers stating the criteria we are looking
for. Each central property owner will be personally contacted and if they show an
interest in submitting a proposal to the City, they will be given the packet and the
opportunity to submit their plans.
4
There was a discussion o{ f he pros and cons of hav{no msn¥ different developers doing
their own project. Bob Brown asked that with us now considering individuals instead of
a one developer, what our protection would be against having many different looking
buildings instead of one flowing concept. Mark agreed this is conceivably a problem
because we had previously decided we would not put a lot of teeth into design rules. If
we went with one developer there would be continuity to the project but if we went with
several developers, there is a concern of buildings not fitting the concept plan.
Bruce explained that one thing that will be done is to put more into the design
guidelines so they are more specific. We will also be recommending to the HRA to
adopt them as policy for the expenditure of TIF and any public subsidy. The City
Manager added that if we attach this to the criteria that was adopted within the last few
months, we can apply it to the Revolving Loan Fund, tax abatement, TIF, and the City
contribution of land. This can then be one of the conditions to the developer
agreement for any form of subsidy given by the City. So for at least the life of the
agreement (which would have been 25 years for the Beard Group) we can have a say
in the design without actually making it an ordinance.
Bruce pointed out that in many towns there are several property owners and
developers but the buildings fit very well together and if we do a good job with the
design guidelines that will be enhanced, we can expect the same thing. So even if the
buildings differ architecturally, they will have the common theme or element that will
make them compliment each other.
Jerry Pietrowski stated that he was excited that business owners are interested in
getting involved with the development project. He also believed the business owners
would be very willing to work with the City regarding the design of their buildings. The
City Manager agreed that this could turn out to be the best thing for the City.
Bruce reported that Phase I of the Environmental assessment for most of the downtown
area, Langdon District, Auditors District, True Value District, and the post office site has
been completed. The only site that appears completely clean is the post office site,
everything else has some level of contamination on it. The environmental consultant
came in and went through the reports with the City. He stated that the clean up could
actually hold up the project unless we are as proactive as possible on it. Bruce stated
that at the HRA meeting on Tuesday, he will be requesting them to allow the
completion of the Phase I and then have a Phase II Environmental assessment done
5
on the Lost Lake site, so the park and ride lot construction isn't held up. He will also be
requesting a comprehensive Phase II Environmental assessment for as much of the
downtown area as can be accomplished. Phase II includes a clean up work plan which
needs to be coordinated with the PCA. These steps need to be taken as soon as
possible but current landowners also need to cooperate with us to start this clean up.
There may be some funding to assist the city for the petroleum clean up. Bruce
reported that with petroleum there is 90% contribution from the super fund for clean up,
consultant fees and the testing associated with it. We will be going after the
Department of Trade and Economic Development Grant, a redevelopment
contaminated site clean up grant, for all the big program elements. Bruce stated the
DTEC grant is a well funded comprehensive grant.
Mark shared a concern that with Beard not willing to do whatever it took to make his
agreement work when he already had people interested in investing in the project, how
can we get other developers interested. Bruce answered that we have a list of
approximately 15 developers that may be interested in our project, which includes
some downtown businesses and property owners that have expressed an interest. The
City Manager also explained that if more than one developer points out to us that this is
not a feasible project, we will need to take another look at the project as it currently
stands. This may actually be advantageous to local property owners because of the
acquisition costs involved to developers. There will be a packet given out to potential
developers. The City has complete survey data and title searches on all downtown
properties, what the regulatory constraints are from the MCWD and ponding
requirements, etc.,
The City Manager shared with the group that we need to be very careful not to use
information that Beard had previously provided, including his drawings. So if there are
any of his drawings still up, they need to be taken down.
HOTEL DISTRICT: There has been interest shown from Rick and Sue BIoomquist,
and Chris Valerius and Phil Fiske. Chris and Phil were interested because they have
to relocate their market and coffee shop and this is the only district that allows for a
drive-up window. In her plan, she would incorporate the drive-up coffee shop with the
hotel idea.
6
Because there were two local business owners inquiring within a shod time frame, it
was suggested by Council members to bring them together and suggest a joint project.
Neither group was interested in a joint endeavor but both are still interested in a project
individually.
The City Manager explained it is essential we devote our energies on the Auditors Rd.
District and the Langdon District, and not pursue the hotel development for at least six
months or until the downtown redevelopment is underway.
METROPLAINS DEVELOPMENT OF SCHOOL PROPERTY: Bruce Chamberlain
stated they have indicated an interest, if the referendum passes and the City decides to
go forward with acquiring that property, to work with the City to do so. A review
appraisal was done of the property which identified the value of the different parcels.
MetroPlains has expressed their interest in submitting a concept review plan to the City
for just the commercial piece. They had attempted to obtain an extended purchase
agreement date with the school district but even though one was not granted in writing,
there is a verbal agreement between the two. MetroPlains would like to start some of
the approval processes necessary to begin developing the commercial portion of the
property. One problem is that this piece of the property overlaps a portion of the ball
fields. Because we do not know what will be the outcome of the referendum, we are
unsure how to treat that property. Jim Prosser has recommended MetroPlains wait
until after the referendum.
OPEN SPACE OPEN HOUSE AND REFERENDUM: The City Manager reminded
everyone that the referendum will take place on September 12th. With the Council
meeting being rescheduled for the following night, it will be on the agenda for the
Council to canvass the results. Bob Brown explained that if the voters show an
overwhelming desire to purchase the land and spend an additional $2,750,000 for
maximum upgrade of the park, it would be pretty difficult for the Council to say no. The
City Manager explained that even though almost everyone voted this way at the
informational open house that was held, it does not necessarily mean that is how the
majority of the citizens will vote. She reported there were approximately 50 people that
attended the open house. Jerry Pietrowski stated he felt it was a very well organized
event and all the information was available to anyone who had any questions on the
referendum. She also explained that it has been a main concern to keep all information
neutral, not showing any biases for either side.
7
There will be a follow-up Q and A that will be sent out, addressing questions received
at the open house and updating the information in the last Q and A. This should be
received within a week of when the referendum will be voted on. The City Manager
stated this format will also be used in the future such as when the new utility charge for
storm water is established.
DOWNTOWN PARKING: Bruce informed the commission there has been a series of
mediation meetings with the John's Variety block businesses regarding the parking
problem they will have. He stated the joint meeting seemed most productive as they
looked at different options and started working towards solutions such as on street
parking, and the City guaranteeing some of the parking at the Langdon District just
south of the tracks. They are also going to be speaking with two property owners in
regards to possibly selling their property to be used for parking. There is also the
possibility of condemning the property at Uncharted Grounds, but the City doesn't want
to do that unless they have to. Bruce explained that costs will be an issue and hopes
that it can be divided amongst all parties.
The City Manager stated that a comparison was done on how many parking spaces
each store felt they needed to how many spaces we know will be available. We were
only 16 short of what they stated would be their need and this was taking into account
the peak seasons. General consensus was that it was not as big a problem as before,
but still needs to be worked on.
Mark Brewer asked how the railway acquisition was coming along. Bruce stated he did
not believe the petition for abandonment had been filed yet. The railroad is not
currently running but we have not had any correspondence from them since early
spring. We will continue to monitor this process.
BUSINESS RELOCATION REPORT
The relocation chart which was passed out shows key businesses in the downtown
area that will be affected by the redevelopment and identify potential options to them.
The redevelopment completion schedule shows when businesses will be displaced and
the current schedule for move-in dates for the districts. The proposed downtown
developer information schedule shows the most aggressive possible schedule, but, of
course, it is subject to change.
8
l rue pointed out that in our last meeting it became very apparent of the importance to
get the True Value District completed as quickly as possible. He explained that this will
allow us to develop a building in front without displacing any business in the back until
the new one is up. In order for the new schedule to be successful some element of
construction at either Langdon or Auditors may have to occur concurrently. The reason
for this is that Scotty B's is not interested in remaining within the True Valu District and
if we build a new building in front of his building he will need a place to move into as
soon as the new building is ready for occupancy.
Bruce went on to say that according to the current schedule both the Langdon District
and the Auditors Rd. District should be ready for occupancy approximately in October
2002. The high school site should be ready for occupancy by next November and the
Hotel District in the spring of 2002.
These schedules will be looked at again once a new developer is found. MetroPlains
has shown an interest in being the new developer but they have not actually come in to
discuss the possibility.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Jerry Pietrowski asked how the project across from OLL church was doing. The City
Manager stated that all she knows about that project is that contact has been made
with the landowners. This would include the Netka Apartments, Masonic Lodge, two
houses, and Williams Store. Bruce pointed out this would be a difficult site to develop
because of the wetland setbacks. The developer is interested in building a senior
citizen apartment complex for 55 and older.
ADJOURN
MOTION was made by Bob Brown and seconded by Stan Drahos to
adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 a.m. The next meeting will be September 21st.
Stan Drahos will be rolls.
Respectfully Submitted,
9
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
D2AFI'
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, AUGUST 14, 2000
Those present: Acting Chair Bill Voss; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Jerry Clappsaddle, Cklair
Hasse, and Frank Weiland. Absent and excused: Commissioners Becky Glister, Bob Brown,
Geoff Michael, and Michael Mueller; Staffpresent: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building
Official Jon Suthefland and Recording Secretary Diana Mestad.
The following public were present: Jennie Carlson Baltutis, 4845 10th Ave S, Minneapolis;
Gerald D Babb, 2169 Birch Drive; Jim Crawford, 5224 Waterbury Road; Dennis Hildebrandt
5229 Waterbury Road; Todd Hovron, 4552 Denbigh Road; Stephen L. Vermik, 5217 Windsor
Road; Phil Mitchson, 2232 Westedge Blvd.; Nicholas Espiritu, 5413 Church Road; Thomas Stul,
5201 Waterbury Road; Randy Beyrets, 5200 Waterbury Road; Betsy Alwin, 1000 Robin Lane;
Rex Alwin 1000 Robin Lane; Milt Hentges, 6400 County Road 15; Debra Vertnik, 5217
Windsor Road.
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland to allow Voss to act as Chair at
tonight's meeting. Motion carried 5-0.
Acting Chair Voss welcomed the public and called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JULY 10, 2000, MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Hasse, to accept the July 10, 2000, Planning
Commission meeting minutes. MOTION CARRIED. 5-0.
DISCUSSION
Acting Chair Voss announced that Items 2.3 Case No. 00-44, 2.4 Case No. 00-45, and 2.5 Case
No. 00-46 are deleted from the Agenda.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
1.0
CASE #00-42: CONDITIONAL USE. PUBLIC HEARING JENNIE CARLSON
BALTUTIS. 1000 ROBIN LANE, LOTS l& 2, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION #231,
PID #14-117-24 33 0001.
The City Planner stated that this case involves moving a house from an adjacent lot. This action
has been prompted by the Langdon proposal. The Rex Alwin home is being given to the
applicant and she wants to take the house off the foundation and move it to the property on the
comer of Robin Lane and Lynwood. A conditional use permit is necessary, for this case to allow
Mound Planning Commission Minutes, August 14, 2000
for a more definite review of the issues involved including public utilities, infrastructure, road
surfaces, overhead wires, and neighborhood integration. Staff feels this is an ideal situation.
Staff is concerned about protecting as many trees as possible and is suggesting that if tree
removal is necessary, the trees that are located in future home sites should be removed first.
Staff feels that there will be no impact on public utilities or road surfaces.
Weiland asked about bringing the house up to code and whether the law does not require this
when a house is moved. The City Building Official confirmed that the law did not apply in this
case. He further stated that the applicant is ready to do substantial work on the house to bring it
into code.
The City Building Official stated that the house does not have a second story and the new
basement would be conforming. Two difficulties noted are headroom down the basement stairs
and the bedroom windows needing to be egress.
Voss asked about sewer and water in the new location. The City Building Official stated the
City Engineer had gone over this aspect of the project. The sewer will connect at Robin Lane,
and the water will connect at Robin Lane to the new water main that will be installed for the
Langdon project.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the request with
the following conditions:
1. Remove only those trees on the west side of the driveway as needed to accommodate the
move.
Acting Chair Voss opened the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m.
Acting Chair Voss closed the Public Hearing at 7:46 p.m.
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Burma, to approve Staff recommendation
with the noted condition.
Discussion:
Weiland amended Staff's recommendation to include adding recommendation No. 2 "All
building codes will be enforced as new construction. No variances will be granted."
The City Building official stated that the amendment is a good recommendation, but the state
statute would supercede the City regulation. He further stated that the energy code does not
apply to moved buildings.
Clapsaddle and Burma agreed to Weiland's amendment.
2
Mound Planing Commission Minutes. August 14. 2000
Acting Chair Voss called the question.
D AFT
Motion carried. 5-0.
1.1
CASE #00-41: MINOR SUBDIVISION JENNIE CARLSON BALTUTIS, 6301
LYNWOOD BLVD, LOT 1, BLOCK 11, MOUND TERRACE. PID#14-117-23 33
0002.
The City Planner showed a survey of the property involved. He stated that the lot split is just
over one acre in size and meets lot width minimums. In reference to the location of the water
service, Lynwood is being resurfaced and Staff feels the County will not allow it to be dug up.
Staff suggestion is to tie into Robin Lane when that service goes in.
Clapsaddle asked if the county could withhold the tap on Lynwood. The City Planner stated that
the City Engineer thought that the County would not do it. Clapsaddle pointed out that if it were
the only option, the County would have to allow the hookup.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the minor subdivision
as requested with the following conditions:
1. A new survey be submitted indicating the proposed right-of-way along Robin Road. The
recording of the minor subdivision will also need to be coordinated With the Langdon
Bay project to ensure both plans reflect the same right-of-way areas.
2. Water and sewer service locations be approved by the City Engineer. This could include
necessary escrow monies if needed to allow future connections to services in Robin Lane
and/or Lynwood Blvd.
3. Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan be approved by the City Engineer prior
to release of an approved resolution.
4. Provide utility and drainage easements consistent with the City Engineer's
recommendation.
5. Include any other recommendations of the City Engineer's and Public Works reports.
6. Park dedication fee of $500 be paid at the time at the time of building permit application.
Weiland asked for more verbiage on number 2 on page 20 and stated that theoretically this
distance would be 20 feet. The City Planner stated this would need to be done after the legal
description is completed.
Clapsaddle stated that the language contained in number 5 on page 20 was too loose. The City
Planner stated that the date of the City Building Official's letter could be referenced.
Voss asked in reference to No. 2 on page 18, who determines necessary escrow monies. The
City Planner stated that Staff, specifically the City Engineer, would determine the amount.
3
Mound Planning Commission Minutes, August 14. 2000
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland, to approve Staff recommendation.
Motion carried. 4-0.
1.2
CASE #00-39: VARIANCE TOOD HOVREN, 4552 DENBIGH ROAD, LOT 7 & 8,
BLOCK 2, PID #19-117-23 24 0048.
The City Planner stated that this case involved review of a deck within a bluff setback area. The
City Planner showed the survey for this property. The house currently encroaches on Denbigh
Road, as does the garage. The bluff area is a steep 56% slope. Staff felt there were other
locations on the house to put the deck without encroaching on the bluff.
The applicant has submitted a request to build a deck within a bluff setback area. The variance
request is as follows:
Proposed Required Variance
Bluff setback
Front yard setback
Front yard setback
0 feet 10 feet 10 feet
14 feet (existing) 20 feet 6 feet
3.4 feet (existing) 20 feet 16.6 feet
The house currently sits within the 10 feet bluff setback area. The proposed deck would encroach
into the bluff that has a slope of about 56% where the deck is proposed. Other nonconforming
setbacks include front yards for the house and garage
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the variance request.
Voss confirmed the structure already encroached into the bluff. The City Planner confirmed this
and stated that is why the recommendation is to add the deck on the West side to maintain the
same setback.
Voss asked if other homes in the area are encroaching on the bluff. The City Planner confirmed
that quite a few homes were already encroaching and that Staff's standpoint is to minimize this
as much as possible.
Voss asked when the other encroachments were approved. The City Planner stated that the
approvals were made when the street was platted and that this was before restrictions on bluffs
and steep hillsides were adopted. He stated that in 1995 the shoreline provisions were adopted
Voss confirm that no one has been approved for encroachment after the shoreline provisions
were adopted and that no variances have been granted. The City Planner stated that vahances
have been granted, but Staff feels this location offers other options.
Clapsaddle asked the City Planner to explain for the applicant why there is concern about bluff
areas.
4
Mound Planning Commission Minutes. August 14. 2000
The City Planner stated that from a building standpoint, it takes a lot to ensure the addition will
maintain integrity with the rest of the house and not fall away. Secondly, the DNR sees building
on a slope greater than 30% as a red flag. Also considered is the impact on the home, esthetics,
erosion, etc. The City Planner also stated that in some areas it is not practical to stay outside the
bluff, but when the oppommity is there, it is the path Staff chooses.
Weiland asked if construction was cun'ently underway on this site. The City Building Official
stated that he saw some work in progress one month ago that did not require a variance. He
stated that he has talked to the applicant about some issues with the electrical, etc, and the
applicant is resolving these issues. If there is any structural work there that requires a variance,
the City Building Official has not seen it.
The City Building Official stated that the deck is the only variance issue and that no permits have
been issued other than a siding permit.
The applicant, Todd Hovren, stated that the house would inevitably be tom down within a few
years. He wants to maximize the house until it is tom down. He stated that the deck is only
10xl 2 and accesses an existing sliding door.
Voss asked the applicant if he had received a copy of the Staffreport. The applicant confirmed
that he had.
Voss asked the applicant whether Staff's recommendation for an alternative placement of the
deck would work. The applicant stated that in order to use the west side he would have to take
down a 40 foot tree. Additionally, he would have to change the inside of the house.
Voss asked the applicant if he understood the explanation about the protection of the bluff zones.
The applicant confirmed that he understood, but stated all the houses on Denbigh have decks in
the bluff zone.
Voss clarified for the applicant that no decks were added after the limitations were set.
Hasse asked the defendant if he would be tearing down the new deck at the time the new house
was constructed. The applicant confirmed that he would tear down the deck at that time.
Clapsaddle asked where on the lot the new home would be built. The applicant stated that he had
not drawn a plan yet, but he realized he would need to follow the new setbacks and felt that he
could center the house on the lot.
Voss explained to the applicant that variances are granted for hardship or practical difficulty and
are very hard to grant when these are not present. He further stated that the Planning
Commission is an advisory group to the City Council who would make the final decision.
5
Mound Planning, Commission Minutes. August 14. 2000
The applicant stated that the deck would give him a second entrance to the house.
MOTION, by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle to approve Staff's
recommendation. Motion carried. 4-0.
1.3
CASE #00-40: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION, MILTON HENTGES. 6400 CTY
RD 15, PID #14-117-24 32 0059, PID #15-117-24 41 0003.
The City Planner stated that this is a request to have two parcels in Minnetrista annexed to the
City of Mound. This will make the land on the Minnetrista side more buildable. Currently the
land does not meet Minnetrista's code.
The City Planner stated there was a need to look at the benefits and weigh those against the
negatives. He stated that Staff does not have a lot of information on this case. Services to the
existing house are provided by Mound. The house is technically in Minnetrista and taxes go to
that city. The plan in terms of infrastructure is to continue to serve the existing house and the
new house regardless of the decision on this issue. If Mound and the City of Minnetrista approve
this plan, the Office of State Planning would review the issue and have the ultimate decision
making authority. The City Planner stated that aside from changing maps, there were no
negatives for the City of Mound to go forward with this. Staff is looking for Planning
Commission input on this.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the request and make a recommendation to
Council consistent with the findings.
Voss asked why a public hearing is not required in this case. The City Planner stated that no
official process has been set up for this.
Burma asked if having the line jog would create any problems with the street being shared by
both cities now and which would then be only in Mound for a portion. The City Planner did not
feel this would have an impact.
MOTION, by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland to recommend Staff's
recommendation. Motion carried. 4-0.
1.4
CASE #00-43: VARIANCE, NICHOLAS ESPIRITU, 5413 CHURCH ROAD.
LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK 5 LAKESIDE PARK- CROCKER'S PID #13-117-24 32
0082.
The City Planner stated that this case involves the conversion of a one stall garage to living space
and the addition of a two stall attached garage. Staff feels there are probably other appropriate
locations. Staff has suggested utilizing the existing one stall tuck under and adding another stall
to that and then building over the top. Another option is to move the garage as far west on the
property as possible.
6
Mound Planning Commission Minutes, August 14, 2000
The applicant has submitted a request to build an attached garage within a front yard setback.
The variance request is as follows:
Proposed Required Variance
Front yard setback
15 feet 20 feet 5 feet
Staffrecommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the variance request.
Voss confirmed there were no variances on the property now.
The applicant, Nicholas Espiritu, wants to keep the plan as presented because they have been
doing their own landscaping and have 40 foot pine trees that would be lost if the east side of the
property was used. Mr. Espiritu also stated that the gas meter was on the east side of house. He
felt that the lot would lose privacy with the loss of trees.
Burma asked about other the options offered including sliding the garage to the west. The
applicant stated that the landscaping has been put in and includes a boulder wall that was recently
completed. Mr. Espiritu stated that he is trying to utilize the front.
Burma asked if the garage was moved to the west, would the inside of the house work equally as
well as with the original plan. Mr. Espiritu stated that the garage would then be attached to the
living and dining area and they had wanted to enlarge the bedrooms on the other side.
Clapsaddle asked what the size the proposed garage was. Mr. Espiritu stated the proposed size
was 20 x 20. Clapsaddle confirmed that if the garage were put on the west side it would be right
on variance. The City Planner confirmed that this would require a variance.
The City Planner stated that the only way to avoid a variance is to add one stall onto the existing
garage. He further stated that a detached or attached garage on the backside of the house would
also be an option. Mr. Espiritu stated that he was on a hill and putting the garage in back of the
house would not be feasible.
Voss stated that hardship was necessary for a variance and in this case, Staffhas determined
there is no hardship. Voss felt if the property was conforming, it was best not to get variance.
Mr. Espiritu asked whether if the garage was not 20 feet, but rather somewhat less than 15 feet,
would it be buildable without a variance to the east. Clapsaddle suggested considering that
possibility and also projecting the upper floor into the hill for more space.
The City Building Official confirmed that the above scenario would not require a variance.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes, August 14, 2000
D2ArT
Voss stated to Mr. Espiritu that the Planning Commission was not in favor of granting variances.
He suggested the applicant go back and work more with Staff on resolving this issue.
Weiland asked about the possibility of the garage being moved 5 feet back into the house to
avoid the variance issue.
Voss stated that as Acting Chair, he recommended this case be tabled.
MOTION, by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle to table this issue to allow the
applicant to go back to Staff and address the issues. Motion carried. 4-1 (Burma).
Burma wished to state for the record that he voted Nay on this Motion because he felt that
several options are available that do not require a variance and he felt this should have gone
forward as a denial with the applicant continuing to work with Staff.
1.5
CASE #00-47: VARIANCE TOM STOKES, 5212 WATERBURY ROAD, LOT 13
& PLOT 14. BLOCK 18, WHIPPLE PID #PENDING.
Weiland asked for clarification from Staff on the correct address of the property. The City
Planner stated that the address is 5212 Waterbury Road.
The City Planner stated that this lot received a minor subdivision request through Resolution 39.
The western parcel was lopped off from the 5200 address to create a building parcel. Plans were
submitted with a 6 foot side yard setback. Plan review was initiated, footings were staked at 6
feet, the consultant inspector inspected the footings at 6 feet and signed off to proceed.
Neighbors called City Hall questioning the 6 foot setback and by that time some construction
was going on. At that time, Staff was made aware of this issue. The City Building Official met
with the developer to try to sort through what had occurred. The options are to require the
structure to be conforming at 10 feet or to entertain a variance process.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the variance request. This
recommendation suggests that the building be modified to meet the required 10 feet setback.
Clapsaddle confirmed that a 4 foot variance was in question.
Voss asked whether this was a lot of record. The City Planner said it was not a lot of record
because of having been split off the original lot. Ifa lot is split, the setback is 10 feet. If it is a
lot of record, the setback is 6 feet.
The applicant, Tom Stokes, gave a history of what had occurred. He stated that he relied on
information given to him by the City. He further stated that while Resolution 39 addresses parcel
B, it does not address parcel A.
8
Mound Planning Commission Minutes. August 14, 2000
Mr. Stokes stated that Mr. Banke called Staff regarding this issue and submitted a letter from Mr.
Banke, the home designer, to the Planning Commission regarding the Resolution, his call to
Mound, and the staff member who stated that the side yard set back was 6 feet.
The home designer used this information to design the house. The lot survey company
confirmed that they also contacted the City regarding the setback and were given the side yard
setback of 6 feet. The applicant feels that Staffwas contacted twice. His assistant also called
Staff and asked for the address, legal description, and zoning information sheet. The zoning
information sheet was received on the 20th and stated it was R2 zoning, but was void of setback
information. She then called the City and was told it was a 6 foot setback. Mr. Stokes then
applied for the application. It was not until a number of weeks later when Staff brought it to their
attention that they realized the error.
Mr. Stokes stated that their position is that they regret the error was made, but the structure is too
far along to be changed. He stated that he lives at 5201 and has no interest in a one car garage on
this lot. He does not like the possibility of outdoor storage. He stated that from a builder
perspective, one car garages are difficult to sell and lower the value of the home and those
surrounding it.
Jim Crawford, 5222 Waterbury Road, stated that he called the City to find out what the setback
was and was told it was 6 feet. One of his neighbors had done some research and found it was 10
feet and the City was then notified.
Burma asked Mr. Crawford if he was willing to sell four feet of his lot to the applicant. Mr.
Crawford was not willing to do this and added that the lot was subdivided to allow for a 10 foot
setback and he wants one on the side that adjoins his lot. Burma stated that would be the reality,
but a mistake has been made.
Clapsaddle asked Mr. Crawford how he would feel about this issue if he were the owner. Mr.
Crawford stated that this was not checked out and the builder is responsible for this error.
Voss pointed out this was not an argument, but rather the Commission was trying to work
through the issues.
Debbie Vertnik, 5217 Windsor, stated that the builder was notified almost three weeks ago and
he has continued to build. She felt that because he is a builder, he knows the codes. Ms. Vertnik
stated that allegations are pending stating that the builder did not have a valid license at the time
of construction. She further stated that the license number given to the City of Mound is not
valid and was revoked in March of 1999.
Voss asked Ms. Vertnik to address only the issue of the variance request.
Ms. Vermik stated that it appears that hardship is needed to grant a variance and this builder
created his own hardship.
9
Mound Planning Commission Minutes. August 14. 2000
Randy Beyrets, 5200 Waterbury Road, apologized to the neighbors present for creating the
problem. He stated that he does not want a one car garage to go on the lot because it would not
fit with the types of houses in the area and would lower the value of the homes. Mr. Beyrets
stated that the responsibility for this error lies with the group of people hired by the City to
approve the plans.
Mr. Stokes stated that he has spoken with the Department of Commerce and there is no issue
with the validity of his license. He further stated that he feels that he did everything he normally
does in this process and that he clarified with Staff what the setback was. He stated that it is the
responsibility of the City to review and approve or deny.
Burma asked Mr. Stokes if it was true that he found about the 6 feet versus 10 feet setback 3
weeks ago. Mr. Stokes stated that he spoke with the City Building Official and was told not to
continue building on the garage. He has continued with the rest of the structure as he is trying to
meet his deadline for his contract.
The City Building Official clarified the issue that the 6 foot setback was not given by him or the
City Planner and they are the correct people to get this information from. He stated that he was
in contact with City Staff on the first day the error was realized and he directed his secretary to
let Mr. Stokes know of the error. This occurred on a Friday, and the City Building Official was
back in the office on Monday. He stated that he discussed the options with Mr. Stokes and it was
agreed that construction of the house could continue at Mr. Stokes' risk of not receiving a
variance. He also stated that another option was to construct a one car garage.
The City Building Official stated that no nonconforming portions were continued after Mr.
Stokes was notified and he was aware that continuing on the conforming portions was at his own
risk. Both parties acknowledged correct setbacks and mistakes made.
The City Building Official stated that he felt Mr. Stokes was a knowledgeable builder in the area
and that added to his comfort level when reviewing the permit.
Voss asked whether Weiland in his years of serving on the Planning Commission had seen a
similar issue. Voss further stated that this was a tough issue.
Weiland stated that he did remember a similar issue behind the church where apartments were
put in. The building inspector had done some measuring and helped with the footings. A
neighbor came over and showed where the footings were off. Block laying continued. The
decision made was that the structure be torn down and done right.
The City Planner commented that Mr. Stokes had indicated that the Resolution did not address
the parcel, but read the fourth Whereas which referred to the parcel setbacks. He stated that even
if this were not stated in the Resolution, the City Ordinance regarding this issue would still be
triggered. He further stated that there are two zoning sheets, one of which does indicate a 6 foot
10
Mound Planning Commission Minutes, August 14, 2000
setback and with the minor subdivision the setback would increase to 10, but he did not know
what copy Mr. Stokes received.
Voss stated he saw a practical difficulty as Staff compounded the situation.
Clapsaddle stated he has never been in a situation where a mistake was made by Staff. He also
stated that if indeed there was a mistake, the builder is not relieved of his responsibility to meet
code.
Burma stated that he agreed with Clapsaddle and pointed out the fourth Whereas in the
Resolution that spells out the setback.
Burma stated that one party that was not part of the mistake and would lose is the next door
neighbor.
MOTION, by Burma, seconded by Hasse, to accept Staff's recommendation to deny
the variance.
AYES: 3 (Hasse, Weiland, Burma)
NAYS: 2 (Voss, Clapsaddle)
Motion carried. 3-2.
Clapsaddle stated his reasons for voting Nay for the record. He felt that there was no question
that the variance situation is not a happy one; however, after looking past the emotions involved,
to cut 4 feet offa structure and to reduce the size of the product is probably more detrimental to
the neighborhood than 4 feet of ground.
Voss stated his reasons for voting Nay for the record. He did not think granting the variance
would have a negative effect on the properties and thinks that a one car garage will have more of
a negative effect. He felt the variance would be logical solution.
Weiland stated his reasons for voting Aye for the record. He stated that he feels sorry for the
neighbor that had nothing to do with creating the situation and feels he shouldn't be penalized.
This situation will lower his property price. He feels the issue needs to be corrected so as not to
set precedent. He feels the building code should be adhered to and that the issue of who made
the mistake is not the issue to be decided by the Planning Commission.
1.6 MISCELLANEOUS.
A. DRAFT HRA MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2000.
B. DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JUI JY 11.2000.
C. DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2000.
11
Mound Planning Coromission Minutes. August 14, 2000
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Hasse to adjourn the meeting.
CARRIED: 5-0.
Acting Chair Voss adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
MOTION
12
C-30-mm St. Bonifacius/Minnetrista
BEFORE THE OFFICE OF STRATEGIC
AND LONG RANGE PLANNING
OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Dean Barkley, Director
IN THE MATTER OF THE MOTION TO )
INITIATE CONSOLIDATION PROCEEDINGS )
FOR THE CITIES OF ST. BONIFACIUS AND )
MINNETRISTA PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA )
STATUTES 414 )
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
FOR ELECTION
ON CONSOLIDATION
Minutes of the City of Minnetrista's February 2, 2000 Council Meeting
disapproving the Order of the Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning (hereinafter
"Minnesota Planning") dated January 20, 2000 approving the consolidation of the City
of St. Bonifacius and the City of Minnetrista were received February 17, 2000; and
minutes of the February 10, 2000 Council Meeting of the City of St. Bonifacius
disapproving Minnesota Planning's Order were received March 1, 2000.
On May 8, 2000, two separate petitions for a referendum, each by more than ten
percent of the resident voter who voted for governor at the last general election, were
received from the City of St. Bonifacius and from the City of Minnetrista. Minnesota
Planning's Order approving the consolidation is therefore deemed approved by the City
of Minnetrista and the City of St. Bonifacius and Minnesota Planning hereby issues its:
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
1. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: That a special election shall be held on the
-2-
question of the consolidation of the City of St. Bonifacius and the City of Minnetrista.
2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:
November 7, 2000.
3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:
That the date of the election shall be
That Dorothy McQueen is hereby appointed
as Chief Election Judge for the City of Minnetrista, and that Mary Lou Hilgers is hereby
appointed as Chief Election Judge for the City of St. Bonifacius. The election shall be
conducted in each city pursuant to laws governing special or general elections insofar
as applicable.
4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That the ballot shall contain the words:
"Shall the consolidation of the City of Minnetrista and
the City of St. Bonifacius be approved?
/"-7 Yes /-'"] No
5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That the results of the referendum in each
city shall be certified to the Director of Minnesota Planning by the Chief Election
Judges within ten days after the referenda.
6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That the Director shall upon receipt of the
certificate, notify all parties of the election results.
7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That if a majority of the votes cast in each
affected city are in favor of the consolidation, the Director shall issue a further
supplemental order for the election of new municipal officers.
8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That Minnesota Planning retains jurisdiction
for the purpose of determining whether a special levy should be authorized if
-3-
necessary.
9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That the effective date of this Supplemental
Order is August 14, 2000.
Dated this 30th day of August, 2000.
Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning
658 Cedar Street - Room 300
St. Paul, MN 55155
Christine M. Scotillo
Executive Director
Municipal Boundary Adjustments
MEMORANDUM
Although Minnesota Statutes Section 414.041 does not articulate some of the
specifics for the referenda, the Director of Minnesota Planning assumes that pursuant
to this Order the cities will conduct the referenda consistent with the laws governing
special or general elections insofar as applicable.
Some of the specifics for the referenda the Director anticipates the cities will
carry out in their usual manner insofar as applicable include:
1. The usual polling place or places;
2. The usual election judges;
3. The usual hours that the polling places shall be open;
4. The preparation of the Notice of Election;
5. The posting and publication of the Notice of Election; and
6. The proper supervision of the election judges.
Again, the Director thanks the Consolidation Study Commission Chair Desyl
Peterson, and all of the Consolidation Study Commission members for their fine work.
Clu cs to Small Torch Survival
LINCOLN. NEB.
In 1984, the last significant
farm crisis was taking its toll on
small towns and rural communities
throughout the Great Plains; land
prices fell by as much as two-thirds
and boarded-up storefronts
became the rule rather than the
exception. The situation was so
serious that dire forecasts about
the future of small towns became
commonplace, as did regional
news headlines foretelling doom
and gloom: "Decaying Great Plains
Towns, the Rural Ghettos of
Tomorrow," read one such head-
line. "Grim Agricultural Trends
Forebode Rural Desettlement,"
proclaimed another.
In the midst of these unsettling
times, however, the Farmers State
Bank in tiny Eustis. Neb., (popula-
tion 450), built a new. brick building
on Main Street. Bank managers
explained that, even though the
community was (and still is) highly
dependent on the farm economy,
35Lk_qi they had been saving
· money to build a new
8~, i.- facility for years· Since the
Above: Wray, Colo., a tow~ of 2,000,
rose above its econor~ic difficulties
by encouraging broaO involvement
in decision making Its leaders
a conc__~rteoi error1 to include as
many people as possible in efforts to
s~e ~ town through hard times and
into a prosperous future.
Left: The tiny town of Eustis, Neb.,
(population 450) celebrates its
German heritage and its survival
of ~ economic difficulties that
threatened so many small, rural
communities in the 'SOs.
the community's future, why not go
ahead with construction?
That vote of confidence meant
a lot to the way the community
saw itself and soon others followed
the bank's lead. Up went a new
senior center. The fairground's
improvements moved along, with
lots of volunteer help. A local auto-
motive body shop expanded. A
young entrepreneur from a larger
town 25 miles away bought and
renovated a defunct restaurant and
eventually added a bed and break-
fast. And on and on. All in a very
small town with nothing to cele-
brate, in the view of some naysay-
ers, except perhaps its German
heritage (which attracts thousands
to an annual festival).
As the farm crisis of the mid-
1980s was threatening farmers'
incomes and attitudes among
many small town leaders, it was
towns just like Eustis that attracted
the attention of the Heartland
Center for Leadership
Development, then a new,
Nebraska-based nonprofit organi-
zation. We decided to take a differ-
towns, focusing on those commu-
nities that were surviving rather
than those faltering through the
difficult economic times.
The Heartland Center set out
to study thriving small towns,
especially those that might be
perceived as 'to0 small" or 'to0
isolated" or otherwise disadvan-
taged by conditions over which
local leaders had little or no con-
trol. At first in Nebraska, and
since in a dozen states in the
Great Plains and the Midwest, we
sent trained teams of interviewers
into one small town after another,
searching out communities that
seemed to be bucking the eco-
nomic trends. Looking for what
was behind community success,
eventually we concluded that it
was what leaders said and did
that made the greatest difference,
not where the town was located
or how small it might be.
The Heartland Center's field
studies led to a list of characteris-
tics found commonly in thriving
small towns (see Clues to Rural
Community Survival). The
Heartland Center's conclusions
about the evidence of community
pride, emphasis
on quality in
business and
community life,
and willingness
to invest in the ].
future are visible 2.
in towns such as 3.
Eustis and in the
hundreds of
other communi-
ties throughout 7.
the United 8.
States that we 9.
have studied for- 10.
mally or visited
as pad of our 11.
programs to ]2.
train community ]3.
leaders and 14.
agencies that 15.
work in and with
small towns. 16.
In southwest- 17.
ern Minnesota,
the town of
Jackson (popula-
exemplifies the importance of an
active economic develor t
program as well as a re*-
appraisal of future opportunities.
The town's economic develop-
ment corporation found itself
face-up with reality when, while
all its board members were in
Chicago trying to recruit new
industry, one of Jackson's largest
industrial employers suddenly
closed its doors. Overnight, 300
good paying jobs were gone.
The first reaction was shock
and lots of gloomy talk at the col-
fee shop. But then a different atti-
tude among leaders took over,
and the focus of local develop-
ment efforts was changed from
recruiting new industries to "build-
ing from within." Now the priority
was on the health and well-being
of already existing businesses,
which were visited regularly to
find out what they needed to stay
or expand. Within a year, the 300
jobs had been replaced,'
one employer but throug~ ,~an-
sion of several businesses that
were already there.
(Continued on next page
20 Clues to Rural ~:
Community Survival
Evidence of Community Pride
Emphasis on Quality in Business and Community Life
XWtllingness to Invest in the Future
Participatory Approach to Community Decision-Making
Cooperative Community Spirit
Realistic Appraisal of Future Opportunities
Awareness of Competitive Positioning
Knowledge of the Physical Environment
Active Economic Development Program
DeliberateTransition of Power to aYounger
Generation of Leaders
Acceptance of Women in Leadership Roles
Strong Belie/in and Support of Education
Problem-solvingApproach to Providing Health Care
Strong Multigenerational Family Orientatiop
Strong Presence ofTraditional Institutions'l. e
Integral to Community Life
Sound andWell-Malntalned Infrastructure
~ Use of Fiscal Resources
18. Sophisticated Use of Information Resources
19. W'fllingness to Seek Help From the Outside
20. ~That in the Long Rm~,You Have to Do It¥ourself
(Continued ~rom page BI
The unincorporated village of
Hartley, Texas, a panhandle com-
munity of barely 300, has kept
itself alive principally by maintain-
ing a good local school. Their
effort illustrates the importance of
a strong belief in an0 support of
education. This town easily could
have disappeared by the start-
dards of size and location.
Instead, residents taxed them-
selves at a rate higher than any
other school district in the state to
make sure their own school pro-
vided the best education possible.
The investment paid off when a
new state aid to education form-
uia rewarded schools where stu-
dents were succeeding. In addi-
tion, as a result of the school dis-
trict's reputation, enrollment has
increased by more than 50 per-
cent in the last 10 years.
Each ol these communities
has benefited from advice and
assistance from external groups
such as the Heartland Center for
Leadership Development, as they
have sought new ideas and innov-
ative ways to deal with change.
When they reach beyond their
community's ~)oundaries. they
iliustrate ~ willingness to seek
help from the outside. But ulti-
mately they share a conviction
that, in the long run. you have to
do it yourself.
It's that type of conviction, and
the other characteristics of suc-
cess represented by the Clues to
Rural Community Survival, that
makes the real difference. That's
why local leadership is so impor-
tant to a community's future. It's
why what local leaders say and
do--how they lead and how they
involve others--is so important to
their long-term survival.
By Milan Wall
For more information, contact
Milan Wall, Co-Director,
Heartland Center for
Leadership Development,
941 O St., Suite 920,
Lincoln, NE 68508.
"Phone: 402.474.7667
E-mail: mw4137@aol.com
The 2000 winners and finalists are:
Population of fewer than 20,000 residents
Winner: Mound, Minnesota Police Department
Finalists: Silverthome, Colorado Police Department
Clayton, California Police Department
Population of 20,001 to 50,000 residems
Winner: Mundelein, Illinois Police Department
Finalists: Suisun City, California Police Department
Ponca City, Oklahoma Police Department
Population of 50,001 to 100,000 residents
Winner: Asheville, North Carolina Police Department
Finalists: Red Deer, Alberta, Canada
Beaverton, Oregon Police Department
Population of 100,001 to 250,000 residents
Winner:
Finalist:
Fremont, California Police Department
Fontana, California Police Department
Population of 250,001 + residents
Winner: El Paso, Texas Police Department
Finalists: Santa Ana, California Police Department
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
CALL FOR ENTRIES
NOMINATE OUTSTANDING COMMUNITY POLICING
FOR INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION
Nomination Deadline is July 1, 2000
~.57~OCIATIO~V
SINCE 1893
Sponsored by
Night Vision
ITT Industries
Engineered for life
YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SALUTE EFFECTIVE
COMMUNITY POLICING INITIATIVES
The 2000
Community Policing Award
Executive Summary
In 2000 the Mound Police Department dedicated itself to providing better
service to all of it's citizens. Along with providing better service, the
department was committed to improving community relations. The-solution
was to implement and deliver a total community orientated policing
package.
The police department's mission statement, which states; The Mound Police
Department through teamwork and cooperation, will be responsive to our
citizens' needs with a professional level of dedicated service. Officers will
display the highest integrity, and regard each citizen with a focused and
unbiased attitude. Our Citizen's will determine our success, was used as
the measuring stick for all future services provided to the citizens.
In order to back the mission statement the department utilizes two ways to
track whether or not the citizen's consider our service and efforts a success.
The police department members and staff hand out, and or, mail out Citizen
Comment Cards on traffic contacts and other calls for service. Each card is
totaled and a numerical number is given for the officer's level of service.
Each officer in the department meets with a supervisor on a monthly basis
and is evaluated on their strength's and weaknesses.
The department also does door to door survey's on a semi-annual basis.
Each officer is assigned approximately 300 homes and must make contact
with each homeowner. The homeowners are asked about any problems
they have in the neighborhood and if they are satisfied with the service being
provided by the Mound Police Department.
The City Council also approved of the police department's efforts and
awarded the officers a 2% pay increase on their yearly gross salary for the
completion of a new S.A.R.A. project that had a positive impact in the
community.
Mound Police Department, 5341 Maywood Road. Mound MN 55364, 612.472-0621
The 2000
Community Policing Award
Executive Summary
The enclosed essay outlines the many things the Mound Police Department
has done to build a solid community orientated policing foundation. The
essay also outlines, in detail, the multiple programs, resources, and
personnel utilized in implementing a total community orientated police
department.
Thank you for your consideration in this community policing award.
Mound Police Department, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound MN 55364, 612-472-0621
The 2000
Community Policing Award
Essay
1. Strateqies and Tactics:
Internally the first step was to create a central mission statemeRt for the
police department. The Mound Police Department delivers service to its
citizens based on the following mission statement:
The Mound Police Department through teamwork and cooperation, will be
responsive to our citizens' needs with a professional level of dedicated
service. Officers will display the highest integrity, and regard each citizen
with a focused and unbiased attitude. Our citizens will determine our
success.
The Mound Police Department is committed to hiring new officers capable
of delivering quality community oriented policing services. The Mound
Police Department also offers continued training in community oriented
police service for all it's police officers.
The Mound Police Department's commitment to community oriented
policing is made known to candidates interviewing for new police officer
positions. Newly hired officers are trained in community oriented policing
techniques and are assigned to a community oriented policing project in the
city during their first year of service.
Mound police officers are specifically evaluated on community policing
efforts in their monthly and year end review. The police officers are rated
from "unacceptable" up to "exceptional" for community oriented police
service and related initiatives.
The Mound Police Department encourages it's police officers to implement
new and improved community oriented policing programs. The police
officers are allowed to seek training in established programs or create
programs of their own. Police officers are allowed time within their regular
1
Mound Pol'~e Department, 5,341 May~vood Road. Mound. Minnesota 55364. 612-472-0621
scheduled shift to work on community policing issues and may request
designated time for community oriented policing projects and initiatives.
Officers may also receive an annual 2% increase in their salary for
successful completion of a SARA project. Some of the current SARA
projects are: a "Calling Tree" program for elderly person's in the community
who are living alone; a stolen bicycle recovery program called "Operation
Safe Spokes"; a larceny from vehicle's program which involves members of
the business district as well as the local neighborhoods; and a crosswalk
safety program designed to enhance pedestrian safety in the City Business
District.
Externally the police department opened it's doors to all members of the
community through multiple programs which were designed to create a
fundamentally strong working relationship and involve the community in
crime prevention and problem-solving efforts.
The following initiatives were implemented:
a. The Mound Police Department offers a 10 week Adult Citizens Academy
and a 6 week Juvenile Citizens Academy to all members of the community.
The Adult Citizens Academy was started in 1995. The 10 week academy
covers multiple aspects of law enforcement work to include high and Iow
risk traffic stops, domestic assaults, narcotics, investigations, court,
simulated fire arms situations (F.A.T.S.), and constitutional law.
The Adult Citizens Academy class has been attended by a diverse range of
community members to include city council members, a local restaurant
owner, senior citizens, bank presidents, and others.
Approximately 120 members of the community have participated and
graduated from the Mound Police Department Citizens Academy to date.
The Juvenile Citizens Academy, which is offered as an elective class at
the middle school, was started in 1997. The juvenile academy is similar to
it's adult counterpart. The class is attended by both troubled students and
those students who excel in their core courses.
2
Mound Police Depa~nent, 5341 May~,~)od Road, Mound, Minnesota 55364, 612-472-O621
Both the adult and juvenile citizens academy place a strong emphasis on
the importance for the police department and community working together.
The academy also allows citizens to see police work from a different
perspective thus creating a greater understanding for why police do what
they do in areas such as use of force, patrol tactics, or arrest procedures.
b. A Bike Patrol unit was implemented in 1996. Police Officers are
assigned to work bicycle patrol dudng the summer months. Officers spend
a majority of their time meeting with members of the community in the
downtown city business district and city parks. Citizens are able to
approach and have direct access to police officers working bicycle patrol.
Police Officers were also able to address specific crime problems such as
theft from vehicles in the neighborhoods and business district through bike
patrol saturation efforts.
c. The Mound Police Department has a Crime Prevention Officer who
works with neighborhood groups in the community. The Crime Prevention
Officer also coordinates National Night Out.
The seven Neighborhood Watch Groups meet once a year and discuss
how to make their neighborhoods safer. The crime prevention officer
attends the meetings and brings back the community groups requests and
ideas for a safer neighborhood to the police department. The crime
prevention officer also gives presentations on how to improve home and
neighborhood security.
The Mound Police Department has been involved with National Night Out
since 1995. Approximately 400 residents of Mound meet at one of five
designated city parks for a night of fun filled community involvement.
A team of two police officers is assigned to serve as a liaison at each
designated neighborhood park. The officers assist with serving the pot luck
dinners, passing out crime prevention materials, answering residents
questions, and interacting with the kids.
A police officer is assigned to the senior citizen groups in the community.
The police officer meets with the senior citizens at the local community
center and works towards addressing their specific needs.
3
Mound Police Department, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota 55364, 612-472-0621
d. The Senior TRIAD Group was started in 1997 and has at any time
between 25-50 participants and approximately 34 S.A.L.T. (Seniors and Law
Enforcement Together) council members.
The senior group has taken tours of the fire department, 911 dispatch
center, and the paramedics center.
The senior group also discusses topics such as telephone _f~.aud, self
defense, and home protection.
e. The Mound Police Department has had a D.A.R.E. Officer in the schools
since 1987. In 1987 the pioneering officer had to leave the state to receive
certified training in D.A.R.E. as no such training was available in Minnesota.
The D.A.R.E. Officer teaches first, third, and fifth grade D.A.R.E. to
approximately 500 students a year.
f. A juvenile investigator serves as a School Resource Officer. The
juvenile investigator spends time during the week at the high school, middle
school, and elementary school.
The juvenile investigator is the main contact person for principals,
counselors, teachers, and students in the school. The juvenile investigator
spends time with members of the school dealing with various criminal and
non-criminal matters to include school rule or policy violations.
The juvenile investigator also teaches classes to younger students at the
primary school (K-4) on bike safety, ice safety, stranger danger, bus safety,
and Halloween night safety.
The juvenile investigator assisted school district personnel in creating a new
program for 1998-99 called Offensive Behavior Corrective Curriculum at
the middle school.
Students who fail to respond to traditional consequences such as warnings
or detention, are required to attend four hours of Offensive Behavior
Corrective Curriculum classes after school.
4
Mound Police Oepartment. 5341 May~ood Road, Mourn:l, Minne*~eta 5.5364, 612-472-0621
The juvenile investigator created and teaches a part of the program called
Offensive Behavior and the Law. Students are shown how their conduct
(fighting, theft from lockers, damage to school property) is a violation of
state law as well as school policy or rules.
Through worksheets, video segments, role playing, and conversation, the
students are shown how their behavior affects themselves and others.
Students are also advised of the possible consequences of violating the law.
g. A program called Juvenile Police Accountability Conferencing was
implemented in 1997. The program was designed for first time offenders
who would normally fall through the cracks of traditional juvenile court.
The juvenile offender, offender's parents, and the victim participate in an
interactive conference at the police department. Juvenile Conferencing is
not mediation. The offender has admitted to his or her offense prior to the
conference and takes full responsibility for their actions. All parties who
participate in the conference are given the opportunity to tell how the offense
has affected their lives.
At the completion of the conference all parties are asked what they think is
an appropriate consequence for the offender. The offender often has to
write a letter of apology, pay restitution, and perform community service
work for his or her offense. The offender often has to check in with a police
officer once a week for an established period of time and has to obey all
household and school rules.
h. The community member who is hesitant to become openly involved in
problem solving efforts is encouraged to use an Anonymous Tip Line to
report any illegal activity in the community. The Tip Line is maintained by
the Mound Police Department.
Members of the community have also received various certificates and
awards for assisting the police or members of their community in crime
prevention and medical emergency situations. Community members are
recognized for their assistance to the police department.
i. A juvenile Summer Safety Camp was created and implemented in 1998.
The Safety Camp is open to all area youth between the ages of 9-12 and
Mound Police Depa~ment, 5341 May~vood Road. Mound. Idinneso~ 55364, 612-472-0621
covers various real life situations to include; water safety, fire safety,
weather safety, bike safety, and first aid awareness.
The Mound Police Department partners with multiple agencies to teach the
safety camp to include the local fire department, sheriff's department,
paramedics, American Red Cross, and park rangers.
The day camp runs for two consecutive days in the summer and is free of
charge to parents and participants. -
2. Time Period, Problem Surface, Identification, Action taken- It was
evident that traditional ways and means of law enforcement had created a
gap between the police department and the citizens they served. Citizens
voiced their displeasure and the police department responded.
After the concerns were identified action was taken to implement a
community oriented police department via training, mission statements,
changing of personnel, and changing of attitudes.
The Mound Police Department is committed to an on-going community
policing philosophy and service to the community. The police department
encourages it's officers and community members to come up with new and
creative programs for the future. There has been no push in the police
department or community for a return to a traditional hands off, put the fire
out and leave, type of police service.
b. Obiectives and Anticipated Results- The implementation of
community oriented policing in Mound was undertaken to build a stronger
relationship between the police department and community members.
It was believed that an improved working relationship would result in greater
citizen cooperation in solving and preventing crimes, less complaints filed
against police officers, and greater community pride in it's police department
and community.
c. Actions Taken- The police department implemented numerous
community oriented policing programs over a ten year period to include:
Juvenile and Adult Citizens Academy, D.A.R.E., Bike Patrol, Crime Watch,
TRIAD, Juvenile Conferencing, Open Gym Night for Juveniles, Offensive
6
Mound Police Depa~ent, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota 55364. 612.-472-0621
Behavior Corrective Curriculum, Safety Days, School Liaison Officers,
Officer Friendly, Juvenile Safety Camp, and others.
d. Results- Improved community relations, improved community access
to the police department, and improved working relationships.
A police officer's quality of service is rated by members of the community
through Citizens Comment Cards. Any downfalls reported in the comment
cards are addressed by supervisors and changes are made. ~
All comment card ratings (poor through excellent) are totaled and a
numerical percentage is given to the police officers level of service.
Comment Card scores are taken into account at the officers monthly and
yearly evaluations.
In 1997 a door to door Community Survey was done through-out the
community. Each Officer was assigned approximately 300 homes. The
overwhelming feeling in the community was that they were satisfied with the
Mound Police Department efforts and the police officers level of service.
e. Community Partners- Community partners include the Mound Crime
Prevention Association, Westonka Public School District, Our Lady of the
Lake Parochial School, Westonka Rotary Club, Westonka Senior Center,
Faith Community, City Business District, Chamber of Commerce, Westonka
Helping Youth, Westonka Healthy Families Collaborative, and other
involved individual members of the community.
Neighborhood Community Watch groups were formed and are active in the
community.
Neighbors in the Island area of Mound contacted the police in regards to
what they suspected was a drug house. Increased traffic and suspicious
behavior was observed by the neighbors. Acting on tips from neighbors an
investigation was started.
After approximately one week of investigation a search warrant was
executed. Two arrests were made and large amount of money and drugs
were seized from the residence.
7
Mound Police Department. 5341 Maywood Road. Mound. Minnesota 55364, 612-472-0621
A notable Io~1 resident, Jim grand, founded and coordinates a golf
scramble and dinner which raises approximately Si 2,000.00 a year for crime
prevention efforts in the Westonka Area.
Various businesses in the city sponsor holes on the golf course during the
tournament and donate thousands of dollars in auction items. The golf
scramble has been sold out for the last 8 years.
At the request of partners in the community and members of--~e Crime
Prevention Association a Canine Unit was added to the department in
2000. The canine unit participates in many local community functions to
include Safety Camp, Mound City Days, Adult and Juvenile Citizens
Academy.
The local Westonka Senior Center supervises and mentors juveniles
assigned to community service work through programs such as Juvenile
Police Accountability Conferencing.
Various members of the community to include, concerned citizens, city
council members, senior citizens, prominent business people, doctors,
students, and others participate in Citizen Academy classes each year.
3. Evaluation Methods- Continuing evaluations are done with individual
police officers and member of the community through Citizen Comment
Cards and Community Surveys.
The Mound Police Department sends out Comment Cards to members of
the community involved with the police to include victims and suspects. The
comment cards rate officers of response time, concern, solving the problem,
listening, respectful treatment, and professional conduct.
The average return rate on the Comment card is 20 percent. The average
officer rating on the comment cards for the year 1999 were 3.67 out of a
possible 4.0.
Door to door Community Surveys were done by police officers in 1997.
Each officer was assigned approximately 300 homes. Residents were
asked it there were any problems in the neighborhood that were not being
addressed by the police department and their overall satisfaction with the
8
Mound Police Depa~l.ment, 5341 IV~ayv~:)od Road, Mound, Minnesota 55364, 612--472-0621
police officers and the department.
surveyed again in 1999.
Ten percent of the population was
4. Learned, Educate Others- The Mound Police Department has learned
that the majority of community members approve of, and are pleased with,
community orientated police services.
The initiative shows it is possible to fully implement community oriented
police services. The improved working relationship with ¢~mmunity
members benefits the citizens and much as the police officers working the
neighborhoods.
Community Oriented Policing has nothing to do with being soft on crime and
everything to do with building a strong relationship between the police and
the citizens they serve.
9
Mound Police Depa~ment. 5341 May~ood Road. Mound. Minnesota 55364. 612-472-0621
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:
SUBJECT:
Kandis Hanson
Chief Len Harrell
Monthly Report for August, 2000
STATISTICS
The police department responded to 635 calls for service during the month
of August. There were 44 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses
included 2 criminal sexual conducts, 7 burglaries, 2 vehicle thefts, and 33
larcenies.
There were 77 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses 1 forgery/NSF
check, 2 weapons, 11 criminal damage to property, 1 narcotics, 7 liquor
law violations, 7 DUI's, 5 simple assaults, 9 domestics (3 with assaults), 2
harassment, and 32 other offenses.
The patrol division issued 131 adult and 3 juvenile citations. Parking
violations accounted for an additional 21 tickets. Warnings were issued to
90 individuals for a variety of violations.
There was 1 adult arrested for felonies and 29 adults.and 20 juveniles
arrested for misdemeanors. There were 4 adult felony warrant arrests and
6 misdemeanor adult warrant arrests. One juvenile was arrested on
warrants.
The department assisted in 7 vehicle accidents; 2 with injuries. There
were 34 medical emergencies and 47 animal complaints. Mound assisted
other agencies on 15 occasions in August and requested assistance 4 times.
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT - August, 2000
II.
III.
IV.
V.
INVESTIGATIONS
Investigator Niccum worked on 2 child protection issues and a criminal
sexual conduct case in August accounting for 28 hours in investigative
time. Other cases included burglary, assault, theft, narcotics, absenting,
vehicle theft, possession of stolen property, and forgery. Investigator
Alexander continues to be on family leave.
Formal complaints were issued for assault, burglary, gross misdemeanor
DWI, underage consumption, false driver's license, and worthless checks.
Personnel/Staffing
The department used approximately 43 hours of overtime during the
month of August. Officers used 71 hours of comp-time, 27 hours of sick
time, 150 hours of vacation, and 2.5 holidays. Officers earned 52 hours of
comp time.
TRAINING
COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER
Michelle Salter is our new CSO and began in August. Michelle had 83
calls for service; 10 animal complaints, 20 ordinance violations, and 53
miscellaneous contacts.
VI. RESERVES
The reserves donated 69 hours of community service in the month of
August. The unit consists of eight members currently.
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
AUGUST 2000
PART I CRIMES
OFFENSES CLEA~ EXCEPT- CLEA~.ED BY A/~STED
REPORTED UNFOUNDED CLEARED A~REST ADULT
Homicide 0 0 0 0
Criminal Sexual Conduct 2 1 0 0
Robbery 0 0 0 0
Aggravated Assault 0 0 0 0
Burglary 7 1 0 1
Larceny 33 0 5 0
Vehicle Theft 2 0 0 0
Arson 0 0 0 0
TOT;iL
PART II CRIMES
44 2 5 I
Child Abuse/Neglect 0 0 0 0
Forgery/NSF Checks 1 0 0 1
Criminal Damage to Property 11 0 0 1
Weapons 2 0 1 0
Narcotic Laws 1 0 0 1
Liquor Laws 7 0 0 7
DWI 7 0 0 7
Simple Assault 5 0 3 1
Domestic Assault 3 0 0 3
Domestic (No Assault) 6 0 0 0
Harassment 2 0 0 0
Juvenile Status Offenses 12 0 1 11
Public Peace 5 0 4 2
Trespassing 1 0 0 1
All Other Offenses 14 0 0 4
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 ~
0 0
I 0
0 0
1 0
0 1
0 0
2 0
11 1
7 0
0 1
3 0
0 0
0 0
0 14
2 2
1 0
2 1
TOTA/~
77 0 9 39
29 20
PART II & PART IV
Property Damage Accidents
Personal Injury Accidents
Fatal Accidents
Medicals
Animal Complaints
Mutual Aid
Other General Investigations
TOTAL
5
2
0
34
47
15
391
494
HCCP
Inspections
TOTA~
0
20
635
14
4O
3O
2O
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT AUGUST 2000
GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY
Hazardous Citations
Non-Hazardous Citations
Hazardous Warnings
Non-Hazardous Warnings
Verbal Warnings
Parking Citations
DWI
Over .10
Property Damage Accidents
Personal Injury Accidents
Fatal Accidents
Adult Felony Arrests
Adult Misdemeanor Arrests
Juvenile Felony Arrests
Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests
Part I Offenses
Part II Offenses
Medicals
Animal Complaints
Ordinance Violations
Other Public Contacts
THIS YEAR TO I2%ST YEAR
MONTH DATE TO DATE
95 869 586
28 228 338
14 196 . 146
40 478 435
111 730 647
21 217 242
7 49 31
4 41 28
5 70 54
2 19 21
0 1 0
5 15 14
35 250 182
0 11 16
21 96 62
44 195 142
77 507 343
34 228 233
47 427 468
20 277 220
391 3,126 6,489
TOTAL
Assists
Follow-Ups
HCCP
Mutual Aid Given
Mutal Aid Requested
1,001 8,030 10,697
128 646 426
35 284 311
0 34 28
15 156 132
4 51 47
MOlJWI~ 90LICI~ I)~gARTM~NT
AUGUST 2000
CITATIONS
DWI
More Than .10% BAC
Careless/Reckless Driving
Driving After Susp. or Rev.
Open Bottle
Speeding
No DL or Expired DL
Restriction on DL
Improper, Expired or No Plates
Stop Arm Violations
Stop Sign Violations
Failure to Yield
Equipment Violations
H&R Leaving the Scene
No Insurance
Illegal or Unsafe Turn
Over the Centerline
Parking Violations
Crosswalk
Dog Ordinances
Code Enforcement
Seat Belt
Overweight Vehicles
Miscellaneous Tags
TOTAL
ADULT
7
4
1
4
0
72
2
0
17
0
6
0
2
1
2
0
0
21
2
7
1
1
0
152
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_1
3
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
AUGUST 2000
WARNINGS
Insurance
Traffic
Equipment
Crosswalk
Animals
Trash/Derelict Autos
Seat Belt
Trespassing
Window Tint
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
WARRANT ARRESTS
Felony
Misdemeanor
A~ult
27
14
5
0
3
13
0
0
0
23
85
Juveniles
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mound Police
lncident. DateReported Between 07/26/00 08/25/00
CaseProperty. RecordType Equal STOLEN
Property Value Report
Class
Class Extension
A - Motor Vehicles
Unknown
TOTAL: A - Motor Vehicles
B - Bicycles
Unknown
TOTAL: B - Bicycles
Consumable Goods
Unknown
TOTAL: Consumable Goods
Currency, Notes, ETC.
Unknown
TOTAL: Current% Notes, ETC.
E - Consumer Items
ALCOHOL
Cigarettes
TOTAL: E - Consumer Items
J - Jewelry & precious Metals
Unknown
TOTAL: J - Jewelry & precious Metals
O - Office Equipment
2 CELL PHONES
TOTAL: O - Office Equipment
P - Personal Accessories
BLACK WaLLET/SM PURSE
DUFFLE BAG
TOTAL: P - Personal Accessories
R - Radio/TV/Sound Entertainment
Unknown
Licensed to Mound Police Department
Tuesday, August 29, 2000
Record T¥oe Items Dollar Value
Stolen
I 2,000.00
1 2,000.00
Stolen
470.00
470.00
Stolen
2 57.00
2 57.00
Stolen
4 4,105.00
4 4,105.00
Stolen 1 400.00
Stolen 2 37.00
3 437.00
Stolen
! 550.00
1 550.00
Stolen
1 100.00
i 100.00
Stolen 1 50.00
Stolen 1 30.00
2 80.00
Stolen 4 940.00
Page:l
Mound Police
Incident. DateReported Between 07/26/00 08/25/00
CaseProperty. RecordType Equal STOLEN
Property Value Report
Property Class
Class Extension
CD'S
CompACT DISCS
SPEAKER BOX W/2 12" SPEAKERS
Stereo Equipment
Stereo Equipment/CD'S
SUBWOOFER
TOTAL: R - Radio/TV/Sound Entertainment
S - Sports Equipmem
Unknown
WatERSKIS, LWE VEST, SKI TUBE
TOTAL: S - S~orts Equioment
T
CaSH
TOTAL: T
T - Currency, Negotiable bonds
Unknown
100 BILL
CREDIT CARD FORGERY
Currency-Bills
TOTAL: T - Currency, Negotiable bonds
W - Auto Parts & Equip
Unknown
TOTAL: W - Auto Parts & Equip
Y - All Other
Unknown
8" FLASHLIGHT
BIK KNTr BAG
BoTrLE OPENER
KEYS
Knife W/2" BLADE
LICENSE PLATE
TOTAL: Y - All Other
Tuesday, August 29, 2000
Record Tvoe Items Dollar Value
Stolen 1 500.00
Stolen 1 80.00
Stolen 1 250.00
Stolen 1 139.00
Stolen I 6,300.00
Stolen 1 125.00
10 8,334.00
Stolen 1 350.00
Stolen 1 282.00
2 632.00
Stolen
1 30.00
I 30.00
Stolen 1 6.00
Stolen 1 100.00
Stolen 1 6,724.00
Stolen 1 200.00
4 7,030.00
Stolen
1 500.00
1 500.00
Stolen 6 109.00
Stolen 1 5.00
Stolen 1 10.00
Stolen 1 20.00
Stolen 1 20.00
Stolen 1 10.00
Stolen 1 20.00
12 194.00
OVERALL TOTAL...
47 24,519.00
Licensed to Mound Police Department
Page: 2
October 24, 1989
"Exhibit A", page 2 of 3
RESOLUTION %89-139
RESOLUTION APPROVIN~ A POLICY ON APPOINTMENTS
AND REAPPOINTMENTS TO ADVISORY COMHISSIONS
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, hereby establishes the following policy:
Definitions of "Vacancy": A vacancy occurs when a term
expires and the commissioner holding that term does not
desire reappointment. A vacancy also occurs when a
commissioner resigns his/her position prior to the term
expiring.
When a vacancy occurs, the City Manager is
directed to advertise in the City's official
newspaper that there are positions to be filled on
a commission(s). Such advertising' shall be done
in the form of a "news release".
Such news release shall include, but not be
limited to, the number of vacancies, the length of
the term, or request for letter of interest and/or
resume, application deadline date, etc. The news
release shall also state that prospective ap-
plicants will be required to interview with the
City Council and respective commission jointly.
Such interviews will be conducted as soon as pos-
sible following the application deadline. Each
commission will formally recommend appointments
following the joint interviews. The City Council
'will review those recommendations and will be
responsible for making the appointments.
Current commission members who wish to be reap-
pointed must indicate such and the reasons for
being reappointed in writing a minimum of sixty
(60) days prior to their term expiring.
If a member resigns during his/her term, such
resignation must be in writing and submitted to
the City Manager.
In the case of member resigning with less than
ninety (90) days remaining on his/her term, the
City Council, at its discretion, may delay filling
the vacancy until the term officially expires."
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Jessen and .seconded by Councilmember Johnson.
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA
7:00 PM, Wednesday, August 23, 2000
Tonka Bay City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock
· 9/13/00 Regular Board Meeting will be held at Shorewood City Hall
READING OF MINUTES- 7/26/00 LMCD Regular Board Meeting
PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.)
CONSENT AGENDA- Consent Agenda items identified 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.
Mr. Miles Canning, variance application from LMCD Code for side setback.requirements and an
adjusted dock use area. 1. Public Hearing
2. Discussion and/or consideration
1. WATER STRUCTURES "
A) Mr. George Fougeron, consideration of variance application from LMCD Code for side
setback requirements and an adjusted dock use area (public hearing Conducted '~it' 8/9/00
meeting);
B)
Mr. Steve Coddon, consideration of variance application from LMCD Code for side setback
requirements and an adjusted dock use area (public hearing conducted at 7/12/00 meeting)
(Staff recommends motion to give notice to the applicant for a 60 dayextension to
process application);
C) Additional business;
FINANCIAL
A) Audit of vouchers (8/16/00 - 8131100);
B) July financial summary and balance sheet;
C) Additional Business;
LAKE USE & RECREATION
A) Discussion of 7/20/00 letter from Edward Ferlauto regarding the establishment of no-wake
zones in Gideon Bay;
B) (*) 5taft recommends approval of $500 preliminary investigation for new Beer and Wine
licenses issued for the 2000 boating season to A Day in the Sun Charters for the charter boat,
Banana Wind;
C) Update on feedback from LMCD member communities regarding increased Water Patrol
presence for the 2001 boating season;
D) Additional Business;
4. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE
A) (*) Minutes from the 8/11/00 EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting (handout);
B) 8/11/00 EWM/Exotics meeting report;
C) Additional Business;
5. ADMINISTRATION
6. SAVE THE LAKE
7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
8. OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
10. ADJOURNMENT
DRAFT
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
7:00 PM, Wednesday, July 26, 2000
Tonka Bay City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Gene Partyka, Minnetdsta; Andrea Ahrens,
Mound; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Greg Kitchak, Uinnetonka; Lili UcUillan, Orono; Tom Skramstad, Shorewood; Herb
Suerth, Woodland. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; George Hoff, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive
Director; Judd Harper, Administrative Technician.
Members absent: Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Craig Nelson, Spdng
Park; Sheldon Wert, Greenwood.
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock
Babcock stated that a letter was recently sent to the member cities encouraging their financial participation for the 2001
boating season by increasing Water Patrol presence for five months by adding two Deputies.
McMillan stated that she would like the Board to further discuss this letter.
Babcock stated that this letter would be discussed under "New Business" at the end of the meeting.
READING OF MINUTES
MOTION: Foster moved, McMillan seconded to approve the minutes of the 6/28/00 Regular Board meeting as submitted.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda (5 minutes)
Mr. Terry Fordbord, 265 West Point Road, thanked the Board for supporting the idea of increased Water Patrol presence on
Lake Minnetonka in the future. He stated that he had sent a letter on 5/29/00 to the office requesting that an agenda item
be placed on a future Board meeting agenda to discuss some on-going issues at Lindbo Landing madna in his
neighborhood. He noted that he had not heard back from the District and was curious on the procedure to get placed on a
Board meeting agenda. He expressed concem with the pressure from the public to get on and use the lake, citing personal
watercraft use in city firelanes and the transient use of Lindbo Landing as examples. He encouraged the Distdct to support
and work with the City of Tonka Bay on addressing these issues.
Babcock stated that after the 5129100 letter was received from Mr. Fordbord, staff visited Lindbo Landing to conduct a
multiple dock inspection. He noted that there appear to be some possible violations with regards to the number and location
of watercraft being stored at the facility. He stated that staff would be checking further into this in the near future.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
July 26, 2000
Page2
Mr. Judd Mowry, update on lake related issues in the City of Tonka Bay.
Ambrose arrived at 7:14 p.m.
Babcock introduced Mr. Judd Mowry, a city council member from the City of Tonka Bay. He thanked Mr. Mowry for
attending the meeting and asked him to bring the Board up to date on the lake related issues that are occurring in the
City of Tonka Bay
Mowry stated that he was in attendance at the meeting speaking on behalf of the City of Tonka Bay. He noted four
issues were considered by the city council at the 7/11/00 meeting. They included: 1. Examination of instituting a parking system for Tonka Bay residents.
2. Address the police enforcement and authority issue (due to concerns by marina owners related to South Lake
Minnetonka Police Department enforcing State Statutes/City Ordinances).
3. Examine the issue of transient usage at marinas.
4. Review conducting commercial business on City property.
He noted that three of these issues, excluding the issue of transient usage at marinas, are being further evaluated by
the City Administrator and Attomey. He added that he believed that the issue of transient usage at marinas is difficult to
address because it is hard for an organization to get their hands around it. He stated that he was asking the Distdct for
assistance on a lakewide basis on how this could potentially be addressed before the 2001 boating season.
Babcock asked Mowry how the City of Tonka Bay defined transient usage at the marinas.
Mowry stated that he believed it is difficult to get a clear definition of transient usage at the marinas. He noted that at
Lindbo Landing, he believed some of their customers are using it as a means to get other members from the public out
on the lake. He suggested that the District might be able to address some potential concerns when the multiple dock
licenses are renewed.
Babcock stated that he believed that Lindbo Landing is a legal, non-conforming facility that has only a few conditions
placed on its license. He noted that the Distdct definition of transient usage refers to bo'~t storage rather than boat
usage of the dock. He added that a marina facility that has transient usage has designated BSU's that do not allow
overnight parking in them, mainly for restaurants on the lake.
Foster stated that he believed there is a distinct difference between how the City of Tonka Bay and the District define
transient usage on the lake.
Mowry asked if there is language in the Code that addresses the use of madna facilities as drop-off and pick-up points
for essentially the public.
Babcock stated that there is not language that addresses this. He noted when the Distdct licenses a multiple dock
facility greater than 1:50' through a special density license, the District requires it to be available to the public.
Mowry stated that he believed that this type of information would be valuable to the city council and would assist them in
making decisions. He added that he would like the Distdct to provide this information, in writing, before the next city
council meeting.
Babcock stated that he would like to assist the Tonka Bay Task Force that is addressing the issues by representing the
Distdct at these meetings.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
July 26, 2000
Page 3
McMillan asked whether the issue is parking or use of madna facilities.
Mowry stated that he believed it is both. He thanked the Board for the opportunity to bdng the issues to the attention of
the Board and that he would keep the District informed on them.
1, A,
City of Mound, consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of new multiple dock license and variance
applications from LMCD Code for the following street ends: 1) Eagle Lane, 2) Bluebird Lane North, 3) Finch Lane,
and 4) Gull Lane.
Babcock stated that he reviewed the draft Findings and that he was comfortable with them with one exception. He
noted that he believed clarification was needed at the bottom of page 1 that required the City to maintain one or
more multiple dock licenses, so as to include all of the docks at the street ends.
MOTION: Foster moved, Skramstad seconded to approve the City of Mound Findings of Fact and Order, with the
change recomr~ended by Babcock, for the Eagle Lane, Bluebird Lane North, Finch Lane, and Gull Lane
street ends.
VOTE: Motion carded unanimously.
B. City of Mound, consideration of new multiple dock license and variance applications from LMCD Code for the
Dove Lane and Woodland Road street ends.
Babcock asked the applicant to provide an overview of the information included in the Board packet.
Ms. Allison Swanson, attomey for the City of Mound, stated that revised site plans have been submitted for Board
consideration at Woodland Road and Dove Lane street ends. She made the following comments: .
· The proposed site plan at the Woodland Road street end has been amended for one boat on each side of a
60' long dock. She stated that the proposed site plan requires a side setback variance; however, it has
eliminated the need for a dock length variance. She noted that the proposed size restrictions of these two
BSU's is 8' x 20'; however, the residents in the area would like them to be 10' x 24.
· The proposed site plan at Dove Lane takes into consideration that one of the abutting properties is required
a 10' side setback from the extended side site line and that the other abutting property owner has granted a
10' public navigation easement because they only have a 60' wide lot. She added to address previous
concerns raised by the Board for navigation of the watercraft, the proposed size of the watercraft at this
location have been reduced to 8'x 20'.
· She entertained comments or questions from the Board.
Babcock questioned how the applicant could have a 20' long boat tum around in the approximated 15' space
between the proposed dock and the dock of the abutting property owners. He also questioned approving BSU
dimensions that are 8' wide when most boats leave the factory at 8~' wide.
Foster asked the applicant whether the proposed applications, if approved, would meet the required 22 watercraft
identified in the settlement agreement.
Swanson stated that the six vadance applications, plus the conforming dock at Bluebird Lane, would meet the 22
watercraft requirement in the settlement agreement.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District _
Regular Board Meeting
July 26, 2000 Page
Foster stated that at the Woodland Road street end, he would not have problems making these BSU's 10' x 24'. He
noted that he believed the problems exist at the Dove Lane street end because there is a need to navigate around
watercraft to get to the front BSU's at this site. He suggested that there might be a need to reduce the size of
watercraft for the front BSU's at this site.
Partyka stated that he believed that the size of the watercraft to be stored at the two front BSU's at the Dove Lane
street end needs to be reduced.
Babcock stated that he was not comfortable with the District granting a variance without the consent of the abutting
property owners. He noted he believed that would be heavy-handed of the District because the proposed
watercraft would be stored outside of the extended side site lines.
Partyka expressed concern that the public navigation easement proposed at the Dove Lane street end is not wide
enough to turn a boat around in. He stated that maybe the Board should consider approving small fishing boats for
the front BSU's at this site.
McMillan concurred with Partyka and she stated that the applicant might need to consider storing either two larger
boats or four smaller boats at this site.
Babcock asked the applicant what the long-term need is for the storage of 22 watercraft.
Swanson stated that the 22 watercraft is agreed to in the settlement agreement.
Babcock stated that he believed the Distdct might want to consider approving a variance on an intedm basis for 22
watercraft at this time, with the understanding that this figure would be reduced to 20 in the future as property
owners in this area change.
McMillan stated that she believed the Distdct is attempting to approve 22 watercraft at the street ends in this
development. She noted she believed that the District needs to do what is right for the lake, with the possibility that
the number of watercraft might need to be reduced to 20.
Partyka stated that he was not troubled with the number of 22 watercraft; however, he believed smaller watercraft
might need to be stored at the Dove Lane street end.
Foster stated that at the Dove Lane site, he believed that the two inside BSU's should be 6' x 16' fishing boats and
that he would not be opposed to making the two outside BSU's 10' x 24'.
Kitchak stated he would prefer maintaining the outside BSU's at the Dove Lane site at 8' x 20' because docking in
the area is tight.
Foster stated that he believed the width of the BSU's at the two sites should be amended to' 8.5' because that is
generally the width of the boat bought from a manufacturer.
Babcock stated that on a 30' wide lot, he was concemed about storing four watercraft without explicit neighborhood
consent for a sufficient navigation area.
Kitchak stated that he would like to see whether the abutting property that already has granted a public navigation
easement of 10' from the Dove Lane street end would agree to something greater.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
July 26, 2000
Page 5
Babcock stated that at the Dove Lane site, he would prefer that the abutting property owner who has a required
minimum 10' side setback from the extended side site lines agree to an affidavit for this amount of a public
navigation easement. He noted that he believed this would aid the decision by the Board.
MOTION: Foster moved, Partyka seconded to direct attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of
new multiple dock license and vadance applications from LMCD Code for the Dove Lane and Woodland
Road street ends, subject to receiving a 10' public navigation easement affidavit from the other abutting
property owner at Dove Lane, subject two 6'x 16' and two 8.5' x 20' BSU's at the Dove Lane site, and
subject to two 10' x 24' BSU's at the Woodland Road site.
Babcock stated that he would like to have BSU dimensions at the Woodland Road site limited to 8' x 20'.
Mr. Mike Gardner, 1599 Bluebird Lane, stated that he was one of the abutting property owners to Woodland Road.
He expressed concem that the proposed 30' wide easement for docking purposes is not consistent with the
easement outlined in the settlement agreement, 12' wide. He added he would prefer smaller boats than 24' in
length be stored at this proposed site.
Swanson stated that the settlement agreement states that the width of the easement for docking purposes is the
width of the roadway. She noted the width of the roadway at this site is 30'.
Babcock stated that the District would review the proposed application with the assumption that the easement is 30'
wide. He noted if there is an adverse claim on this width, the Distdct is not the organization to resolve this matter.
Foster recommended a friendly amendment to the motion for BSU dimensions of 8.5' x 24' at the Woodland Road
site. Partyka agreed to this fdendly amendment.
Swanson stated that she believed the applicant would be agreeable to this friendly amendment. She questioned
whether Mr. Gardner is meeting LMCD Code for minimum side setback requirements at the Woodland Road site.
Babcock questioned why the Distdct should approve 24' long BSU's at the Woodland Road site when the applicant
is only request 20' long BSU's.
Ahrens stated at one time, she recalled the City of Mound reviewed the 22 boats that would be accommodated for
in the settlement agreement. She stated that she believed the residents would not like to get into discussions for
reducing BSU sizes and not being able to fit the 22 boats within the approved BSU's.
MOTION:
TO
AMEND
Babcock moved, McMillan seconded to amend the original motion by making the two BSU's at the
Woodland Road site 8.5' x 20'.
VOTE ON: Ayes (6), Nayes (3; Ahrens, Ambrose, and Foster); motion to amend the original motion approved.
MOTION
TO
AMEND
VOTE ON: Motion carded unanimously.
ORIGINAL
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
July 26, 2000
MOTION
(AS AMENDED)
Ahrens left at 8:15 p.m.
The meeting was recessed at 8:15 p.m. and re-convened at 8:20 p.m.
Shorewood Yacht Club (site 2), Consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of new multiple dock
license, special density license, and vadance applications from LMCD Code for 35 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on
350' of continuous shoreline.
Babcock opened the agenda item, noting that the draft Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the application
was prepared by LeFevere as directed by the Board at its 6128100 meeting. He stated that the City of Shorewood
has provided two additional letters that comment on the proposed applications. He asked the applicant if he would
like to provide some additional background at this time.
Mr. Walter Baker, attorney for the applicant, stated that he understood that they would have to work concurrently
with the District and the City of Shorewood to secure the proper approvals. He added that he had reviewed the
draft Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the proposed applications and that he encouraged Board approval
of them.
Babcock stated that there was a condition in the motion at the 6/28/00 meeting that no objections were to be
received by the City of Shorewood on the proposed applications. He noted that he believed the City of Shorewood
has expressed some concerns and that they have encouraged the District to take more time in reviewing the
applications submitted. He asked the applicant if they would be agreeable to delay action on the draft Findings
while they resolve the issues raised by the City of Shorewood.
Baker stated they would prefer to get the draft Findings of Fact and Order approved by the Distdct at this time.
Partyka asked if there was representation of the City of Shorewood at the meeting. He stated that he would like to
hear their comments at this time.
Mr. Timothy Keane, attorney for the City of Shorewood, stated that he was in attendance with Mr. Brad Nielsen,
Acting City Administrator, to present the position of the city on the applications submitted by Shorewood Yacht
Club. He made the following comments:
· The City of Shorewood does not agree with the previous assertions by the applicant that land use issues are
controlled by a 1978 Court Order that would allow for the proposed expansion. He stated that the present
site is a legal, non-conforming use and that approval of the second site would require a rezoning.
· The City of Shorewood believes that the applicant needs to process a zoning amendment in order to
proceed with its expansion plans. He stated that the City of Shorewood would like a minimum condition on
any approval by the Distdct that requires the applicant to secure land use approvals from the City of
Shorewood. He noted he believed the preferred course of action would be securing the approvals from the
City of Shorewood prior to approval by the Distdct on the proposed applications.
· He entertained feedback or comments from the Board.
Babcock stated that one of his concerns with approving the proposed applications was Whether the second site
could support a 35-slip madna on its own. He noted he believed the City of Shorewood has indicated that it does
-not.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
July 26, 2000
Page7
Keane stated that he believed that is a preliminary conclusion of the City of Shorewood, noting that a land use
application had not been received by the applicant.
Ambrose stated based on the position just presented by the City of Shorewood, he questioned why the draft
Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the proposed applications were prepared by the District attorney.
Foster stated that he believed the District and the City of Shorewood have entirely different jurisdictions and that is-
the reason why there was a condition placed in the motion to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the
application subject to receiving no objections from the City of Shorewood. He added that he believed the Distdct
could approve the draft Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the proposed applications, subject to the
applicant securing proper land use approval from the City of Shorewood.
A number of Board members expressed concern that Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the proposed
applications had been prepared without receiving feedback from the City of Shorewood.
Kitchak stated that he would like to see the applicant either request an extension of the District to process the
applications submitted or withdraw them. He added that he would probably vote against the applications that have
been submitted at this time.
LeFevere stated that he not aware of where the Distdct was with regards to processing complete applications within
120 days after they have been received in compliance with state law. He added that the applicant has the
capability of granting an indefinite extension with the Distdct while they resolve the issues with the City of
Shorewood. He noted if the applicant does not grant this indefinite extension, the Distdct needs to act within the
120-day window, including Findings.
Foster asked the applicant if they would be willing to grant the Distdct a voluntary, indefinite extension to process
the applications they have submitted.
Baker stated that he still believed it is appropriate for the District to approve the Findings for approval of the
applications submitted because the City of Shorewood was notified of their intentions some time ago. He added
that he would need to confer with his client on whether they would be willing to grant an indefinite extension.
Ambrose stated that he would hate to have the District approve applications, subject to the applicant securing
proper approvals from the City of Shorewood, because he believed that would create undue pressure on the City of
Shorewood,
Skramstad asked staff whether comments had been received from the MN DNR on the proposed applications.
Nybeck stated that the MN DNR has expressed no objections on the proposed applications.
LeFevere stated when the draft Findings were prepared, there was a general assumption that site 2 could stand
alone and be developed. He noted with the feedback from the City of Shorewood, he believed the hardships
become more questionable. He added that the Findings were drafted with the assumption that there were no legal
impediments at the second site.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
July 26, 2000
Page 8
Baker stated that in order to accommodate all parties, his client would like to have this agenda sent over to the next
meeting. He noted that a staff memo received from the Distdct indicates that the completed applications were
received on 512100.
LeFevere stated that if the applicant is not willing to provide the Distdct an indefinite extension to process the
approved applications, the Board could either approve the draft Findings of Fact and Order for approval or direct
him to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for denial of the proposed applications.
Foster stated that he would like to see the applicant agree to an indefinite time extension for the District to process
the proposed applications while they resolve the issues with the City of Shorewood. He added that he believed the
draft Findings could be brought back to a future Board meeting when the issue with the City of Shorewood have
been resolved.
Baker stated that his client has agreed to an indefinite time extension for the Distdct to process the applications that
have been submitted beyond the 120-window provided by state law.
LeFevere stated that he recommended the Distdct receive a signed letter from the applicant waiving the 60-day rule
provided by state law. He noted he believed that the waiver should not be indefinite and it should allow the
applicant the dght to give notice to the Distdct that they are revoking the waiver. He added if this would occur, the
60-day period would begin at that time.
MOTION: Foster moved, Ambrose seconded to table action on the draft Findings of Fact and Order for approval of
the proposed applications submitted, subject to the District attorney preparing and securing a waiver letter
from the applicant extending the 60-day window required by state law to process completed applications,
and subject to the applicant working with the City of Shorewood on resolving land use issues.
Partyka stated that he would like further language added to the draft Findings by the attorney that requires the
second site to be able to be developed on its own.
The consensus of the Board was not to change language in the draft Findings until the applicant resolves the land
use issues with the City of Shorewood.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
D. Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance amending LMCD Ordinance 169.
Babcock opened the agenda item, noting that the draft ordinance amendment has been prepared by LeFevere to
clean up some loopholes in LMCD Ordinance 169.
MOTION: Babcock moved, Suerth seconded to approve first reading, waive second and third readings, and adopt
the ordinance amendment as submitted.
VOTE: Motion carded unanimously.
Discussion of 7/15/00 letter from George E. Olson.
Babcock introduced the agenda item by asking staff to provide a brief overview of the issue.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
July 26, 2000
Page 9
Nybeck stated that Mr. Olson lives on Carmans Bay and has indicated a problem with fragmented milfoil over the
years. He noted a public inquiry was received in the District office and that a Water Patrol Deputy investigated
whether the fence installed in the water creates navigational hazards. He added that the Water Patrol had
instructed Mr. Olson to remove the fence from the water because it created a navigational hazard; however, the
Water Patrol agreed to allow Mr. Olson to keep the fence in the water to allow the Board to provide staff direction.
He stated that the current Code does not address this type of structure in the water and that staff needs Board
direction on how to proceed.
LeFevere stated that if the Code interprets a fence in the water as a dock, it needs to be contained within its
authorized dock use area. He questioned whether the Code in the past has interpreted a fence in the lake as a
dock and that he believed the Code needed interpretation from the Board.
Partyka stated that if the Code currently does not deal with fences in the lake, he believed this might be the time to
address it.
Mr. George Olson, 2775 Shadywood Road, stated that he has lived on Carman Bay for around five years and that
they have south facing shoreline that is greatly affected by fragmented milfoil because of the prevailing winds. He
noted in past years, he has taken several trailer loads of milfoil from his beach to a compost site on his property.
He added he believed that the fence is a reasonable solution and that there are ten foot setbacks from the fence
the side site lines of the abutting property owners. He concluded that he would like to maintain his swimming
beach at his property and that he would prefer to not explore dp-rapping.
The Board discussed the fence installed by Mr. Olson and whether it needs to be addressed in LMCD Code. The
Board stated that the MN DNR might already have rules and regulations that would prohibit the installation of such
a fence. The consensus of the Board was to send the matter back to staff to further check into MN DNR rules and
regulations and to send it to the EWM/Exotics Task Force to discuss other possible altematives.
MOTION: Suerth moved, Skramstad seconded to refer the matter back to staff to further check into MN DNR rules
and regulations, and to refer the matter to the EWM/Exotics Task Force to explore other possible
altematives.
VOTE: Motion carded unanimously.
F. Additional Business.
Nybeck updated the Board on the Upland Farms project on Six Mile Creek and the request for review and
comments on it from the MN DNR. He stated that he would place it on the agenda at the 8/9/00 Board meeting.
MOTION: McMillan moved, Foster seconded to move agenda item 4A to this section of the meeting.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
4. LAKE USE & RECREATION
A. Discussion of 7/18/00 letter from Sarah Dale.
Babcock introduced the agenda item and asked for some background from Ms. Dale.
- Ms. Sarah Dale, 19350 Walden Trail, made the following comments:
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
July 26, 2000
Page 10
· She resides on Carsons Bay in the City of Deephaven and that she was in attendance, with a number of her
neighbors, to bring a problem in their area of the lake to the attention of the Board. She noted there is a
beach owned and operated by the City of Deephaven in their area.
· In recent years, there have been problems with boats anchoring too close to the shorelines in the area. She
noted that this has resulted in problems for these residents, including disturbances and noise.
· She stated that she believed that this type of activity violates LMCD Code relating to public nuisances from
watercraft and she requested assistance from the District in finding a solution.
· She entertained feedback or comments from the Board.
Foster asked Ms. Dale what a possible solution might be.
Dale stated that dudng the winter, motorized traffic is required to maintain at least 150' of distance from the
shoreline. She suggested that it might be appropriate to have a 150' zone between private shorelines and public
swimming beaches.
LeFevere provided an overview of the Code, noting that there are no restrictions of these types of activities,
whether or not they are within an authorized dock use area.
The Board discussed this agenda item in detail, noting it is difficult to regulate this type of activity because the
general public owns the water on the lake. The Board noted in these types of scenarios, the Board attempts to
balance the rights of the public with the rights of the property owners that have dpadan rights on Lake Minnetonka.
The Board discussed a number of possible altematives to address the problems that are occurring. Some of these
alternatives discussed included adjusting the swimming buoys at the beach further into the lake, prohibiting
anchoring within a set distance of either the shoreline or a public beach, or increased Water Patrol enforcement.
The consensus of the Board was for Foster to work with the residents in the area, the City of Deephaven, and the
Water Patrol to explore possible options to resolve the problem.
2. FINANCIAL
A. Audit of vouchers (7/16100 -7131100).
Nelson reviewed the audit of'vouchers for payment as submitted.
MOTION: Foster moved, Partyka seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for payment as submitted.
VOTE: Motion carded unanimously.
June financial summary and balance sheet.
Nelson reviewed the June financial summary and balance sheet as submitted.
'MOTION: Foster moved, Skramstad seconded to accept the June financial summary and balance sheet as
submitted.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
C. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
July 26, 2000
Page 11
3. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE
A. Minutes and report from the 7/14/00 EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting.
Suerth stated that the minutes from the 7/14/00 EWU/Exotics Task Force meeting should be brought forward at the
next Board meeting for review. He asked Nybeck for a brief overview of the arrival of the new harvester.
Nybeck stated that the new harvester arrived at Lake Uinnetonka on 7/14/00 and was launched into Lake
Minnetonka at Spring Park Bay. He added that lake trials were conducted on the week of 7117100 - 7121100, and
that staff is working with EWM fleet mechanic on ensuring that the harvester delivered complies with the bid
specifications. He concluded that the District has to pay the remaining 10% retainer within 30 days after completion
of successful lake trails.
B. Discussion of EWM article in Lake Minnetonka Association Newsletter.
Nybeck stated that the Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA) President, Bob Beutler, had contacted the office and
had indicated that there would be space available in the next LMA Newsletter in August to provide an overview of
the 2000 LMCD EWM Harvesting Program.
Suerth stated that he would work with representatives of the LMA to ensure that there are consistent goals and
objectives for the harvesting program between the two organizations.
C. Additional Business.
The Board directed staff to check with the LMA on the first test results of the status of zebra mussels in Lake
Minnetonka. The Board indicated they would like a regular update from the LMA on this project.
4. LAKE USE & RECREATION
B. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
5. ADMINISTRATION
There was no discussion.
6. SAVE THE LAKE
There was no discussion.
7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Nybeck stated that the lake level as of 7/19/00 was 928.39'.
UcMillan suggested that the Board might want to consider a policy that staff forward correspondence received from the
public to all Board members. The Board stated that staff currently forwards this correspondence to the proper city
representative and that they can make the decision whether to present it to the full Board. The consensus of the Board
was to have the Executive Director provide a detailed overview of correspondence received on a monthly basis.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
July 26, 2000
Page 12
8. OLD BUSINESS.
McMillan stated that she would like to discuss the funding request letter that recently went out to the member cities
regarding increased Water Patrol presence on Lake Uinnetonka for the 2001 boating season. She added that Mayor
Jabbour had a concem with the focus of the letter because it appears as though the cost of the additional Deputies
would be paid by the member cities rather than equally by the District, the member cities, and the private sector.
Babcock stated in order for increased Water Patrol presence on Lake Minnetonka to be a long-term program, he
believed the funding mechanism needed to come through the tax base. He noted that he believed the District could
fund this program for a year or two; however, this is not sustainable on a long-term basis.
The Board discussed how the Distdct could assist in the funding of additional Water Patrol presence for Lake
Uinnetonka for the 2001 boating season. The consensus of the Board was that the District needed to clarify how much
of total costs of this project needed to be funded by the member cities. The Board consensus was for the member cities
to fund 50% of the costs of the project for the 2001 boating season with the Distdct funding the remaining 50% of the
costs of the project. The consensus of the Board was that long-term sustainability of this program beyond the 2001
boating season would require minimal funding from the Distdct because of its budget constraints.
9. NEW BUSINESS.
There was no new business.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 10:49 p.m.
Douglas Babcock, Chairman
Eugene A. Partyka, Sec,'etary
Metropolitan Council
Working for the Region, Planning for the Future
August 25, 2000
Local government officials, stakeholders and interested parties:
I am pleased to announce the appointment of Jay Lindgren as the new regional
administrator for the Metropolitan Council. Following a national recruitment process, a
special search committee named Jay as the best fit for this leadership position. The full
Council ratified Jay's appointment this week and we are delighted that our choice among
the candidates is so close to home.
In this top management position, Jay serves as the chief executive. His abilities,
experience and management style are an excellent match to advance the Council's Smart
Growth agenda. Hired originally in June 1997, Jay served as our chief legal counsel. In
July, he was named interim regional administrator following Jim Solem's retirement.
Previously, Jay worked in private practice at Dorsey and Whitney, specializing in
government law. A native of the Twin Cities, he is a former North Dakota state legislator.
We look forward to working with you in better serving the Twin Cities region.
Ted Mondale
Chair
230 East Fifth Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1626
(651) 602-1000 Fax 602-1550
An Equal Opportunity Employer
TDD/TI'Y 291-0904
Metro Info Line 602-1888
League of Minnesota Cities
Cities promoting exceller, ce
145 University Avenue West, St. PaN, MN 55103-2044
Phone: (651j 281.1200, (800)925.1122
TDD (651) 281-1290
LMC Fax: (651) 281-1299 ' LMCIT Fax: (651) 281-1298
Web Site: http://www.|mnc.org
August 24, 2000
TO:
Administrators, Managers, Clerks of Direct Member Cities
FROM:
James F. Miller, Executive Director
SUBJECT: NLC Board of Directors
Minnesota cities historically have been very active in the National League of Cities (NLC). In
addition to representation on NLC's Steering and Policy Committees, Minnesota usually has
been represented on the Board of Directors.
Golden Valley Councilmember Larry Bakken has served on the NLC Board for the last two
years, but his term will expire this December at the Congress of Cities in Boston. It is important,
therefore, that we identify another strong candidate to compete for the NLC Board.
NLC Board members serve two-year terms. They are expected to annually attend three Board
meetings. In addition to meetings in conjunction with the Congress of Cities in December and
the Congressional City Conference in March, a third meeting occurs each summer, usually in the
NLC Board President's city. The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) reimburses Minnesota
members of the NLC Board for attending any meeting not held in conjunction with an NLC
Conference.
NLC strongly encourages candidates to seek endorsement of their state league. The LMC Board
will consider such an endorsement at its September 21 meeting. That endorsement will be based
on the candidates' participation on LMC and NLC committees, attendance at LMC and NLC
conferences, availability to serve on the NLC Board and willingness to be a liaison between the
NLC and LMC. Candidates may also be asked to interview with a Board subcommittee prior to
the September 21 Board meeting.
!nierested elected officials from direct member cities can obtain a candidate data form by
contacting Jif! Pocklington at thc LMC at (651) 281-1202. Please send the completed data form
to me by September 8, 2000.
If you havc any questions or xvould like further information, please call me at (65:1) 2.81-1205.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
MARY TAMBORNiNO
COMMISSIONI~.R
BOARD
PHONE
FAX 34&~B701
OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A- 2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487- 0240
Mayor Pat Meisel
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
August 21, 2000
Dear Mayor Meisel:
The only cities I represent on Lake Minnetonka are the City of Mirmetonka and a
portion of Deephaven. However, because ! grew up on the lake, I have a
proprietary and personal historical interest, in how it fares. Hence my
involvement in the issue of an increasing the staff of the water patrol. I
understand that this increase will result in an increased amount of about
$100,000.
I am writing to tell you that I have insured that the 50% match by the county (for
the increase) is in the Sheriff's budget. Of course the Board of Commissioners
must vote on that budget; however I am confident of a positive reaction and
vote. I am aware of the discussion about whose problem it really is. I am
digesting the letter from the Mayor of Mound, and I have to agree that the safety
of the public on the lake is a county problem. At the same time, it is a Public
Safety issue that t-ranscends the Lrnportant issues being raised, as they should be,
and which deserve an answer.
While I believe they are legitimately part of the discussion about the costs related
to increasing the Water Patrol, ! am not certain they should drive that discussion.
The letter from Mound is in response to the Lake area cities being asked to foot
the entire bill for increased costs attendant to the inability to utilize volunteers to
the Water Patrol in the same way we have in the past. That is not the case: the
INTERNE;T: Ma~,Tamborninooco.hennepin.nua.us NOT PRINTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE
~NT~D ON "CrO'D
County will pay (depending on a favorable vote by the County Board of course)
up to half of the amount needed. This may or may not change the opinion of the
Mound City Council. It is important for you to know that I and my aide, Tom
Church have worked diligently on this; we think we have crafted a solution that
is "saleable" or a win/win. We think it is a solution that will allow, and require,
us to address the important points raised by the City Council of Mound. I/we
hope you think so too.
Sincerely,
/
Mary Tambornino
Hermepin County Commissioner
District 6
CC:
Penny Steele Hennepin County Commissioner, 7th District
Sandra Vargas, Hennepin County Administrator
Greg Nybeck, Lake Minnetoka Conservation District Executive Director
Member Cities of Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
2
City of Wayzata
600 Rice Street East
\Vavzam. MN 55391-1799
Hennepin County Board of Commissioners
A2400 Government Center
Minneapolis, MN 55487-0240
Mayor:
Barry Petit
Council Members:
Robert Ambrose
Robyn Cook
Andrew Humphrey
Joseph McCarthy
City Manager:
Allan Orsen
Dear Commissioners:
I am writing on behalf of the Wayzata City Council to request your support for County
assistance to address a critical safety issue on Lake Minnetonka. At its August 8th
meeting, the Wayzata City Council discussed the Lake Minnetonka Conservation
District's (LMCD) request for LMCD member cities to subsidize the cost of two
additional water patrol officers for Lake Minnetonka. Although further details and
clarification is needed from the LMCD before the Wayzata City Council can make a
formal decision, the Council recognizes the need for additional water patrol staffing in
response to the emerging public safety issue on Lake Minnetonka.
The Wayzata Council is very concerned about the impact of the court's recent decision to
limit the enforcement authority of the volunteer water patrol deputies. We all know from
experience that for many people rules and regulations are only as good as the perceived
level of enforcement. Thus, if enforcement efforts decrease while boat traffic continues
to increase, the concern is that the public's safety on Lake Minnetonka will become more
at risk.
The Wayzata City Council understands that public safety on Lake Minnetonka is
currently the primary responsibility of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol. We
also feel that the financial impact from the increased traffic from boaters who live off of
Lake Minnetonka should not be paid by an increased burden on the tax base of the cities
surrounding Lake Minnetonka. However, we also realize the complexity of financing
public safety services on Lake Minnetonka. Thus, the Wayzata City Council is willing,
in the spirit of intergovernmental cooperation, to consider a one-year financial
contribution for two additional water patrol deputies as long as the County Board
commits to alternative long-term financial solutions that will reduce the burden on the
general Lake Minnetonka area tax base for future funding increases.
One long-term suggestion to consider would be to follow the policy at the Hennepin
County parks where there is no fee for using the lake for swimming/fishing or using the
trails, slides, swings, etc. but there is a fee to park your car. Similarly, LMCD member
cities could require a Hennepin County park permit in order to park a boat trailer near a
Lake Minnetonka public landing. Unlike County parks where County employees enforce
the permit requirements, local police departments could be responsible for enforcing the
permit requirements. The purpose of a City/County partnership would be to generate a
Phone: 952-473-0234
Fax: 952-404-5318
e-mail: city~iwayzata.org
home page: www. wayzata.org
fair, reasonable and efficient source of revenue that could be used by the County to offset
the increased costs of additional water patrol officers on Lake Minnetonka.
Thank you £or your time and consideration. If you have any questions regarding this
request, please do not hesitate to call me at 375-0336.
Sincet~
Barry Petit
Mayor, City of Wayzata
Cc: Douglass Babcock, LMCD Chairman
Greg Nybeck, LMCD Executive Director
LMCD member cities
State Senator Martha Robertson
State Representative Ron Abrahms
LAFAYETTE CLUB
City of Minnetonka Beach,
County of Hennepin
State of Minnesota
Resolution Year: 2000
Resolution #1
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Board of Governors of the
Lafayette Club, Minnetonka Beach, Minnesota, was held on the 15th day of August, 2000. The
following members were present: Kathleen Coppo (President), Craig Moleski (Vice-President),
Eric Paulson (Treasurer), Kathryn Swenson (Secretary), Board Members John Lundquist, Roger
Dehring, Peter Lanpher, Jan Ingwalson, Andrew Greenshields, Ron Meshbesher, Pat Kittler and
John Gabos. Staff members: Scott Bremer (General Manager), Carl Rhame (Controller) and
Gale Menger (Executive Administrative Assistant).
Board member Greenshields introduced the following resolution and moved its' adoption by the
Board of Governors.
WHEREAS, the Dakota Rail Railroad runs through the heart of Minnetonka Beach and
boundaries of Lafayette Club and
WHEREAS, Lafayette Club has been advised of the intent to convert the interim use of the
Dakota Rail comdor to a regional recreational trail, and
WHEREAS, the conversion of the rail corridor to a regional recreatidnal trail would adversely
impact Lafayette Club as well as its members, and
WHEREAS, Lafayette Club additionally questions the need for this multimillion-dollar public
expenditure when two nearly identical length east-west trails exist within five miles of proposed
trail, and
WHEREAS, Hennepin Parks has indicated that only if the cities and its' citizens along the rail
corridor are supportive of the conversion would Hennepin Parks support the conversion of the
Dakota Rail corridor to a regional recreational trail,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Lafayette Club does not support the
conversion of the Dakota Rail corridor in Minnetonka Beach to a regional recreational trail and is
unalterably opposed to the conversion of the rail corridor to a regional recreational trail in
Minnetonka Beach, in which this Club is located.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Board member John
Gabos and upon the vote being taken, the following voted in favor of the motion: Kathleen
Coppo, Kathryn Swenson, Eric Paulson, Craig Moleski, Andy Greenshields, John Lundquist, Ron
Meshbesher, Roger Dehrmg, John Gabos, Jan Ingwalson, John Lundquist. The following voted
against or abstained: NONE.
Whereupon, the resolution was duly passed unanimously by its' voting Members of the Board of
Govemors and was adopted this 15th day of August.
r..~test: (%
G~e R. Menger, Exec. A{l~___~st.
Date: ~['~'~/~
Date: