2001-02-13PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2001 7:30 PM
MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
*Consent Agenda: Items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine in nature and
will be enacted by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items
unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests. In that 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, WITH ANY AMENDMENTS
5457-5462
3. *A. APPROVE MINUTES: DECEMBER 12,2000 5463-5469
JANUARY23, 2001 5470-5475
*B. APPROVE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
5476-5496
*C. APPROVE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION 5497-5498
OF GRANT AGREEMENT FOR HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM
*D. APPROVE RESOLUTION FAVORING A CONTINUATION 5499-5500
OF FUNDING OF SENIOR PROGRAMS THROUGH THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FOR 2001
*E. APPROVE PAYMENT REQUEST #2 TO DIAMOND 5
5501-5504
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON
ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. (LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER
SPEAKER.)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. POST OFFICE REDEVELOPMENT
1. CASE #01-01: REZONING - B1 TO DESTINATION
PUD POST OFFICE REDEVELOPMENT - XXXX
LYNWOOD BOULEVARD - CITY OF MOUND
5505-5535
CASE #01-04: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
POST OFFICE DEVELOPMENT - XXXX LYNWOOD
BOULEVARD - CITY OF MOUND
1
PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
PASTUCK - 1800 COMMERCE BOULEVARD
A. CASE #00-67: MINOR SUBDIVISION - (NOT A PUBLIC
HEARING)
B. CASE #00-59: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - (PUBLIC
HEARING CONTINUATION)
5536-5574
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ALDER
ROAD PARKING IMPROVEMENTS (POND ARENA)
5575-5578
o
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL REVIEW OF STAFF DENIAL OF
WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT NO-LOSS REQUEST -
BY PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL FOR TIMOTHY BECKER
LOTS 5-8, BLOCK 4, HARRISON SHORES DEVELOPMENT
- XXXX THREE POINTS BOULEVARD
5579-5644
9. ACTION APPROVING LEAF DISPOSAL PROGRAM FOR 2001
5645-5649
10.
FEE STUDY
A. ACTION AMENDING CHAPTER V OF THE MOUND
CITY CODE
B. ACTION ON RESOLUTION SETTING FEES FOR 2001
5650-5666
11.
EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR CONSIDERATION OF LEGAL
MATTER
12.
CONSIDERATION OF PARK AND OPEN SPACE ADVISORY
COMMISSION REQUEST TO MEET AND CONFER
13.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. LMC Friday Fax 5667-5671
B. Westonka Schools communication 5672-5681
C. LMCD communication 5682-5703
D. AMM Bill Tracking Report Index 5704-5708
E. AMM Fax News 5709-5710
F. Westonka Senior Center newsletter 5711
G. Letter: Hennepin County Housing & Redevelopment Authority 5712-5714
H. Communications from Park Commission member Tom Casey 5715-5716
I. Letter from LMCC on studio usage 5717
J. Letter from MetroPlains Development on grocer 5718
K. Police Report: January 2001 5719-5720
L. Letter from MFRA to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 5721-5725
M. Article: Working with your city attorney effectively and efficiently 5726-5728
N. Max Fax 5729
14. ADJOURN
This is a preliminary agenda and subject to change. The Council will set a final agenda at the
meeting. More current meeting agendas may be viewed at City Hall or at the City of Mound web
site: www. cityofmound, com.
COUNCIL BRIEFING
February 13, 2001
#3.A. Minutes
he processing of December 12 minutes got delayed in the flurry of things. I think this was the meeting that the
mporary cut out after the HRA meeting. This is the first we could get them ready. Thanks for your patience.
#3.C. Grant Program
This is an annual event. The award helps us fund such things as upgrading our emergency operations manual.
#3.E. Diamond 5
This firm did the demolition and excavating for the Coast to Coast building and parking lot.
gl0. Fee Study
It was my goal to complete the fee study and present it to you at the last meeting in December, originally to be
December 12. With the added meetings in December, that became impossible. Following that, I fully intended
to present it at the Jan 9 meeting, but underestimated the amount of study and work required.
Clearly, this project is not yet complete. However, I am presenting it for approval in its current form so that the
permits and other charges that are typical this time of year can be charged out at the new rate. This is important
in that the 2001 Budget revenues are based on increased fees. Other fees that are charged out later in the year
can be studied and added and a second resolution may be adopted a bit later. Please bear with me. Thank you.
#11. Law Suit
Enclosed within your packets is a second envelope marked "confidential." The contents are the lawsuit served
upon the City regarding the MetroPlains project. Please bring this information packet with you to the meeting.
be discussed in executive session. That fact that there is a lawsuit is not confidential; our strategies for
with the matter are confidential.
Human Resources Report
Jill Norlander has been appointed as Planning and Inspections Secretary for that Department. She started Feb 5.
She worked formerly in the engineering department for the City of Brooklyn Park. Many of her skill are
transferable to our work setting.
We just closed the posting for the new Public Service Worker: Parks/Docks. I was posted in the Public Works
Department first. If no person is hired from within, it will be posted publicly.
DRAFT
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - December 12, 2000
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular
session on Tuesday, December 12, 2000, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers at 5341
Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel; Council Members: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown,
Mark Hanus, and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were Acting City Attorney John
Dean, City Manager Kandis Hanson, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Assistant CRy
Planner Loren Gordon, and the following interested citizens; Jason Swensen, Dennis
Delmont, Ryan Johnson, Finance Director Gino Businaro, Mound Police Department.
*Consent Agenda: Items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine
in nature and will be enacted by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate
discussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests. In that event
the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of
Allegiance was recited.
APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA & REGULAR AGENDA
Councilmember Weycker asked to have the Item A, the Minutes of the December 4,
2000, Regular meeting pulled from the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Hanus asked to have the Minutes of the November 28, 2000, Regular
meeting pulled from the Consent Agenda.
*Consent Agenda
MOTION by Weycker, seconded by Hanus to approve remaining Rems on the
Consent Agenda. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
*1.0 PAYMENT OF BILLS
MOTION, Weycker, Hanus, unanimously.
'1.1 SET PUBLIC ItEARINGS
MOTION, Weycker, Hanus, unanimously.
'1.2 APPROVE 2001 CONTRACTS FOR SERVICE
MOTION, Weycker, ttanus, unanimously.
1.3 MINUTES: November 28, 2000 Regular Meeting
Hanus moved to reconstruct the resolution signature page of the minutes of the
November 28, 2000 meeting. Weycker seconded. Ahrens abstained. Motion carried.
1.4 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON
ANY ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. (LIMIT TO THREE MINUTES
PER SPEAKER.)
There were none.
1.5 PRESENTATION OF COMMUNITY POLICING AWARD TO OFFICER
JASON SWENSEN AND MOUND POLICE DEPT.
Will revisit this item when all participating are present.
Brown moved and Weycker seconded the following resolution:
1.6 RESOLUTION # 00-11SA RESOLUTION APPROVING BUSINESS
SUBSIDY AGREEMENT
Motion by Brown to approve business subsidy agreement. Seconded by Weycker. Vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.8
RESOLUTION #00-119 DISCUSSION/ACTION ON RESOLUTION OF
INTENT BY THE CITY OF MOUND TO SUBMIT A SURFACE WATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN TO ~ METROPOLITAN COUNCIL.
City Planner Gordon asked to approve the comprehensive plan approvals minus the
surface water plan element. Gordon said this keeps the city in good standing with the
Metropolitan Council.
Hanus motioned to approve. Weycker seconded. Vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
1.7
WESTEDGE BOULEVARD
A. PRESENTATION OF CONCEPT PLANS
City Engineer John Cameron presented concept plans for improvements to be made on
Westedge Boulevard. Improvements consisted of curb and gutter placement on Mound
side and Minnitrista side and the addition of a retaining wall for a Minnitrista resident.
Councilmen Brown, I-Ianus, and Ahrens did not initially approve because of the lack of
funds by City oflVlinnitrista for the improvements to their side said street. Councilmen
Hanus and Brown both stated that they would not do curb and gutter placement on
Minnitrista land due to the extra cost coming from Mound residents taxes.
City Manager Hanson suggested that the Minnitrista water main extension with Mound
could be considered an equal trade off. Discussion is suspended by consensus. Will
revisit item A.
1.5
PRESENTATION OF COMMUNITY POLICING AWARD TO OFFICER
JASON SWENSEN AND MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Dennis Delmont and Ryan Johnson both spoke. Ryan Johnson recognized Mound Police
Department with the ITT Nightvision Community Policing Award. Johnson then
presented to the Police Department a 6015 tacticular monocular night vision unit and an
award to place on display.
Chief accepted award and night vision unit.
Mayor and Council members congratulated Jason, Lenny, and the Department as a
whole.
1.7
WESTEDGE BOULEVARD
A. PRESENTATION OF CONCEPT PLANS REVISITED
City Engineer Cameron informed council that the Rottlund Developer came forward and
tentatively offered to pay for the curb and gutter additions in Minnitrista with no
assessment costs or tax increases to the city of Mound or its taxpayers.
City Engineer Cameron proposed the water main agreements between Minnitrista and
Mound concerning Westedge Boulevard. Cameron stated that Minnitrista would have
access to Mounds water main, but that it would only be used in emergency situations.
City Planner Gordon stated that Mound has review authority over everything that
happens with the plan. Hanus points that Mound has offered its hand to Minnitrista
before and "each time its hand has been chopped off." Brown commented that all Mound
does is "give, give, give."
Further discussion about the water main. Atem Whitma with Rottlund Company stated
that Westedge Boulevard has been a problem for quite some time. IfMinnitrista won't
help pay for this project, Rottlund Company will pay for Minnitrista's portion.
Otherwise, both communities would be missing out on a great opportunity.
Brown motions for approval to accept joint water agreement between City of Minnitrsita
and the City of Mound. Hanus seconds motion with the additional terms included.
Hanson asks if official approval of plans or just concept? City Planner Gordon says that
DRAFT
Council can move to do both or just give a sot~ approval. Brown withdrew original
motion. The Council decided to give a nod to the newly proposed plan with included
modifications discussed in present meeting. Council can give final approval after
Minnitrista City Council agrees to the new terms. General consensus decided upon.
B. PRESENTATION OF PERTINENT AGREEMENTS
City Attorney Dean discussed minor changes in the water agreements presented by
Minnitrista.
Council decided that in concept each agreement was acceptable.
1.9 PROPOSAL FOR PARKING CONCEPT BY POND ARENA
City Planner Gordon made proposal for Pond Arena parking for Peter Johnson who was
not present at the meeting. Gordon said that Johnson wanted to bring attention to the
Council that the Pond Arena parking situation could be improved. Johnson
recommended that the Council look into the situation.
Weycker motions for staff'to look into the Pond Arena parking. I-lanus seconded. Vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.10
RESOLUTION NO. 00-120, WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATON OF LANGDON BAY BY
ROTTLUND HOMES DEVELOPMENT
Brown motions for approval of resolution. Weycker seconds but makes mention that
she is unappreciative of having affh-mative votes before being brought before the council.
Vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.11
RESOLUTION NO. 00-121, RESOLUTON APPROVING INCREASE IN
PENSION BENEFIT FOR FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION EFFECTIVE
JANUARY 1, 2001
Proposal presented by Jeff Andersen to give firefighters with 20 year tenure a $75.00 per
month increase in pension. Brown commended the dedication of the Fire Department
and motioned to approve. Ahrens seconded the motion but asks question concerning
where the Fire Department would be without the proposed 4% increase. Hanus and
Ahrens discuss with Andersen and Businaro about exact figures concerning projected
investments. Hanus felt it was a serious concern and the Council needs to watch the
actuarial figures as well as the annual financial reports carefully.
Motion by Brown was brought up for approval. Ahrens seconded. Vote was unanimous
in favor. Motion carded.
Mayor Meisel called for recess at 9:45 p.m.
4
Council called back to order at 10:02 p.m.
1.12 RESOLUTION NO. 00-122, RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL 2001
BUDGETS AND TAX LEVIES
Budget and tax levies presented by Finance Director, Gino Businaro. Council discussed
various procedures concerning the transfer of funds from one department to another
based on potential inaccurate estimates in each department.
Ahrens moved for approval of resolution with two changes.
1.Recycling will receive $20,000 instead of only $10,000 as early planned.
2. Council approve on capital outlay of dock fund and staffbe directed to come up
with some rational for computer admin charge so that a councilmember can
explain to a tax payer where those dollars are going.
Hanus seconded. Vote was unanimous in favor. Motion carded.
1.13
CONSIDERATION/ACTION ON CITY MANAGER REQUEST TO
FINANCE HOME COMPUTER SYSTEM FOR WORK PURPOSES
City Manager Hanson requested that City pay for a phone line for a personal computer to
be used at home for work purposes at a cost of $30.84 a month.
Weycker motions to approve plan that Gino and Hanson have come up with. Hanus
seconds.
Ahrens stated that this would set a precedent for things to come. She didn't agree in
"providing personal furnishings for an employee to work at home." There were
numerous complaints of the last city manger n~er being at the office and she does not
want this to turn into a repeat performance.
City Manager Hanson replied by saying she would only do work after the dinner hours
and on the weekends.
Brown favored and Ahrens opposed.
Motion carded.
INFORMATION lVIISCELLANEOUS
A. AMM FAX News
B. School District Communications
C. Police Department Report · November 2000
MOTION made by Brown, seconded by Weycker to adjourn at 11:04 PM. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Kandis Hanson, City Manager
Attest' City Clerk
Mmmd City Council Meeting Jamu~y 9, 2001
January 9~ 2001
The City council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on
Tuesday, January 9th, 2001 at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in
said City.
Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel; Council Members: Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, Kim
Anderson and Peter Meyer, City Manager Kandis Hanson, Attorney John Dean, Jim Fackler,
Bruce Chamberlain, John Cameron, Loren Gordon, Gino Buslnaro and the following interested
Citizens: Frank and Betty Weiland - 6045 Aspen Rd Mound
Marshall Anderson-5736 Lynwood Blvd. Mound
Vern Hanson-Metro Plains
Lorrie Ham-The Laker
Linda Harvett-5648 Alder Road
Ken Berres-5724 Lynwood Blvd
Paul Capol- 1311 Momingview Drive
Andrea Ahrens - 4673 Island View Drive
Peter Johnson-3140 Priest Ln
Carol Senn-2895 Westedge
Rex Alwyn- 1000 Robin Lane
CALL TO ORDER- Pl~EDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Mayor called the meeting to order. The pledge of allegiance was recited.
e
SWEARING IN OF NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS:
City Manger Kandis Hanson conducted the swearing in of Pat Meisel as Mayor, and Kim
Anderson and Peter Meyer as City Council Members.
APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA & REG~ AGENDA
The Mayor asked to have Item D pulled-Approval of Resolution designating The Laker as
the official Newspaper for 2001 and Item I pulled-Approval of resolution appointing
Council Members as Council Representatives for 2001.
Council Member Hanus asked to have Item A-1 pulled-Dec 4, 2000 Rescheduled regular
meeting minutes and Item J-5 pulled-City of Mound Dock and Commons program
At the request of the City Manager Hanson, a City Manager's Report was inserted at 13A.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve minutes
1. Dec 4, 2000 rescheduled regular meeting
2. Dec 11, 2000 special meeting
3. Dec 19, 2000 special meeting
J~mry 9, 2001
4. Dec 19, 2000 special Meeting
5. Dec 27, 2000 special meeting with planning commission
B. Approve Resolution appointing Kandis Hanson, City Manager, Acting City
Clerk for 2001.
Insert Resolution
C. Approve resolution appointing Gino Businaro, Finance Director, Acting City
Manager for 2001.
Insert Resolution
D. Approval resolution approving the purchase of at least a $20,000 Bond for the
City Clerk,
Insert Resolution
F. Approve resolution approving the purchase of at least a $20,000 bond for the
City Treasurer/Finance Director.
Insert Resolution
G. Approve resolution designation the official depositories for 2001.
Insert Resolution
H. Approve resolution appointing council member Mark Hanus as acting Mayor
for 2001. (By consensus of the council the Acting Mayor term runs concurrent with
the term of the Mayor.)
Insert Resolution
J.
Approve Municipal certification oflB4CD multiple dock license application for
the following:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Seton View Association
Seahorse Condominiums
Pelican Point Homeowners Association
City of Mound Lost lake Channel
Minnetonka Boat Rental
Lakewinds Association
Harrison harbor Twinhome Association
Halstead Acres Improvemem Association
Driftwood Shores Homeowners Association
A1 & Alma's Supper Club
Seton Twin Homes
K. Approve payment of claims amounting to $262,189.42.
Mound City Council Meeting
L. Approve payment request #1 to Diamond 5 Construction for $19,735.30.
Motion by Council Member Brown, second by Council Member Hanus, approving the
remaining items on the consent agenda. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
Dec.4, 2000 rescheduled regular meeting minutes. Correction: Council Member Hanus
noted the vote was reversed on the MetroPlains vote for rezoning. Motion by Hanus to
approved the mended minutes, seconded by Brown, motion carried tmanimously.
Motion by Brown, seconded by Hanus, motion carried with Brown, Hanus, Meyer and
Anderson voting aye, and Mayor Meisel abstaining, on the resolution designating The
Laker as the official Newspaper for 2001. The Mayor stated her wish to abstain bom
voting because The Laker is a tenant in a building that they own.
ln~rt Resolution
Approval of resolution appointing council members as Council Representatives for 2001,
with Mayor Meisel recommending the following Council members to the following
committees: Peter Meyer to Parks and Open Space Commission
Kim Anderson to the Planning Commission
Bob Brown to Economic Development Commission
Mark Hanus to Docks and Commons Commission
Motion by Council Member Hanus, second by Council Member Meyer. Unanimously
approved. Motion carried.
Insert Resolution
City of Mound Dock and Commons Program. Council Member Hanus asked that this
item be pulled until it can be further clarified. Motion by Council Member Hanus to
approve Item J less item 5, second by Council Member Brown. Ur~anlraously approved.
Motion carried.
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM
NOT ON THE AGENDA. No citizens participated.
CONSIDERATION/ACTION ON RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
CITIZENS PETITION FOR AN ENVIO MENTAL WORKSglF. ET FOR THE
METROPLAINS DEVELOPMEN PROJECT ON,Ti:I'E "O1~1~ SCHOOL" SITE:
Action on Resolution Mound Visions Coordinator Bruce Chamberlain, of Hoisington
Keogler Group Inc., addressed the Members with a review ora citizen's petition for
preparation of an environmental assessment worksheet for the Metroplains Development
Project. He read aloud the findings of fact found in the Resolution. He stated that based
on the review, the project doesn't meet any of the mandatory EAW or EIS thresholds,
that the project does not appear to pose the potential for significant environmental effects,
and that many of the concerns raised by the petition are typical issues of typical
magnitude, which are worked through and resolved in the development approval process.
Staffreeommendation was that preparation for an EAW for the project is not warranted
and asked the council to adopt the enclosed resolution mating the absence of merit in
preparing an EAW for the Metroplains project.
Motion by Council Member Brown, second by Council Member Ha.nm. Unanimously
approved. Motion carried. Motion included Staff notifying the appropriate people within
five days.
Insert Resolution
PUBLIC i~EARINGS
A: CASE # 00-71 STREET/EASEMENT VACATION- METROPLAINS
DEVELOPMENT -NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD BLVD AND
COMMERCE BLVD
Mayor Meisel opened the hearing. City Attorney Dean noted that there was a
request from the applic.~ Metroplains Development, that this matter be
cominued to January 9', 2001, and that the public hearing be continued at that
time. Certain details regarding the case will be completed by that time. Council
Member Brown made a motion continuing the MetroPlains public bearing for
rezoning of the NW comer of Lynwood Boulevard and Commerce Boulevard
until January 23~d 2001, second by Mark Hanus. Motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED PARKING IMPROVEMEN'I~ TO ALDER ROAD
Consulting Engineer Cameron addressed the council regarding the parking improvemems
to Alder Road, as petitioned by Pond Arena. He stated that currently there is parallel
parking on two sided of Alder Road between Mound Evangelical Free Church and Pond
Arena. The proposal would add about 22 parking spaces. In order to get sufficient space
to do.diagonal parking and became of the grade difference, preliminary study shows that
a retaining wall would be required. The plan would double the current parking space,
would include some islands for landscaping, with an estimated cost of $32,000.
It was discussed that Pond Arena and the Church should fund the project since they are
the primary beneficiaries. The merits of an assessment project were discussed.
Peter Johnson - 3140 Priest Lane - Speaking as a Pond Arena Board member - Stated
that they have looked over the information, they are encouraged by it, said the cost seems
reasonable and that although he hasn't discussed this with the Metroplains or the Church,
k has been their position ail along that if Metroplains is going to be given variances for
parking that they should bare some of the cost for parking in the neighborhood and would
like to make sure this is part of the discussions moving forward.
Paul Capol - 1311 Momlngview Drive - Speaking on behalf of the Mound Evangelical
Free church as acting church Chairman - Stated that planning for parking is important
because they have approximately 80 cars each Sunday and most of those people are
residents of Mound.
City Manager Hanson summarized how an assessment project is initiated and carried out.
Council consensus was to have Staff forward the project to Plmanlng Commission to
determine the feasibility of adding the parking on Alder Road.
e
CONSIDERATION OF CONCEPT PLAN FOR ROAD E .XTENT!ON ON SOUTH
WESTEDGE BOULEVARD~ REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO PREPARE
PLANS AND SpECS~ .AND CONSIDERATION OF JOINT AGREEMENT
Consulting Planner Gordon addressed the Council regarding the Langdon Bay Project.
He spoke about the many components being considered, which include road
improvements to Westedge Boulevard, water main and service installations, a sewer
access agreement, and general easements. A water interconnection will provide water to
the Cities of Mound or Minnetrista in the event that one City has an emergency. The
road improvements will upgrade Westedge Boulevard to a collector street, as it is
designated in the Comprehensive Plan.
Council Member Hanus made a motion to approve the Joint Cooperative Agreement
between the City of Minnetrista and the City of Mound, as amended, seconded by
Council Member Brown. Unanimously approved. Motion carried.
Council Member Brown made a motion to approve the concept plan for the Westedge
Boulevard southerly extension, as shown, seconded by Council Member Hanus.
Unanimously approved. Motion carried.
Motion by Council Member Brown, seconded by Council Member Hanus, directing the
engineer to prepare detailed plans and specs ~.based upon the co. ncept plan that has been
approved, to be considered at the January 23~meeting. Unammously approved. Motion
carried.
10.
ACTION ON RESOLUTION SETTING STORM SEWER FEE FOR CHURCi~ES
Finance Director Businaro addressed the council regarding the staff recommendation to
study to request to reduce storm water management fees under the new ordinance
governing storm sewer fees. Motion by Council Member Hanus, second Council
Member Anderson, setting the fees for churches same as that of schools and institutions,
or $10 per acre per month. Unanimously approved, Motion carried.
Insert Resolution
11.
ACTION ON DNR AGREEMENT FOR BOAT DOCK AT COOK'S BAY, WITI:I
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT..TO CITY ORDINANCE
Parks Director Fackler reviewed the agreement for installation of a cRy-owned water
access site and ramp. Fackler stated that the city would contribute approximately $400-
$500 in materials which could come out of the parks budget. The dock will be a roll in-
style dock. It was determined that there was no need to amend the ordinance regarding
hours to meet the DNR requirement for hours. Motion by Council Member Brown,
second by Council Member Hanus. Unanimously approved. Motion carried.
12.
13.
13-A.
14.
ACTION ON DOCKS & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A POLICY SP~G FIELD STONE AS
CITY-APPROVED RIP-RIPPING MATERIAL
Motion by Council Member Brown, second Council Member Hanus. Unanimously
approved. Motion carried.
Insert Resolution
ACTION ON DOCKS & COMMONS.ADVISORY COMMISSION
RECOMMENDAITON FOR 2001 DOCK LOCATION MAP
Motion by Council Member Hanus, second Council Member Brown. Unanimously
approved. Motion carried.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. City Manager Hanson informed the City Council about the da~ly problems they
have been having with the copy machine. Member authorized Hanson to take
quotes to purchase a replacement copier.
Bo
Hanson reported on the compromise in public service levels that are now
occurring since the discovery that the Planning Commission misses the statutory
public requiremems for publications by one day unless they publish an additional
week in advance. She also discussed fluctuations in workload demands, both on
stair and the copier, under the currem Council and Planning Commission
schedule. Council Members affirmed that the purpose of the City is to provide
efficiem and timely service and that, in order to maintain currem service levels,
the Planning Commission members should move their meetings to Tuesday or
Wednesday, and on the first and third weeks. Doing so will meet the posting
requiremems in the shortest time period and will eliminate the workload
fluctuations.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
Ao
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
Letter: Mediacom on rates
Westonka Senior Center Newsletter
Letter: Congressman Ramsted on Community Policing Award
Letter: Met Council Environmental Services on sewer rates
Letter: Hennepin County Sheriff's Office on reduction of service
Financial repons through November 2000
Resolution of Fred Johnmn fire lane violation
Westonka Public Schools correspondence
FYI: Info fi:om League on Minnesota Cities
Docks & Commons Commission meeting minutes: Dec 21, 2000
Planning Commission meeting minutes: Dec 11, 2000
AMM FAX News
The Ehlers Advisor
Letter: Hickory Tech User Group on computer support: Finance Director
Businaro summarized the problems they are anticipating with the financial
M~md~~~ Ja~mry9,2~l
systems software support and that Hickory Tech User Group will be discominuing
their tech support, requiring that the City look into converting to a new system.
Mound Police Department monthly report: Dee 2000
15.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn at 11:40 p.rm by Council Member Hanus, second by Council Member
Brown. Unanimously carried. Motion approved.
City of Mound Council Meeting Minut¢s
MINUTES
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 23, 2001
8:00 PM
1. Call to Order
Mayor Meisel opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.
January 23, 2001
0
Approve Agenda & Consent Agenda
Motion by Brown and seconded by Hanus approving the Agenda and Consent Agenda as
follows:
Approve setting a public hearing for Case #01-01: Post Office Development
rezoning from B-1 to Destination PUD - City of Mound: Feb 13, 2001.
Approve setting a public hearing for Case #01-04: Conditional Use Permit for the
Post Office Development - City of Mound: Feb 13, 2001.
Consent Agenda
Add item 5D - Utility Relocation Agreement.
Add item 12G - MetroPlains TIF to agenda.
All were in favor. Motion carded.
Comments and Suggestions from the Public: No comments.
MetroPlains Development
At 8:05 PM, Mayor Meisel opened the Public Hearings for the applications as submitted
by MetroPlains Development for the following, all being located at the NW comer of
Lynwood Boulevard and Commerce Boulevard:
Case #00-64: Preliminary Plat
Case #00-65: Conditional Use Permit and Variances
Case #00-71: Street/Easement Vacation (hearing continuation)
Veto Hanson of MetroPlains Development gave a general overview and update. He
verified their information on drainage issues that were brought up at last meeting was
correct. His studies have taken into account normal and excessive drainage needs. They
have approval to move the force main. They also have a letter of intent fi.om the Jubilee
Foods. They have met with Quest to move the cellular tower to new site. The project
groundwork phase will begin April 1, 2001 and construction will begin June or July.
They have secured financing to close and have completed the market study.
City of Mound Council Meeting Minutes January 23, 2001
Maxwell Research Inc. concluded from the study a strong need for housing with
maintenance free living. $150,000-$190,000 will be the base price for housing.
67% of study area age 25-34 could afford sale price $150,000 range.
55% of study area age 25-34 could afford sale price $190,000 range.
82% of study area age 45-64 could afford sale price $150,000 range.
750/0 of study area age 45-64 could afford sale price $190,000 range.
Market is present and price range is where market exists.
5. Public Comment
Mayor Meisel opened the floor to public comment at 8:15 PM.
Paula Larson 5713 Lynwood Blvd
Opposed to MetroPlains project. Says there is a conflict of interest with Mayor Meisel. John
Dean stated that it is his opinion that the Mayor has no conflict of interest regarding the
MetroPlains Project. Paula informed City Council that she is pursuing the case through District
Court.
Brett Stump 5716 Lynwood Blvd
Will be displaced by this project. Opposed to the project. Feels peoples' opinions have been
ignored by the City Council.
Dean Fleming 2825 Halstead Lane
Is in favor of the project and for progress.
Sheila Murphy 2044 Bartlett Blvd
Feels there is no benefit in her opinion. TIF is going to make things worse. Feels the town green
space is worth preserving.
John Wagmann 5469 Bartlett Blvd
Feels that arguing the issue is mute. Felt the defeated vote on Haddorff Field decided the
question.
Tom Casey
Opposes the project. Feels the vote on this issue was unfair because the question on the ballet
was not clear. Feels there is a need for recreational space in downtown area.
Pam Meyers Superintendent of Mound Westonka Schools
Expressed the developer's willingness to work with city. The developer has received positive
feed back on the plan. The development is a good idea. The school district is prepared to move
forward with council.
DR, FT
City of Mound Council Meeting Minutes
Michael Durrell 2208 Fern Lane
January 23, 2001
Expressed his opinion that the Mayor has Conflict of Interest and that the Mayor's husband
chairs the Economic Development Commission. He accused the Mayor and her husband of
taking advantage of political office. Durrell submitted printed information for public record to
city manager.
Dottie O'Brien 5053 Bartlett Blvd.
Told of a meeting at Senior Center in which all were in favor and impressed with the plan and
felt it is a good thing for Mound.
Jeff Corn 5764 Lynwood Blvd.
Acted as proxy for a neighbor at 5716 Lynwood Blvd, who has entered into an option for
property. He asked some questions, including, "Can someone other owner request a change for
use of property?" The letter questioned the openness of government. Overall, the writer was not
against development but against putting 99 town homes on a football field with single-family
homes surrounding it.
Ken Berris 5724 Lynwood Blvd
Opposes some issues on this development. His concem is that if the council proceeds with this
project that it will damage his property. Project will also violate utility and noise abatement
policies. No real effort has been made to acquire his property. Council is not talking to him.
Councilman Brown responded he has tried.
Paula Larson 5713 Lynwood Boulevard
Larson re-approached council and brought up how the voter wanted to renovate the community
center but due to cost the council tabled the project. Now the taxpayers are responsible for
$300,000 in cost. Paula feels the council is not following the interests of the people.
Linda Skorseth 5036 Alder Road
Stated that the council should have approached people regarding the center. She felt the
community would have come to the rescue to absorb the cost.
Ken Berris 5724 Lynwood Boulevard
Asked question again "Can someone request a change of status without property owner's
request," to which the City Attorney John Dean responded, yes. However, there was a provision
made earlier that nothing could take place with city without owner's approval.
Terri Corn 5764 Lynwood Blvd
Stated persons who own adjoining property to project are not in favor of project. It is creating a
parking problem and 99 homes are just too many.
City of Mound Council Meeting Minutes January 23, 2001
Vine Forystek 3131 Inverness Lane
Stated the project looks cramped for snow removal purpose. Would like to see Mound get higher
quality housing. Parking issues will be tight. TIF - lots of people don't understand it. More
explanations need to be given to the taxpayers. Could make it work with less units.
Mayor Meisel closed the public hearings at 9:11 PM.
Council Member Hanus made the motion to approve the conditional use permit and variances
MetroPlains development - NW comer of Lynwood Blvd and Commerce Blvd. Council Member
Brown seconded the motion. Those in favor: Hanus, Brown Meisel. Those opposed: Anderson,
Meyer. Motion carried.
Resolution #01-13
Council Member Hanus made the motion to approve the Street/Easement vacation - MetroPlains
Development - NW comer of Lynwood Blvd and Commerce Blvd. Council Member Brown
seconded the motion. Those in favor: Hanus, Brown, Meisel. Those opposed: Anderson, Meyer.
Motion carried.
Resolution #01-14
Council Member Brown made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat. Council Member Hanus
seconded the motion. Those in favor: Hanus, Brown Meisel. Those opposed: Anderson, Meyer.
Motion carried.
Resolution #01-12
Council Member Hanus made a motion for the acceptance of the Utility Relocation agreement
between the Cities of Mound and Minnetrista and MetroPlains Development relocating
underground utilities within the development area, with the financial burden on developer.
Council Member Brown seconded the motion. Those in favor: Hanus, Brown, Anderson, Meisel.
Those opposed: Meyer. Motion carried
e
Westedge Boulevard
Council Member Brown made a motion to approve plans for south road extension of
Westedge Boulevard. Council Member Hanus seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Motion carried.
Council Member Brown made a motion to accept the revised joint agreement with the
City of Minnetrista, allowing for the redevelopment of Westedge Boulevard. Council
Member Hanus seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion carried.
DRAFT
City of Mound Council Meeting Minutes January 23, 2001
7. Appointments and Re-Appointments to Advisory Commissions
Council Member Brown made a motion to approve a resolution clarifying the policy on
appointments and reappointments to advisory commissions as to when vacancies occur.
Council Member Hanus seconded the motion with a friendly amendment, changing the
language. Those in favor: Hanus, Brown, Meisel. Those opposed: Anderson, Meyer.
Motion carried.
Resolution #01-15
Amendments to City Code
Consensus of the Council was that the City Code Section 155 - The Council, was
satisfactory as written. Staff was directed to prepare a side by side analysis of the Code
provisions for the advisory commissions for a work session by the full council.
e
2001 Committee Appointments
Council Member Hanus made a motion to appoint John Wilsey to complete the term of
Lonnie Weber. Council Member Brown seconded the motion. Those in favor: Br&x,n,
Hanus, Meisel. Those opposed: Anderson, Meyer. Motion carried.
Council Member Hanus made a motion to reappoint Mark Goldberg to the Docks and
Commons Advisory Commission. Council Member Brown seconded the motion. All
were in favor. Motion carried.
Council Member Brown excused himself from the meeting at 11:20 PM.
10.
Addition.al Appointments
Mayor Meisel made a motion to appoint Jim Fackler as assistant weed inspector. Council
Member Meyer seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion carried.
Council Member Hanus made a motion for Mayor Pat Meisel to take his place on the
Hennepin County Welfare to Work Executive Policy Committee. Council Member
Meyer seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion carded.
11.
Information/Miscellaneous
A. LMC Friday Fax
B. Westonka Schools communication
C. FYI: Thanks to Public Works Department
D. LMCD communication
E. Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative communication
F. Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting: Finance
Director Gino Businaro was commended for receiving the Certificate of
Achievement for Excellence in financial reporting.
5
City of Mound Council Meeting Minutes
G.
January 23, 2001
Comments by Council Member Peter Meyer: Meyer reiterated his reasons for not
supporting the MetroPlains Project.
12.
Adjournment
Council Member HanuS made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:30 PM. Councilman
Meyer seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion carried.
ATTEST:
Pat Meisel, Mayor
Kandis Hanson, Acting City Clerk
PAYMENT BILLS
DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 2001
BILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
BATCI 1 #
~1013
~1015
~/1016
TOTAL BILLS-
$247,776.70
AMOUNT
$104,438.12
$ 6,919.58
$136,419.00
ACCOUNT NJMBER
81-4350-5000
1010
P~
aLL 5EASC',.~ LA!~E:SCAP: DE5I V~.~',:DOR TOiAL 4aOi.O0
.--~%~-~,~-~.~.~ ~ ............... 4~.1_ ~
181.25 DIGITAL C~MERA WITH DISKS
181.25 DIGITAL CA~ERA k']TF 9[SK5
181.24 DIGITAL
181.24 DIGITAL
........................ ~tC.~---~/~t-/-g~ ......... !~ ~- J~--CD
04040~b2 319.49 12-00 SCANNER
040417346 424 .94 TELEVISION
G434~c5~ 2ao.&2 LAPTOP COMPUTER WITH CASE
~- - 24~~,~P~MPU~ WI~H CASE
CAMERA WITH DISKS
CAF, ERA WITH DISKS
73---7~3~--5 .-CtO 0
78-7800-5000
01-4280-5000
01-4340-4100
81-4350-2300
1010
01-4140-5000
1010
01-4150-5000
1010
81-4350-2200
01--~540 2200
246
246.61
2~. ~I
2/05/01 2/(:o/,.'1 1,234.07
30765 001215 ~.O0
.................... ~I0610~ - 2106t~2! 9~-~-
~L>Si~,:~5 ~>C:]',:5 :A~ ::~ V~'.~g~, T~TAL 99.00
LA?TOP COMPUTER WITH CASE
LAPTOP COMPUTER WITH CASE
LAPT$~ CO~T~R WITH CA~E--
JRNL-C~
12-15-00 THiO 12-15-01 TYPEWRI
01-4020-4100
01-4190-2200
f~--4020-4100
1010
01-4040-3800
10t~
C0820 206579~5
872.46 BULK ICE
~72.4o JRNL-CD
01-4280-2340
!010
CAR.GILL SALT DIVI5IO4 v£::PC~ TOTAL B72.4~
2/Ot./Oi 21Ct10! 33.96
C~J.Y-~ .nOo},b ........... ~'~D~~ -T~-AL-
u125~ 7~i021 i,0~.76
DEPT OF ,,ATO',AL R[50~5 V~LDO$ TOTAL 1084.76
JRNL-CD
71 7100 3740
1010
A;~:,;UAL [EmORT .ATE~ dS[
J ?-Nt_--(-~. --
73-7300-4220
1016
:145j i7~35 625.U0
2Ijc/2! 2/C~/0! 025.00
17~o 90c.25
2/ut/gl 2106/0! 906.25
~7~7
2/~o/51
12-00 TIF 1-2 ~ISC
J~xt-C,
12-00 LZNS301, PISTNICT PEDEVEL
JRNL-C?
55-5859-3100
I~10
55-5~82-3100
1010
S,ZS$.b0 i?-OO :.:FT~L PLAI;J SERVICES
3,250.u0 JR;,L-C2
55-5854-3100
i010
q77
PAGE 2 p U R C H A S E J O U R N A L
AP-CO2-0I CITY iFF ' '"'~
VENDOR iNvOICE DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NYS-~ DATE DATE STATUS AHoUNT DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NUMBER
17955 312.50 12-00 STO~MWATED UTILITY 75-7500-3100
~/~6~I---~-/'-G~ -3~-5-8 .... ~R,-Ni.--{~ ..... !~--
EHLE;(S ~ A~SOCIATES IwC vENDOR TOTAL 5093.75
61905 120507 31.20 12-00 LOCATES 73-7300-3125
31.20 12-00 LOCATES 7~-7800-3125
' GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL, I:~C VENDOR TOTAL 62.40
- H2061 315233 82~.25 HYDROFLUOSIC ACID 73-7300-2260
2/06/01 2/06/0! 62~ .26 JRNL-CD 1010
-t. DPE1515 25.00 CHARGE FOR (5) CONTAINERS 73-7300-2260
_ ~/06/01 2/95/01 25.00 JRNL-CD 1010
: MA~K]N5 ~ATE~ TRLAT~SNT ,'r"gO~, ,, ,,. TOTAL 553.26
" 2/06/01 2/06/01 35.70 JRNL-CD 1010
' H21&G 013125 572.05 12-00 5ERVlCE SOOKINS FEE 01-4140-4250
" HENN CO SHERIFFS DEPT VENDOR TOTAL 572.65
-- H2160 OgZ. OZ7 ;21.00 12-00 ~SO~'~ AN[ 5DA~D 01-4110-4250
_ 2/00,'01 2/9~/$1 921.00 JR;,L-CD i010
- HENN CO TREASU'~ER Vr't, DOR TOTAL 921.00
_ ~/05/01 2/Oo/O1 7,332.i~ JRNL-CD 1010
" Z/06/OI 2/06/01 302.50 JRNL-CD 1010
. 2/06/01 2/06/01 1,003.01
12309 2301491&
1,354.07 JRNL-CD
1010
!,35~ .~7 J;'qL-CD lOlO
333.20 12-10-00
THRU 01-10-01 MAIN CO
01-4320-3800
3
vENDOR I ',;vOl C:- DUE HOLD
ND. I';vOIC-- ,'-C~.F, DATE DATE STATUS
F U R C r, ; S £ J 0 U q N A L
CITY OF
A~qo U:,,T DESCRIFTION
ACCOUNT NUMBER
2106101 2/06/01
31~.20 J:NL-C3
4B.60 JRNL-CD
99.79 J~',L-CL
25.29 WORK JACKET wITH TAPE
26.~----WORE ~ACK[T
25.29 NORK JACKET WITH
8~.67 JRNL-CD
1010
1010
~T---~-214~
10~0
01-4280-2240
73-7300-2240
75-7800-2240
1010
36162-A
36152-5
- 351§2-C
30162-0
36152-E
-. 3~_152-F
36165-A
35155-5
~4 .S7
24u.~7
5A-l' T Z P ~ _-~S--~ ~-~
Jq,qL-C~j
251.73 12-00 M, ISCELLANEOUS BILLABLE
25-1-_ ,-7 ~ JR-NL--~-. D
i.3!£.5~,, i2-,9C ~,~-~-:~"-' 'ELDPKE',"T AREA
55.00 12-D0 POST OFFICE F:ELOCATION
-5-~-.-~g J
i.552.7~ 12-~0 ~T~ PL$IW$ CONTRACT
~40.00 12-00 L~NGPRE PURCHASE
i04.50 /2-00 5rA'~ERCY CONTRACT
~-~,~ .. ~ J~ ~L-- C-~
12o.00 12-00 SCHOOL DISTRICT CLAIM
13.22 12-00 STREET VACATION ~ORTCN L
1.A15.00 12-00 REX ALNIN DEVELDPMENT
232.26 12-00 [3ECKER D~RyIT RE2U~ST
i010
55-5880-3100
!-O!O
55-58~0-3100
2,562.00 12-00 EXECUTIVE
2,662.0 ......
137.60 12-90 AD~:!~IST~ATION 01-4110-3100
!010
55-5879-3100
!010
01-2300-10~6
1010
55-5883-3100
!-~-t0
55-58~3-3100
55-5884-3100
01-2330-13~9
I010
01-2300-1005
iOlO
01-2300-100B
10~
0i-4!10-3i00
i010
~A~E ~ P b R ¢ M A S E J O U R N A L
AP-lO2-0% C!TY OF HOUND
CE~,DOR I!',vOt CE D'JE HOLD
NO. I~VOICE WP:SR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCF:IP~ION ACCOUI~T NUMBER
2/06/C1 2/Ob/O1 ~37.~0 J=:~L-CD
2/06/0i 2/O~/O~ 375.33 JRNL-CD
2/0~/01 2/06/0! 30.00 JR~L-CD IOlO
2/06/01 2/06/0~ 1,Sg&.12 JRNL-CD 10~0
--3~5~ ~ 12-~ ~ET~ PLA ....
2/~/0i 2/~/~i ~39.00 J~L-C~ l~O
L281! I1507-C0 25.04 SCOA ~CQ~D CA~DS 22-4170-2100
11~46 99.51 LETTE~H~A~ 22-4170-2!~ 0
11504 726.93 STORM~ATER Q g A 01-4280-3100
2-~6~ 2~0! 726.93 ~,,'m'",,~-r'~ !0,
CA~5Ot~ P~I,~TiNG ~ o~AP~IC5 V~hbg~ TOTAL ~51.48
M30~g 3527~ 4,953.33 12-00 ~ISC ENGINEERING 0!-2300-1095
2/~6/01 2/06/~1 4,953.33 JR;~L-Cg 1010
35~79 3,361.50 i2-OC ,,~T~AI~.~ EKTET:SIO~'~ 01-2300-1095
~/06/C1 2/0C/~ 5,361.50 J~L-CD 1010
352~0 d55.00 !2-00 P/I ENGINEERING SERVICES 01-4190-3100
Z/O~/O1 2/~6/01 ~55.00 JRNL-CC 1010
35181 !80.~0 i2-00 P/Z ~NGIhEE~IN~ SERVICES 0~-4190-3100
' 35252 ~45.00 12-00 STREfT5 ~K'G SERVICES 01-4280-3100
_ 2/06/01 2/06/01 645 .GO JRNL-CD 10~0
...........................
35ZS3-A ~2.50 i2-00 ~*T~ ~G SERVICES 73-730~-31~0
2/06/~i 2/06/J~ 22.50 JRt~L-C2
35283-b 22.50 12-00 SEUER ENS SERVICES 78-780~-3100
. 2/0~/0i 2/O~/gl 22.50 J~NL-C~ ~0!0
'- 35250 l~O.00 i2-CG 5TOm~', ~T~ UTILITY 0i-4280-3100
35Z87 72.0~ i2-00 BECKEp PmOPE[~TY 3 POINTS O1-2300-10gg
_ 2/0~/0i 2/OO/O! 72.~0 JR~L-CD 1010
552b~ 1,05~.00 I~-00 ~ET~5 PLAI~S 0i-2300-109~
21C;o/Oi 2100101 1,055.~0 JR;,L-CD
:A':E 5 P U F, C n .-', S E J C; U r.:, ,, A L
AP-C'32-OZ CIIY OF ,'~OUND
VEi~D~R IhvDiCE }UE .dOLl PR
NO. I','VOICE N~'oR DATE DATE STATUS A~'OUNT DESCF, IFTION ACCOUNT NJMSER
35289
............... 2166102
18~.00 12-00 CTY fid 15 REALISh~MENT 55-5877-3100
ZtOctOl ........... 165.60- ~L--bD ....................
35290
35291
......................... E/~6~0% ......
225.00 12-00 DSW+;TOW~,~ TIF DISTRICT 55-5880-3100
2-2-5-.-e-~ J ~-{ D --. ~-~ ! 0
3,233.56 12-00 T~dE VALdE PISC ENGINEER 01-2300-1905
-3 ~ 2 ~3, f~----Jq~L--C~ 1-0 -t-~--
35292 806.00 12-00 HISC EhG SERVICES 01-2300-1095
2-/-~4~ 1 2-/0-6 I~)-! .RO~. O0 J~KL-C~ I~I0
35294 400.00 12-00 POST OF=ICE ,'iISC ENO 55-5879-3100
35295 1,80.00 12-00 CHESTNUT MISC ENO 01-2300-1113
2-/~0~ 1~!--2 t 0 6~/-l;~__- :~-~=-[F~O 0 J=~:--C D 1010
35296 ~36.30 12-00 POND A~ENA PARqING 01-2300-1117
2 ¥~64-0 t---- -2¥~-t-51 3 ~-.-30 J~ :~L-C[.' lOlO
35297 lO0.00 12-00 CTY RD 15 REALIGNMENT 55-5877-3100
2~z 9~/-Q -I-- --2-/,~64~ 1 1 _a* .--00 Jq;~L-C2' 1¢10
35295 45~.00 12-00 LANGgOk 5AY DEVELOPMENT 0!-2300-10~5
2~o ¥-01- 27~ 6-1-~ i- -4-5-9-~,-~-- J;-*L--C~ 1 O I ~
35285 56.00 12-00 STOP,WATER ~ISC ENO 75-7500-3100
~ ¥-06¥~)-1 2-/~q-'-6-I-0 ! -5-'3 .-C 0 J ~-.,L----C rD ! ~ 0
'~CC9~£S FRAF;E RObS ASSOCi$ v5~';::9~ TOTAL 17390.09
e3171 010122-~ 1,440.00 11-00 BUILD]NO INSPECTIONS 01-4~90-3100
2/06/01 2100101 1,440.00 JRNL-CD lOlO
01~122-? l,l!O.O0 12-00 5UILDI~G INSPECTIONS 01-4190-3100
2/~6/01 2/0~/01 1,116.00 J=r,L-CD 1010
zETPO ~EST t';SPECTIO,~ SER* VEt~DOR TOTAL 2550.00
1,174.08 12-15-00 4312 CUM?,ERL~:,'D
~i~.63 I~-15-~ LIOUO~, ST~R[
.............................................
1,36i.05 12-15-00 ~AY~OOD ROAD
~50.o3 12-15-~0 STREETS
.................................................
455.39 12-15-00 SEWEP
2/Cc/Oi 2/0c/CI 5,1&O.~8
01-4340-3720
71-710~-3720
~-...4%7-Q----~-720
01-4320-3720
01-4280-3720
78-7800-3720
1010
~INN~GASCO
vENDOf~ TOTAL 5180.88
2106101 2100101
35~.-D~) --{~_ ..R,-T +~-C-~/T-~ -Q-N -,
35.00 CErTIfICATION, FORSMAN
70.~:0 J~i~L-CD
-2-2---~170 4i10
22-4170-4110
1010
PAGE 6
AP-C02-O1
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF HOUND
VENDOR I:~VOICE DUE HOLD
NO. INVOI£E N, BR DATE DATE STATUS
AMOUNT DESCRIPTIDN ACCOUNT NuHGER
· iN FIRE aERv CEETIFICATN * VENDOE TOTAL 70.00
~3460 OlOlll 457.00
2/06/01 2/06101 457.00
4TH ~TR 2000, JAYKO, BRAD 81-4350-1310
JRNL-CD 1010
HN U C FUNO VFNDDR TOTAL
2108101 2/06/01
---H;,' VALLEY TF_$T-t-N-~ ,LA.SCRATC V-"~;DGR TEPT-AL
~.3490 001130
457.00
7~.-~
72.50
72.50
6,401.25
660.00
1,250.00
2/06/01 2/06/01 10,311.25
;~A T~R T_-E'S-T-S~IX)~) -~-3~-f-300-421 S
JRNL-CD 1010
l!-OO SALARIES 22-4179-1390
11-00 DR-I-bLS 22-4170-1380
11-00 HAINTENANCE 22-4170-1380
JRNL-CD 1010
001231
8,~01.25
§60.00
2/00/01 2/06/01 10,311.25
HOUND F-t-R-E---DE-P-AA~-'T ¥-E~D~. R TQ~-~L ~022.50
J3~!O 30~5649 908.~7
XORTHERN ~ATER ~'OR~S SUPPL VENDOP TOTAL 90&.47
12-00 SALARIES
12-00 D~ILLS
12-00 hAINT[~;ANCE
JR~L-CD
22-~170-1390
22-a170-1380
22=4~-~0-1380
1010
METER, ETC. 73-7300-230u
JR,--NL--{3 1010
Sz. 6,SO 19~324.1 2,2c~9.99 SWOTGU:~ 12 GAUGE 01-4140-2270
2106101 2/0~/0! 2,299.g9 JF:NL-CD 1Ol0
STREI CHEF; 'S V-2NDOR TOTAL 2299.99
JRNL-CD 10~0
2/06101 2109101 1,955.15
T4831 367530 5~.27
5S.27
56.27
2/06101 2106101 174.~1
SIPHON CYLINDER, ETC. 01-4280-2250
S~PHON--{--Y{-tNDBR~N<. 73-7300-2250
SIPHDR CYLINDER, ETC. 78-7800-2250
JRNL-C~ 1010
TOLL GAS & wELDING SdPPLY VENDOR TOTAL 174.61
---J56~G--3932 .....................................
' 2/0~/01 2106/01 1,747.50
2100101 2/00/01
1,519.0
6,076.0
JR .,'~ L- C D
0 12=00
0 12-00 SNOW PLO~'ING
0 JPNL-CD
!010
Oi-~8~r-~20G
40-6000-4200
1010
w I D'~E6 I:~C
VE~;DOF: TOT "L
7623.50
PAGE 7 P d
AP-CGD-0i CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR I t';vO! CE DOE ~OLD
NO. I~VOiCE iJ~0R DATE DATE STATdS A~JUNT DEaCKIPTIDt~ ACCOUI~T ~dH~ER
,557g ~g~07
2/~5/0~ 2/06/01 117.o3 JRt4L-CD 1010
41450 69.~0 09-27-00 TO~ 01-4143-4240
2/06/01 2/06/01 69.90 JPl4L-CD 1010
-L-t-~J,.~ AJ-S -~-~Gt--~)G~-A
Z6S07 002,231
v:: ~'~ DO E TOTAL 157.73
2/00/01 2/06/01 5].25
¥ '=-~30R--:[~DT-~L ........ ~. 25
~V 06/4-1 ~/~ ~
COOPER, CHRISTINA VEND3R TOTAL 165.00
TOTAL ALL VENDORS 104,435.12
JRNL-CD
1010
REIHBURE, E PROPERTY LAEELS
JR-~L--'{ D
01-4190-3100
i010
PAGE i F U
AP-C02-Oi
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD
NO. IuVOIC£ NhBR DATE DATE STATUS A~OUNT
A0052 310016S29 503.99
2/13/01 2/13/01 503.99
R C H k S £ J O U R N A L
CITY nF I,!nUND
D F-::S5.R__I __P_J_!~._Nj .............................. _A _C_C. O_U_ tit N U ~ B E R
SCUAD GRAPHICS 01-4140-5000
JRNL-CD 1010
PRE'
A~
ADVAr4CED GRAPHIX INC VENDOR TOTAL 503.99
A0420 247902 19~.76 WESTERN PUMP 73-7300-.2310
2/i37~i 2/i5/01 196.76 JRNL-CD 1010
B0545 010203 26.00 REIMBURSE DARE TRAINING 01-4140-4110
2/13/01 2/13/01 26.00 JRNL-CD 10~0
SECK, kENNY VE~JDOR TOTAL 26.00
B0549 20549100 2,862.19 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510
2/13/0i 2/13/01 2,862.19 JRNL-CD 1010
20590700 2,399.70 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510
2/13/01 2/13/01 2,399.70 Jq~L-C~ 1010
3332~600 I86.92 BAGS 71-7100-9550
2/!3/01 2/13/01 186.92 JRNL-CD lO1,
33326700 39.bB D~ISCELLANEDU$ 71-7100-9550
2/13/0i 2/i5/01 39.$8 JENL-C? 1010
2063i600 1,687.90 LI@UOR 71-7100-9510
2/13/01 2/13/01 1,687.90 JRNL-CD 1010
BELL=OY CORPORATIO~ V£N~DR TOTAL 7i7~.59
BOSB7--201!34 ................................. 3'~.-D'O--C~F-FEI
17.00 COFFEE
17.00 COFFEE
2~-i37'0-l--~3'?U'f 6~.07 JRRL-CD
bEKRY COFFEE CO~,PA~Y VENDOR TOTAL 66.00
01-4020-4120
01-4190-4120
01-4340-4120
lO!O
B0572 04040-1796
2/13/01 2/13/01
1,000
750
572
3,07~
.00 COMPUTER
.00 COMPUTER
.GO -C'~D~T E F
.49 C,q:;PUT£R
.49 JRNL-CD
01-4040-5000
73-7300-5000
7B-7800-5000
01-4095-2290
1010
BEST BUY COMPANY
-'~074~--~07'e~1713'~0
00032146
VENDOR TOTAL
2/13/01 2/13/01
3072.49
630.00 OCT NOv
630.00 JR~L-CD
53.30 TEXTBOOK FIRST ~s~ON~ENT
55.30 JK.~L-CD
2/13/01 2/13/01
01--140-3~90
I010
22-4170-4110
1010
mEiIRi-~'O--OF-'~]TRT~'-A~P-~F~Er-FF~, v~.~,Do~ TOTAL
PA~E 2 P U R C ~ A S E J O U R N L L
4P-C32-0~ CITY OF ~OJNB
,'ENDOR i;,VOICE DUE HOLD PR
NO. I~;VO]CE !.i~'~R DATE DATE STATUS ANOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT N~MBER
2/i3/01 2/!3/01 212.99 JRNL-CD lO10
5USINARO, GINO VENDOR TOTAL 212.99
C0~20 21316375 i,712.38 BULK ICE 01-4280-2340
2/13/0i 2/13/01 1,712.38 JRNL-CD
CARGILL SALT DIVISIO'~ VE~DOF: TOTAL 1712.30
1010
C0830 886010 21.55 KEY Z 71-7100-2200
2/13/01 2/13/01 21.55 JRNL-CD 1010
CASH REGISTER SALES VENDOR TOTAL 21.55
-C-O-m'~5-~--D-'/~-8-~ 4.76 PLUG 01-4280-2310
2/13/01 2/13/01 4.76 JRNL-CD 1010
49 o.i4 HOSE AND CLA~P 01-42~0-2310
~/../01 ~.i4 JR'~L-CD 1010
2113101 ~ ~
653 8.51 DRIP PAN, ETC. 01-4340-2200
5.51 JRNL-CD 1010
2/i3/01 2/13/01
~0~'-:O-~-~T~AL
19.41
C093~ 1733~3 17.57 Ol-Ol-Ol THPU C3-20-01 CLEAN W 71-7100-0550
2/13/01 2713/01 17.57 JRNL-CD 1010
CITY~IDE WiNbOW SERVICES VENDOR TOTAL 17.57 *
C097C '64o25i77 153.52 NiX TAXASL£ 71-7100-9540
2113/01 2113/01 153.52 JPNL-CD 10!0
e1344164 209.4~ h:~X T~X~BLE 71-7100-9550
2/13701 2/13/01 209.48 JRNL-CD lOlO
COCA COLA ~gTTLING-"iD~ST V£NDBk TOTAL 363.00
C1104 010205 5,048.40 01-01 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 01-4110-3120
i/t3/01 2/13/01 5,046.40 JRNL-CD 1010
~F,~F;iI~-~i~'~E~T~, P.A Vi'''m',,~,~ IOTAL 5046.40
01172 339527 123.37 CHROME ~IECE 22-4170-2200
2/13/01 2/13/01 I23.37 JRNL-CD 10~0
~ANEO EHmRGENCY ~gOIP~;ENT VENDOR TOTAL 123.37
D1230 121948 1,092.i5 BEER ?I-7100-9530
1/13/01 2/13/01 1,092.i5 JENL-Cb 1010
1219c4 49.90 ~ISCELLANEOUS TAXASLE
2/13/01 2/13/01 49.90 JRNL-CD
122674 !,992.10 BEER
2/13/01 2/13/01 1,992.10 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9550
1010
71-710~-9530
1010
PAGE 3 P U R C H A S F J 0 U R ;, A L
.~ P-C o__s -~& ............................................... c37z_ O__F _ '.'2 U.N 0 ...........
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD
NO. IKVOICE N,".BR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NUMBER
PRE'
Al
123371
432.$0 SEER 7Z-7130-9530
123364
2/13/01 2113/01
432.80 JRNL-CD lOlO
148.00 BEER 71-7100-9530
123385
2/13/01 2/13/01
i48.00 JRNL-CD 1010
33.80 MISCELLANEOUS NON TAXABLE 71-7100-9550
2/13/01 2/13/01 33.80 JRNL-CD
- DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 3748.75
1010
E1420 735852 1,338.50 BEER 71-7100-9530
2/13/01 2/13/01 1,33~.50 JPNL-CD !010
738919 3,892.50 bEER 71-7100-9530
2/13/01 2/13/01 3,892.50 JRNL-CD 1010
740416 389.00 BEER 71-7100-9530
2/13/01 2/13/0~ 389.00 JRNL-CD 1010
743259 193.50 BEER 71-7100-9530
2/13/01 2/13/01 i93.50 JRNL-CD 101~
742211 892.75 SEER 71-7100-Q530
2/13/01 2/13/01 892.75 JRNL-CD 10~0
742212 6~.50 M~SCELLANEOUS TAXABLE 71-7100-9550
2/13/01 2/13/01 66.50 JRNL-Cb 1010
74~090 93.50 ~E~R KEGS 71-7100-9530
2/13/01 2/13/01 93.50 JRNL-CD 1010
EAST SIDE bEVERAGE VENDOR TOTAL 6866.25
. '_-~'-~-~F~-5--~-~-~5~-4 802.29 DA~PER ACTuATOr, ETC. 0i-~320-3~30
2/13/01 2/13/01 802.29 JRNL-CD 1010
7-E'-~ ,mTE-~T-~[FFP LT I N C V :-"R-D-O~'T A L ~ 0 2 . 2 9
E15!5 19~4 7,525.00 01-01 CUR~SIDE RECYCLING 70-4270-4200
z-Z ~ECYCLING INC VENDOR TOTAL 7525.00
F1732 1510~ ~20.00 01-01 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 01-4190-3100
:, 2/13/0i 2/13/01 820.00 JRNL-CD lOlO
- FUTR;'LL F1RE COt~SULT g DE~ vE!,'DOP TOTAL c$20.00
'-G 17 5~--S31 ~'0 .................................. 2 4 ;' 7'7-- - b-1---1-~g-O--]J- OiTi FO R MS
':- 24.77 01-16-01 LIN IFORMS
-- 24.77 01-16-01 UNIFORMS
11.~5 01-1o-01 KAIS
01-4280-2240
73-7300-2240
78-7800-2240
01-4280-2250
11.~4 01-16-01 HATS 73-7300-2250
PAGE 4 P u R C h A S E j r-,., U R N A L
AP-CO2-OZ CITY OF KDUND
NO. INVOICE NM~P DATE DATE STATUS AMouNT DESCRIPTIOn', ACCOUNT NUMBER
....... 5~3.: 330 .......................... 35.73 01-23-01 ~TS 22-z, 170-2230
2/13/01 2/13/01 35.73 JRNL-CD I010
533331 30.77 01-23-01 MATS 71-7100-4210
2/13/01 2113/01 30.77 J~NL-CD !010
'G ~-'--K~S-~R'VI-~'E$ .................. ~V-ENbO'~-~ TOT'AL~ ......... %f~-~[
G1972 327720 119.98 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510
2/13/01 2/13/01 i1~.9£ JRNL-CD 1010
327025 59&.07 wINE 71-7100-9520
2/13/01 2/13/01 59S.07 JRNL-CD !010
32~92 454.25 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510
2/13/01 2/13/01 454.25 J~,NL-CD 1010
32~0~3 .~9.30 ~'I ~'~E 71-7100-9520
2 / f37-0 i-i----2713 / 01
329750
89.30 JRNL-CD 1010
!53.00 WINE 71-7100-9520
~/13/01 ~-/i 3 / 01-- 153.00 JRNL-CD i0!0
529E52 1,102.57 WI,~E 71-7100-P520
2-7~-37-0-1- 2/13/01
! · 1-0-2~. 57 JRNL-CD !010
3325~5 149.75 ~I,~E 71-7100-9520
.................... -2'Y~3/Oi 2/13/01 149.75 JP~L-CD lOiO
332556 02.00 ~'INE 71-7100-9520
2/13/01 2/13/01 92.00 JRNL-ED -- 1010
332567 300.40 WINE 71-7100-9520
2113/01 2/13/01-- 300.40 JRNL-CD 1010
333372 0i~.74 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510
2/13/01 2/13/01 61o.74 JRNL-CD 1010
GRIG~5 COOPER & COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 3682.06
H199~ 047550 323.76 SNOW PLOW BLADE 01-4280-2310
2/13/01 2/13/01 323.76 J~NL-C~ 1010
047700 329.17 LOADER BOLTS
329.17 LOADER ~OLTS
r,~SAsI, IkC. VENDOR TOTAL 982.i0
01-42~0-2310
73-7300-2310
1010
H2003 3092 4,759.~8 01-0! CONSTRUCTION AD~INISTRAT 30-5616-3100
2/13/0i 2/13/01 4,759.~$ JPNL-£D lOlO
HAKANSON ANDERSON AS30C IN VENDOR TOTAL 4759.6~
PAGE 5 P U k C i-.I k S E J O d R N .~. L
AP-CO2-01 CITY ..'DF ?;OUND
VENDOR It;VOICE DUE dOLD PRE-
NO. INVOJCE__L,'~jR .... r_,_A__T~_ ~A_T_~.. S_TA~T~U_S_ _AM__O_U_N~T____D_E__S_.C_R_IP__T]_O__~- ......... ACCOUNT NUMSER A~
H2151 010202 480.00 2000 TIF COSTS 54-5600-3100
£/13/[,i 2/13/01 4~0.09 JRNL-CD 1010
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER VENDOR TOTAL 480.09
~ H2170 OTILO000134 200.00 4TH ~TR UTILITY PERMITS 73-7300-4220
2/13/01 2/13/~1 200.00 JR~L-CD !OiO
· ~ENN CO TREASURER VENDOR TOTAL 200.00
: H2241 010201-A 4,390.59 01-01 MISC PLANNING SERVICES 01-4190-3100
, 2/13/01 2/13/01 4,390.59 JRNL-CO 1010
010201-B l&§.O0 01-01 PASTUCK MINOR SU~DIVISIO 01-2300-1115
~ 2/13/01 2/13/01 140.00 JRNL-CD 1010
Ol0201-C 350.00 01-01 POST OFFICE CUP 55-5879-3100
. 2/13/01 2/13/01 350.00 J~NL-CD 1010
010201-D 210.00 01-00 CODDON SU~ DIVISION 01-2300-11!6
~: 2/13/01 2/13/01 210.00 JRNL-CD lOlP
O10201-E i40.00 Ol-O1 POST OFFICE REZONING 55-5879-3100
2/13/01 2/13/01 140.00 JRNL-CD 1010
01~2~ r 2,~89.0~ 01-01 MOUND VISIONS WISC 55-5B80-3100
2/!3/01 2/13/01 1,889.68 JRNL-CD 1010
~010201-G 742.25 0!-0I LANGDON AUDITORS 55-5882-3100
2/13/~ 2/~/0_ 742.25 JRNL-CD fOlD
01020~-H 467.25 01-01 ~ETRO PLAINS 01-2300-1096
~ ?~ 2-0~---2Vi~?~ 467.25 JRNL-CD 1010
z oi020i-i 492.25 oi-oi POST OFFICE MISC SERVICE 55-5879-3i00
~/13/01 2/13/01 4~2.25 JRNL-CD 1010
-HCtSIWGTJN KOEGL£R GROUP,~ V~!~DOR TOTAL 8822.62
I2309 23845058 579.04 01-19-01 THRU 01-19-02 COPIER 22-4170-3820
2/13/01 2/13/01 579.04 JRNL-CD 1010
z 23~40137 33.10 01-12-01 THRU 04-12-01 COPIER 01-~280-2140
33.10 0i-!2-01 THRU 04-12-01 COPIER 73-7300-2140
33.i0 01-12-0! THRU 04-12-01 COPIER 7b-7800-2140
-- 2/13/01 2/13/01 99.30 JRNL-CD 1010
23~39~'~0-'~ 333.28
Z/13/01 333.26
~3~3~72~ ................ 4~.00
2/13/01 48.o0
0!-10-0! THRU 02-10-01 COmIER 01-4320-3800
2/13/01 JqNL-CD 10!0
2/13/01
J~NL-CD 1010
2~S45192 99.70 01-2~-0! THRU 92-24-01 COPIER 01-4190-21~0
2/13701 2113/01 99.79 JRNL-CD 101'
~ASE 6 P ~ R C ~ A S E J 0 U ~ N A L
vENDOR ~N~OiCE DUE ~OLD p~
NO. INVOICE N~BR DATE D~TE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NU~ER
1~,3~ OFFiC~ S[~LUTI~:,3 ',-'~L~F TOTAL 125~.93
i231o Ol~5 513.00 INCIDENT COHHAhD CASE 22-4170-2270
2/13/01 2/13/01 513.00 JRNL-CD 1010
IN COV. zAND V~DOK TOTAL 5!3.~0
J217~ ~2~0263 760.59 LIJUO~ 71-7!0C-0510
2/13/01 2/13/01 760.59 JRNL-ED lOiO
1210264 648.00 ~INE 71-7100-9520
2/13/01 2/13/01 045.00 JRNL-CD 1010
1210603 153.40 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510
2/13/01 2/13/01 153.40 JRNL-CD lOlO
1212761 83.00 ~INE 71-7100-9520
2/13/01 2/13/01 ES.GO JRNL-CD 1010
1212E7~ 27~.i8 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510
2/i3/01 2/13/01 279.1~ JnNL-CD 1010
1212875 1,t51.22 WINE 71-7100-9520
2/i3/01 2/13/01 1,151.22 JR;JL-CD 1010
1215451 55.95 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510
2/13/01 2/13/01 55.95 JRNL-CD iOlO
1215452 429.95 WINE 71-7100-9520
........................ 22~320~'---27!3/~ ........... ~2~.95 J~:,L-C~ 1010
1215.53 101.)5 LI~UO~ 71-7100-9510
2-/]~7~----~/13/01 191.55 JRNL-CD 1010
1215454 107.20 ~INE 71-7100-9520
27~3~-----~/13/01 107.20 JPNL-CD 1010
~RdT~ERS LIQUOR V["DQA TOTAL 3&6~.04
JOHNSON
J25~0 010205 75.00 REIMBURSE BOUTS 01-4280-2240
2/13/0i 2/13/01 75.00 JENL-CD 1010
JOHNSON, TI~ V£NDO~ TOTAL 75.00
'-"f273~I--~ 71~'~-0-I 3,721.20 LASEA/~<ADAR 01-4140-5000
2113101 2/13/01 3,721.20
- i,'~0 S"~i",--?,-~TTA L-S-,---! :,' C. v E N D e ;2 -TOff k'[-- ..... ~721.20
L2~ii Ii072 le5.~2
....................... 2 / !3iOY-- 2/i'3/Oi ........ ~%-5
11073 lg.06
b~,: P~,I:gT1NG ~ G~:ADhlCS VEN93R TOTAL
JRNL-CD 1010
I':sP[CllO~,' NOTICE PRI~TINS 01-4190-2120
JF,'NL-CD 1010
PACKET COPYING 01-4190-2120
JL,~L-CD iOlO
,;AGE 7 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L
AP-C02-01 CITY OF ,';OUND
VENDOR i~VCICE D'.'E HOLD
NO. INVOICE NK~R DATE DATE STATUS A~,OUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
PRE-
At
L2522 14~9S51 149.60 HISCELLANESUS iTE~S 01-4280-2250
2/13/01 2113/01
i49.~0 HISCELLANE;]US ITEMS 73-7300-2250
!49.59 HISCELLANEOUS I TE'!S 76-7800-2250
448.79 JR NL-CD 1010
29.55 SA~BLADE, ETC. 01-4280-2250
29.S5 SAWBLAbE, roTC. 73-7300-2250
29.55 SAWBLADE, ETC. 76-7800-2250
2/i3/01 2/Z3/01 88.65 JR:~L-CD 1010
LAWSuN P~--~ INC. V£NJOR TOTAL 537.44
L28~ 1-~0005477 70.00 2001 FULL LEGISLATIVE 01-4090-4120
z/13/O~ ~7~37-6-~ 70.00 JRNL-CD 1010
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES VENDOR TOTAL 70.00
L2926 01~6a3 5.78 LEVER 01-4280-2310
2/13/01 2/13/01 5.78 JRNL-CD 1010
LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPHENT VENDOR TOTAL 5.78
L2930 5-3094~1 20.62 FILTER KIT 01-42~0-2310
2/13/01 2/13/01 20.62 JRNL-CD 1010
5-309600 277.22 STARTER AN~ CORE 01-4280-3810
· 2/I3/01 2/13/01 277.22 JRNL-CD 1010
...... ~5:]10010 7.91 WIPER BLAgES 01-4040-3810
2/13/0! 2/13/01 7.91 JR~,~L-CD 1010
---[-OWELL'S AUT~.".O~E/ZI TCO,~ VENDOR TOT AL
MGOlo 8679
305.75
9.10 01-06-01 DELIVERY CHARGE
71-7100-9600
6706
~~/13/01 2/!3/01
9.10 JRNL-CD 1010
114.80 01-06-01 DELIVERY CHARGE 71-7100-9600
6712
Z/13/Oi 2/13101
1!4.~0 JRNL-CD 1010
16.80 01-08-01 DELIVERY CHARGE 71-7100-9600
2/13-701 2/13/01 1~.80 JRNL-CD 1010
8734 71.40 01-13-01 DELIVERY CHA~GE 71-7100-9600
2/13/01 2/13/01-- 71.40 JRNL-CD 1010
$7~6 23.80 01-15-01 DELIVERY CHARGE 71-7100-9600
2/13/01 2/~3/01 23.80 JRNL-CD 1010
6768 7~.50 01-16-01 DELiV[RY CHARGE 71-7100-9600
27'~-~/0~-~/i3/01 73.50 JRNL-CD 10!0
- 8779 18.20 01-22-01 DELIVERY CHARGE 71-7100-9600
2/f37~i 2/13/01 1&.20 JRNL-CD 1010
PA~£ $ P b R [ H A S E J ~ U R K A l
AP-C~2-01 CITY OF
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD PR
~g. I'~w'31C~ ;,K~R D~T[ DATE STATUS AvOUi, T DESC£I?TID', ACCUU~,T NuKSER
2/iS/Of 2/iS/01 105.70 J~NL-CD lOlO
~i1 12.o0 12-29-01 DELIVERY CMARGE 71-7100-9600
2/13/01 2/13/01 12.60 JRNL-CD 1010
MAaLIN'$ T~UCKII~ VE:,DOE TOTAL 445.90
M3030 236426 i,o17.00 BEER 71-7100-9530
2/i3/01 2/I3/01 1,617.00 JRNL-CD IOlO
235109 1,763.35 BEER 71-7100-9530
2/13/01 2/13/01 1,763.35 JRI~L-CD 1010
240282 2,454.!5 SEER 71-7100-9530
2/13/01 2/13/01 2,454.15 JRNL-CD 1010
242575 2,280.70 6EER 71-7100-9530
2/13/01 2/13/01 2,2~U.70 JR~L-C[, 1010
242576 97.50 LICUOR 71-7100-9510
2/~3/01 2/i3/01 97.50 JRNL-CD 1010
VII DISTRIBUTOR VENDOR TOTAL 8242.70
1650 45.00 2001 -E"DEnSHtP DUES 01-4040-4110
2/13/01 2/13/01 45.00 J~:~L-CD 1010
~IETROPOLITAN AREA HA;~AGEME VENDOR TOTAL 45.U0
X3255 OlulO& alA.&$ R[CHA~GE FREO~ 71-7100-3820
2/~3/0! 2/13/01 614.S~ J~,L-CD 1~10
-~I~q~--P,~FRIGERATIO~ VENDOR TOTAL ~l&.o8
~3253 010123 260.00 2001 SEMINAR APPIL 23-25 HARRE 01-4!49-4110
2/!3/01 2/!~/01 260.00 J~AL-CD 1010
ZK CHIEFS OF POLICE EDUCA~ VE;~>O~ TOTAL 260.00
!.:32~ 010205 45.00 2001 MEMBERSHIP HARRELL, LEONA 01-4140-4130
2/13/01 2/13/01 45.00 JRNL-CD 1010
'-i,:',~ C,-.ilEFS OF P3LICE v£t.;D3~< TOTAL
-~ ,"T'332 I--0~0 T25-
2/13/01 2/13/01
:':3322 54583-3003~ 400.00
Mt, ~fIGHTS AND ~EASURES VE~DOR TOTAL 400.OO
45.00
z.~)~-O----7~-O-T-~-F~-- R ~ H N, JODI 0!-4040-4130
40.00 JR,;L-CD 1010
12-22-00 IKSPECTIOh 01-4280-4200
1010
:q332~ 01Ul19 200.00 2801 DUES o EE 22-4170-4130
2/13/01 2/13/01 200.00 JR~L-CD 1010
~AGE 9 P U R C r, A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-Oi CITY OF ,D~N~,
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE N~BR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
PRE-
At'
FIRE SERV CERTIFIC~TN ::= VEt:DOP TOTAL 200.00
!q3405 0i0123 200.00 REGISTRATION MAR 6-~,2001 73-7300-4110
2/i3/01 2/13/01 200.00 JRNL-CD 1010
001227 175.00 02-01 THRU 02-02 HEMBERSHIP 73-7300-4i30
2/13/Ci 2/i3/01 175.00 J~-~NL-CP ig!O
MN RURAL WATER ASSUCIATION VENDOR TOTAL 375.00
~b---9'[ 20~i155806 883.UO 03-01-01 TmRU S2-28-02 ME~'BERS 01-4020-4130
2/13/01 2/13/0! ~83.00 J~NL-CD 1010
-NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES VENDOR TOTAL 883.00
N3701 010122 50.00 2001 MEMBERSHIP DUES
22-4170-4130
2/13/0i 2/13/0i 50.00 JRNL-CD
NATL VOLdNTEER ~iRE COUNCI VENDOR TOTAL 50.00
1010
N3810 3048899 3,141.75 LOCATOR AND LASP 73-7300-5000
2/13/01 2/13/01 3,141.75 JRNL-CD 101
NORTHERN wATER WORKS
SuPPL VEh~DDR TGTAL 3141.75
2-2~-/~i--~-~-~-~- COUNCIL M~ETING
2/13/01 2/!3/01 223.23 JRNL-CD
~FICL. I:AT.' ~-_-~7~O~-R~AL 223-~'-~3
03~95 3938-41455 382.78 REPLACED DRAFT ASSEMBLY
01-4020-4200
1010
22-4170-3830
2/13/01 2/1-'3'7-0-1- 382.7B JRNL-CD 1010
OWENS SERVICE ONE VENDOR TOTAL 382.78
7395~ 000314364 18189 Oi-1A-O1 THRU 02-13-01 PAGERS 01-4140-3950
2/13/01 2/t3/bl iS.a9 JRNL-CD lolO
PAGENET OF MINNESOTA VENDOR TOTAL
23997 010122
PEDEkSUN, ~REG VENDOF. TOTAL
18.89
~'~.u-~'--~'-E- 71-7100-9520
o~3.00 JPNL-C~ 1010
063.00
~3.72 RE I~5tl~SE
43.7~ Ji-: ",L-CD
~3.72
~ILEAGE AND ~EETING 22-4170-4100
1010
P4000 61679114 104.16 HIX TAXABLE 71-7100-9540
2/13/01 2/13/01 104.16 JRNL-CD 1010
01079211 94.16 Mix TAXABLE 7t-7100-95~0
2/13/01 2/13/01 q4.16 JRNL-CD lO1?
~ C r, A S E J O U R ;, A t
CITY OF "OdND
DESCRIPTI3N ACCOUNT NUMBER
PRE'
A
V=,~R TOTAL i98.32
.~E~s~-.fO~ c~,]_P~ ......................
P~O2Z o~SlOS 2~1.3o LIQUOR 71-71oo-951o
2/13/01 2/13/01 281.30 JRNL-CD 10!0
0~) IUO i,15o.O0 wIhE 71-7100-9520
i,156.c0 JR NL-CD 1010
2/!3/0i 2/13/01
685107 102.00 MiX NON-TAXASLE
2/13/01 2/13/01 102.00 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9550
1010
6&71~0 214.25 LIJUOR 71-7100-9510
2/13/01 2/13/01 214.~5 JRNL-CD !010
687161 37i.20 LIQUOR 71-7100-9520
2/13/01 2/13/01 371.20 JRNL-CD 1010
~$7162 09.20 WINE ?1-7100-9520
2/13/01 2/13/01 99.20 JRhL-C~ 1010
6E9154 §&&.30 LIQUOR ?1-7100-95!0
2/i3/01 2/13/01 644.30 JMNL-CD 1010
6~9155 405.45 WI:,E 71-7100-9520
~/13/01 2/13/01 &05.45 J~NL-CD 1010
90.00 MISCELLANEOUS NON-TAxASLE 71-7100-9550
90.00 JDNL-CD 10!0
6,~V 155
2/13/~1~. 2/13/01
P~!ILLIPS WI,?- b 5PiF~ITS, = VENDOR TOTAL
336~.50
~-O-3-g--3~?V~ 953.66 CI6A~ETTES 7i-7100-9550
2/13/01 2/13/01 9E3.O6 JmNL-CD 1010
~?gS~ 777.05 CIbARETT[S 71-7100-9550
2/13/0i 2/13/0! ?77.65 J~NL-CD ]010
.......... ~3~-~'~ ....... 115.~5 CIGAR5 71-7100-9550
2/13/01 2/13/01 I15.~5 JRNL-CD !010
391~% .... 620.10 CIGARETTE5 71-7100-9550
2/13/01 2/13/~1 o20.10 J~NL-CD 1010
'~-i ~A-C L'E-'--~i S'T-:'i'E g-TlR S ...... -V-=_~.. D O-~'--Y'O T A L
2406.86
P4109
42~9 99.00 FERTILIZATION AND ~'EED CONTROL 01-4320-4200
............................ ~%-~ d-O-'-~-~l-~ --'- ~- --'~-' - -'-~--~ '~ - ~
........... TI,I~ATIO,, AN~ ~-c. CO'.JTROL 80-8000-3800
4,691.50 FEF~TILIZATION AND UEED CO~TRDL 01-~340-3~00
~/13/01 2/13/01 5,926.50 JR;,L-C'3 1010
PRO LA.NS OH TME LAK£ AS$O VE'~DOR TOTAL 5926.50
--~-i7~- ~-5~.-1 - D u 2~5~ 94 LI~UO~ 71-7100-°510
2/i3/01 2/13/01 2,533.94 JRNL-CD 1010
PAGE 11 P b R £ ~ A S E J 0 U R N A L
VENDJR iNvOICE [)UE HOLD
NO. INVOICE N~BR DATE DATE STATUS A'~OUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
PRE-
;2S OSg'-O0 2c.06 :~,I SC ELLA NEGUS T AXA[;LE 71-7100-9550
2/13/01 2/!3/0! 26.06 JqNL-CD 1010
924875-00 2,396.20 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510
2113101 2113101 2,390.20 JRNL-CD 1010
92~B~30-00 1,35o.73 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510
2/13/01 2/13101 1,35~.7~ J~NL-CD 1010
925389-00 445.30 WIN5 71-7100-~520
2/13/01 2/!3/01 4&5.30 J~NL-CD 1010
927479-00 3,~12.83 LISUOR 71-7100-9510
2/13/0i 2/13/0i 3,812.~3 JRNL-CD 10~0
9274~3-00 27.00 MISCELLANEOUS NON-TAXABLE 71-7100-9550
2/13/01 2/13/01 27.00 JRNL-CD lOlO
927670-00 157.~9 WI~E 71-7100-9520
2/13/01 2/13/01 157.59 JRNL-CD 1010
QUALITY ~INE ~ SPIRITS VENDOR TOTAL 10755.05
N2051 RROiOIiiCO 22.45 AIk 22-4170-2200
2/13/0i 2/13/01 22.45 Jq.~L-C~) 1010
~D~ WELDING SUPPLY CO VEt:DOR TOTAL 22.45
R4201 1.9433 475.00 INSTALLATION STORM COLLAR
2773-/-0-i----~7~ 3 / 01 ,475.00 JRNL-CD
.~ & ~. ROOFING CO~,~SIRuCTIO:'.: V[qDO~ TOTAL 475.00
22-4170-3830
I010
~4209 1~39 i10.77 01-01 T~ASH SERVICE 01-4320-3750
2/13/01 2/!3/01 110.77 JRNL-CD 1010
RANDY'S SANITATION VEqDOR TOTAL 110.77
~%29U-~25'5-6' 1~3.04 ICE 71-7100-9550
2/13/01 2/13/01 103.o4 JRNL-CD 1010
21.30
~/i~7-0-1-'--~ 7-1-~7-~Y-- -2-i · 3 0
OF THE SEASON VENDOR TOTAL 21.30
S4400 2376
S I GMS
S4600
20386~.1 53.9B
2/13/01 2/!5/0i 53.95
20470g. I 63.79
2/13/01 2/13/01 63.79
VEmICLE SIGNS
22-4170-2200
JRNL-CD !010
mEADL~GRT FLASHER 01-4140-3810
JRNL-Cu 1010
SPCTLAMP 01-4140-3810
JRNL-£D 10~0
STNEICHER'b
VENDOR TOTAL 117.77
PAGE 12 P U R C H A $ E J u U R N A L
AP-CJ2-0t CITY OF '.',S' ~'
VENDOR i ;4¥'01 CE DUE HOLD PRE
"'-' It,,OICE ~,~"~R [;;,If ,.,,-''TE STATdS A~uu~T DESCRI?TI3;~ ACC,JU;,T "~U~r-;ER A
S4605 213500 5,219.71 THRU 01-13-01 PRO SERVICES 55-5878-31g0
2/i3/01 2113101 5,119.71 J~i~L-CD
$T$ CONSdLTA;.4TS LTD VE:,~DOR TOTAL 5219.71
3.o30 012501
1,02u.lO THRU 10-25-01 GAS CHARGES 01-4280-2210
523.61 THRU 10-25-0i GAS CHAmGES 78-7800-2210
205.68 THAU 10-25-01 GAS CHARGES 73-7300-2210
2/13/01 2/13/01
157.25 THRU 10-25-01 GAS CHARGES 01-4340-2210
IO.Oi THRU 10-25-01 GAS CHARGES 01-4190-2210
2,516.65 JRNL-CD lOlO
gPEEDUAY SUPERA~.ER]CA LLC VEt~DO~ TOTAL 2516.65
010202 40.78 REIMBURSE TRAINING ITEMS 01-4140-4100
2/13/01 2/13/01 40.78 JRNL-CD 1010
$'~E~SEt,, JASON V£NDOR TOTAL 40.78
74703 010126 25.00 01-01 WEB-SITE
01-4320-3100
2/~3/01 2/13/01 25.00 JRNL-CD
T-ChEK SYSTEMS LLC VENDOR TOTAL 25.00
1010
~G 216250 3,615.i0 BEER 71-7100-9530
2/13/01 2/13/01 3,015.10 JR'~L-CD !0!0
216525 ~,329.70 BEER 71-7100-9530
2113/01 2/13/01 8,329.70 JRNL-CD 1010
21o027 51~.00 BEER 71-7100-9530
2/i3/01 2/12/01 515.00 JR,',L-CD 1010
217437 37.65 BEER 71-7100-9530
2/13/01 2/13/01 37.65 JRt;L-CD 10!0
21743~ 2,38~.65 bEER 71-7100-9530
2/13101 2/13/01 2,385.05 JR h'L-CD 1010
T~ORPE 3!STRiBOTIk~ COMPAk VENDOR TOTAL 14889.10
T£79'~--42~-26 .......... 42.45 COkTROL ARD ~NOB 73-7300-3810
2/13/01 2/13/01 42.45 JRNL-CD 1010
T ~-jRX-'~ ~-,J'S -C-.~?¢~b-E-E T ....... 9'E+J'D~-R -TbT A L 42.45
14940 19587 138.19 ALT RELAY wITH SWITCH 78-7800-2310
~ -71~ -/~-1-- ~ '7-!~7-0-1 -~3&. 19 JR~L-CD 1010
TRI-STATE PUHP ~ CO:;TRUL I VENDOR TOTAL 138.19
14985 287018-0 205.09 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4140-2100
2/13701 2/13/01 206.09 JRNL-CD 1010
257302-0 51.76 ~ISCELLAN~OUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 22-4170-2100
2/13/01 2/13/01 51.76 J~NL-CD 1010
PAGE 13
AP-C02-Oi
PUP`ChASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE ;,;MmR DATE DATE STATUS
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NUMBER
2{04c3-0
18.05 CALENDAR REFILLS
22-4170-2100
2/13/0i 2/13/01
TWIN CITY OFFICE SUPPLY CO VENDOR TOTAL
16.05 JFiNL-CD
277.90
1010
d5050 58101
2/13/01 2/13/01
420.34 WINDOW DECALS
420.34 JRNL-CD
22-4170-3500
1010
UNIFORHS UNLIMITED 'VENDOR TOTAL
426.34
V5160 010115
2113101 2/13/01
89.45 PLATES FOR PAGER I.D.
89.46 JPNL-CD
22-~170-3200
!010
V N S JEWELERS
W5492 010201
VENDOR TOTAL
89.46
1,320.60
02-01 CLEANING
01-4320-4210
110.05 02-0i CLEANING
110.05 02-01 CLEANING
110.05 02-01 CLEANING
0i-4260-4200
73-7300-4200
78-7800-4200
2/13/01 2/13/01
115.38 CLEANING SUPPLIES
1,766.13 JRNL-CD
01-4320-4210
10~
wEST METRO 9. JILDING MAIt'J7. %ENDOR TOTAL
w5630 3773
1766.13
630.00 10-19-00 CUR~STOP IDLEUOOD ROA
73-7300-3500
2/13/01 2/13/01
WIDHER INC VENDOR TOTAL
630.00
630.00
JRNL-CD
1010
~5690 32622
2/13/01 2/13/01
!,475.5B 01-02-01 CONCRETE
1,475.58 JRNL-CD
01-4260-2340
i010
33517
2113/01 2/13/01
450.00 01-29-01 CONCRETE
450.00 JRNL-Cb
01-4280-2340
1010
VENDOP TOTAL 1925.58
Z6&O& 48906
2/13/01 2/13/01
CLAY CgUNTY COURTHOUSE VENDOP, TOTAL 20~.00
200.00 600KIN3 ~6520
200.00 JRNL-CD
FAILURE TO APPE&
01-2300-0000
1010
26809 G10205
2/13/01 2/13/01
20.00 2001 ~:"
~ ...... MEMBERSHIP DUES
ASSOCIATION 9F MINNESOTA VENDDR TOTAL
TOTAL ALL VENDORS 13C,41~.00
01-4140-4130
20.00 JRNL-CD
20.00
1010
Alcohol &
Gambling
Enforcement
Bureau of
Criminal
Apprehension
Capitol Security
Center for
Crime Victim
Services
Driver & Vehicle
Services
Drug Policy &
Violence
Prevention
Emergency
Management/
Emergency
Response
Commission
State Fire
Marshal/
Pipeline Safety
State Patrol
Traffic Safety
Division o{ Emergency Management
Emergency Response Commission
444 Cedar Street, Suite 223, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-6223
Phone: 651/296-2233 FAX: 651.296.0459 'irY: 651/282~6555
Internet: http://www.d ps.state.m n.us
January 18, 2001
Leonard Harrell
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Chief Harrell:
I am pleased to confirm that your application for a Hazardous Materials Emergency
Preparedness (HMEP) Grant for a Planning Advisory Committee in City of Mound has been
approved in the sum of $1,500.00.
Enclosed you will find an agreement between your jurisdiction and the State of Minnesota.
Please ensure, at the bottom of the first page, that you include your jurisdiction's Minnesota
Tax I.D. Number and Federal Employer I.D. Number. Person(s) signing the agreement and
obligating your jurisdiction to the conditions of this agreement must be authorized. A
certified copy of the resolution which authorizes the jurisdiction to enter into this agreement
and which designates person(s) to execute this agreement must be attached to the agreement.
A sample resolution is enclosed for your reference. Please have the authorized person(s)
sign all copies of the agreement on pages 6 and C-1. Return all copies of the agreement to:
Mr. Emy Mattila, Division of Emergency Management, 444 Cedar Street, Suite 223, St.
Paul, Minnesota 55101-6223.
Also enclosed is a form for your use in billing the State of Minnesota to obtain
reimbursement for expenses. Please note the reporting requirements listed on pages 3 and 4
of the grant agreement. If your funded activity is an exercise, the enclosed FEMA Form 95-
44, Emergency Management Exercise Reporting System, must be completed and returned
with your billing.
As always, it is a pleasure working with you. If you have any questions, please contact
Erny Mattila at (651) 215-6939.
Sincerely,
Kevin C. Leuer
Director
Enclosures
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION NO.
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has been given a grant by the U.S. Department of Transportation under the
Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mound has applied in good faith for HMEP monies for a Training;
THEREFORE, BY IT RESOLVED, that the City of Mound fully agrees to the terms of the grant, and, with the
passage of this resolution, officially requests the Division of Emergency Management to enforce the contract in
accordance with the applicable rules and regulations;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT and
be and hereby are authorized to execute the agreement and thereby assume for and on behalf of the City of
Mound all of the contractual obligations contained therein.
I, , duly appointed of City of Mound do
hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of this resolution with the original minutes of the
meeting held on the day of ., 20 ., and have found the same
to be a true and correct copy thereof.
Dated this day of ., 20__
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Dr. Chinyere (Ike) Niaka
President
Francis Hagen
1st Vice President
Mary Henning
2nd Vice President
Scott Brandt
Treasurer
Bob Bean
Secretary
Laurie LaFontaine
Past President
John C. Boeder
Member-at-Large
Gordon Hughes
Member-at-Large
Senator Rudy Boschwitz
~er Coyle
' Guritz
,iko Higuchi
Dwight Johnson
Gloria Johnson
Kevin Krueger
Rep. Ann Lenczewski
Dotty O'Brien
Senator Gert Olson
Curtis A. Pearson
Mary Tambornino
Leonard J. Thiel
Thomas Thorfinnson
Tom Ticen
Benjamin F. Withhart
Executive Director & C.E. 0.
PROGRAMS
· Multi-Purpose
Senior Centers
· Senior Outreach
· H.O.M.E.
· Transportation
SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES
10709 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 111, Minnetonka, MN 55305 Phone: (952) 541-1019
FAX: (952) 541-0841
January 19, 2001
Mayor Pat Meisel and Council
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mayor Meisel and Council Members:
Senior Community Services requests that the City of Mound pass,
and send back to us, a resolution favoring a continuation of
funding the senior programs that the City has supported in the
past. A sample resolution is attached for your consideration. We
would like to include the resolution in our application to the
Consolidated Pool for the next Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) year which must be submitted by March 9, 2001.
As you may be aware, CDBG funding to help support sevices for
seniors has declined. We would like an opportunity to discuss the
possibility of funding with the City Council as part of your 2002
budget deliberations. The contact person for our request is our
Westonka Senior Center Director, Cathy Bailey (472-6502). On
behalf of the area seniors who are the direct beneficiaries of the
services, our thanks for your continued support of the Westonka
Senior Center. We look forward to continuing cooperation
between the City of Mound and Senior Community Services.
Again, many thanks for your support.
Sincerely,
Ron Bloch
Program Administrator
cc: Kandis Hanson, City Manager
iFounding Member of
Eldercare Partners
A United Way
Agency
Sample Resolution
Whereas the City of Mound has supported services for its elderly and
disabled residents via Senior Community Services' Westonka Senior
Center with the allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funds
and
Whereas the City of Mound feels that the provision of services for its
elderly and disabled residents is of great importance and should be
continued,
Therefore Be It Resolved that the City of Mound recommends to the
Consolidated Pool Selection Committee that CDBG funding of Senior
Community Services' Westonka Senior Center be continued.
Signed for the City of Mound
Date
Engineering · Planning · Surveying
January 31, 2001
Ms. Kandis Hanson, City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
Municipal Parking Lot
Building Demolition and Parking Lot Construction Partial Payment
MFRA #12544
Dear Kandis:
Enclosed is Diamond 5's Payment Request No. 2 for work completed through January 31, 2001 on the
subject project. The amount of this payment request is $19,984.20.
We have reviewed this request, find it in order, and recommend payment in the above amount to the
Contractor.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
J{~tn Cameron, City Engineer
JECn :c o~s~e
s:~nain :Wlou 125445specs~hanson 1-31
15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447
phone 763/476-6010 ° fax 763/476-8532
e-mail: mfra@mfra.com
~Z
oE~
o0o
~8
o00
0
ii
O0
oo
O0~G
Z ~.
9999 9~999~9999Y
oooo bbb~bbbbbbbb
o g gggg -
~0 ----
o o oooo o oooooooooooo
0000
O0
00~ 0oooo000o0o~
bbbb bobbbbbbbbb~
~ ~ 00~ 0 000000000000
o b bbbb b bbbbbbbbbbbb
o o oooo o oooooooooooo
0
0000 000000000000 0
· ° .~ 99YW
o o oooa b bbbbbbbbbobb
~0
CITY OF MOUND
RESOLUTION #01-
RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF Tlt-E CITY OF MOUND
GRANTING APPROVAL FOR REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL
BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OF PROPERTY LOCATED
AT TIlE NORTIrggEST CORNER OF TItE INTERSECTION OF
LYNWOOD BLVD. AND BELMONT LANE FROM B-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT TO DESTINATION DISTRICT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
ADDRESSED UNASSIGNED,
PID#'S 13-117-24-33-0085 AND 13-11%24-33-0084
P&Z CASE 01-01 AND 01-04
WltEREAS, the City of Mound, as owner of the property is making applications on
behalf of the United States Postal Service for rezoning and development plan approval by
conditional use permit for a new United States Post Office facility; and,
WltEREAS, the site is currently zoned Central Business District and guided in the
City's Comprehensive Plan as Auto Destination. The proposed rezoning to Destination District
Planned Unit Development is consistent with the guided land use in the Comprehensive Plan;
and
WltEREAS, the property includes approximately 1.15 acres and will developed to
accommodate customer parking, mail vehicle parking, and truck deliveries; and,
WltEREAS, the building will be cent?ally located on the site with customer parking to
the east and employee and delivery vehicle parking to the west. The building is 6,500 sq. ft. in
size and a 2,000 sq. ft. expansion area west of the building is planned for future needs; and
WHEREAS, the zoning code does not prescribe a parking space ratio for this use and
allows the Planning Commission and City Council to determine the appropriate number of
spaces; and
Wlt-EREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the proposed
zoning modifications and recommended City Council approval; and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendments are compatible with land uses
surrounding the subject property; and
WllEREAS, said zoning amendments are in all respects consistent with the City plan
and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code of
Ordinances of the City of Mound.
NOW TltEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound
that:
The City does hereby grant a rezoning from B-1 to Destination District PUD as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
The City Council authorizes the Zoning Amendment set forth below, pursuant to
Section 350:520 of the Zoning Ordinance.
This Zoning Amendment is granted for the following legally described property
as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System:
KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOLrND, LOTS 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, AND 11, ACCORDING TO THE
PLAT THEREOF ON FILE OR OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES
IN AND FOR SAID COUNTY, HE2qNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
The City Planner is directed to update the zoning map in accordance with this
approval.
This Zoning Amendment shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the
Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute,
Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how
this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with
Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for
the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed
with the City Clerk.
Conditional Use Permit is approved for the development plans with the following
conditions:
Private drive easements with United Properties be secured by the United
States Postal Service CtJSPS).
b. Agreements for a future entry and sidewalk be secured with the USPS.
A variance is approved for a 9 ½ feet wide parking stall size.
A variance is approved for an 56% deviation from the impervious surface
standards based on the following findings:
When the realignment of County Road 15 occurs, the property will gain
additional land area which will conceivably be all greenspace which could
bring the total greenspace to about 22%.
Upon approval of the City's Surface Water Management Plan and
incorporation of additional greenspace, the site will be at approximately
78% hardcover which would be a minimal 3% hardcover variance.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Couneilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
and seconded by
Adopted February 13, 2001.
Pat Meisel, Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 2001
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY JANUARY 22~ 2001
CASE #01-01 ZONING AMENDMENT, PUBLIC HEAR~G
NW CORNER OF HE INTERSECTION
OF LYNWOOD BLVD. AND BELMONT LANE
TO CONSTRUCT UNITED STATES POST
OFFICE FACILITY
CASE #01-04CUP-PIX)
NW CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF
LYNWOOD BLVD. AND BELMONT LANE
UNITED STATES POST OFFICE FACILITY
Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 2001
The City of Mound is the owner of the property previously held by United Propertie at~.
Dave Willette and will be the "applicant" for the Post Office approval process. The
components of the process include a rezoning from the current B-1 to Destination PUD
District and approval of a conditional use permit for site development standards. The
Planning Commission reviewed preliminary plans in December and some changes were
made in response to those comments.
The site includes approximately 1.15 acres and will be intensely developed to
accommodate all needed aspects of the project. The building will be centrally located on
the site with customer parking to the east and employee and delivery vehicle parking to
the west. The building is 6,500 square feet in size and a 2,000 square feet expansion area
west of the building is planned for future needs. Exterior materials include brick with
limestone and field stone details. A raised seam steel roof with a hip and gabled design
give the building a low profile. The front of the building will be at the front property line
and future stairs will extend into the existing right-of-way which will change with the
realignment of County Road 15. The rear of the building is 25 feet from the rear (north)
property line. The Destination District do not prescribe minimum standards for setbacks
but rather allow their approval through the development plan.
Customer parking includes 21 spaces at a 9 feet by 20 feet desi~. Two handicapped
customer spaces are located adjacent to the entrance. Access to the parking lot is from
Belmont Lane. The parking requirements are not specific to numbers for a post office so
the Planning Commission and City Council will need to determine the appropriate
amount. At the December meeting the Planning Commission indicated 21 spaces would
be acceptable if designed with a 9 V: feet width. The employee and delivery vehicle
parking area is on the west side of the Building. 16 employee spaces and I7 delivery
vehicle spaces are provided at 9 and 10 feet widths. A loading area for semi-trucks is
also located off Belmont Lane and is separated from the customer parking area further
screened by a decorative wood fence. Both Staff and the Post Office desired to have
semi-trucks be routed through the private drive on the west property line to the loading
dock area. Unfortunately the drive is not wide enough to accommodate the turning
movements of semi-trailers and these vehicles will need to back into the loading area
from Belmont Lane. Delivery. times are currently at 5:00 a.m. so traffic conflict issues on
Belmont Lane are greatly reduced.
The customer drop box location will not be on site but rather across the street in the City
parking lot. The Post Office needs separation between the loading docks and customer
parking area so the previous thoughts of a drop box by the dumpsters will not work. The
issue with the drop box is not that is has to be on the same site with the Post Office but
that it is convenient for customers. The City parking lot will be the most convenience
location because of the circulation needs.
Site landscaping will include a variety of deciduous and ever~een plantings and shrubs.
A landspace-planting schedule details the type and number of each. City minimums for
size would apply to the deciduous and evergreen trees.
Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 2001
Staff has asked that additional plantings be located in the yard space along the nortt ~~'
property line with the fence to be at the property line. The plantset does not represent thi
update but we anticipate a submittal for the Monday night's meeting to address staff
concerns.
The site has 86% ha/'dcover as shown which will require a variance to the 30%
requirement imposed until Mound has an approved surface water management plan. At
that time, the maximum for commercial development will be 75%. When the
realignment of County Road 15 occurs, the property will gain additional land area which
will conceivably be all greenspace. Estimates at time anticipate about another 7,000
square feet of property. This would bring the total ~eenspace to about 22%. This site
will require approval fi.om the MCWD. Regional ponding facilities will be used for
stormwater treatment. The City will also be the applicant to the MCWD if the surface
water plan is not adopted by that time.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the
rezoning and development plan by CUP as requested with the following conditions:
1. The USPS secures private drive easement with United Properties.
2. Agreements for a future sidewalk along the realigned County Road 15 are secured
with the USPS.
3. Installation of the monument sign is delayed until County Road 15 is realigned. The
future location should be at the comer realigned County Road 15 and Belmont Lane.
Commissioner Clapsaddle asked if there is a curb cut at Lynwood Blvd. and Belmont
Lane. City Planner Loren Gordon responded with no further explained where it would be
on Belmont Lane.
Gordon explained across the street would be the public parking area, the employee
parking area and a regional ponding area on the east side. The post office drop box will
be across the street in the public parking area. After discussion Gordon said having the
drop box across the street fi.om the post office is not an inconvenience to the public.
Along the bottom three feet will be fieldstone. On top of the fieldstone will be a lime
stone ledger. Staffhas not chosen color for the major part of the building yet. The
windows cannot be lowered. As it is submitted today, there is 86% hardcover. After
realignment of County Road 15, it will be about 78% hardcover that is close to City
standards.
Commissioner Glister stated that the Planning Commission decided parking would be no
less than 9 ½ feet as pan of the plan. This was discussed every time. We should require
9½by 10.
Commissioner Clapsaddle stated concerns in regards to the front door relationship to the
handicapped parking. Also, to what extent is this block retaining wall on the back
parking lot line. This could be modified so that there would not have to be as much of a
grade drop at the front of the building.
Planning Commission Minutes January 2~0~
Gordon responded that staff is not sure if the handicapped ramp will have to be there after
the realignment of County Road 15. Staff would like to work on a more presentable
enlzy way in the front of the building as Ixaffic will be busymmaybe planter boxes and/or
stairs.
Commissioner Clapsaddle stated that the screening wall is too tight and 20 feet for a one-
way drive is overkill. To reduce this would make a great difference in landscaping,
screening, and buffering.
Commissioner Hasse asked if the area that is now part of Fern Lane be extended for
another entryway. This could be used not necessarily for a drive through but for esthetic
purposes.
Commissioner Voss asked if there has been any discussion into having a drop box in the
new green space? This is a service/utility building and the City should have a drop box
drive through. Gordon stated that there is not enough property.
Open the Public Heating at 8:30 p.m.
Close the Public Hearing at 8:30 p.m.
Commissioner Mueller has a big problem with trucks going up and down on Belmont
Lane. This abuts a residential zone. He is requesting a better explanation of the though
process on this issue. Toro has a restriction of 7:00 a.m. as the earliest for truck to drive
on Lynwood Blvd. The City will be receiving numerous complaints regarding noise.
Gordon responded by stating that this design cannot accommodate semi trucks routed
through the Post Office site. Staff does not like the back-up situation.
Commissioner Mueller suggested flipping the entire building to avoid the back-up
situation. If we compare this to the Toro situation, this is preferential treatment. This
will negatively affect the neighbors.
Gordon responded by stating that staff has tried to work this out. The back-up situation is
going to have to be accepted.
Commissioner Voss stated that he does not agree with this plan and doesn't feel it was
thought out; however he will not vote negatively on this for the reason of possibly losing
the Post Office.
MOTION by Voss seconded by Clapsaddle to move this ahead to the City Council with
all staff recommendations.
Commissioner Glister asked who would field all the complaint telephone calls.
Planning Commission Minutes January 22~1
City Manager Kandis Hanson stated that she would field all complaint telephone calls. ~A
This seems to be a minimal impact when different zones are side by side.
Building Official .Ion Sutherland stated he would assist the City Manager with any and all
noise complaints.
Hanson gave the Commission assurances that staff argued long and hard on this diagram.
An opening was created in the parking lot. This is very important to the entire
downtown. It is a catalyst to the retail district and attracts people who might spend
money in the City of Mound.
Gordon stated that this plan has been entered into a Post Office Design Competition.
AMENDED MOTION by Voss seconded by Clapsaddle to include a Condition g4 to
include on parking spaces. 9 ½ feet by 20 feet for customer parking stalls. Also include
a strong recommendation that the design be reviewed and/or investigated for the potential
to lower the building pad and parking lot 24 inches.
MOTION carried unanimously.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: January 22, 2001
SUBJECT: Post Office Rezoning and CUP
OWNER: City of Mound
CASE NUMBER: 01-01 and 01-04
RKG FII,E NLrMBER: 01-05
LOCATION: Lynwood and Belmont
ZONING: B-1 to Destination PUD District
CO1V[PR~I:rENSIVE PLAN: Auto-Destination
BACKGROUND: The City of Mound is the owner of the property previously held by United
Properties and Dave Willette and will be the "applicant" for the Post Office approval process.
The components of the process include a rezoning from the current B-1 to Destination PUD
District and approval of a conditional use permit for site development standards. The Planning
Commission reviewed preliminary plans in December and some changes were made in response to
those comments.
DISCUSSION: The site includes approximately 1.15 acres and will be intensely developed to
accommodate all needed aspects of the project. The building will be centrally located on the site
with customer parking to the east and employee and delivery vehicle parking to the west. The
building is 6,500 sq. ft. in size and a 2,000 sq. ft. expansion area west of the building is planned
for future needs. Exterior materials include brick with limestone and field stone details. A raised
seam steel roof with a hip and gabled design give the building a low profile. The front of the
building will be at the front property line and future stairs will extend into the existing right-of-
way which will change with the realignment of County Road 15. The rear of the building is 25
feet from the rear (north) property line. The Destination District do not prescribe minimum
standards for setbacks but rather allow thek approval through the development plan..
Customer parking includes 21 spaces at a 9 feet by 20 feet design. Two handicapped customer
spaces are located adjacent to the entrance. Access to the parking lot is from Belmont Lane. The
parking requkements are not specific to numbers for a post office so the Planning Commission
and Council will need to determine the appropriate amount. At the December meeting the
Planning Commission indicated 21 spaces would be acceptable if designed with a 9 ~/~ feet width.
The employee and delivery vehicle parking area is on the west side of the building: Sixteen
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
#01-01 and 01-04 Post Office rezoning and CUP
January 22, 2001
employee spaces and 17 delivery vehicle spaces are provided at 9 and 10 feet widths. A loading
area for semi-trucks is also located off Belmont Lane and is separated from the customer parking
area further screened by a decorative wood fence. Both Staff and the Post Office desired to have
semi-trucks be routed through the private drive on the west property line to the loading dock
area. Unfortunately the drive is not wide enough to accommodate the turning movements of
semi-wailers and these vehicles will need to back into the loading area from Belmont. Delivery
times are currently at 5:00 a.m. so traffic conflict issues on Belmont are greatly reduced.
The customer drop box location will not be on site but rather across the street in the City parking
lot. The Post Office needs separation between the loading docks and customer parking area so
the previous thoughts of a drop box by the dumpsters will not work. The issue with the drop box
is not that is has .to be on the same site with the Post Office but that it is convenient for
customers. The City parking lot will be the most convenient location because of the circulation
needs.
Site landscaping will includes a variety of deciduous and evergreen plantings and shrubs. A
landscape planting schedule details the type and number of each. City minimums for size would
apply to the deciduous and evergreen trees. Staff has asked that additional plantings be located in
the yard space along the north property line with the fence to be at the property line. This planset
does not represent this update but we anticipate a submittal for the Monday night's meeting to
address staff's concerns.
The site has 86 percent hardcover as shown which will require a variance to the 30 percent
requirement imposed until Mound has an approved surface water management plan. At that time,
the maJdmum for commercial development will be 75%. When the realignment of County Road
15 occurs, the property will gain additional land area which will conceivably be all greenspace.
Estimates at this time antidpate about another 7,000 sq. ft. of property. This would bring the
total greenspace to about 22%. This site will require approval from the MCWD. Regional
ponding facilities will be used for stormwater treatment. The City will also be the applicant to the
MCWD if the suffacewater plan is. not adopted by that time.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the rezoning and development plan by CLIP as requested with the following
conditions:
1. Private drive easements with United Properties be secured by the USPS.
2. Agreements for a future sidewalk along the realigned County Road 15 be secured with the
USPS.
3. Installation of the monument sign be delayed until County Road 15 is realigned. The
future location should be at the coroer realigned County Road 15 and Belmont.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838
ZONING AMENDMENT APPLICATION
City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620
~nning Commission Date: Jan. 22, 2001
City Council Date: Feb. 13, 2001
Distribution: X City Planner
X City Engineer
X
X
Case No. 0'1-0'1
Zoning Amendment Fee:
Public Works
DNR
$250.00
Applicant
Name
Address
Phone (H)
City of Mound
(W) (M)
! J AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
It is requested that Section 350: of the Mound Zoning Ordinance be amended as
follows:
Reason for amendment:
I X I AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP I ZONING DISTRICT
It is requested that the property described below and shown on the attached site plan be rezoned from
B-1 to Destination PUD
Address & Legal Address Unassi,qne~
of Subject Lot 6-11 Koehler's Addition to Mound, Lake Minnetonka
Property Block Addition Koehler's Addition to Mound
PID~ 13-117-24-33-0085 and 0084 Plat
Owner of Name City of Mound
Subject Site Address
Phone (H) (W) (M)
Present Use of Vacant
Property
Reason for Implementation of Downtown zoning districts
Amendment
)plicant's Signature:
Owner's Signature:
Date
Date
JAN 17 2001
Application for
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620
Planning Commission Date: Jan. 22, 2001
City Council Date: Feb. 13, 2001
Case No. 01-04
Conditional Use Permit Fee: ~250.00
Distribution:
City Planner: X Public Works: X Fire Dept. X
City Engineer. X Other. Other:.
P!e~__~e ,rint the followin information:
r ;----------s ~1~; v~ i~....~ ~,,-- ,--,,-- ..... ~1 ................
PROPERTY
Subject Address Address Unassi,qned
INFORMATION
Name of Business
DESCRIPTION Lot 6-1 1 Koehler's Addition to Mound, Lake Minnetonka
Block Plat #
Su~.~ision PID~ 13-117-24-33-0085 and 0084
APPMCANT The applicant is: X owner other:.
Name City of Mound
Addr.~ 5341 Maywood Road
P~on~ (H) (W~ 952-472-0600
Name
OWNER
(if other than Address
applicant)
Phone
(H) (W) (M)
Name , Ayres
Associates
ARCHITECT,
SURVEYOR, OR
ENGINEER Address Eau Claire, WI
Phone
(H) ON) (M)
ZONING Circle: R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 Destination PUD
DISTRICT
CHANGE OF FROM: Vacant Commercial zoning
USE
TO: Post Office
Revised 10-26-99
Concrdonal Use Perm/t Appfcation
Page 2
Description of Proposed Use: Site will be the location of the new United States Post Office Facility for
Mound. The proposed buildinq is 6500 sq. ft. with expansion potential of an additional 2000 sq. ft. The
buildin,q will accommodate customer and mail room sorting and delivery functions. The site will
accommodate employee, delivery vehicle, and customer parkinq needs. Two Ioadin.q docks are provided
for semi-tracks,
EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vidnity,
including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and descdbe the steps taken to mitigate
or eliminate the impacts.
The new facility will introduce a new use to this IonR vacant site which will provide convenient and
accessible Post Office location for the community. This is a hi,qh traffic use and it's location on Lynwood
Blvd. provides for convenient traffic circulation patterns. Adjacent residential to the north will be buffered by
fencin,q and landscapin,q alon,q the north property line.
If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees
for the completion of the proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project:
$
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure
for this property? ( ) yes, (X) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and
provide copies of resolutions.
This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not
the case.
Print Applicant's Name
Applicant's Signature
Date
Print Owner's Name
Owner's Signature
Date
Print Owner's Name
Owner's Signature Date
Rev. 10-26-99
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
CASE # 01-01
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED
AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF
LYNWOOD BLVD. AND BELMONT LANE FROM B-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TO
DESTINATION DISTRICT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
ADDRESSED UNASSIGNED,
PID#'S 13-117-24-33-0085 AND 13-117-24-33-0084
P&Z CASE 01-01
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, January 22,
2001 to consider rezoning of property from the current B-1 zone to Destination District PUD for
purposes of constructing a United States Post Office facility.
Copies of the plans are available to the public upon request at City Hall. All persons appearing at
said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting.
Loren Gordon
City Planner
Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on January 11, 2001.
(Published in the Laker January 6, 2001)
' prtnterJ on reeve:ed paoer
p BLIC NOTICES
PUBUC HEARING NOTICE
CTT~ OF BOUND
BOUND, MINNESOTA
NQTICE OF A PUBUC
HEARINGOF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THE
APPROVAL OF REZONING OF
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEgT CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF LYNWOOD BLVD.
AND BELMONT I.~NE FROM B. 1
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TO
DESTINATION DISTRICT PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
ADDRESSED UNASSIGNED,
PlD#'S 13-$17-24-33-O085 AND
13-117-24-33-0084
P&Z CASE 01-01
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the
City Coun~ of the C~ty of Mound, Minnesola,
~ meal in the Council Ch-tubers. 5341
Maywood Road. at 7:30 p.m. on Monday,
Januar/ 22. 2001 to consider razoning ol
propa~y Imm the currant B-1 zone to
Deslination Distric~ PUD lot purposes ol
c~nsttucting a United States Post Offica
I-~ -'- ;/,Sublect !
' ' ' I~
~ of the ~s are ~i~ ~ ~
· t said hearing w~h relieve ~
will be ~v~ ~ ~ m ~
Lwen ~
(~ ~ The L~er'J~. 6, 2~1)
Creative Solutions tbr L~d Planning and D~sign
Hoisin~ton Koe§ler Group Lnc.
MEMO
Dcccmbcr 17, 2000
To: Mike Schech
U.S. Postal Service
CC:
Kandis Hanson, Mound City Manager
John Cameron, City Engineer
John Dean, City Attorney
Loren Gordon, City Planner
From: Bruce Chamberlain
Mound Visions Coordinator
Re: Post Office Plan Review.
We received the 95% drawings and cost estimate for the proposed post office in Mound on
Monday December 1 l, 2000. We also received your plan review comments dated December 12
by e-mail. Plans have been reviewed by City staffand the Mound Planning Commission. We
have the following comments:
For purposes of evaluating the project for Tax Increment Financing, please provide a
revised cost estimate that describes "base" project costs and "enhancement" costs.
Enhancement costs will be considered for reimbursement by the City through TIT.
The City will consider providing TIF for specific aesthetic project enhancements
requested by the City that are above and beyond what local and state codes require as
well as what would typically be required to consla'uct the facility. At this point in
time, we understand the enhancements to include:
standing-sean~ metal roof instead of asphalt shingles
· fieldstone bulkhead and column bases at the foundation level of the building
· cast limestone sill lintel and colunm capitals
· enhanced cedar fence at north property line
· enhanced retaining wall at north property line
some amount of excess soil removal fiom the site
· landscaping enhancements not to exceed an agreed upo~n dollar value
Self-explanatory construction drawings (including descriptive construction details)
regarding the enhancement components are to be provided to the City as soon as
possible. The approved construction drawings will be an attachment to the
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis. MN $5401
Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612~ 33g-6538
Jam 17 Ol 01:47p
Memo - Mike Schech, USPS
I~mbcr 17, 2000
?age 2 of 3
'/ 2.
development agreement between thc Postal Service, City and eventual developer
outlining distribution of TIF funds.
Enclosed is an AutoCAD drawing indicating a revised Belmont Lane right-of-way
line prepared by the City Engineer. It should provide the additional space on your
site n.'~:led for maneuvering and parking.
It is the City's goal to get your building located as close to the fiature CK 15 right-of-
way as possible. For that reason the Ci__i.~will ~a~n easement over the e.x.i.'st~g
Lynwood Boulevard sidewalk for po~om--fl'fl'fl'fl'fl'fl'fl~-~provements. T~h~s could p. oss!bly
~llow you to move the building up to 5 or 6 feet farther south than currently shown.
If you choose to explore this option, the City would waa~t to see a sli~=,htly wider
landscape buffer space at the north proper%' line. Having said this, there may be
utility challenges to this option including a school district, fiber-optic tine in the
ROW.
An issue that we've discussed before is a drive-up drop box. I understand the space
constraints on this site and your desire to keep the truck loading area completely
separated from the customer p',uking area. I am faxing a sketch alternative that I
prepared indicating how a one-way drive lane (in either direction) could be added to
allow for a drop box. The Ci~ would truly appreciate you taking one more look at
trying to make something work in this regard. The City can accommodate a drop box
in the parking lot across CR 15 but for a number of reasons, xve would like to do it
only as a last resort.
I am faxing you a very preliminary plan of a municipal parkin3 lot across CR 15 that
can accommodate overflow parking for the post office. You can see that we 5vould
like to designate postal parking very close to the Belmont intersection. Based on past
tragedies with mid-block crossings in Mound, the City would lLkely not support a
mid-block crosswalk to the post office site but would instead encourage all pedestrian
crossing to occur at the Belmont intersection.
We like your suggestion of stairs at the front door and would like to see it added to
the design. Depending on whether the building is shiRed south, the stairs may have
to wait until CR 15 is completed.
The City desires a site landscape plan prepared and signed by a registered landscape
architect. A plant mix including ornamental grasses, perennial flo~vers, shrubs,
ornamental and shade trees is encouraged.
It is our opinion that the parking stalls could comfortably be 18 feet in depth rather
than 20. This would provide more opportunities on the site for enhanced landscape
buffers - specifically, a couple more feet at the east building facade and several more
feet along Belmont Lane. ~
As part or' City approvals, we will need an easement agreement between the PoSiai
Service (assignable to the successful developer) and United Properties for access and
landscaping. The agreement should include language that al!o~vs permanent post
office access across U.P.'s site; and indicates how landscaping ~d ?ading will be
addressed and completed on the buffer strip shared by both properties.
17 O1 01:47p
Memo - Mike Sch~ch, USPS
De.c~mb~r 17, 2000
Page 3 of 3
10. Could you please provide more detaik'd information about signage contemplated for
the proj~t. The City is strongly discouraging the use of back-lit panel signs (even
though it is allowed by zoning at your site) in favor of raised-letter, front illuminated
or interior-illuminated, block letter signs.
11. The plans do ,~ot indicate the brick to be used on the building - please provide on the
next plan submittal.
This concludes the City's comments at this time. As you know, the City is very interested in
keeping this project on schedule. Please do what you can to ke~p it moving and if there are
additional things the City can do to help, la me know right away. }
~L~ERFERMcttve%~lOUND~99-24~)CS~PO_eva12.d°c
, C
.J
Jan 17 01 Ol:4Bp
o
p.B
Jan 17 O101:4Bp
-Q?
MOU_'ND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION_
MONDAY DECEMBER 11, 2000..
Those present: Chair OeoffMichael; Commissioners: Michael Mueller, Orvin
Burma, Becky Glister, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle,
and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Absent: Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff
present: City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Planner Loren Gordon, Building
Official Ion Sutherland and Recording Secretary Sue $chwalbe.
No Public present.
Chair GeoffNtichael opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
APPROVE MI?qUTES OF NOVEMBER 27, 2000
P LA~'VNI?V G C 021~vlISIS 0 N MEE TIN G
APPROVE MLYUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2000
PLANNI]VG COMi~SSION MEETIxYG
MOTION by Mueller, seconded Clapsaddle by to approve the minutes of the
November 27, 2000 Planning Commission and the minutes of the November 30,
2000 Planning Commission.
AYES: 8
NAYES: 0
Motion carried.
Presentation by Loren Gordon describing the plans for the-MoUnd Post Office. The
City of Mound now owns the site.
At th/s level, what we need to work on is some of the ske issues in regards to
building, landscaping, parking, etc.
This comer at Belmont and Lynwood was identified preliminary as part oft. he
Destination District of the Downtown Zoning Districts. With the proposal here we
would take those two parcels and rezone them to the Destination PUD District that
would guide ira use and performance.
The destination classification allows the public buildings as a permitted use.
would fit for a Post Office in terms of its use.
The Post Office Plans at this point are preliminary and are the design they would
Rke to use. In January 2001 this will come back to the Planning Comrnisison for
rezoning the parcel.
MOTION by Mueller seconded by Glister to adjourn meeting at 8:45 p.m.
MOTION carried unanimously.
Sue Schwalbe
Chair Geoff Michael
MEMORANDUM
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
To: Mound Planning Commission
From: Loren Gordon, City Planner
Date: December ?, 2000
Subject: Mound Post Office
The U.S. Postal Service has just completed design plans for the new Mound Post Office and we
would like to have an initial review and discussion with the Planning Commission at Monday's
meeting. Site ownership is in place to allow the project to proceed. The Postal Service would like
to begin construction late spring 2001. Having received the plans on Wednesday, we felt it
important to get it to the Commission t'or a review to get comfortable with the project before the
formal development review process begins in January. I'll provide further details on the project at
the Planning Commission meeting.
123 North Third Street, Suite I00, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838
UNITED ST/JTE~
USPS MOUHD
:?
II
I
II
II----.
II
11
II
11
II
II
II
tl
r---t 1~---
Ii
II
II
I!
II
I
m r
f--!
I
t
:?
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
IL_..
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
IL
II
ii
II
Il
Ii
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
t-
i
UNITED 'I'/ TES
LISPS MOUND
ASSOCIATES
Azdm~ I Engineem /
Kanfe~ Cif! F~ ~ ~0! ¢o1~ B',,d., STE ,~, ~ Pr.~k ~S e6211-;'4~3
II ~
F---IT---
II
II
II
i
i
FINISH
,1/4'
65A
UNITED.~I'aTE~
POST~L ~
usPs M~UND
0
0
o;~
L
LANE
F'ER~LANE
65A ,~ UNITED gaTES
"'"" --'"' ASSOCIATES
~'~: Architect~ / EnrjIneem / Scientists I 8utwyom
BLOCK RfIA!NING
UNITED ~I'/~TE~
I I
ASSOCIATES
Arclfitect~ I Engineem /
CII'Y ()1: MOUND ZONING INI.:ORMATION SIIEET
AD[~ffSS:
, q t/
SURVEY ON FILE? YEg / NO
LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO
YARD I DIRECTION
REQI qRED
ZONING DISTRICT. LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
R~ ~0,000/~0 BZ T,500/O
R~A 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80
R2 6,000/40 B3 10.000/E0
R2 14,000/g0
R3 S~E ORD. I1 30,O00/~00
I EXISTING/PROPOSED
IIOUSE .........
FRONT N S E W
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S E W
SIDE N S E W
REAR N
LAKE N
TOP OF BI.Ul'~ 10' OR 30'
GARAGE, SilED ..... DET^CilED BUll.DINGS
C:
FRONT N S E W _.:
FRONT N S E W -: ~..,-;
SIDE N S E W 4' OR
SIDE N S E W ~' OR 6' ...,.
REAR N S E W 4'
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
LOT WIDTIt:
LOT DEPTIt:
VARIANCI~
LAKE N S E w 50'
roP OF Ill.UFF 10' OR 30'
I IARI)COVF. R
30% (IR 4O%
CONi:ORMING? YES I NO / a [BY: ]DATED:
'rhi~ Zoning Inls, nm,on .:';hoer only summarizes a portion ol the requiremenls ouPincd in the ( :ily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, conlact the City of Mound
RESOLUTION #01-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND
APPROVING A CONDmONAL USE PERMIT, MINOR SUBDIVISION AND
ASSOCIATED VARIANCES FOR A TWINHOME DEVELOPMENT
LOCATED AT 1800 COMMERCE BLVD.,
PID # 13-117-24-23-0004
P&Z CASE #00-$9 AND 00-67
WItEREAS, the applicant, John Pastuck, has submitted a Conditional Use Permit, Minor
Subdivision and variance applications to construct a twinhome pursuant to City Code Section
350:630 on the property located at 1800 Commerce Blvd; and,
WItEREAS, the property is zoned R-2 which allows for twinhomes. The proposal would
split the parcels north/south creating two new lots. As proposed Parcel A encompasses 8533.8 square
feet and Parcel B encompasses 8381.0 square feet meeting R-2 twinhome zoning standards for lot
area. Lot frontage exceeds the 40 minimum at building setback.
WBEREAS, the property has lakeshore frontage and is subject to 40 feet of frontage for
each parcel as required by City Code Section 350:1225. Currently the total frontage at the 929.4
elevation is 22 feet. The property line is just on the inside of a seawall along the north side that
prevents conformance with this provision; and,
WItEREAS, The proposed twinhomes would be a two-story walkout with a two-stall
attached garage. Submitted building plans propose 3 bedroom units. The basement would walk out
and have possibilities for additional bedrooms to accompany living and storage rooms. Setbacks
conform to all R-2 requirements for twinhomes. Lakeside setbacks also conform. Hardcover is
measured at 30 percent for this parcel and is under as proposed; and,
WI~EREAS, a shared driveway access to Commerce Blvd is proposed; and,
WEIEREAS, the physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the type and density of
development contemplated subject to the conditions imposed herein, and the proposed subdivision
as conditioned is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing land use in the area; and,
WIIEREAS, at the Planning Commission has recommended Council approval of the
conditional use permit, minor subdivision, and associated variances.
NOW TItEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota:
A. Approves a Minor Subdivision with the following conditions:
1. Approval of a 30 feet lakeside frontage variance for Parcel B and a 28 feet lakeside
frontage variance for Parcel A.
Resolution #01-
Page 1 of 3
2. Payment of park dedication fees based on 10% land valuation as determined by the
Hennepin County Assessor.
3. This Minor Subdivision is granted for the following new legally described property:
See Attachment "A"
4. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution and easements with
Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording.
Approves a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a Twinhome with the following
conditions:
1. The City Attomey review and approve all legal party wall agreemems for consistency
with twinhome covenant provisions.
2. The driveway easemem be reviewed and approved.
3. Conditions as required by the City Engineer.
4. The City Engineer review and approve all grading and drainage plans prior to issuance
of building permits
5. Hardcover for each parcel be not more than 30%.
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.
Prior to any occupancy the applicant shall secure Certificates of Occupancy from the
Building Official. Certificates will not be issued for homes in the subdivision until
utilities and access servicing the homes are approved by the City Engineer, Public
Works Superintendent, and Building Official.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Councilmember
and seconded by
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Resolution #01-
Page 2 of 3
Pat Misel, Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
Resolution #01-
Page 3 of 3
Planning Commission Minutes January 22. 2001
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY JANUARY 22, 2001
CASE #00-67 MINOR SUBDIVISION- 1800 COMMERCE BLVD.
JOHN PASTUCK
The applicant has submitted a revision to the minor subdivision application to address
items discussed at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings regarding
lakeshore frontage. This item is being brought back to the Planning Commission for
review and recommendation.
The revised plan shows an outlot at the lakeshore to separate the two residential lots from
the lakeshore to avoid the provision in the Shoreland Management Ordinance which
requires the district minimum lot frontage at the ordinary high water line (Section
350:1225 subd. 2). By platting this outlot, the two residential parcels become separated
and avoid a variance to lot width at the shoreline.
Mound City Code does not define outlot. This is problematic in this case to avoid the
shoreline frontage issues as the code as written suggests that any newly created lot should
meet the requirement. Although staff would like to use a definition of an outlot to
describe it as holding area md/or for conveyance purposes the code does not make
provision for this to occur.
For either submittal, a variance is needed to shoreline frontage to approve a minor
subdivision. Staff believes that the outlot is a better alternative because, it keeps the two
residential parcels in complete conformity with the code.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the revised
request. Staff would also recommend the applicant prepare legal documents to keep the
parcel in some form of ownership that benefit both lots in perpetuity.
MOTION by Mueller seconded by Voss to move on the recommendation from staff for
approval of the subdivision as presented in the amendment survey dated 01-16-01.
MOTION carried unanimously.
MEMORANDUM
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
l ln
To: Planning Commission
From: Loren Gordon, City Planner
Date: January 17, 2001
Subject: 00-67 Minor Subdivision- 1800 Commerce
The applicant, John Pastuck, has submitted an updated minor subdivision to reflect comments
from the January 9, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. The plans now show the south lot as
lakeshore and the north lot as non-lakeshore. This revision will only require a variance for the
south parcel of 18 feet to the required 40 feet minimum. Staff recommends the Planning
Commission approval of the revised subdivision by granting an 18 feet variance to lakeshore lot
width.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2001
CASE #00-67 MINOR SUBDIVISION
1800 COMMERCE BLVD.
JOHN PASTUCK
The applicant has submitted a revision to the minor subdivision application to address items
discussed at the Plarming Commission and City Council Meetings regarding lakeshore frontage.
This item is being brought back to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation.
The revised plan shows an outlot at the lakeshore to separate the two residential lots from the
lakeshore to avoid the provision in the Shoreland Management Ordinance which requires the
district minimum lot frontage at the ordinary high water lien (Section 350:1226 Subd. 2). By
platting this outlot, the two residential parcels become separated and avoid a variance to lot
width at the shoreline.
Mound City Code does not define outlot. This is problematic in this case, to avoid the shoreline
frontage issues as the code as written suggests that any newly created lot should meet the
requirement. Although staff would like to use a definition of an outlot to describe it as holding
area and/or for conveyance purposes the code does not make provision for this to occur.
The bottom line is that for either submittal, a variance is needed to shoreline frontage to approve
a minor subdivision. Staff believes that the outlot is a better alternative because, if for no other
reason, it keeps the two residential parcels in complete conformity with the code.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the revised
request. Staff would also recommend the applicant prepare legal documents to keep the parcel in
some form of ownership that benefits both lots in perpetuity.
The attorney stated the City of Mound does not have a specific definition of a lot or an "outlot".
Therefore this would still require a variance. If we need a variance for the two lots, then we need
a variance for the outlot. Instead of two non-conforming lots now we only have one outlot that
needs a variance. Our recommendation is that this is a better approach.
Commission Mueller stated that these are not through lots because they do not go to the lake.
They will be 15 feet from the rear line. Is this setting a precedence in other areas of town where
we have an outlot on the shoreline.
Gordon explained that there are not many instances in Mound where lots are configured this
way. This is purely an ownership issue by the lot lines. The outlot does not change anything it
staff's mind.
Commissioner Voss would like an explanation of the last sentence of the report. (Staff would
also recommend the applicant prepare legal documents to keep the parcel in some form of
ownership that benefits both lots in perpetuity.)
Gordon explained staff would like the outlot to be in writing in some form of legal documents as
usage of the outlot.
Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2001
Commissioner Mueller is very concerned this will start precedent and that this will happen with
pie shaped lots that do not meet criteria of the code.
Commissioner Voss is also concerned with starting precedent and listed exact areas where this
could happen again.
Commissioner Mueller requested staff for a definition of an "outlot" and the hardship of an
"outlot".
Gordon explained this is a higher density corridor and the front of the lot is wider than the
lakeshore. The dimensions/configurations of the lots are the hardships. A condominium would
work and be acceptable to staff.
MOTION by Voss seconded by Michael, to recommend staff's approval with the amendment
that owner/applicant John Pastuck works with the city attorney for legal documentation on
ownership of the "outlot", to keep "outlot in joint ownership.
JOHN PASTUCK, 20305 EXCELSIOR BLVD. SHOREWOOD. stated this property without
the dock this is meaningless. This is just a twinhome so it does not make sense to turn this into a
condominium. Mr. Pastuck has the variance for the dock and the house is already there.
Chair Michael does not want to vote to set precedence.
MOTION withdrawn by Voss, second withdrawn by Michael.
MOTION by Voss seconded by Mueller to table item to the next Planning Commission Meeting
on Monday, January 22, 2001.
MOTION carried unanimously.
Gordon indicated, as per City Code a townhouse is three units or more. A twinhome is 7500
square feet per lot.
Commissioner Mueller feels the Planning Commission needs to define outlot and what is the
hardship for a variance for an outlot.
Gordon stated the configuration of the outlines would be the hardship and this has already been
rezoned.
MOTION by Voss seconded by Burma to reconsider a hasty action which is the table
MOTION.
Ayes 6 (Burma, Glister, Weiland, Hasse, Voss, Michael)
Nayes 1 (Mueller)
MOTION carried.
Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2001
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Michael to recommend staff's approval and that the Planning
Commission recommends City Council approval revised request and that the applicant must
prepare legal documents to keep the parcel in joint ownership in perpetude of Outlot A.
Commission Burma asked for clarification from staff as to options.
Gordon responded it was rezoned from R-1 to R-2 last spring. Single family is gone. A
twinhome or a two family residence would be the same thing without the lot lines separating the
two units.
AYES 1 (Voss)
NAYES 6 (Mueller, Burma, Glister, Weiland Hasse, Michael)
MOTION denied.
Commissioner Burma stated that the last meeting options seem to be workable and the outlot is
very disconcerting. Once we have a precedent this will shoot us in the foot.
Commissioner Mueller stated a variance with not enough footage on the shoreline would not be a
problem; but this does not mean a variance to an outlot.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Burma to table for the next Planning Commission Meeting
on Monday, January 22, 2001.
Ayes 6 (Mueller, Burma, Glister, Weiland, Hasse, Michael)
Nayes 1 (Voss)
MOTION carried.
Chair Michael stated that on behalf of the Planning Commission, I would like to thank Mike
Mueller for serving as Vice-Chair over the past few years.
'PUd~LIC NOTICE - CALL FOR VOL UNTEERS ..... '"-
Plann~mission. A three-year term. Meets the secon~l-~aid~fourth Monday of each month
at 7:30_ p..m. ~x ~"~"'
Chair.Mi~had st. ate. d h"~oncern for the int~ew process for the Commissioners for the
Plannin~~me th,,~. _a~. in_g Commission had a City Council Liaison that
changed his vote when the ite~-~ the City Council Meeting. That person was Steve Smith.
There~ling,,~b~t~,,~ the Planning Commission and the City Council. At that
time it was decided throu, gl~a Resolutio~v~ating that when a term was up a telephone call would
be ~ssi_one. r wo'ffl~ke to renew his/her term. On a 3-2 vote it was
decided by a Reso/kffion that the only time a vac-~Q, occurred on the Planning Commission was
if the Commi~ner decided not to sign-up again. ~
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
mn
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: January 4, 2001
SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision - Updated Report
OWNER: John Pastuck
CASE NUMBER: 00-59
ItKG FILE ~ER: 01-05
LOCATION: 1800 Commerce Blvd.
ZONING: Residential 1t-2
COMPREItENS~ PLAN: Medium Density Residential
DISCUSSION: The applicant has submitted a revision to the minor subdivision application to
address items discussed at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings regarding
lakeshore frontage. This item is being brought back to the Planning Commission for review and
recommendation
The revised plan shows an outlot at the lakeshore to separate the two residential lots from the
lakeshore to avoid the provision in the Shoreland Management Ordinance which requires the
district minimum lot frontage at the ordinary high water line (Section 350:1225 Subd. 2). By
platting this outlot, the two residential parcels become separated and avoid a variance to lot width
at the shoreline.
Mound City Code does not define outlot. This is problematic in this case to avoid the shoreline
frontage issues as the code as written suggests that any newly created lot should meet the
requirement. Although staff would like to use a definition of an outlot to describe it as holding
area and/or for conveyance purposes the code does not make provision for this to occur.
The bottom line is that for either submittal, a variance is needed to shoreline frontage to approve a
minor subdivision. Staff believes that the outlot is a better alternative because, if for no other
reason, it keeps the 2 residential parcels in complete conformity with the code.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the revised request. Staff would also recommend the applicant prepare legal
documents to keep the parcel in some form of ownership that benefits both lots in perpetuity."
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838
NATURAL HOMES
by JOHN PASTUCK
20345 Excelsior Blvd.
Shorewood MN 55331
612-470-9759
12/26/2000
To: ION S~
F~tou: lom,~ P.45TUCX
RE2 ~.hdlJ240R SUBDIVISION ..~qD C, ONDFFiONAL ~ PERlvffr FOR 1800 COIvIMERCE BLVD.
PLEASE F~ND ~ ENCLOS'ED .REVISION FOR ,M~ CONDFrIONAL U~E PERMrr. WHEN I 5IJB.MIi [~,L~ ~ OPdGL~AL
PROPOSAL I DI~ NOT REALIZE THAT rT WCL'LD KEQb'~d[ A VAP, L~NCE,. SL'q~ I HAD .~EADY OBT.kL'~'ED A BL'II.DLNG
PER,M/i' .~N'D A DOCK PER-~,ffT I DID NOT FORES~ THAT 'f/-IEPd[ WOb/.D BE A PKOBI. EM '.~TD{ A .MLXOR SL'~D[VIS[ON.
[ NOW b,-NDEKSTAND ~ PLAN~'NL'qG COM2MISSlON'$ ,%E.LUCTANCE TO SET, pP, E~NC~ BY GK.~'i'L~_.'G 'i-t-~ VAt~I.~NCE
D[JE TO ~ LA(,~. OF ~ FRONTAGE. MY I{EVISED PROPOSAL ~-IOUI..D SA/'~Ff Th~ PL.~'NLNG CON[%,ffS$[ON'$ CONC'X,i~NS.
[ PROPOSE SPLit ihqG TI-IE PROPI~,TY nqTO /'HR.EE LOT~. LOT~ ONE AND TWO WOULD COMPLY WITH CONDITIONAL USE
PEP,.%,ffT REQUIKEMENT~ AND OUTLOT A WOULD BE DEi~DED BACK TO TH~ OWNEi~. THIS WOL'LD BE CONSISTENT WITH
T~IE COMPR.EI-IENSIME PLAN, ~ ~XI~TING LAND UEE IN TH~ AREA AND WOULD NOT .%.5QL'IP, E A VAKL~'qC:-.
[ HAVE CI-IECK ED WITH THE Li%v[CD AND WAS INFORMED THAT THIS PROPOSAL WILL NOT EFFECT MY DoCK PEi~'vffT.
I HAVE ENCLOSED A COPY OF Th~ PROPOSED $UBDMSION, A SM.~[! m~. VEILSION .~qD A COPY OF TH~ DOCK
I WOULD LIKE TO RE~TE THAT TH~ PROPOSAL IS NOT TO ALLOW FOR ~ CONEI'KUCTION .45 A BUILDI/qG
I-IAS BEEN. OBTAI/qED A~ND CONST!~UCTION STARTED, BUT RATM TO BI~qG THE PKOPE~TY L'q LINE' WITH ~XISTLN'G
LAND USE IN ~ AR.EA. TI-I~NK YOU FO[[ YOUR CONSIDERATION.
LAKE IvKNNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
IN RE: APPLICATION OF STEVE CODDON
FINDINGS
i)EC 2 S 000
At 7:00 p.m. on July 12, 2000 pursuant to due notice, a public hearing was held at the Tonka Bay
City Hall in the City of Tor[ka Bay, MinneSOta, to consider the'at~pllcation of Mr. Steve Coddon for
variances from the side setback and dock use area pro~ision~ of the LMCD Code of Orrt~nances.
Following the public hear/rig, the Board tabled further discus~on to allow staff, the applicant, and
affected neighbors to anempt to resolve questions of allocation of dock space in the vicinity of the
applicant's property by a~eemenr-
Tl~e order set forth below is consistent with the agreement reached by the parties.
The applicant's property, is located at 1800 Commerce Boulevard,. Mound,. NEN'. It has 22 feet of
shoreline on Harrisom Bay. In addition to the relatively small amount of shoreline at the site, the
side lot lines, extended into the Lake, convene at a point that does not allow a reasonable dock use
area under the LMCD Code for dockage and boat storage for access to Lake Minneronka.
. Therefore, the Board 6ntis that a hardship exism, within the meaniug of I. aMCD Code Section 1.07.
The property to the north and west of the subject site is owned or controned by the Port Harrison
Harbor Townhouse Association that gaim access to the Lake' through a lagoon that is immediately
adjacent to the subject prope~,. Boat storage extending from the ~bject property at right angles to
the shoreline imp,~irs access to this lago°n The property to the south and east of the subject
property is owned or controlled by the Harrison Harbor Townhome Association. The Harr~n
Harbor Townh°me Association has adequate shoreline to accommodate the needs of the owners of
that AssociatiOn without m/rog the area of the shoreline immediately adjacent to the subject prope~
for permauent boat storage.
Both the Port Ha,-fison Harbor Townhome Association Rd the Harrkmn Harbor Towahome
Association have a~reed to the granting of a variance with the conditions hemimt'cer set forth. The
CLL-186500vi
LK110.4
Board finds that the granting of the variance described herein, subject to the condkions stated, will
provide reasonable and equitable access to the Lake for the subject property without unreasonably
impairing access to the Lake from adjacent properties.
ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that a side setback variance and dock use ares
variance for the subject property is granted and the dock use area for the Han'ison Harbor
Townhome Association property to the southeast is restricted, subject to the followin~_~ conditions.
The dock at the applicant's property shall be consu-acted in strict conformance with the sim
plan attached to tb~.~ Order as Exhibit I, and hereby made s part hereof.
o
The dock at the subject property may not extend any more than 9_5 feet in Ien~,,rch from the
shoreline a: NG¥'D 929.4.
No more than two boats or waterc'mfi may be stored at the dock or on or above the water at
the subject property.
No boat or watercr~ may be stored ax the dock or on or over the waxer of the subj~c
property that is more than n~n¢ feet in width or which has a length overall of more than 25
feet. For purpeses of th~s order, length overall is defined as the horizontal measurement
firom the foremost to the aftermost poims of the watercra~ including all equipment aud
attachments in their nonnal operathag positions.
No canopies shall be constructed or maintained in conjunction with the docks ax the subject
property.
The storage of beats, watercra~, or other facilities in the dock use ax~ of the Harrison
Harbor Association property located to the-southeast of the subject property shall be subject-.' ·
· to the followiug l{mltations:
CLL-186500,/1
LKI I0..~
The dock shall continue to be constructed and maintained in substantially thc
configta'afion shown on Exhibit 1; provided, however, that the Association may
apply for amendments to its dock plan in accordance with provisions of thc LMCD
Code relahng to multiple dock licenses.
bo
The dock extension rtmning along the shoreline from the boat slip area toward the
subject property tn the west may be maintained by the Associ~on as a "commons"
dock which may be used as a walkway as well as for transient use of members of the
Association or their ~ for picking up and dropping off[ passengers as weI1 as
fue!ing boats. However, the commons dock may not be used for penmanent or
ovemi~t storage of boats or watercmfh
Co
The area of the dock use area of the Association lying generally to the north of the
commons dock may not be used for the storage of wat~ sw~raming floats, ski
jumps, diving towers, or any other such related use, strucrares or equipment.
The variances granted herein shall grant no vested right to the use of Lake M~netonka. Such use
shall at all times remain subject to regul~on by the District to ensm'e the public of reasonable and
equitable access to the Lake.
BY ORDER OF THE LAKE MINNETONKA
DIRECTORS, m~ 27r~ day of 5~/~., 2000.
Attest:
CLL-186500vl
LK110-4
CONSERVATION
Do ~~,~~~/~uglas Ba~ock, C1~1-
DISTRICT BOARD OF
MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 19. 2000
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PUBLIC HEARINGS: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
CASE #00-59: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1800 COMMERCE BLVD. JOHN PASTUCK
Staff recommendations from Building Official Sutherland. The applicant, John Pastuck,
has submitted a Conditional Use Permit, Minor Subdivision and Variance Application to
construct a twinhome pursuant to City Code on the property located at 1800 Commerce
Blvd.
The property is located in the R-2 zoning district, which allows for two family dwellings,
the property is also regulated in part by City Code which allows for subdivision by
Conditional Use Permit with conditions. The proposal would split the parcel north/south
creating two new lots that do not meet the minimum yard requirement for Lake frontage of
40 feet as required.
A public hearing was conducted at the Planning Commission meeting where the Planning
Commission determined the physical characteristics of the site are not suitable for the
subdivision due to the inadequate lot width at the lake. In addition, the proposed
subdivision is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing land use in the
area. The Planning Commission has recommended Council deny the conditional use
permit, minor subdivision, and associated variances due to lack of hardship and
compliance with the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance.
Staff recommends the application of John Pastuck for a conditional use permit, minor
subdivision and associated variances for a Twinhome Development at 1800 Commerce
Blvd., be denied for the following above reasons:
Council Member Hanus had additional concerns; mainly of creating new lots with
variances. Also he requested some verification from the LMCD which the applicant has
not yet provided.
Mayor Meisel asked if the owner of the property was present. Steve Coddon, 5240
Lynwood Blvd., spoke for Mr. Pastuck.
Mr. Coddon went the to LMDC and was informed there was only 22 feet of lakeshore. A
compliant was made that this was illegal for docks. Mr. Coddon disagrees with the
condominium idea. The other properties have out-lots and there is a tax statement this and
no taxes are being paid on as it belongs to an association. Mr. Coddon stated that he was
promised from staff that this would go pass when he informed staff of what he was going
to do. City Council Andrea does not recall these issues with the LMCD.
Building Official Jon Sutherland asked if Mr. Coddon is suggesting modification to this
subdivision; which would mean starting the process again. Sutherland further explained
that Mr. Pastuck telephoned and asked if the item could be tabled so that he could be
present to address the council directly. However, due to the 60-day limitation this item
should not be tabled. Council Member Brown would like this item tabled until the end of
the meeting in case Mr. Pastuck arrives.
CASE #00-$9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1800 COMMERCE BLVD., ,IOHN PASTUCK
CASE #00-67 MINOR SUBDIVISION
1800 COM2VIERCE BLVD., ,IOHN PASTUCK
Mayor Meisel re-opened the public hearing regarding item 5A and 5B.
Mr. Coddon explained that Mr. Pastuck is still not available. Mr. Coddon is addressing
the Resolution Item 1B and believed it not to be accurate. Also the 60-day situation is
something to address.
Council Member Brown asked again for the property owner.
Council Member Hanus explained the building is not the issue. The splitting of the lots is
what the question. These lots are 22 feet wide at the lakeshore side.
Council Member Brown stated the Council could only approve or deny because the owner
is not present.
Mr. Coddon asked if this is denied does the owner have to wait one year to come before
the council.
Council Member Weycker would like to move to table under the condition that the
applicant/owner is willing to forgo the 60-day rule if not we move to deny. As per Mr.
Dean, this has been extended another 60 days from today.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens to table this Resolution and to continue the
public hearing and bring this back to the planning Commission next month.
MOTION carried unanimously.
RE$0LLrHON ~00..
A RESOLUTION TO DENY THE REQUEST OF $OHN PASTUCK FOR
A CoNDrrlONAL USE PERM1T, MINOR SUBDIVISION AND ASSOCIATED
VARIANCES FOR A TWlNHOME DEVELOPMENT
LOCATED AT 1500 COMMERCE BLVD.,
PID it 13-11"/-24-23-0004
P&Z CASE #00-59 AND 0047
Wl:I'~REAS, the applicant, Iohn Pastuck, has submitted a Conditional Use Permit (CUP),
Nfmor Subdivision and variance ~pplications to construct a twinhome pursuant to City Code Section
350:630 on the property located at 1800 Commerce Blvd; and,
WltEREAS, the property is located in the K-2 zoning district which allows for Two Family
Dwellings, the property is also is regulated in part by City Code Section 350:630, SUBD. 4., which
allows for subdivision by CUP with conditions; and,
Wlq-EREAS, the proposal would split the parcels north/south creating two new lots that do
not meet the minimum yard requirement for Lake Frontage of 40 feet as required by 350:630, SUBD.
4. C., and 350:1225. SUBD. 2.; and,
WI:i-KREAS, a public heating was conducted at the Planning Commission meeting where the
commission determined the physical characteristics ofthe site are not suitable for the subdivision due
to the inadequate lot width at the lake. In addition the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the existing land use in the area; and,
WKEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended Council deny the conditional use
permit, minor subdivision, and associated variances due to lack of hardship and compliance with the
minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance; and,
NOW TI~REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound,
lVfirmesota as follows:
1. The application of John Pastuck for a conditional use permit, minor subdivision and
associated variances for a Twinhome Development at 1800 Commerce St. is hereby denied for the
following reasons:
a) Lack of hardship and compliance with the minimum requirements of the zoning
ordinance.
b) The physical characteristics of the site are not suitable for the subdivision due to
the inadequate lot width at the lake. In addition the proposed subdivision is not
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing land use in the area.
c) The lots as proposed do not meet the minimum yard requirement for Lake
Frontage of 40 feet as required by 350:630, SUBD. 4. C.
2. The City Council ~u-ther finds that the granting of this request would be detrimental
To the public welfare and would convey privileges on this property that do not exist for other
properties.
3. The City Council further finds that if standards mad requirements are waived or
Relaxed for one property, other property owners have the right to expect the same kind of treatment
or their constitutional ri~ts would be ~iversely ~ected by ~rt~ to ~ply the equal protection l~ws
o~the Constitution to all residents.
4. The City Counm] further finds the applicant is able to re-l~e reasonable use of the
property as demonsta~ed by the ability to obtain a building permit to construct a conforming Two
Family Residence on the property.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councllui~mber
Councilmember
and seconded by
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Pat Mdset, Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
NOVEMBER 13, 2000
['LANNING COMMI55IO1N MEETING
PAGE 5
1800 COMMERCE BLVD., JOFL-N PASTUCK
The applicant has submitted a minor subdivision request to split property into two buildable lots to construct a
twinhome. The property is Zoned R-2 which allows for townhomes. The proposal would split the parcel
north/south creating two new lots as shown on the survey. Both Parcel A and B would meet R-2 twinhome
zoning standards for lot width and area for lot area and frontage. Variance would be required for lake frontage
of~0 feet for each parcel. Currently the total frontage at the 929.4 elevation is 22 feet. The property line is just
on the inside of a seawall along the north side that prevents conformance w/th this provision.
A duplex is currently being built on the property which was intended to conform with the twinhome CUP and
minor subdivision applications. The applicant began construction a few weeks ago a~er being issued a building
permit.
The proposed towuhomes would be a two-story walkout with a two-stall attached garage. Submitted building
proposed three bedroom units. The basement would walk out and have possibilities for additional
ooms to accompany living and storage rooms. Setbac.ks. conform to all R-2 requirements for townhomes.
side setbacks also conform. Hardcover is measured at .~0 percent for this parcel and is under as proposed.
As required by the townhome provisions, a party wall agreement is submitted along with easements for
purposes of sharing a driveway. Both of which will need review and approval by the City Attorney.
Park dedication requirements apply to this minor subdivision based on 10% of the land value or unit fee.
Hennepin County values the market value of the land at $65,500.00. A cash fee based on this formula would be
$6,550.00. A unit charge formula per the code could also be used for park dedication fees.
MINOR SUBDMSION RECOMMENDATION:
Staff r~commends the Planing Commission recommend Council approval of the minor subdivision as
requested with conditions as outlined in the City Engineer's report (1) Approval ora variance 27 foot lakeside
frontage for Parcel B and a 31-foot lakeside frontage for ?arcel A and (2) Payment of park dedication fees per
unit.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT KECOMMENDA_rI'ON:
/faffe foraCommends the plan~ing Commission recommend Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit with
[lowing conditions:
The City Attorney reviews and approves all legal party wall agreements for consistency with twinhome
convenant provisions.
The driveway easement be reviewed and approved.
Conditions as required by the City Engineer as follows.
NOVEMBER 13, 2000
pLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 6
Comments fi'om John Cameron, City Engiue:':
1. Additional survey work should be done, if this subdivision is approved, to verif'7 that the proposed
dividing line is located within the common wall between the two traits.
2. As required in all minor mabdivisions, clmimage and utility easement should be provided along the lot
lines, tea feet wide along County Koad 110 and five feet in width along the two sides. The rear or
easterly side should have a 20-foot wide easement, which would cover evea-ythln§ below the 100-year
flood elevation of 1931. There would not be any easement along the line divi,qlng the parcel because of
the building.
3. Easements between the two new parcels will need to be provided for the shared driveway. Somehow
maintenance of this driveway should be addressed, whether in the easement document or other legally
binding method such as homeowner's document.
Public works is coordinating the utility work with the ~plicant's utiliry contractor to provide separate
services for each trait, which is a City Code Requirement. If these services do not fall within the lot they
serve, the easement must be provided as part of the subdivision-
R. ecommendations:
1. Certification that the dividing line between the two parcels is located within the COmmOn wail.
2. along the westerly lot lines and 20 feet wide along the easterly side.
3. Provide access easement between the two parcels for the shared driveway.
4. Provide utility easements for the individual services, if necessary.
Cor0ml.qsioner Mueller asked what the hardship is for this variance request. Gordon ~'plained that the hardship
is the orientation of the lot, it is apie shaped lot.
John Pastuck addressed the Board and explained that he has an agreement with the neighbors and the I~MCD in
regards to clock issues. Commissioner Mueller requested a copy of this document.
Chair Michael opened the public hearing. No one present to address this issue.
Chair Michael closed the public hearing.
John Pastuck explained the reasoning for drawing the lot lines as indicated was to split the lots equally and
hilly.
Commissioner Clapsaddle questioned i%this lot could be condominiums as opposed to twlnhomc~. Mr. Pastuck
explained that is what he would have to do if he cannot sell them individually as twinhomes. Commissioner
Clapsaddle went on to explain if'Mr, paStuck changed to condominiums then the waterfront would then become
common ground to the two units.
Commissioner Clapsaddle Motion to two traits there re=mrdless and I ~ess it is a horse apiece'whether you
follow Mike's relational or my lack of rational. I would suggest Staffrecommendatiou for the minor
subdivision recommendation and payment of the park dedication fees and hopefully a better e:cplanation of#I.
Second by Commission Voas. ~;z~t_/_
NOVEMBER 13, ~000
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
pCUSSION (No discussion)
er Chair Michael there is no discu&s'ion on the floor.
AYES 2 (no call of names)
NAYES 7 (no call of names)
Motion failed.
Commissioner Nfueller moved th~ m~y ~xflxli~on to conforming to code. Seconded
by Commissioner We[land. Commi~oner Muffler withdrew motion.
Commission Muetler moved for denial ofml-or ~bdivixion. Second by Commi~loner Weiland.
NO DISCUSSION
AYES 9 (no call of names)
NAYES 0 (no call of names)
Motion carried.
Commission Mueller moved for denial of the Conditional Use Permit. Second by
Commissioner W¢iland
NO DISCUSSION
AYES 9 (no call of names)
NAYES 0 (nO call of names)
Motion carried.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: November 8, 2000
SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision and Conditional Use Permit
OWNER: fohn Pastuck
CASE i~MBER: 00-59 and 00-67
ItKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5
LOCATION: 1800 Commerce Blvd.
ZONING: Residential R-2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Medium Density Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a minor subdivision request to split property into
two buildable lots to construct a twinhome. The property is zoned R-2 which allows for
twinhomes. The proposal would split the parcels north/south creating two new lots as shown on
the survey. Both Parcel A and B would meet R-2 twinhome zoning standards for lot width and
area for iot area and frontage. Variance would be required for lake frontage of 40 feet for each
parcel. Currently the total frontage at the 929.4 elevation is 22 feet. The property line is just on
the inside of a seawall along the north side that prevents conformance with this provision.
A duplex is currently being built on the property which was intended to conform with the
twinhome CUP and rn~nor subdivision applications. The applicant began construction a few
weeks ago after being issued a building permit.
The proposed twinhomes would be a two-stow walkout with a two-stall attached garage.
Submitted building plans propose 3 bedroom units. The basement would walk out and have
possibilities for additional bedrooms to accompany living and storage moms. Setbacks conform
to all R-2 requirements for twinhomes. Lakeside setbacks also conform. Hardcover is measured
at 30 percent for this parcel and is under as proposed.
As required by the twinhome provisiom, a party wall agreement is submitted along with
easements for purposes of sharing a driveway. Both of which will need review and approval by
the City Attorney.
Park dedication requirements apply to this minor subdivision based on 10% of the land value or
123 North Third Slxeet, Suite I00, ,Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
riO0-59 and 00-67- 1800 Commerce Blvd. Minor Subdivision and CUP
November 8, 2000
unit fee. Hennepin County values the market value of the land at $65,500. A cash fee based on
this formula would be $6,550. A unit charge formula per the code could also be used for park
dedication fees.
MINOR SUBDMSION RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning
Commission recommend Council approval of the minor subdivision as requested with conditions
as outlined in the City Engineer's report and
1. Approval of a 25 feet lakeside frontage for Parcel B and a 30 feet lakeside frontage for
Parcel A.
2. Payment of park dedication fees.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning
Commission recommend Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the following
condition:
1. The City Attorney review and approve all legal party wall agreements for consistency
with twinhome covenant provisions.
2. The driveway easement be reviewed and approved.
3. Conditions as required by the City Engineer.
123 North Third Strut, Suite I00, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
Engineering · Planning · Surveying
_FRA
RECEIVED
N0V 0 9 2000
'.MOUND 'PLA'NNING &
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
November 7, 21)1)0
TO:
Jon Suthcrhmd. l'lanning and Zoning
FROM:
John (.'amcrtm. {.'ity Engineer
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
CUP and Minor Subdivision
1800 Commerce Boulevard
Case No. {}O-5q aild 00-67
MFRA #13076
As you arc aware, a huihling permit has hccn issued lbr the construction ora twin unit on this
property. There arc so,to issues thai x~, ill iwcd I,, l~c' addressed to allow dais parcel to be divided into
two sci)aratc parcels. '1 hc li)lh)xvillg a,'c my cmmncnls filial recommendations:
Coil! Il! ell tS
1. Additional survey work slu,uld be throe, if this subdivision is approved, to ~)erifY that the
proposed dividing linc is h~calcd xvithils thc common wall between the two units.
As rcquircd in all mis,,' suhdivisions, drai,mge and utility easements should be provided along
thc lot lines, ten IL. ct ~-i,lc ahmg { 'SAIl I I1} ami live l~:ct in width along the two sides. The rear
or easterly side sh,,,hl hax'c a 2il-lira! wide casement, which would cover everything below the
.100-year Ilood clcv;di~,n .1' ~}31. 'lhcrc v,'mdd m~t be any easements along the line dividing the
ptii'ccl bccausc of thc building. '-' :.: ·: ·
Easements between the two new parcels will need to be provided for the shared driveway.
Somehow maintcmuwe o1' this driveway sh.uld be addressed, whether in the easement document
or other legally binding method such as homeowner's document.
tSOSt! 23rd Avenue North , Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447
phone 763/476-6010 . fax 763/476-8532
e-ma#: mfra~mfra, com
Jori Sutherland, Plan,~ing a,~d Zo, iug
N0vembcr 7, 20(}0
Page 2
4. Public works is c()~rdi,]~li~g thc utility w(,rk with the applicant's utility contractor to provide
separate scrviccs Ii,,' ~'.~'h m~il. which is a ('ily ('~)dc rcquiremenL If these se~ices do not f~l
within thc lot they sc~ vt. lhct~ cascmctlls tmlsl I)c l)rovidcd ~ p~ of~e subdivision.
Recom melt dations
The Followings comliti~,~s sh~,uld be inclt, icd in ;my approval of~e C~ ~d Minor Sub~visiom
1. CertiI1catio~ that Ibc dividi~g lilac bctwcc~ Iht Iwo parcels is located wi~in ~e co--on wall.
2. Provide drainage m~tl utility ei~scmenls iix c IL'el wide ou the two outside lot lines, ten feet wide
alo~g the westerly h~t lilacs :md 2{} I~et wide ~l~g the easterly side.
3. Provide access easc~c:~l I~clwee~ lhe twt~ parcels For the sh~ed driveway.
4. Provide utility cascmc~ts I~r the individual services, it necess~.
cc: Loren Gordom I loisi~gtt~u Koeglcr Grl~up, h~c.
s:~min:kMim 13076:~Co~esp.ndcnccxsuthtn laml I 1-7
~-1~ :_~ Application for .:~ .:~' c i\/~ ~
-~c, cT'r~ COND~O~ USE PERM~ ' '=* "~' ' ~ ~
Ci~ ~ ~u~ ~ ' ~ ' ....~ n ~.n
_. ~ ~ :.~.,~
~ ~1 M~ R~, M~ MN ~
, SP.
Phone: 472~7, F~: 4~ ~¥iOU~iU ~LA~'.iNI~.i~ E '~
· ' ' "~ £ , Conditional Use Permit Fee: ~:250.00
!bulion:
PROPER'fY Subject
N~e of B~
~G~
DESC~ON
S~on
~MC~T ~e appl~ is:
Name ~O~
Phone
Name
O~ER
~er ~an
appll~)
Phone
(H)
Name
~CH~CT,
SU~O~ OR Add~
BGINEER
Ph~
ZONING Cimle: R*I R-1
D~CT
C~E OF FROM:
~E ·
Revised 10-26-99
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 me steps taken to mitigate
or eliminate the impacts.
If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this applica~on providing reasonable guarantees
for the completion of/the proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project:.
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, condrdonal use perm[ 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 resoiu~ons.
This application must be signed by all owners of Ule subject property, or an explanation given why this is not
Print Applicant's Name C-/~ap'~icant's Signature Date
Print Owner's Name
Owner's Signature Date
Print Owner's Name
Owner's Signature Date
Rev. 10-26.99
Application for
MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND
City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620
City Council Date: /' i ~, ~0~
DNR
Parks
Other
Distribution:
il. I~~O/) City Planner
· Ir Public Works
· City Engineer
Case No.
Application Fee:
Escrow Deposit:
Deficient Unit Charges?
Delinquent Taxes?
VARIANCE REQUIRED?
Please irint the following information:
PROPERTY Subject Address
IN~ORMA~ON
~IS~NG Lot BIo~ Plat
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION Subdivision
ZONING
DISTRICT Circle: R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 ~1 B-2 B-3
APPLICANT The appli~nt is: ~ner~ o~e~
Name ~ PI,J ~ ~ ~ ~U~
Phone(H)
OWNER Name
(if other ~an
appli~nt) Address
Phone (H) ~
SURVEYO~
ENGINEER Address ~
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure
no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
property yes,
This applica~ must ~~_._all owners of the subject property,
Owne~t.s/Sig~ature
or an explanation given why this is not the case.
Date
Owner's Signature
Revised 07-13-00
Revised 07-13-00
Date
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCDVER CALCt,ILATION-q,,
{IMPEflVIOU~ ~UflFAC;E COVE.flAGE}
LOT AREA O- FT. X 30% = (for 'all' lots) .............. I ~O?~,Z,~ I
LOT AREA
SO. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... !
LOT AREA SO- FT. X 15% = lfor detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided ~hat techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submi~ed
and al3proved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
LENGTH WIDTH
X,..
SQ FT
R ACHED BLDGS
AGE/~HED)
X
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
x =
e~Z~
X =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
DRIVEWAY, PARKING X = _~.~,'~,,,. ~.
AREAS, SIDEWALKS ..... ' -X =
ETC. × __
DECKS O~;.n deck;; (1/~," min.
TOTAL DRIVEWAY,- ETC "-
X =
opening bet"wean boards) with
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover TOTAL DECK ............ ' ..............
OTHER X =
X =
TOTAL OTHER
TOTAL HARDCO-VER / I~--P-~RVlOus'SURF/~'CE - - i ~rO '~'T
'' I
~~'--~VEFI (indicate difference) ............................... I-- ! D~ Z~' I
IPROPEBTY ADDRESS:-
OWNER'S NAME:
CRY OF MOUND
- HARD,.CDV~R CALCt,ILATIQNS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE]
LOT AREA . ~~. ~ SOo FT. X 30% = {for all lots) .............. I
LOT AREA _ SCL FT:~X 40% = {for Lots of Record*) ....... [ ,I
LOT AREA SCL FT. X 15% --"(for detached b=ldings only)
'Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitl:ed
.and a0proved by the-Building GfFmial. '
HOUSE
LENGTH WIDTH
SQ FT
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGEISH~D)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
X ~
X
TOTAL DETACHED
x =
DECKS Open decks {1/4' min. X =
opening bst~vee~nn boards) with · X
pervious surface under are X
not counted as herdcover
TOTAL DECK ......................... '-;' ~
OTHER
X =
TOTAL OTHER ......................... 3~
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE i '?..~i'.~ I
VER (indicate difference) J_ ~ ID. ~,- J
Cn'Y OF MOUND
I.I.a,I~DCJ3V;~ (~LCULATION$
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE}
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME:
!.O
LOT AREA
LOT AREA
FT. X 30%
FT. X 40%
FT. X 15%
-- (fo~ ail ~o~) .............. I~.~L.~I
= (for Lots of R~c~rdo} .......
= (fer detached buildings only} ..
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage 13t~vided ~hat techniques are ~n:ilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1 225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see 13ack). A 131an must be subm;~ed
end al313roved by the Building Official.
LENGTH W1DTH
HOUSE
:3 BLDG$
(GARAGE/SHED)
X
X
X
SOFT
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
X --
X =
TOTAL DETACHED IBLDG$ .................
X
X
X
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
=~ 3'Z.o
~Z~O
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS O,,n deck,, (1/~.' min.
HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ! ~Z~4~."/ I
OVERfindicate difference) ............................... J ~'~'.~'
I i
t~° ?~
Z
!
?~o0~03B
. (
.46'-70
'\
H.C.S.A.H'.
ACCESS
I
NO.
110
x/
( ~
/
\,
I
tl
(,I
I
H.C.S.A.H.
110
!
,b
ADDRESS:
SURVEY ON FIL,E?,~ES~ / NO
tOT OF RECORD? YES I NO
ZONING DISTRICT. LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
ILl 10,0go/&0
~.~ Sr000/40
~.2 e,ooo/¢o]
_~2 ~4,ooo/eo,/
R3 Sn~ORD.
Z~ 30,000/:00
¥.im j mR~i.C'~ON L lt~unt~
EXISTINg/PRO t~}SED
EXISTING LOT SIZE: ·
LOT WIDTI't:
LOT D~ t{:
VARIANCE
FRONT N S E W
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S E W
SIDE N S E W
REAR N S E W
LAKE N $ E W ~0'
, TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30'
GARAGE, SH~D ..... DETACHED BUILDINGS
FRONT N S E W
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S E W 4'
SIDE N S E W 4' OR
REAR N S E w
LAKE N S E W
TOP OF BLUFF lO' OR 30'
HARDCOVER
30% OR 4O%
IBY: iDA'TED:
YES / NO
This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizt"s a portion of thc requirements ouUined in tlne City .of Mound Zoning O~dinance, For further information, comact the Cie/of Mound
Planning Deparm~nt at 472-0~00.
-- '4]' .-
/~',~. · .'" _ =
· · i n g
: (17)
PARK
(
~..,'"'"t ,,.a &.s -_% OUTLO! Z
Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 2001
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY JANUARY 22~ 2001
3.1 ALDER ROAD PARKING PROPOSAL
City Planner Gordon explained this is a concept that Metro Plains had look at in regards
to the deficiencies in parking. Angle parking requires a 60 de~ee pull in. This would
add about 22 spaces for the Pond Arena and the Church.
Commissioner Mueller stated he is very much in favor of allowing this parking with a
9 ~/2 feet wide minimum.
Chairman Michael asked what is the minimum we should require. Gordon stated a
minimum of 18 feet fi.om bumper to the middle of Alder Road.
MOTION by Mueller seconded by Clapsaddle to move on the recommendations fi.om
staff to make this 9 ½ and 18 and to accept the hardcover to make it work.
AYES: 7 (Clapsaddle, Voss, Weiland, Glister, Burma, Mueller, Michael)
NAYES:. 1 (Hasse)
MOTION carried
3an 05 O1 02:~9p p. 1
December 20, 2000
Ms. Kandis I-lanson, City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Ma~vood Road
Mound, Minnesota 553o4-1627
SUBJECT:
City of Momtd
Alder Road - Diagonal Parking
i'vl FtL~, #13127
Dear Kand~s:
Enclosed is a sketch showing how Alder Road could be widened to thc sc, tnb to pro¥'ide diagonal
parking. At the present time, the parallel parking along this side of the strc~zt acc. omn~odatcs ten to
eleven cars. The diagonal parking as proposed using ten foot v,,ide stalls would double the capacity.
If nine foot wide stalls wcrc to bc considered the new total would be approximately 24.
Tt~c rclocation of thc curb line to x,, ithin six fcct of the existing Pond Arena building is made more
difficult than normal because o1' the grade difference bcm, een the building and the existing curb line,
espcciallv at thc west c~d. A retaining wall will need to be construcled no more than 18 inches
behind ti~e back of the new curb. This will provide the minimum 3.5 feet of fi-ost protection
necessary for the building footings. A minimum of three islands as shown on the sketch are
necessary to protect the streetlight, power poles, and some building equipment. These islands could
also bc landscaped to break up thc long expanse of continuous parked cars.
A very rough esti mate o f thc construction cost for these irnprovements'as described and shown on
the sketch is approximately $32,000. This estimate does hot include any engineering or
administrative costs or any costs that may be associated with relocation of existing streetlights
overhead power lines, or any underground utilities such as gas or telephone. The site plan and survey
furnished by Metro Plains Development with their development application were used as base
infm-mation to prepare the sketch and cost estimate.
15050 23rd, Avenue Nt~r!i~ · Ptynluuth, Mntu~$Ot~ · 55447
phone 767476-60t0 . tax 763,'476-~bb'2
e-mai/, m/ra~'mi[a.com
2an 05 O! 02:49p p.2
Ms. Kandis Hanson, City Manager
December 26, 2000
Page 2
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us.
Sincerely,
MFRA
John Cameron, City Engineer
JR:pry
Enclosure
cc: Bruce Chamberlain, l-toisington Koegler Group, Inc.
s:\main:\Muu 13127 :~(.'orr~-sp,mde~,cc',hunson 12-2 !
2an O~ 01 02:4~p
· . TiM~,WAI
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364-1687
PH: (952) 472-0600
FAX: (952) 472-0620
WEB: www. cityofmound.com
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
CASE NO.:
LOCATION:
City Council Agenda of February 13, 2001
City Council, Applicant, and Staff
n Sutherland, Bnilding Official Kelly Bopray, MFRA, LPSS, John M.
LeFevre, Kennedy & Graven
Requests from Peterson Environmental for the City Council to review
the Staff Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) No Loss and Exemption
Decisions
Peterson Environmental/CO The Beckers
1355 Mendota Heights Road, Suite 100
Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120-1112
01-09
Lots 5-8, Block 4 of Harrison Shores Development
Backeround
The current requests under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) on behalf of the Beckets
were made August 8, 2000, by Peterson Environmental. The requests were for either: (a) "no-loss"
determination; or, (b) exemption under the WCA. The effect of granting the request would be to
allow Beckers to develop their property without the need to comply with the WCA requirements to
accurately delineate the location of wetland and show that wetland impacts would not occur or to
provide for replacement of any wetland impacted by development. The August 8 request was
accompanied by a detailed report by Peterson Environmental. Peterson's argument was that
jurisdictional wetlands were not involved because the Becker property had been substantially
disturbed and filled by previous development in the area dating back to 1961, and that there were
not clear indications of wetland.
printed on recycled paper
When technical wetland issues are involved in an application to the City, the City may
convene the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) to consider such issues and make recommendations
to the City. In considering this request, the City convened the TEP panel, consisting of' Doug
Snyder of BWSR, Dave Thill of HCD and Jon Suthedand of the City. The TEP panel has visited
the site several times in recent years. The TEP panel met with Peterson and considered the Peterson
submissions and held discussions with its consultant, Kelly Bopray of MFRA, Joe Yanta of Corps
of Engineers, Wayne Barsted of MnDNR, and other staff members of BWSK After deliberations,
the TEP issued its recommendation on October 10, 2000, which was to deny the request for a no-
loss determination or exemption. After Peterson asked the TEP to reconsider its October 10 report,
the TEP on October 23, 2000, issued a clarification letter, explaining that if additional relevant
information was submitted, the issue might be reconsidered by the TEP. Copies of TEP reports are
attached.
On November 7, 2000, City staff issued its Notice of WCA Decision, accepting the TEP
recommendation to deny the requests for no-loss determination or exemption (copy attached).
When Beckers requested an opportunity to make a presentation to City Council, City staff agreed to
withdraw its Notice of Decision so that the matter could be considered by the Council. A copy of a
letter from John M. LeFevre, Jr., to Ron Peterson dated November 22, 2000, along with Peterson's
responses dated December 5 and December 12, 2000, and John Dean's letter to Peterson (counter
signed), dated January 18th, 2000, are attached.
On behalf of Beckets, Peterson submitted to the Council members its letter of December 21,
2000, outlining its points in objecting to the TEP recommendations and in arguing in favor of a no-
loss determination or exemption under the WCA.
No-Loss Determination.
In order to show they are entitled to a no-loss determination under the WCA, Beckets must
show that the work they propose will not drain or fill a wetland. WCA Rules 8420.0220. Beckers
contend that the development of their property will not affect a wetland because their property does
not contain a wetland under applicable definitions.
Exemption Request.
In order to show they are entitled to the requested WCA exemption, Beckers must show that
although wetland is present on the property, it was created solely as a result of actions by public or
private entities that were taken for a purpose other than creating the wetland. WCA Rules
8420.0122, subp. 5.
The TEP recommendations, and the proposed staff decisions, were that Beckers had not met
these requirements for either a no-loss determination or an exemption. Based on the documentation
reviewed by the TEP, the TEP panel concluded that wetland existed on the site, but that Beckers
had not adequately demonstrated the extent of the wetland or the extent of the proposed project.
These conclusions are set forth in the November 7, 2000 Notice of Decision with attachments.
Previous Action by City Council. The wetland issues on the Becket property have been
before the Council before. During 1998, Beckets applied for a permit to fill and grade their
property for purposes of development. The permit was denied by City staff, after consideration by
the TEP panel, on grounds that wetlands existed on the property which had not been adequately
delineated. When Beckets appealed the staff decision to the Council, the Council appointed an
independent hearing officer to hear the evidence and make recommendations to the Council. The
2
hearing officer, in detailed recommendations, found that wetlands were present on the site which
had not been properly delineated. The Council adopted the findings and affirmed the staff permit
denial, but offered the opportunity to Beckers to continue to monitor water levels on the property
and to submit additional data or a revised wetland delineation to the TEP if appropriate. The TEl>
met with Becker's former consultant (BARR Engineering) in the summer of 1999, agreed on a
revised wetland boundary, however, the surveyed wetland boundary was never provided to the City
or TEP.
Format.
The format for consideration of these issues will be as follows:
a. John M. LeFevre of Kennedy & Graven will introduce the issues and summarize the
background;
b. Ron Peterson ofPeterson Environmemal will lead the presentation for the Beckers;
c. City staff and consultant, Kelly Bopray, will explain the basis for the TEP reports;
d. Council will decide how it wishes to proceed. It may, for example, request proposed
findings from both sides; and,
e. Council will consider final decision at its meeting on February 27, 2001.
Options for Council to Consider:
1. Affirm staff determinations, based on TEP recommendations, to deny requests for a
no-loss determination and exemption.
2. Reverse staff determinations and grant requests for either a no-loss determination, or
exemption, or both.
OZ-O~-01 03:~Ipm From-KENNeDY & ~RAV~N +B1Z~?9910 T-696 P.06/O~ F-~50
CITY OF MOUND
53-'1 .,a~¥wCCD ROAD
NOTICE OF WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT DECISION
APPLICANT:
T;m BecKet
Dale an(3 Lorell BecKer
DATE OF DECISION:
November '"7 2000
OFFICIAL LGU DECISION;
The C~ty accepes t~e attacl~ed TEP Panel recommen{3at~on conta~ne~ in [lie ~etter of October
10. 2000 (copy attacheO) and hereby denies T~m, Dale and Lore, il Becl(er's application for a
WCA NO LOSS reques[. Based upon [ne same TEP Panel recommenaadon, [ne Chty also
herelDy =enies Tim, Date eno Lorell Becket's appticatmn for an Exemp~icn Decis;o~.
In acc, it:cc,, as explainee m the TF-.P Panel letter of Octo0er 23, 2000 (cop~ anacheC[). ~f
a~monai relevant reformation ;$ $~:~m~8C, [P, ese issues may be recon$[~ere¢.
TYPE OF APPLICATION (check all that apply):
~ Exemption Decision _~L No LOSS Decision
~ Replacement Plan Decision ~ Banbng Plan Decision
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Lo~s S-8, aloc~ 4 of Hamson Shores Devetopmem
Landown ers:
Tim ~ecker
8919 North Snore Drive
Eau Claire. wi 54703
Dale eno Lorell BecKer
5205 Beacnsioe Drive
Minnemnka, MN 55343
Technical Evaluation Panel:
Doug Snyder
BWSR
One West Water S;reet
Suite 200
St. Paul, MN 55107
Dave Thdl
HCD
10801 Wayzata Blvct
Suite 240
Minnea3n~,3, MN 55305
Jon Sutherlano
Ci~ of Mound
5341 May~ood Roao
Mouno, MN 55364,
Wa[ershed District:
Jim Hafner
Minnehana Creek Watershed District
Gray Freshwater Center
2500 Sna~:y~oo(3 Road
Exce~s,or. MN 5583~
Departrnen~ of Natural Resources:
Joe R~cnter Wayne Barstect
MNDNR Ecmogmal Services Section
1200 Warner Roao 500 Layfayet~e Roao, Box 25
St. Paul, MN 55106 St. Paul, MN 55155
--.,%
OZ-O?-OI O3:$Zpm From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +;IZ33?g310 T-636 P.07/09 F-?50
Inlefe.~ed pa~es:
,Joe Yanta
Army Corp of Enginee~
ATT'N: CO-R
1 ~0 Fifth Stm~ E~
~t. Paul, MN 55101
Kelly 8opray
MFRA
15050 23~ Avenue
PlymoUth. MN 5S447
Peterson Environmental
Ronak~ Peter~on
1355 Menclota Heights Roacl
Suite 100
Menclota Heights. MN 55120
You am hereby notified that the c~ecision of the Local Govemmem Unit on the at~ove-referenced
application wa~ matte on tl~ date slate~ at.ye. A copy of tile Local Government Unit's l=inc:ings
and Conclusions is attac,qed. Pul~uant to lY~n. R. 8420.0250 any appeal of tl~e ~ecision must I~
commenced by ma~ling a petition for appeal to the Minnesota Boar~ ot Wa[er an~ Soil Resources
witl~in fifteen (1 S) c~ays of trte date of the ma~ling of tllis Notice.
DATE OF MAiLiNG OF THiS NOTICE:
CITY OF MOUND ~
TITLE: ~UiLDi,NG OFFICIAL,
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA 5536..t-~
1612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
October 23, 2000
Ron Peterson
1355 Mendota Heights Road
Suite 100
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Subject: Addendum to 10/10/2000 TEP Decision regarding the Becker sites
Dear Mr. Peterson
Please be advised that further discussions between Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP),
members and the applicant's consultant (Peterson Environmental Inc.) have led the TEP
to further clarify the 10/10/2000 recommendation pertaining to the application of the
Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) incidental wetland exemption (MN Rules Chapter
8420.122 subp.5).
The TEP members are in agreement that the incidental wetland exemption would apply to
wetland areas that were expanded as a result of the 1994 activities. The WCA Rules
place the burden of proof on the applicant to show eligibility, for the exemption. The
applicant has indicated that he has provided the best available information. However, due
to the degree of precision of the technical information (i.e. surveys with two-foot
contours), the historical disturbance of the Becker site, and the lack of a surveyed wetland
boundary as determined by Ban: Engineering in 1999, a precise determination of existing
wetland eligible for the WCA incidental exemption remains quite difficult.
Surveys with two-foot contours have, by definition, a margin of error of *_ 1 foot.
Therefore, it is possible that the elevation changes shown in the cut/fill analysis provided
by the applicant fall within the margin of error of the two surveys. In other words, the
entire loss of elevation could be the result of differences in surveys, not from an actual
removal of soil.
On the other hand, one would not often expect, on a site of this size and configuration,
that the surveys would be reaching the limit of their margins of error. The TEP believes
it would be reasonable to apply the incidental wetland exemption to wetland area(s) that
Drtnted on recycled paoer
show greater than 1 foot of soil removal or elevation change. However, without a survey
of the delineated boundary by Ban' Engineering the TEP has no way to determine
whether these areas fall inside or outside of the existing wetland.
One suggested option is to use the 931.5(1998 BARR) elevation contour, which the TEP
believes closely follows the existing wetland boundary. Wetlands landward of the 931.5
contour as shown on the 1992 Cardarelle survey which show a greater than 1 foot
elevation change might be considered incidental. While this is not as precise a method as
having a surveyed wetland boundary it is a reasonable and prudent alternative for the
WCA local governmental unit to consider. Some work may still need to be done to
determine if jurisdictional wetland is present above the elevation contour used to
~~/24/00
Building Official
City of Mound
Doug Snyder 10/24/00
Board of Water & Soils Resources
David Thill 10/24/00
Hermepin Conservation District
CC
Tim Becker
6919 North Shore Drive,
Eau Claire, WI 54703
Dale and Lorell Becker
5205 Beachside Drive
Minnetonka, MN 55343
CITY OF MOUND
October 10, 2000
~Tim Becker
6919 North Shore Drive
Eau Clarie, WI 54703
~Dale and Lorell Becker
5205 Beachside Drive
Minnetonka, MN 55343
5341 MAYWCOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
' Ron Peterson
1355 Mendota Heights Road
Suite 100
Mendota Heights, ~ 55120
Wetland Conservation Act Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP)
September 28, 2000
Becker Properties, Lots 5-8, Block 4 of Harrison Shores Development
TEP members present:
Jon Sutherland, City of Mound
Doug Snyder, Board of Water and Soil Resources
David Thill, Hennepin Conservation District
Applicants Representatives: Ron Peterson, Peterson Environmental
Jim Amdt, Peterson Environmental
TEP Advisors Present:
Joe Yanta, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Kelly Bopray, MFRA/City of Mound
The TEP was called to review the August 8, 2000 analysis of Wetland Jurisdictional Status
Report prepared by Peterson Environmental on behalf of Timothy Becker. According to this
report the site has been severely disturbed and each of the three mandatory wetland parameters
are only marginally if at all present on the site. Peterson Environmental indicated the
preponderance of evidence and guidance to use a conservative approach when evaluating
disturbed conditions should lead to a conclusion that no wetlands are present on the Becker site.
The Beckers are requesting the City of Mound to make a No Loss Determination or exemption
decision, and Peterson Environmental provided a signed application on September 29, 2000.
Another site visit was not conducted as part of this TEP meeting.
TEP Findings
Site Histo~: The Peterson report provided a more detailed analysis of the historical disturbances
of the site. Aerial photos indicated excavation of the lagoon in 1960/61. These photos show
grading, presumably of the dredge spoils on the Becker site as well as the sites surrounding on
the dredged lagoon. Soil borings identified dredge soils on top of the original soil. Some soil
borings also identified fill material from one or more events possibly related to road
reconstruction, utility improvements, the 1994 riprap project/flood plain violation, or other
undetermined fill episodes.
Vegetation: Based on the vegetation identified by Peterson Environmental all twelve
observation sites (including upland areas) were dominated by hydrophytic vegetation. This is
consistent with previous reports on the site and observations by the TEP on previous site visits.
The Peterson report indicates that some wetland plant species, reed canary ~ass in particular,
can continue to dominate disturbed areas and therefore is not a reliable indicator of the
jurisdictional status of disturbed area. The Peterson report, previous reports, and site observation
by the TEP all acknowledged the presence of FAC - and dryer species in minor to common
occurrences scattered through out the site. FACW and OBL wetland plant species were also
noted in the areas in question. The Peterson report suggests that where the vegetation is marginal
or suspect to not being representative of current conditions a "conservative" determination
should conclude hydrophytic vegetation is not present. The TEP disagreed with Peterson's
interpretation and indicated that at the upper mar~n of a wetland (disturbed or not) marginal or
suspect vegetation would be anticipated. Furthermore if the other wetland parameters are present
the preponderance of evidence would support the conclusion that a hydrophytic vegetation
community is present.
Soils: The Peterson report relies on Hydri¢ Soils Technical Note 5: Using Hydric Soils
Indicators in Disturbed Soils published by the National Technical Committee on Hydric Soils
(NTCHS) to conclude the soils on the site are not hydric soils. The basic argument made is that
the thickness of the dredge and fill material converts the ori~nal soils to non-hydric soils. The
Peterson report indicates the maximum fill that can be added to a mucky histosol is 16 inches; 12
inches to a mineral soil with an organic surface, on 0 to 12 inches for other mineral soils. The
soils described by Peterson had 16 to 40 inches of fill and therefore Pererson concluded the soils
were no longer hydric soils. The Peterson report is correct in concluding that where more than 16
inches of fill was placed over an organic soil, it no longer would be classified as a Histosol and
therefore would not meet Criteria 1 of the hydric soils definition. The TEP generally agrees with
the NTCHS Technical Note 5, however one of its short-comings is it does not directly address if
hydric soil is developing in the fill material placed on a hydric soil. Whether through
compression of the original organic soils or a water level that occurs above the surface of the
original soils, the water level may actually occur in the fill material and a "new" hydric soil will
develop over time. The Becker site is problematic because much of the fill material consists of
dredged hydric soil material. With the exception of the upland fill material, nearly every, soil
horizon described had a soil matrix color with a value of 3 or less, and a chroma of 1 or less. The
Peterson report mentioned the absence of redoximorphic features in one of the soil profiles but
otherwise did not indicate their presence or absence. Previous soil descriptions by another
Consultant (Ban' En~ineering) for the applicant, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's
Engineering Consultant (Wenck Associates, Inc.), the City's Engineering Consultant (MFRA),
and TEP observations all identified redoximorphic features within 12-inches of the surface (in
fill material). It could be argued that some of these redoximorphic features are relics from the
source oft he fill material. However, some of the soil profiles include descriptions of oxidized
rhizospheres, which indicate at least those redoximorphic features formed under recent anaerobic
conditions. TEP field observations of saturation to the surface in 1999 in several areas of the site
further support the TEP conclusion that newly formed or incipient hydric soils are present. Since
the soils developing in the fill material are relatively young (40 years), they might not have
developed sufficiently to meet the NRCS field indicators criteria.
Hydrolo~y: The Peterson report reinterpreted the piezometer data originally presented by Barr
En~neering and presented additional data collected by the applicant during 2000. The Peterson
report concluded that the water level in the piezometers were only within 12 inches of the surface
for brief periods of time during 1999, an abnormally wet period based on 30 and 90 day moving
precipitation sum data. The TEP indicated that this analysis may over emphasize the effects of
individual storm events. Individual storm events can exceed the daily average precipitation by
several fold, and therefore, on a short-term basis, an individual storm event or series of storm
events over a short time period can ~ve the data the appearance of being abnormally wet for that
period. The TEP looked at a similar climatic analysis over a longer period of time (attached) and
concluded the 12 month period leading up to April 1999 ~vas drier than average and while May
was statistically a "wet" month, data collected in May should still be considered to fall within the
normal climatic range because the preceding 12 months were drier than average. Therefore, the
TEP continues to maintain that the climatic conditions were within normal range during the
periods when the piezometer data indicated a watertable within 12 inches of the surface.
Additionally, the TEP made direct observations of saturation to the surface, and the watertable
within 12 inches of the surface in open bore holes in several areas of the site during a previous
TEP meeting. The presence of primary and secondary indicators of wetland hydrolo~m~' supports
the TEP conclusion that wetland hydrology does still occur in the area in question despite the
historical disturbance.
Topography: The Peterson report revisited the issue on the difference be~veen pre-1994 and
post-1994 surveys. The discrepancies between the surveys (1992 and 1998) are attributed to over
excavation, directed by the City and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District in order to remove
a floodplain fill violation in 1994. There is no dispute that there is a difference between the two
surveys. Other surveys of the site exist, including a partial survey by Mlrl~A performed for the
Beckers in 1995. Plotting a cross-section of the site based on these topographic surveys shows
that there are differences between each of the surveys (attached). There are differences between
the two pre-1994 surveys (1983 and 1992), as well as the three post-1994 surveys (1995, 1996,
and 1998). Since no significant topographic changes should have occurred before or after 1994,
the figure illustrates that difference between the surveys is not necessarily a "real" or on the
ground difference attributable to the fill violation corrective action. Furthermore, 8 of the 12 soil
profiles described in the Peterson report identify upland fill at the surface. Four of the soil
profiles specifically attribute the upland fill to the 1994 actions. The TEP recognized that during
the fill violation corrective action, some incidental "old fill" may have been removed as well as
some "1994 fill" being left in-place. The topogaphic analysis does not conclusively show that
the City or Watershed District caused the Beckets to over excavate the site.
Kelated to this issue, the Peterson report points to the adjacent properties which maintain lawn
area in similar topographic positions as occur on the Becker site. These sites were graded and
developed pr/or to the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991. Site grading in 1960/61 occun'ed on
the Becker site, but it was not demonstrated that wetland conditions were eliminated as a result
of that grading.
TEP Recommendations
Based on the documentation reviewed by the TEP, hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and
wetland hydrology do exist on the Becker site. A no impact determination should not be issued
at this time because the extent of the wetlands and the extent of the proposed project have not
been demonstrated to the TEP.
The October 1999 TEP recommendation to survey the adjusted wetland boundary that reflects
the areas which TEP believes meet the wetland criteria, and to use that boundary in any future
site plans for the lots still stands.
Although the TEP agrees the documentation supports the fact that the original wetland was
severely disturbed, it does not conclusively show that wetland conditions were completely
eliminated, or the precise amount of wetland that may have resulted from the 1994 fill violation
corrective action. Therefore, the extent that the incidental wetland exemption may apply is still
~n~er'l~nd .... ' Date
CTcy o'f'M~nd
Doug Snyder
Board of Water & Soils Resources
10/9/00 10/9/00
Date David TI.ill Date
Hennepin Conservation District
WETS station: MAPLE PLAIN, MN5136
Precipitation (inches)
Monthly
30% chance will have
Month Average less than more than
Jan 0.87 0.39 1.07
Feb 0.81 0.4 0.99
Mar 1.61 1.02 1.94
Apr 2.62 1.61 3.17
May 3.82 2.7 4.52
Jun 4.49 3.18 5.32
Jul 3.96 2.81 4.69
Aug 3.76 2.48 4.51
Sep 3.36 2.18 4.04
Oct 2.7 1.4 3.3
Nov 1.6 0.66 1.94
Dec 1.16 0.56 1.47
Actual Precip
Annual 30.74 24.64
More 32.96
Less 27.04
Actual Precip above includes the .73 from St Boni site.
Even with this addition, the 12-month period would be
considered statistically Dry.
Climate Data Retrivel "Closest Sta
Hennepin 117N 24W S24
Year Month Precip
1998 Apr 0.91
May 3.79
Jun 5.21
Jul 3.25
Aug 3.56
Sep 0.95
Oct 2.34
Nov 0.72
Dec m
1999 Jan 1.41
Feb 0.21
Mar 1.56
Apr 2.42
May 6.57
Total 32.9
m = missing record
The next closest reposing station.
.73 inches in December of 1998
~tion"
215665 Mound
Deviation Normal,
from Average Wet, or Dry
-1.71 Dry
-0.03 Normal
0.72 Normal
-0.71 Normal
-0.2 Normal
-2.41 Dry
-0.36 Normal
-0.88 Normal
0.54 Wet
-0.6 Dry
-0.05 Normal
-0.2 Normal
2.75 Wet
-3.14
at St Bonifacius reported
o. o. o. o. o o. o o o. o
THIS PAGE LEFT
BLANK INTENTIONALLY
0
£
Ol-l?-O1 On:lBpm From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +~123379310 T-OB5 P.DZ/O5 F-~94
IETI-~II ) i: levi* ~ ~en*l~O~'-.
November 22, 2000
B), FacstnTM - To Folto*,' by U.S. Mail
P. onald P. peterson
President
?c~crson Env,rorm~ent~l Consulting. Inc.
1355 Mendota Heigh%~ Road
Sai~e 100
Mendora Heights, ~ 55120-11t2
Re: Becket Prope~y, Lo~s 5-8, Bloc¢ 4 of Hamson Shores
Moan& Mumcsora
Deaz Mr. pe%erson:
As I told you by ,cie--phone, we have now had a ch~ce m consult wkh ~he Mound City ~anager:
Kmxdi s H~son.
We believe thc Cie} has acted properly in all rcspec;s~ including the no:ice of decision issued
o~er the signature of ]on Su~erlm~d on November 7, 2000, concerning ~he above propeny.
N~vemheless~ the City i~ willing to consider having your concerns brough~ befor~ the City
Council as a miner of courtesy and fairness. However~ such a plma woald have ~o proceed und:r
c=~ain conditions.
The conditions are as folto'*s:
1. The next City Council meeting at which time is available to consider th~s mauer is
January 23, 2001. Thc Becket miner could be considered at ~hat Brae.
Reportable Umc limits and fo~a~ would be discussed ~d a~eed apon in advice.
3. There ~,ould have m be ~ express wn~tcn a~reement for a fu~her ext=nsion of thc 60-
- The extension ~.ii! ri=ed to be ~o
day ~le, on ~e assumpuon d,a, ~t~c ~lc applies ~o th~s ma~ter.
a~ least ~ough ~he heX, Co~cil meeting following ~he Janua~ 23 meeting %o allow for fne
adopdon of findings. That da~e is Feb--' 13, 2001.
4 Thc Cizy woald also zre~ d~ November 7~ 2000, noue: of decision as having been
withdraw'n, w[thou~ prejudice~ so ~hat thc 15-day WCA appeal period ~ould no~ sran to run unul
after ~he CBy Council has considered your concerns ~,d m~e a dete~mauon.
Ol-l?-O1 05:lGpm From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123979910 T-OB5 P.O3/05
P, onald P Pe~¢rson
November sv 2000
Page 2 of 3
In the sven~ :he conditions described in paragraphs 2 and $ above have no% been satisfied by
December 5, 2000, th~s proposal sha]] be deemed amornaucally wi%hdrawn v,,~:ho,,~ fu.~h¢r
no[xes, and %he November 7, 2000 no~i¢¢ of d¢clmon will remain in sffe¢~ as r/~ final decision of
the LGU
Please cal) or wn[¢ as soon as possible to conSrm the above conditions.
cc: Ms. Kandis HansoD (B> Facsimile - To Follow' b}' U.S. M~i!3
Jo~ ~i=s~n (By Facsimile - To Follow by U.S. Mail)
01-17-01 05:19pm From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123379310
T-085
, T 0
~.N¥!RONM~.NTAL
CONSUL'ImNC;~ INC.
D¢c~mbe~ S, 2000
BY I:AX A~YO Iv[AIL
Mr MacLeI:evre, Esq-
I~ennccly & Graven Chan~ec~
4'/0 Pilbb~ Cem~
200 Sou~ Six~ S~eer
Minneapolis, Mi~o~ 55402-1408
Subje~: 1/23/2000 Co~cil H~ng re: WCANO Los~ D~ma~on ~quest
Becket Property, LoB 5-8, Block 4 olD,son S~r~ Dcvelopm~t
PEC ~mje~ No. 2000~7
Dear Nk. Lafevre:
This letter is in response to your correspondence of November 22, 2000 regarding the matxcr
referenced above. Our client concurs wiuh ~e tc~ns set'forth in yom' lert~. We will plan on
making a presemation to thc City Council on ]anuarS' 23, 2000 and will supply thc council
members with copieS of our repor~ and documents that have a bearing on thc requesT. Given ~e
CiBr's long history wi~ t~is property and the large araoum of technical information we need u>
explain to the council, we ask for 45 minutes m make our presemaQon. We would th~
anticipate a brief discussion period when we ,,vould address any commCnu or questions raised by
the Council or by TechnicaI Evaluation Panel ('rEP) members who might bc presorts The lengda
of the discussion session would ~pcnd on uhe nature of ~ne commen~s and questions. We hope
that this presentation format is acceptable to the £ib' of Mound. We appreciate abe City's
coopcra6on in dealing with this matter ancl look forward to January 2?. Feel free ~.o cama~ our
office with any questions.
Sincerely,
cc. ]ohn Dean, Esq. - ~ermed~ & Graven
Iim Becket
John M~csen, Esq. - Lindquist & Vcrmum
Kandis I-l, anson- City of Mound
0Z-0?-01 03:52pm From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +E123~79310 T-G~ P.0B/09 F-?50
PETERSON
~N VtRON,'~£~TAL
CON~UL'IINC, tN('.'
December 12, 2000
Mr. Mac LeFevre, Esq.
Kennedy & Graven Chartered
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Six~ Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-1408
St~bj cL-'t:
Extort,ion of Decision Period re: WCA No Loss Determination Request
Booker Property, Lots 5-8, l~lock 4 of Harrison Shores Development
Mound, Minnesota
PEC Project No. 2000-047
Dear Mr. Lafevre:
This letter is in response m a voicemail I received from John Dean of your office in which he
~ked that we explicitly agree to extend ~e statutorily mandated decision period for the manet
referenced above. The Becker~ agree that the decision period for the requested WCA no loss
determination on their property may be extended until The date of the first City Council meeting
following our Ianuary 23, 2001 presentation. It is my understanding that this meeting will occur
on February 13, 2001. This extension should give the City Council sufficient time to deliberate
on the material we will be presenting on January 23~. As noted before, The Beckets' agreement
to this specific extension in no way represents their acquiescence to past delays or a waiver of
their righxs under Minn S~at. 15.99 ~r~egarding previous untimely' decisions. We will be
addressing those issues in our Ja,n. ua~' 2~ presentation.
Sincerely,
Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.
Ronald P. Peter~on
President
CC
John Dean. Esq.- Kennedy & Graven
Tim Becket
John Miesen, Esq. - Lindquist & Vennum
Kandis Hanson - City of Mound
De-DT-DI 03:SDm From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +61Z337~310 · T-636 P.OD/09 F-FSO
¢ ~ E D
Jo~ B. D£.~,~
Attaint), 'q L.~w
D~,'¢¢! D4)I (612) 33%920'/
[!inxa]l jOc~.n~kcnncOy'F~l~vcn corn
January 18, 2001
Ronald P. Petcrson
President
Pctcrson Envirorancntal Consulting, Inc.
1355 Mendota Heights Road
Suite 100
Mendota Heights, MN 55120-1112
Re:
By Facsimile - To Follo~v by U.S. Mad
Becker Properly, [.ots 5-8, Block 4 of Harrison. Shores Development
Mound, Mirmesota
Dear Mr. Peterson:
This is to confirm the rescheduling of the Becket Propcr~y wetland ~ssues ro the city council
meeting of February 13, 2001. This will also further confirm our express agreement ro extend
any applicable 60-day period to and including lhe date of the subsequent meeting of February 27,
2001. Please counter-sign and return INS letter to me in the space indicated below as soon as
possible.
Sincerely,
John B. Dean
.}BD/car
Kandis Hanson
John M. LeFcvre
Jon Sutherland
Kelly Bopray
Agreed to:
Dared:
JML.192177,1
M U 2t)o-~io
PETERSON
ENVIRONtv~ENTAL
CONSULTING, [NC.
December 21, 2000 y
Mayor Pat Meisel
5501 Bartlett Boulevard
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Subject:
WCA No Loss Determination Request
Becker Property, Lots 5-8, Block 4 of Harrison Shores Development
Mound, Minnesota
Dear Mayor Meisel:
Last summer our firm was retained by Mr. Tim Becker and his parents to assist in
resolving wetland jurisdictional issues relating to their property on Three Points
Boulevard. In this role, we were asked to review in detail; (1) work done in the past by
the Beckers' prior consultant, (2) the findings and recommendations of the Wetland
Conservation Act (WCA) Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), and (3) decisions made by
the City of Mound based on the TEP's recommendations. As a result of our review, we
have determined that the TEP recommendations and City decisions regarding the
jurisdictional status of the property were based on incomplete or erroneous information
and that, in fact, the property does not encompass any jurisdictional wetland. You may or
may not be aware of all the decisions that the City has made, since it is our understanding
that the Mound City Council has delegated WCA exemption and no loss determination
authority to City staff.
The most important fact that was missed was that the Becker property was entirely filled
with dredge spoil when the adjacent lagoon was excavated in 1961. The amount of fill
that was placed on the property was sufficient to render it non-wetland in 1961 and it
remains non-wetland today. The practice of filling wetlands for residential development
around Lake Minnetonka was common in the 1960s and many of the lakefront
neighborhoods in Mound are essentially identical to the Becker property in their origin
and topo,omphy. This is particularly true of the other residential properties surrounding
the lagoon adjacent to the Becker property.
In accordance with our findings regarding the Becker property, on August 8, 2000 we
requested from the City of Mound a WCA No Loss Determination. The TEP met once to
review and discuss our findings and recommended to the City that the no loss
determination be denied. They declined to re-visit the site with us to review the basis for
our findings. We strongly believe that the basis for the TEP's recommendation runs
13$$ Mendota Heights Road, Sutte I00 m Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120.1112 ~ 651-686-0151 · ?ax651-686-0369" E-m~ih Peclncc~PETER$ON£NV. com
Big Rapids, Michigan '~2311,796-0903 m www. Petersonenv. com ~,~ ,.~
Mayor Pat Meisel
December 21, 2000
Page 2
counter to both a common sense interpretation of the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual as well as written ~idance from the Corps of Engineers and the
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources on its proper use.
· In October 2000, we verbally requested City staff to provide us an opportunity to present
our findings and no loss request to the City Council. On October 24, 2000 that request
was presented to staff in writing. While we were waiting for a response, City staff
unilaterally issued on November 7, 2000 a decision document denying the no loss
determination. In an effort to resolve the matter without resorting to a formal appeal to
the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), we renewed our request for an
opportunity to be heard before the City Council. Through the City Attorney, the City has
agreed to withdraw without prejudice the November 7, 2000 decision and provide us the
opportunity to address the City Council at its meeting on January 23, 2001.
Because the analysis underlying our no loss .determination request is detailed and
somewhat voluminous, we are sending you that information directly to give you
sufficient time to review it before the January 23, 2001 meeting. We will be supplying
you with additional relevant information via the City Council's agenda packages as we
get closer to the meeting date. In particular, we will be supplying in the council agenda
package a detailed response to the TEP findings, a discussion of appealable procedural
and technical errors, and a request for appropriate resolution of the matter by the City
Council.
The following summ,~a~ outlines the key issues we will bringing to the City Council's
attention on January 23 :
· TEP Failure to Objectively Consider New Information
Until we submitted our report, all of the TEP and LGU decisions were based on
erroneous or missing information with regard to the history and level of disturbance on
the Becker property. The TEP did not recognize the extensive filling disturbance
(described below under Hydric Soils) and analyzed the site as if it were relatively
undisturbed prior to the 1994 fill event (see Kelly Bopray's TEP report comments
referenced on page 4 of our August 8, 2000 report). While we cleared up that
misconception in our report, it was apparent that the TEP did not seriously or objectively
consider the implications of that new information on their jurisdictional determination.
We emphasized to the TEP that we felt it was important for them to re-visit the site so
that we could show them the basis for our findings. They declined to re-visit the site with
US.
Mayor Pat Meisel
December 21, 2000
Page 3
· Hydric soils
The Becker property no longer has hydric soils--one of the three mandatory criteria for an
area to be jurisdictional wetland. Historic wetland on the Becker property, as well as
throughout the entire Harrison Shores development, was filled in 1961 with spoil
materials generated by the excavation of the lagoon. Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) Technical Note 5, clearly states that the amount of fill that covers the
entire Becker site renders the underlying histosols non-hydric. We do not believe that the
TEP has not given any defensible rationale for i~oring NRCS Technical Note 5.
· Wetland Hydrology
The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the Becker property does not exhibit
jurisdictional wetland hydrology. The 1987 Corps Wetlands Delineation Manual defines
wetland hydrology as inundation or saturation to the surface for a minimum of 5 percent
of the ~owing season (i.e. 7-8 consecutive days falling between approximately April 25
and October 1) in most years. The Corps defines "most years" as 51 out of 100. It is
generally accepted that saturation occurs in fine textured soils when the water table rises
to within 12 inches of the surface and remains there for the requisite duration.
A hydrology study was done in 1999, a. year having approximately normal annual
precipitation but an abnormally wet spring. The only documented time period when the
water table rose to within 12 inches was during an abnormally wet period in April and
May of 1999. Both Lake Minnetonka's water level and precipitation levels were at very
high levels during this period. Data from the Minnesota Climatology Working Group
indicate that April 1-May 17, 1999 had approximately 150 percent of normal
precipitation for that period and had a precipitation ranking of between 90 and 98 percent
(i.e. April 1 to Mayl7, 1999 was wetter than the April 1 to May 17 period in 90 to 98
percent of the years on record). These are clearly conditions that would not occur in 51
out of every 100 years. However, the TEP has stated in writing that they consider the
climatic conditions during this time period to have been within the normal range. This is
demonstrably untrue.
· Vegetation
The TEP did not appropriately consider the extent and distribution of upland plants on the
Becker property. While much of the area in question is vegetated predominantly with
reed canary grass (a hydrophytic plant), it is well documented in the scientific literature
that this species; (1) tolerates a very broad range of hydrologic regimes and is drought
tolerant, (2) readily invades and becomes monotypic on disturbed soils regardless of
hydrology and (3) is commonly found in non-wetlands. We have also observed that
upland plants became dominant or co-dominant when portions of the Becker property
were mowed in 2000. This would not occur if jurisdictional wetland hydrology were
present.
Mayor Pat Meisel
December 21, 2000
Page 4
· Cautionary Guidance Regarding Use of the 1987 Manual in Disturbed Areas
Written Corps of Engineers and BWSR guidance cautions delineators to be conservative
in delineating wetlands and making jurisdictional determinations in highly disturbed
areas. In all cases, agency guidance requires the delineator to obtain strong evidence of
all three wetland parameters before calling such disturbed areas jurisdictional wetlands.
In other words, at the very least, the predominance of the evidence must point to an area
as being jurisdictional wetland before it is to be designated such. In the Becker case, the
TEP has turned the applicable BWSR and Corps guidance on its head. At every mm,
they have interpreted both the data and the 87 manual criteria in the most liberal possible
fashion. We find the TEP's treatment of such a severely disturbed site to be in clear
contravention of Corps and BWSK guidance.
· Similarly Situated Properties Treated Differently
The Becker property has been treated differently than other identically situated properties
in the neighborhood. If the Becker property is wetland, then so is every other residential
lot that surrounds the adjacent lagoon. Moreover, we believe that there are other similar
properties in the City that have been recently developed without wetland issues even
being raised.
· Minnesota Statute 15.99
Over the extended time period in which Mr. Becker has attempted to get wetland issues
resolved on this property, he has submitted several exemption requests to the City of
Mound. On one or more occasions, these requests were not handled in accordance with
Minn. Stat. 15.99, which sets forth a statutory time frame for making decisions under
color of state law. In particular, we believe that the statute was not followed in
processing the incidental wetland exemption applied for by Mr. Becker last summer. As
the remedy for non-compliance, the statute deems the actions requested of the offending
government unit to have been approved.
We will be asking the City Council to acknowledge approval of the previously requested
incidental wetland exemption by virtue of its untimely processing by City staff. To
provide the City an alternative to such an acknowledgement, we will also be requesting
that the City Council reconsider and formally approve the previous exemption request
submitted by Mr. Becker. You should note that approval of Mr. Becker's previous
exemption request may obviate the need for the City Council to resolve the no loss
determination request.
We very much appreciate your review of the enclosed materials. We fully understand
that we are asking the City Council to do something unusual--to overrule previous
findings and decisions made by staff and consultants the council relies on every day.
However, we believe that the evidence in this case is so compelling that your intervention
is warranted. We hope that you will keep an open mind and objectively review the
Mayor Pat Meisel
December 21, 2000
Page 5
enclosed material before January 23~. If at any time between now and then you have
questions on our analysis or have an interest in visiting the Becker property, please feel
free to contact us directly.
Sincerely,
Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.
President
Professional Wetland Scientist No. 1118
Jp~lC~~?nii:~2iDe~tist No. 30684
Enclosures
CC.
John Dean, Esq. and Mac LeFevre, Esq. - Kennedy & Graven
Kandis Hanson - City of Mound
Tim Becker
John Miesen, Esq. - Lindquist & Vennum
PETERSON
EN\"IRONMENI,~L
CONSULTING, INC.
February 8, 2001
Ms. Kandis Hanson
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364-1627
BY MESSENGER
Subject:
WCA No Loss Determination Request
Becker Property, Lots 5-8, Block 4 of Harrison Shores Development
Mound, Minnesota
Dear Kandis:
In preparation for the February 13, 2001 City Council meeting, we are supplementing the
correspondence we sent to the city on December 21, 2000 with regard to the property by
Mr. Tim Becker and his parents. With this letter, we are:
(1)
Re-iterating the request for a Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) no loss
determination first submitted to the City of Mound on August 8, 2000 and denied by
city staff without Council involvement on November 7, 2000.
(2) Supplementing our earlier discussions as to why the Technical Evaluation Panel
(TEP) findings regarding the jurisdictional status of the subject property are in error,
(3)
Re-applying for the WCA incidental wetland exemption that Mr. Becker applied for
on March 17, 2000 and was denied by city staff without Council involvement on May
25, 2000.
(4)
As an alternative to (3) above, requesting the City Council to acknowledge that the
incidental wetland exemption applied for by Mr. Becker was already approved
because it was not processed in accordance with the statutory time frame set forth in
Minn. Stat. 15.99 (a chronology and statutory analysis is enclosed) and,
(5)
Describing other similarly situated properties in Mound that have either; Ca) received
different WCA regulatory treatment by city staff or Co) would now need to be treated
as jurisdictional wetland if the staffs denial of the no loss request is ratified by the
City Council.
I.:;5'~ Menciot,: He/,~ht< Road St/itc 1 (](~ · .\lendt~t,? !-leith/:, ,Vllntte,,oh,,, .';.~ 720- 7112 · 651-68,~i-0751 · Fax 651-68f',-(U67 · [:-nlaih Peclnc¢WPETERSONENV'.com
, ~_~ I ~ ww~.Petergonem.c()n~
Ms. Kandis Hanson
February 8, 2001
Page 2
We look forward to addressing the City Council on this matter on February 13~.
Sincerely,
Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.
President
Professional Wetland Scientist No. 1118
Ja~ffe~/L. Arndt, Pti. D.
Vfic,~President
ltr,6fessional Soil Scientist No. 30684
Enclosures (8 copies)
CC.
John Dean, Esq. and Mac LeFevre, Esq. - Kennedy & Graven
Tim Becker
John Miesen, Esq. - Lindquist & Vennum
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act
CERTIFICATE OF NO LOSS OR EXEMPTION~
APPLICANT AND PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION
Tim Becker
Name(s) of Applicant
919 North Shore Drive
Ixeet Address
Eau Claire, WI 54703
City, State, Zip Code
(715) 232-1199 ( )N/A
Telephone (Day) (Evening)
PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
LGU: Ciw of Mound
ProjectLocation:T l17N R 24W S 13 1/4 NW
UTM Coordinates: X: 448000 Y: 4977061
County Name/Number: Hennepin
Major Watershed Name/Number: 20 Mississippi River (Metro)
Size of entire wetland: N/A square feet
Wetland type: Circular 39 N/A ;NWI N/A
Check one: [] <50% [] 50%-80% or [] > 80%
Check one: [] Agricultural land; [] Non-ag. land
Describe the nature and purpose of the proposed project:
residences on four platted lots on the subject property.
additional pages if needed)
Timetable: project will begin on 10 / 1 / 00 (mo/day/yr) and will be completed by 12 / 1 / 03
The wetland activity at the above site qualifies for the following under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) (check one):
The proposed project involves the construction of foursingle family
(attach
No Loss Determination (attach plans)
Exemption # 5 (,per MN Rule Chapter 8420.0122) (Note: Applicant is responsible for submitting the proof
necessary to show qualification for the exemption claimed.)
Description of Exemption Claimed:
All wetlands on the site were filled in 1961 to a depth sufficient to render the entire subiect property non-wetland. The
applicant submits that the property remain~ non-wetland today. If any wetland did exist on the site~ it would be on or within
fill historically placed on the property.. Such wetland would have been re-established by the actions of a private entity takca
for a purpose other than creating wetland. Accordingly, any such wetlands would be considered created or "incidental" to tile
historic filling activity and are covered by the incidental wetland exemption contained in the Wetland Conservation Aut
(Minn Stat. 8420.0122 Subpart 5). There are multiple precedents for this interpretation of the incidental wetland exeaiptio~t.
Moreover, BWSR revised the applicable exemption lang~mge in 2000 to clarify that this interpretation is correct.
APPLICANT SIGNATURE
The information provided for this determination is truthful and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I ensure that, in draining or
filling the subject wetland under an exemption noted above, appropriate erosion control measures will be taken to prevent
sedimentation of the water, the drain or ~l will not block fish passage, and the drain or fill will be conducted in compliance with all
other applicable federal, state and local requirements, including best management practices and water resource protection requirements
established under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103H.
(Signature of Applicant) (Date)
Note: Any approval is not effective until signatures below are completa No work should begin until the 15-day appeal window has
lapsed, or, in the event of an appea~ until the appeal has been finalized.
FOR LGU USE ONLY
A.) LGU has received adequate documentation for claim of No-Loss or Exemption, and approves this certificate as outlined above.
This certificate expires (Date)
(LGU Official Signature) (Date)
[]Is certificate for an exemption under M.R. 8420.0122, Subpart 1 or Subpart 2, Item B? LGU sign below.
[]If not, signature above is sufficient, and certificate is complete. LGU write "Not Applicable" in signature block below.
B.) LGU has received evidence of recording of Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Impacted WetlancUnder Agricultural
Exemption (BWSR Form B):
(County where recorded) (Date recorded) (Document # assigned by recorder)
(LGU Official Signature) (Date)
* THIS CERTIFICATION ONLY APPLIES TO THE WCA. Permits from local, state, and federal agencies may be required.
Check with the appropriate authorities before commencing work in or near wetlands. The Combined Project Application form
can be used for this purpose.
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act
CERTIFICATE OF NO LOSS OR EXEMPTION*
APPLICANT AND PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION
Tim Becker
Name(s) of Applicant
6919 North Shore Drive
Slreet Address
Eau Claire, WI 54703
City, State, Zip Code
(715) 232-1199 ( )N/A
Telephone (Day) (Evening)
PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Describe the nature and purpose of the proposed project:
residences on four platted lots on the subject property.
additional pages if needed)
LGU: City of Mound
ProjectLocation:T l17N R 24W S 13 1/4 NW
UTM Coordinates: X: 448000 Y: 4977061
County Name/Number: Hennepin
Major Watershed Name/Number: 20 Mississippi River (Metro)
Size of entire wetland: N/A square feet
Wetland type: Circular 39 N/A .; NWl N/A
Check one: [] <50% [] 50%-80% or [] > 80%
Check one: [] Agricultural land; [] Non-ag. land
The proposed prqject involves the construction of foursingle family
(attach
Timetable: project will begin on 10 / 1 / 00 (mo/day/yr) and will be completed by 12 / 1 / 03
The wetland activity at the above site qualifies for the following under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) (check one):
No Loss Determination (attach plans)
Exemption # (per MN Rule Chapter 8420.0122) (Note: Applicant is responsible for submitting the proof
necessary to show qualification for the exemption claimed.)
Description of Exemption Claimed:
All wetlands on the site were filled in 1961 to a depth sufficient to render the entire subject property non-wetland. Based on
an analysis done by Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. dated August 2~ 2000~ the property remaing non-wetland today.
APPLICANT SIGNATURE
The information provided for this determination is truthful and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I ensure that, in draining or
filling the subject wetland under an exemption noted above, appropriate erosion control measures will be taken to prevent
sedimentation of the water, the drain or fill will not block frsh passage, and the drain or fill will be conducted in compliance with all
other applicable federal, state and local requirements, inclucling best management practices and water resource protection requirements
established under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103H.
(Signature of Applicant) (Date)
Note: Any approval is not effe~ive until signatures below are complet~ No work should begin until the 15-day appeal window has
lapsed, or, in the event of an appea~ until the appeal has been finalized.
FOR LGU USE ONLY
A.) LGU has received adequate documentation for claim of No-Loss or Exemption, and approves this certificate as outlined above.
This certificate expires (Date)
(LGU Official Signature) (Date)
[]Is certificate for an exemption under M.R. 8420.0122, Subpart 1 or Subpart 2, Item B? LGU sign below.
[]If not, signature above is sufficient, and certificate is complete. LGU write "Not Applicable" in signature block below.
B.) LGU has received evidence of recording of Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Impacted WetlancUnder Agricultural
Exemption (BWSR Form B):
(County where recorded)
(Date recorded)
(Document # assigned by recorder)
(LGU Official Signature) (Date)
* THIS CERTIFICATION ONLY APPLIES TO THE WCA. Permits from local, state, andfederal agencies may be requirt
Check with the appropriate authorities before commencing work in or near wetlands. The Combined Project Application form
can be used for this purpose.
a:exmpce~.for (November, 1998)
INCIDENTAL WETLAND EXEMP~ON REQUEST1
BECKER PROPERTY, MOUND, MINNESOTA
PETERSON
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTING, INC.
CHRONOLOGY
(1) Exemption request received by City of Mound
March 17, 2000
(2)
Letter sent by staff to Mr. Becker indicating intent to
Convene TEl); no indication that the application was
incomplete and no time extension requested
April 13, 2000
(3) TEP meeting April 20, 2000
(4) TEP recommendation signed and mailed to Mr. Becker April 20, 2000
(5) LGU decision dated and poStmarked
May 25, 2000
(6) LGU decision received by Mr. Becker May 30, 2000
MINN. STAT. 15.99 ANALYSIS
Mr. Becker requested the City of Mound to provide an incidental wetland exemption certificate
on March 17, 2000. If the application was incomplete, the city had 10 business days to so
indicate to Mr. Becker. Such a letter would need to have been sent on March 31, 2000 to meet
this requirement. No such letter was sent by the city either during the 10 business-day period or
thereafter. No requests for additional information were ever transmitted to Mr. Becker. Given
that the application was complete as of the date of its submission, the City of Mound had 60 days
to render a final decision on the request. The city could have requested an extension of an
additional 60 days by writing Mr. Becker before the end of the initial 60-day period and
indicating; (1) the need for an extension, (2) the reasons for the extension and (3) the anticipated
length of the extension. Such an extension could not exceed 60 days unless approved by the
applicant.
The City of Mound never requested an extension. The only correspondence Mr. Becker received
from the city was a letter dated April 13, 2000 indicating the city's intent to call a TEP meeting.
That letter did not request or notify Mr. Becket of a time extension. Accordingly, the statutory
deadline for sending out the final decision on the incidental wetland exemption was 60 calendar
days from the date of application--i.e. May 16, 2000. Since the decision was dated and
postmarked May 25, 2000, that deadline was not met. Accordingly, the remedy specified in
Minn. Stat. 15.99 Subd. 2 became operative as of May 16, 2000: "Failure of an agency to deny a
request within 60 days is approval of the request."
Copies of all correspondence cited here and of the relevant slatute are attached.
1355 Mendota Heights Road, Suite 100 · Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120-1112 · 651-686-0151 · Fax 657-686-0369 · E-mail: Peclnc~PETERSONENV. com
17:10 SIT U~J STOUT-MEN ~I * 6S1686~36D NO.~6D ~02
Apri'i 'i 3, 2000
CI :'OF .MOUND
MOUND. MINNESOTA
.............
FAX ($~2) 472~s'~3
Tim Becker
6919 North .Shore Drive
Eau Claire, WI 54703
Dale and Lorell Becket
5205 Eleachside Drive
Minnetonka, MN 55343 (cio Tim Becker)
sUBJECT: Wetlands Certificate of Exemption Request.Received March 17, 2000,
Dear Mr Becker, Mr & Mrs Becker:
We ha~e ;eceived:you~ exempt!on, reque~ and due to the large volume of information the review is still
;~ process.. I.n. addition to the.c~ty staff,, it is our intent to reconvene the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP)
· assis~ in the review and this may require another site visit.
I would like to remind you that city s~aff would be happy to assist you to discuss your potential
development of your property and the impacts of the City's Ordinances from a comprehensive approach.
Your property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential District that has a lot area requirement
of 10,000 square feet (of land above the 931 elevation), a 30 foot ~rorrt yard setback,'side yard'
setbacks of 10 feet, and a lakeshore setback of 50 feet to the 929,4 elevation. You may contact our
City Planner Loren Gordon at 338-0800 if you have any specific zoning questions.
Building Official
JS:rkj
Enclosure
cc: ~ John'Cameron., City Engineer MFRA
Kelly Boprey, Wetlands Consultant MFRA
CITY OF MOUND
5.3~1 MAYWOOD ROAO
MOUND~ MINNESOTA 5,5364-1687
(612) 472..0E00
City of Mound F~ (61;) 47;~
We~d Con~afion Act ~CA) T~aical ~vduafion P~ei ~P) F~d~gs
Ap~ 20, 20~
B~ker Site 533US~US35U536] T~ Poi=~ ~ulev~d
The TEP met on April 20, 2000 to revic, w Mr. Tim Becker's request for a WCA exemption for
incidental wetlands (8420.0122.B.5.). The TEP members l:~'~nt were Jon Suth~land (City of
Mound), Doug Snyder (BWSR), and Dave Thill (HCD). lee Yaata (Col=) was not able to attend.
In addition, .Grog Larson (BWSR) and Kelly Bopray (Ci~'s Consultant) were also in attendance.
The premise of the application is that as part ora floodplain ordinance violation and subsequent
restoration order in 1994, the City and/or Minnehaha Creek Wale~'shed District required more
material removed from the site than was brought into the site for a shoreline riprap project. The
ground surface was left lower than before the 1994 project and wetlands have become
established as a result of the action required by the City and/or Mirmehaha Creek Waxershed
District.
The 'rEP found that historically there were and currcatly are wetlands on the site. In 1999, the
TEP revised the wetland delineation line with Mr. Becker's consultant ('Bart Engineerin§) and
requested delineation be surveyed and submitted for review along with any proposed site
development plans. This requested izfformahon was not provided with thc application.
Thc uplands on the site appear to consist of fill material placed sometime in the past. As
subrnitted, the application does not prove that the entire site was filled to the extend that no
'ii~etlands existed prior to the 1994 action. The application also did not establish the extent or
locations of uplands which were "over excavated" and converted to wetlands by the 1994
actions. This is .an important poim because if this exemption were to be applied, it would be
limited to that part of "over excavated" upland areas. Previously disturbed areas which remained
wetlands would not be ex,pt from the WCA replacement requirements.
Based on the information provided in the application, as well as information generated by the
Becker's previous applications, the TEP recommends that the exemption requested be denied. If
additional information such as aerial photographs, grotmd level photographs or documentation of
the extent of'previous actions on the site were submitted and conclusively established the extent
oi'the w. etl~pP~p~or to the 1994 actions the TEP could reconsider the ex~nption
~/a ~.~erland, City of Mound David Thill, HCD
$:~r~in:~doul 2162~t~-po'rts~p,e-20
CITY OF MOUND
S~4! M~OO0 ROA0
MOUND.~MINNESOTA 553~-1687 '
(s ~ 214T~oo
FA,~ {S12) 472.o6~0
May 25, 2000
Tim Backer
6919 North Shore Drive
Eau Claire, WI 54703
Dale and Lorell Backer
5205 Beechside Drive
Minnetonka, MN 55343
SUBJECT: Exemption Request and Conclusion XXXX Three Points Boulevard
Dear Mr Backer, Mr & Mrs Backer:
Please find the at~ached Technical Evaluation Panel's (TEP) recommendation in regards to your exemption
request at 5331/5341/5351/5361 Three Points Blvd. The City of Mound has adopted the TEP
recommendazion and hereby denies your exemption request as outlined by the TEP.
ize for the extended time period to respond to your request; however, in order for the city to
a determination, it was necessary to reconvene the TEP to review your exemption request and to
receive the TEP recommendation before responding.
Please contact me if you have any questions au 472-O614.
Building Official
JS:rkj
Enclosure
cc; John Cameron, Cizy Engineer
Kandis Hanson, City Manager
Davld Thill, HCD
Doug Snyder, BWSR
,Minnesota Statutes 1999, 15.99 http://www.revisor, leg.state.mn.us/stats/15/99.html
Minnesota Statutes 1999, Table of Chapters
Table of contents for Chapter 15
15.99 Time deadline for agency action.
Subdivision 1. Definition. For purposes of this
section, "agency" means a department, agency, board, commission,
or other group in the executive branch of state government; a
statutory or home rule charter city, county, town, or school
district; any metropolitan agency or regional entity; and any
other political subdivision of the state.
Subd. 2. Deadline for response. Except as otherwise
provided in this section and notwithstanding any other law to
the contrary, an agency must approve or deny within 60 days a
written request relating to zoning, septic systems, or expansion
of the metropolitan urban service area for a permit, license, or
other governmental approval of an action. Failure of an agency
to deny a request within 60 days is approval of the request. If
an agency denies the request, it must state in writing the
reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request.
Subd. 3. Application; extensions. (a) The time limit
in subdivision 2 begins upon the agency's receipt of a written
request containing all information required by law or by a
previously adopted rule, ordinance, or policy of the agency. If
an agency receives a written request that does not contain all
required information, the 60-day limit starts over only if the
agency sends notice within ten business days of receipt of the
request telling the requester what information is missing.
(b) If an action relating to zoning, septic systems, or
expansion of the metropolitan urban service area requires the
approval of more than one state agency in the executive branch,
the 60-day period in subdivision 2 begins to run for all
executive branch agencies on the day a request containing all
required information is received by one state agency. The
agency receiving the request must forward copies to .other state
agencies whose approval is required.
(c) An agency response meets the 60-day time limit if the
agency can document that the response was sent within 60 days of
receipt of the written request.
(d) The time limit in subdivision 2 is extended if a state
statute, federal law, or court order requires a process to occur
before the agency acts on the request, and the time periods
prescribed in the state statute, federal law, or court order
make it impossible to act on the request within 60 days. In
cases described in this paragraph, the deadline is extended to
60 days after completion of the last process required in the
applicable statute, law, or order. Final approval of an agency
receiving a request is not considered a process for purposes of
this paragraph.
(e) The time limit in subdivision 2 is extended if: (1) a
request submitted to a state agency requires prior approval of a
federal agency; or (2) an application submitted to a city,
county, town, school district, metropolitan or regional entity,
or other political subdivision requires prior approval of a
state or federal agency. In cases described in this paragraph,
the deadline for agency action is extended to 60 days after the
1 of 2
9/27/00 6:23 PM
Minnesota Statutes 1999, 15.99 http://www.revisor, leg.state.nm.us/stats/15/99.html
required prior approval is granted.
(f) An agency may extend the time limit in subdivision 2
before the end of the initial 60-day period by providing written
notice of the extension to the applicant. The notification must
state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length,
which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant.
HIST: 1995 c 248 art 18 s 1; 1996 c 283 s 1
Copyright 1999 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota.
9/27/00 6:23 PM
PETERSON
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTING, [NC.
SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTIES
INTRODUCTION
The type of historic wetland disturbance present on the Becker property is not unique in
the City of Mound. In fact, a review of historical aerial photographs reveals that it was
.common practice during the 1960s to excavate channels and lagoons for navigational
access and to fill lakeside wetlands with dredge spoil to facilitate residential
development. We have become aware of a number of properties that are similarly
situated to the Becker property. There are undoubtedly many more around the fringes of
Lake Minnetonka.
Two of the identified properties were developed shortly after they were filled. We do not
mean to suggest that the filling and development of these properties was inappropriate.
No regulatory constraints were then in place with regard to the filling of wetlands.
However, we are suggesting that a city finding that the Becket lots encompass
jurisdictional wetland will mean that these other properties encompass jurisdictional
wetlands as well. As responsible Local Government Unit (LGU), the City of Mound will
need to be fully prepared to enforce the provisions of the Wetland Conservation Act
(WCA) with regard to these (and many other) properties. Given that all of these
properties are within the shoreland of Lake Minnetonka, any grading or filling that
exceeds 400 square feet would require approval of a wetland replacement plan.
PROPERTIES DEVELOPED IN THE PAST
1701 Baywood Lane
This lot adjoins the easternmost lot on the Becker property and is Lot 4 of Block 4 of the
Harrison Shores subdivision. It was filled in 1961 at the same time and with the same
material as the Becker property. The pre-fill character of this property can be seen on
Figure A. 1.a. in our August 8, 2000 report. The precise date of home construction on this
lot is unknown but it was probably in the 1970s. The topographic survey for this lot
indicates that much of the rear yard adjacent to the lagoon is at the same elevation as the
southernmost parts of the Becker lots. If the southern part of the Becker property is
jurisdictional wetland, then most of the rear yard of 1701 Baywood Lane is also wetland.
The fact that the rear yard of Baywood Lane has been re-vegetated with sod is not
relevant to its jurisdictional status. The placement of sod does not represent "normal
1355 Mendota Heights Road, Suite 100 · Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120-1112 · 651-686-0151 · Fax 651-686-0369 · E-mail: Peclnc~PETERSONENV. corn
Big Rapids,/vlichigan (231) 796~0903, www. Petersonenv. com ~ [ ~
·
circumstances . Given thls area's slmilar topography ancl or~gin to the acliacent gecker
property, it would be expected to re-vegetate with a similar plant community if turf grass
wasn't being maintained.
1700 Jones Lane
This parcel abuts the Becker property on the west. This lot is of identical origin as 1701
Baywood Lane and the Becket lots. The house that exists on the property appears to
have been constructed in 1986. The rear yard encompasses elevations ranging from
930.2 to 931.2. Again, if the southern part of the Becker property is jurisdictional
wetland than most of the rear yard of 1700 Jones Lane is wetland as well.
RECENTLY DEVELOPED PROPERTIES
We found two other lots similar to the Becker property that were granted lot area
variances and developed in 1999 but on which wetland issues were never raised. They
have very similar topography and consist of former lakeside wetlands that were
historically filled in the same manner as the Becker property. These properties were
developed without wetlands becoming an issue. No wetland delineations or jurisdictional
determinations were made during development approvals on these sites. Given the
similarity of these properties to the Becker lots, their disparate treatment under the WCA
suggests a potential equal protection issue that the city should be aware of. The similar
properties we have identified are described below.
1790 Resthaven Lane (referred to in some city documents as 17n Wiidhurst Lane)
This parcel is Lot 1 of Block 13 of the Shadywood Point subdivision. It received a lot
size variance (6,927 square feet above elevation 931 versus the 10,000 square feet
required under the zoning ordinance) in 1999. The variance was granted in order to
afford the owners reasonable use of their land and to create a buildable lot. A 1945 aerial
photograph of this area shows that this lot was historically wetland adjacent to Harrison
Bay. Later photos show this area to have been filled. The topography of this lot is
similar to that of the Becker parcels, with elevations in the rear yard ranging from 929.8
to 931.5. Site photographs dated September 24, 2000 (previously provided to you by Mr.
Becker) show-filling activity in the rear yard in an area with an elevation somewhere
between 930 and 931.5. The overstory trees visible in the photo are American elms
(Ulmus americana) and shrubs appear to be willows (Salix spp.). Both are considered
hydrophytic plants. We do not have data on the ground cover plants and may now be
unable to obtain such data. Grading and re-vegetation activities associated with this lot
are likely to have obliterated the ground cover that previously existed. Given the
similarities between this lot and the Becker property, the fact that no wetland delineation
~ Jurisdictional wetlands are "...areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence
of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." The 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual defines "normal circumstances" to mean "...the soil and hydrologic
conditions that are normally present, without regard to whether the vegetation has been removed".
or determination was required at 1790 Resthaven Lane suggests disparate treatment of
one property owner versus another.
2350 Driftwood
This parcel is Lot 10 of the Skarp's East Lawn subdivision.. It received a lot size
variance (5,900 square feet above elevation 931 versus the 10,000 square feet required
under the zoning ordinance) on June 8, 1999. The variance was granted in order to afford
the owners reasonable use of their land for the purpose of building a single-family
dwelling. The topographic map of the property indicates the rear yard to have elevations
ranging from 930 to 931.7, which is very similar to the elevations on the lowest portion
of the Becker property. The presence of buried wetland is documented in the August 11,
2000 geotechnical evaluation by Braun Intertec, which indicated the 2 to 7 feet of mixed
"topSoil, fill or swamp deposits" underlain by "clayey alluvial soils". Groundwater was
encountered at depths of 1 to 2 feet below the surface. We do not have data regarding the
pre-development vegetation on this site and it probably has been altered since the lot was
developed. However, given the apparently similar soils and hydrology, we would expect
them to have been similar to the vegetation on the Becker property. The waterward side
of the lot is protected by a sheetpile seawall that serves the same purpose as the rip-rap
shoreline protection in place on the Becker property.
An August 12, 2000 survey review memo from Jon Sutherland to John Cameron did not
raise wetland issues, despite the fact that grading work that would extend to elevation
929.4 (i.e./he DNR OHWL of Lake Minnetonka). Again, given that this property has
topography and soils that are very similar to the Becker property and that the proposed
grading would involve areas below elevation 930, it is unclear why a wetland
determination or delineation was not required as part of the approval process. Again the
applicant in this case appears to have received different regulatory treatment under the
WCA.
0
0
0
t52'
July 28, 1992
RESOLOTION Jg2"-88
RESOLUTION TO~PPROVE ~LAEBSHORE HETB~CEV~RIANCE
TO ALI~W CONSTRUCTXON OF A DECX
AT LOT 4~ BLOCE 4~ HEPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES
(XTOX ~AYWOODLAN~)
PID J13-117-24 21 0087
p&~ C~HBB~BER92-019
W~REAS, the-applicants, Geurg~ and Cheryl Fougeron,
have applied for a 6 foot lakeshore setback variance to allow an
expansion to the existing non-conforming deck; and
W~uRE~S, the subject property is located within the R-1
Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City
code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot
front yard setback to BaywoodLane, a 20 foot front yard setback to
Three Points Blvd. r and a 50 foot setback to the Ordinary High
Water elevation: and
W~ERE~S, All other setbacks an d lot area are conforming,
and;
WB~RSAS, The Planning Commission reviewed the requested
variance and recommended approval w~th & ~in favor and 3 opposed.
Approval was recommended based o, .the. fac~ that the ~ques~ i~
m~n~mal in nature, that the dec~ addition Lsa reasonam~e use o~
the. property, and there exists a practical difficulty in the fact
that there ~s no other reasonable location for a deck expansion to
ser~e the property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED, by the City Council of
the City ofMound, ~innesota, as follows:
.The City does hereby approve a 6 foot lakeshore setback
variance to allow an-extension ~o an existing nonconforming
deck at 1701Baywood~.~ne, upon~he condition that an as-built
~urvey be submitted prior to building permit issuance.
The Cit~ Council authorizes the alterations set forth belov,
pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code
wi~hthe clear andexpressunderstandingthatthe use remains
as a lawful, nonconforming use, sub~ect to all of the
provisions and restrictions of Section 23,404.
It' is determined~ that the livability of the residential
fol~ow~n~ a~teration to a noncon~o~nc.ng use o~T_ne prope~c~¥ ~o
afford the 'owners reasonable use of their land:
HINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
NOTICE (~F PERMIT APPLICATXON STATUS
Permit Application No: 83-0S
Applicant: Walter F. )ielland
1701 Baywood Lane
Mound, MN 55364
Date: February 24, 1983
Location:
City of Mound, Sec. 13BAC, Three Points Boulevard,
Harrison Shores, Harrison Bay
Purpose:
Lake setback variance allowing' a building setback' of
48 feet to a man-made lagoon adjacent to Harrison Bay
At the regularly scheduled February 17, 1983 meeting .of the Board
of Managers, the subject permit application was reviewed, .Action
was taken allowing District staff to issue your permit for a 48
foot setback variance .only after receipt and staff approval of the
fo1 lowing:
Verifica. tion of a 20 foot front setback varia6ce issued to
the applicant by the City of Mound.
Please be advised that the project is not authorized until the
above has been submitted and you have been notified of permit
issuance. Should you have any questions 'regarding this matter
please contact me at ¢73-4224.
.Very truly yours,
EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES
Engineers for the District
cc: aoard
G. Macomber
g, aH~y of Hound
FOR:
-(
o
x ooo.o
( ooo.o )
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
,,~',c~,~ .A"'~--_~-f, T'/-/O ,~'~"-'
THREE POINTS
~" vl,~t('., .-, ~,,,
{I.~ ...... ) ~
BLVD
u /
Denote~ Iron monument
Denotes offset stake
Denote1 Propo~ecl elev.
Denotes wrflce'dretnege
Propo.ed lowest floor elev. - ~2~1.~)~' ~$~'~
Ih-opo~l top of fou~tion el~. - ~4.~'
DEMARS - GABRIEL
LAND SURVEYORS, INC.
3030 Hirbor Line No.
Plymouth MN 55441
Phone: (612) 559-090~
Proposed garage floor elev.- '~41.7 ~ _!~,~4£/~////z SL¢O .'
I h~r~by,~c~rtit¥ thet this is ~ tr~ ~d ~rr~ct r~pr~ntation ot ~ ~urv~y of Fil~ ~.
the ~undaries of t~ a~e ~i~d la~ and of the I~tion of all ~ildin~.
if any. thereon, and all visine encroach~nts, if any. from or on said land.~/~
.,.. ,~ ~.:':--F.~:/...: ;:-.'~ ' -' /~/-~,. /
' '" /
Proposed* Top of 'Block'
Proposed Goroge F~ .
Proposed Lowest Floo~
Type of Building - ·
s
LAND SURVEYORS '' J409~
SUPERIOR VALU~
8700 ,Jefferson Highway
Osseo. Idinne~ota 5,5369
(763) 493-5761
i
eiVO~CE NO.
F. EL NO.
SCALE I"= 30'
0 Denotes Iron Monument
· De. notes Founa
n De~otes Wood Hub Set
For £xcavotio~ Only
xO00.O Denotes Existin9 £1evotion
0 Denotes Proposed Elevotion
~ Denotes Surfoce Droinoge
Propm'ty Loeoted In Port Of
SeC. ~ Twp.. , R.
RECEIVED
JUL 0 5 ~
~ I~{IK & ~.
· Milton F_.. H~lo~ir~n. Reg. No. 20262
· '.;-.'/5':.'~'... ,'~ ~.y.i:~/.-": :' '~ ~~; ~.:i,~. :~."::-": :.-' ..". .
-. '~.~:'~. .-~ .~'; . . · . .;
.,.,~. .... .,,. .,,, - . ~ ,,. ·
"S $'TATI~ OF ~OT.A )- :,~, --.'-:..r
..;;. -:, -. ,.:..~-~,-...~.~.L.,.,, .'~-
. ": ":::"- r .~ "'~L"~'-.:-: .--;'. ;'-. ~.~"-~ "..-',.;+ . *' '
I.
Said ,- _,-,~ was d~ly held, ~ m ~" aml no~ic~ ~her~of as requit~ by law
on October 12, 1~9.
· 'I~ffTNESS ~ h~,,,a officially az such Cl~k., aud ~¢ ~ o~ ~ City. ~ ZZud day of
October, 1999.
;,..~!:-.........:.,: ... ... .. -.:.~..:.-.
'~.: .~- -~.' .,~..; .;.-~...~,.,,_ . .:_ .--,.~.~..,.~ .
-~-.~.~'i.~:.-....~.,"..E~.~,~.=-. .... · .... - .
_ . ..... .... . .. : ..... ..
.'..~.~ .~.~ ; .- .. o~,~?~?~ ~.~ .~' .,~ ,, · ~, . .~.: o..T:~.~.~o..- :-. ,, '. .
.~~ '".. 5 : -. · '" :~ ' ,~. ~2.'~'.. .'.'.~' .... - ':'. : .-- -'2.~--'~.~- ~.z--~'.. ".-
f'~""~-'.'~" ' ' -~_.j~_~. -~,: ~':;dl~T~d~.~--"~'""""""'~-';,~';.': ' . . . , ~- -'*'~' .... ' ~.T--~'~---"~. · ~.-..~'~;'-':,:;- .. 'r , . . '
-'~ '--~' ....... ' ~:'~' '--"'~" ' ' '" - J~-i ' -_.- v-' . . . · ~_. .-'-~ . - .~ . ~... ;-,--~-..~-_.'%.--7--- . ....
~..~-* ..... ~'~'~"~~..-~--~'~,~-a-, ..~ r--~~~ .....
--.' '.~. ~..'--.-~- .,'.:.-'. -~- -'~=,.-~.'~--.r--_~"'-.~- .~ .~,...r~;~.? ~;&~.,~.~t.=~. ".,d ...~-;,' ,~a g..,.: . - . '.'.
--. :. ,,-,- ~.... ,: ...... ..~,:~ --.:~,~.-.~-. ..... :....- . .......~..:,.~.'~"-~j.,'~. ~ ....... ~: ~~: ff~'~.._-.. ,..:. .
' '.-, ' : · ~.Z,~.~. - ~.'"-'-.- · ~,...,d.~...-..-- - . --. °" ' ' ' - ' -';~':'"'--"~_ "~'.E.''° . - - .. · ' ' ~-,~:.:.~ ' ':-.T'. -~.- . -- -.~.3': ' ;: ....
· .-"~-' 'P-,E-~-:-'~--,,: "-',-.' : -.: 7: '-- '- ....---.''-" · · . .... ~~.~".~."-' . -:' :' ...."::'~:-~:£,~:--~::'~- '...~. · ':
· ' "~'~' -"~'a'."-~i-"'-"~--~"~--:~';~"'";'~'~' ,,e,,:,~.~.: _-' :. '.--.._. -.:.,. ~,-..-~,.-~'~ ~, ~,,:..,~. . . -.- , · -~_...:_:, .~: -o.-~ :,,~... .::.. .~.. .'_-,: ~. , .
..._- ...,.~.,-,.. --,.:~, ,. ..-,. - .. . . . ~ . .~ . ... -,~-, ~-: .,~.:.,,r-.~...--., ..~ .
...
........ ' RESOLUT1O# TO ;N=PRDVE.LOTSiZE :AND'STREET -'.: -' .? '""
-': -' ~':' : .......... "
· .:.'-..~'... :~ . ....... .. .... FRONTAGE
'" ""-"~' PlD # ¶:~.¶¶?--2~'~1~'{~17'': q '"'~:'---"- ...... ..' '- '.: .:"-'
P &Z CASE~ 99-a7
61980
" .1Rq4E~,..the applicators, Davit'and Carol Babler, have re~luested a variance
In lot ama and wid~ ~ ~ive ~du.~'~ a buiid~ie I~ ilar ~is lot ~ ~ Imn:eJ; and,
WHEREAS. , the request requested variances are as f~tows:
: ~na/Pmoosed
" ~ ~ ,-,': -- . -- -.
.. _. .~4'_- . .':'-,. .... '
-'Street Fronta. ge : " -S7 R '
I;ot Area 6,922. sr.
; and,
'60It ':'~ -'-'~ :"'--: -":-31t
.. 10,000 st' : -"'~ 3,072
WHEREAS, as platted the lot has 10,000 sf, all of which is above the g29.4
feet OHW and 6,g27 sf are above the 931 feet c~ntour ttsed for determined lot area.
Improved street frontage along Resthaven Lane is 57 feet wtth additional unimp .roved
. street frontage on Suns~ Landing;, and, -
WHEREAS, ~t landing is unimproved public land used as an a__~__~ point
to Harrison's Bay. The applicant proposes to use it as an access point to the pamel;
arid,
WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated a proposed b~ding pad on the
property which meets City Code requirements including setbacks and hardcover; and,
. WHEREAS, a portion of the IRalding pad is below the 931.5 feet rent. ur and
may be subject to review by the IVe~ehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Building
outside of the 931.5 feet contma' would not require review by l~e MCWD rules; a~d,
WHEREAS, the Staff and the Planning CommJssien have reviewed Itc request
and recommended that the Counal deny the variance as requested by the app~anl:
and,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City C0ur~q of the City ~f
Mound. Minnesota. as follows:
4. This variance is appraved far the following legally descz~:~l properly as
,..s~. _ted.in !~e H.e. nn. epin Co .u~ty Property In~rmalion System:
£~T ~; ~.c;cx i3, sHADYWOOO POINT, l-~. couture M~OT~.
.- 5, 'Tills variance si'tall be recorded ~ ~he County Recorder or ~e Registrar of
Tddes in Hennepin County pursuant to ~ State Statute, Section
462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be c~nsidemd a restriction on trow l/~is
-- -..:..... :propeK'y may be used. ' -
6. The property owner shall have the responsE.*lity of filing ~is msolu'don with
Hennepin County and paying all ~ for such rec~rdin9. A bu]ding permit
for the subject c~nsttuct~n shall not be issued unb*l pro~ of recording has
been filed with ~e ~ Cle~
The fomcjoing was moved by Counolmember Brown. seconded by
Councilmember Hanus.
The f~llowing Councilmembe~. voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Brown, Hanus, Meisel, and Weycken
The following Couno]membe~ voted in the negative:
None.
SS/Pat Mei~l
IV~yor
TOP
93,3.98
TOPOF
IRON = 932.60
40" Ook
WATER
& SE~ER
ATER UNE
t -INVERT
: :': :8.64 PER
END OF
I
I
I
I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
931.2
930.9
950.7j~
'TOP OF !
!
4';. CEDARS / /
/
/
930.2 /
Mople
,930.4 '
931 OF
~ 93o.4X SEA WALL
I
I
-~ ~ '~ g31 Mople Ma~e
% , '-.. ~ :~ ~w~
.
I/ '-.
..........
~ x.=o.~ /~ .... 1--~o~ //
'~. //5 .
~x~.~9.~ ~SEA W~ ~-~u,.
' ' ' '
929 5 X 929.~
~~ ~ ' IU. ~ ~m~ ~d no~g
/
/ ~ ~~ / I ~.~te, use at I~st me o~
June 8, 1999
RESOLUTION g99-44
RESOLU'I1ON TO APPROVE A LoT AREA, LOT WIDTH, AND FLOODPLAIN FILL
ELEVATION STANDARDS VARIANCES
TO CON~i'RUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
AT 23XX DRIFTWOOD LANE,
LOT lQ, SKARP'$ EAST LAWN,
PID 13.-117-24 M 0059
P & Z'CASE ~197-39
WHEREAS, the applicant, Robert Steele. has applied for a lot area. lot width, and
floodplain fill eleva~on stanards variances I= conslnJct a new Single Family Dwelling at 23X:X
Driftwood Lane; and.
WHEREAS. the following I'=ts the variance requeste, d by the applicant:
Existi..ncl/Pm~ed Requited Vadance
Lot Area 5.900 sf 10.000 5'f 4.100 sf
Lot Width 55 ff 60 tt 5 ft
Grading within the flcN:x:lplaJn fringe Es required to be at 932 ft far a distance of 15 It from the
point where the grade meets the foundation. 931.5 It is proposed for 5 ff on two sides and 15 ff
on a third; and.
WHEREAS. the subject pmpmty is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential
Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10.000 square feet.
front yard setback of 30 feet, 6 feet side yard se~acks, and 50 feet ordinary high water
setback; and.
WHEREAS. the current use of the property is a dilapidated c=ttage would be removed
with the proposal; and.
WHEREAS. there is a substantiaJ pof'don of ~is property in the floodplain mat cannot be
used in Ifle calculation of lot area; and,
June 8, 1999
WHEREAS. the city does not have ]urtsdic~on over fill in the fla,xlplain; and,
WHEREAS, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Dis~ict (MCWD) uses 931.5 as the
regional flood elevation for Lake Minnet~nka and does n~t allow any fill to be placed below that
elevation, unless compensating volume is provided. The plan as submitted appears to provide
for this compensation, but a permit .must be gt-anted by the MCWD; and,
WHEREAS, ~e proposed hardener is 1830 si' or 27.85%; and,
WHEREAS. the pmp¢~='¢l foumLation wi~ a finished floor elevation of 933,8 tt which
meets residential sl~uctum elevation standards f~r floodplain areas; and,
WHEREAS, the soo conditions =n the property are Ix=r but with proper engineering
and building techniques, a home can be built to withstand unsuital~le soil conditions; and,
WHEREAS. the propceed home wffi be built to c~mform with all applicable zoning
regulations; and,
WHEREAS, the Depaf~'nent of Natural Resources (DNR) recommended denial; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommend denial
of the variance wi6h a vote of 4-3; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed Itte request and has granted the request wfth
conditions; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a lot area, lot width, and llood~in fill variances listed below
as granted, by the City Council in order to c=~ a new Single Family Owelling with
conditions:
Lot Area 5,900 sf 10,000 sf
Lot Width 55 ff 60 ff
Grading wi~in the floodplain fringe is required to be at 932 It for a cl'~tance of 15 ff from the
point where the grade meets l~e foundation. 931.5 It is ~ for 5 It on two sides and 15 ff
on a third.
CONDmONS OF APPROVAL:
The variances be approved pending Ihe approval of the Minnehaha Watershed
District.
J~e 8, ~999
2.
,Approval of drainage plan by the City Engineer.
The building c~nfarm to the setback requirements for l~e R-I zoning district anc~
floodplain regula§ons.
Connect~n to water and sewer u'dlities shall be installed at the owners e~ense.
Remcwal of the septic tank if presenL
The City Counc2'l authorizes the alte~ set forth below, pursuant to Sec~n
Subdivision 8 of ll~e Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
structures described in paragraph numloer one above remain as lawful, nonconforming
structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions af Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livabil'~y of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration to a noncanforming use af the property to afford
the owners reasonable use of their land:.
Construction of a new Single Family DwelE~3.
This variance is granted for the fotk~ng legally described property as stated from
Hennepin County Property Informa§on:
LOT 1C), SKARP'$ EAST LAWN, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MI~N~SOTA-
5. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Tdles in
Hennepin County pumuant to Minnesota State S'GatUte. Secl~or1462.$6, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a msttic~on on how this property may be used.
6. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing l~is resolution ~ Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of mconfmg has been ~ed with the City
Clerk.
The foregoing resolu§on was moved by Counc~[member Ahrens and seconded
by Counc=lmember Hanus.
The fallowing Cauncilmembers voted in t~e affirmative:
Ahrens. Brown, Hanus, Meisel, Weycker
The fallowing Cauncilmembers voted in the negative:
None.
Fas: o4 t..41 $l
r.
Augu~ I l, 2000
iboj~i3ABX,.OO.O,~L
Mr; Jolm' Vogslrom
Vogue Homes, Inc.
432,9 North Weodga~
Review'of GemeL-bnicel E. vehnti~r~ for Pt~-R~:skk:n¢c~E 2350Dt4,(ba,ood-Laa~
Mound, Minnesota
In thr. r. cpo~ wt r~r..~md~,~r ~..mpsail, swamp doosim, SO~L chys and p~Tviousl),-placcd
fill'soils ~ removed ~orn all bui~ovn:si:z:r.m'c~:
at' medium or eaif:k-r ~msiatcucy wo4dd, ir..suilab, k: ~.. tTMctd r,~;,a,-,~cial construction. 'roc
8roundwaicr w~ cncount~rcd ncflr tl~ smfuce 0z dcptlts of 1 to 2'fe~*t bt:low
P~e 2
thax. soft suil~ cond~ ur othn'uri~ unsui~Ic soil r, uudifi~ts-~ nut, t'oun~,aLdg~,~
anchor in,~ilntion location.~ it aPlX~ thc ex.~.~ing 81a~al rift s~ils sho~dd
Gm~ral
proccdurcs dcscrit)cd ~n tl~s ~ Othe~ ~ms nny usc d~ffcre~et ~ u) cviJuatc tb~ bonom
of excretions.
and standards listed herein. This is ~ot intended to constitute ~ rccoaune~t~on, cndo~cnt o~
Scrv~ p~fi~m~tby Breun Imcrt~ fln~ d~s pru]cc~ havc bccn ¢onduc. tcd with that level of' cate and
si611 ordinarily, exg~'ci~cd by m~mbe~s'~tbc ln'ufz~nn'c~,~ly ~ ~,~s-~z:e-undcr ~
If you hav~ ~my quc~ions regarding this, plca.~ cout~-'t n~ at (952) 942-176~.
smcer~ly,
F,~n~-n W'. Braun. PE
Smior Engineer
JonSuthedand
Pa§e 1 o£ 1
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:.
'John Cameron' <,JCamemn~mfra.corn>
"Jori Sutherland" <jonsutherlancl~msn.com>
Saturday, August 12, 2000 9:23 AM
Survey review - 2350 Ddltwood Lane
Jon- The following are my comments concerning the survey submit~od with the buildi41g permit applicaUon for
subject location.
1, Need MCWD approved silt fence along the SW and NE property lin'~s and also along the westedy side of
the sea wall.
2. Grading plan must be approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and permit issued
for the floodplain volume mitigation.
3. Street excavation permit is required for installation of water service. If any work is done on the existing
driveway apron or a new apron installed, permit is also required. Public works must approve all work within
the City right o1' way.
4. The elevation for the top of the sea ~rall is shown at approx, 930.6 and the ouUet for the swale constructed
to meet the requirements for floodplain mitigation is shown at 929.4. This indicates that the top of the seawall
Is to De lowered over a foot. Will this be covered under MCWD review ? Who owns this wall aha regulates
any modifications ma~le to it, or is each adjacent property owner responsible ?
5. Runoff from the garage and house directed to the lake, must be contained in the swales constructed along
the lot lines and not allowed to flow onto adjacent prope~.
6. It appears that egress from the-easterly garage stall will be very difficult and can only be accomplished by
backing out into the street.
$/16/00
PETERSON
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTING, INC.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO PAST TEP
FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS AND LGU DECISIONS
Introduction
This narrative provides supplemental information with respect to the findings of the Wetland
Conservation Act (WCA) Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) and past decisions by the City of
Mound as they relate to potential wetland on the Becker Property. Our December 21, 2000 letter
to the City Council set forth in some detail the reasons that we believe the TEP's findings and
recommendations are erroneous. Accordingly, this narrative does not re-hash all of the points
made in that letter. However, there are some specific issues that we wish to elaborate on. These
are as follows:
Wetland Hydrology and Climatic Context
Based on the TEP's October 1, 1998 findings and Kelly Bopray's written testimony for the
December 17, 1998 WCA appeal hearing, it is clear that the severe disturbance to the Becker
site's soils and hydrology went completely unrecognized. In Mr. Bopray's testimony, he states
that "[m]ost wetland professionals consider soils and vegetation reliable indicators of hydrologic
conditions of the site if the hydrology has not been significantly altered". He goes on to quote at
length supporting Corps of Engineers and BWSR guidance. Clearly, the Becker property has
been substantially altered hydrologically and the TEP's early reliance on soils (which were mis-
characterized; see below) and vegetation were misplaced.
The only evidence suggesting the possible presence of wetland hydrology is data collected by
Barr Engineering during the spring of 1999. As stated in our report, the cited time period had
abnormally high precipitation levels and coincided with high lake levels as well. The 'rEP has
concluded that the extremely wet conditions in early May 1999 should be considered "within the
normal range" due to drier conditions during the antecedent 12-month period. This logic would
potentially have some validity if the area in question were an isolated depressional wetland out in
a crop field somewhere. However, the hydrology of the Becker site would be strongly affected
by the level of Lake Minnetonka. When Lake Minnetonka is high, it really shouldn't matter how
dry the preceding year has been--the groundwater beneath areas immediately adjacent to the
lake (including the Becker property) will be at or near the level of the Lake. Moreover, when
6.57 inches of rain falls over a 17-day period encompassing the dates of the hydrologic
observations, the importance of the preceding year fades even more.
All of the climatic data we have compiled corroborates the abnormallY wet conditions in early
May 1999:
Daily precipitation data obtained from the MnDNR's Division of Waters web site for the
City of Mound indicates that of the 17-day period between May 5 and May 21, 6.57
inches of rain fell.
1355 Mendota Heights Road, Suite 100 · Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120-1112 · 651-686-0151 · Fax 651-686-0369 · E-mail: Peclncc~PETERSONENV. com
,~[~,'~ BigRapids, Michigan(23,)796-OgO3.www. Petersonenv. c°rn
Supplement: Becker Wetland Information
PEC Project No. 2000-047
February 8, 2001
Page 2
Normal May precipitation for the Maple Plain Weather Station is 3.72 inches. The 90th
percentile (1 year in 10 is wetter) is 6.18 inches, placing May precipitation recorded in
Mound well above the 90th percentile (hardly normal).
The precipitation ranking maps developed from the precipitation reporting network of the
State Climatologist's office indicates the period April 01 - May 24 to be between the 85-
95 percentile, again indicating that the period was much wetter than normal.
Quote: "[S]pring has been very moist over much of M~nnesota. Some areas have
received double the normal amount of precipitation since April 1. May has been
especially wet with some rivers again reaching flood stage. Many regions of the state
are at or near record amounts of precipitation since April 1. Weekly Precipitation and
Seasonal Departure Maps indicate that as of mid-May, most of Minnesota is at or
above the 90th percentile for growing season rainfall. The deluge led to very high
stream arm river levels[.] <http://climate.umn.edu/doc/joumal/wetspring99.htm>
Rainfall during this period did not occur all in one "slug." Of the 17-day period, 14 days
(82%) had measurable precipitation. Five days had precipitation levels in excess of 0.5
inch. Ten days had precipitation levels in excess of 0.1 inch. In an interview on
Minnesota Public Radio, Mark Seeley (University of Minnesota professor of climatology
and extension climatologist) provided valuable insight as to how unusual the May 1999
series of rainfall events actually was:
Quote: MPR listener question: Earlier this month, I heard that some communities
reported measurable rainfall on eight consecutive days? Isn't this unusual? PFhat is
the record for most consecutive days with measurable rainfall?
Answer: Indeed, eight consecutive days with rainfall is quite unusual. Most years
produce at least one period of 4 consecutive days with rainfall. It is 5 or more
consecutive days with rainfall that starts to become an unusual streak of wet weather
in our type of climate. The record number of consecutive days with measurable
rainfall in the Twin Cities is JO, occurring from June 18-27, 1951. Statewide the
record is 14 consecutive days with measurable rainfall at Faribault, June 5-1& 1967.
<http://climate.mn.edu/cawap/mpr/.\990521.txt>
During the wet May 1999 period the Minnesota Streamflow database maintained by the
MnDNR Division of Waters indicated streams in the area of Lake Minnetonka to be
above the May Q 10 level. This data is in agreement with the May precipitation data that
shows the same 1-in-10 year (or less than 1 in 10 year) probability levels. Note that
these data are based on average May flows, and thus would consider spring flooding as a
natural condition.
Lake Minnetonka has an ordinary high water level established by the MnDNR of 929.4
feet above sea level (fASL), and average water level of 928.48 fASL. A highest recorded
level of 930.51 fASL, and a lowest recorded level of 921.78 fASL. During the wet May,
1999 period in question, Lake Minnetonka was above the established OHWL from May
144 through July 26t~. Note: The Becker lots are immediately adjacent to Lake
Minnetonka. The area in question is at most only 100 feet removed from the lake, and
should closely mimic the lake level.
Supplement: Becker Wetland Information
PEC Project No. 2000-047
February 8, 2001
Page 3
7. The 90-day and 180-day precipitation graphs supplied by the TEP with its findings also
clearly illustrate that early May 1999 was well outside the normal range for this portion
of the year.
8. The FAQ section of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District web site provides some
insight into what are considered "normal" levels for lake Minnesota:
"What is considered "normal" levels of the lake and creek? Normal is fairly relative.
Despite our three miM winters in the Twin Cities, the '90s actually saw above average
precipitation here. Natural conditions always fluctuate. Last year [1999], "no wake"
regulations almost kicked in because the water level in Lake 3dinnetonka was high in
May. Anyone who has Hved on the lake for some time knows that it is common for
water levels to fluctuate and that all it takes is a couple of thunderstorms to get the
lake back up to 'normal' and a couple more to start flooding out lawns along the
creeP.
http://www, minnehahacreek, org/
The TEP's October 10, 2000 findings evidence a basic misunderstanding of both the hydrology
of the Becker property and the climatic context in which the 1999 hydrologic observations were
made. What we believe is more telling than the water table response to abnormally heavy rains
is what happens when those rains stop. As shown in Figure D2 of our August 2, 2000 report, the
water table under the Becker property dropped precipitously back to levels below 12 inches from
the surface within 7 days after the rain events ceased.
Mischaracterization of Soils and Disturbance Level On-Site
The nature and implications of site filling and disturbance were not recognized until documented
in the PEC report Analysis of Wetland Jurisdictional Status dated August 2, 2000, over two years
after the initial delineation and permit application submittals. The initial Barr wetland
delineation performed on the property during 1998 did not' recognize the 1961 fill event. The
subsequent review of this delineation by City of Mound's technical representative (see Kelly J.
Bopray's Outline of Testimony on Wetland Delineation dated 12/17/1998) was, in part, the basis
for the original denial. The 12/17/1998 correspondence also did not recognize site soils as
consisting primarily of fill generated during the lagoon excavation. Assumptions relative to site
hydrology and hydric soils that were relied on by the 'rEP in subsequent findings were
apparently based on the original interpretations in Mr. Bopray's 12/17/1998 correspondence. It
is obvious from this correspondence that soils on the Becker lots were misidentified as consisting
of native Histosols with a thin, discontinuous fill cover placed by Mr. Becker during 1994.
The implications of the misidentification of site soils, and the implications of site disturbance for
wetland delineations performed on the site are examined in detail in our August 2, 2000 report
and elsewhere in the present correspondence. It is important to recognize that the original
delineation and TEl) reviews relied upon a routine interpretation of the wetland soil, hydrology,
and vegetation indicators provided in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual
(the 1987 Manual). In essence the site was evaluated as if it were a relatively undisturbed
Supplement: Becker Wetland Information
PEC Project No. 2000-047
February 8, 2001
Page 4
wetland setting. The two following quotes provide important caveats provided in the 1987
Manual and subsequent guidance regarding disturbed situations:
"Many plant species' can grow successfully in both wetlands and nonwetlands, and
hydrophyfic vegetation and hydric soils may persist for decades following alteration
of hydrology that will render an area a nonwetland." [1987 Manual, paragraph 19,
emphasis supplied]
"[I] want to again emphasize that the 1987 Manual stressed the need to verify that all three
parameters exist prior to identifying and delineating an area as wetland. Further, the 1987
Manual focuses on hydrology {i.e. inundation &/or saturation to the surface). In
situations where hydrology is questionable, the 1987 Manual requires stronger
evidence regarding the hydrophytic nature of the vegetation. The 1987 Manual also
stresses the need to use sound professional judgement, providing latitude to
demonstrate whether an area is wetland or not based on a holistic and careful
consideration of the evidence of all three parameters." [Questions and Answers on the
1987 Manual, Memorandum foe SEE distribution dated 7 October, 1991, John F. Studt,
Chief, Regulatory Branch.]
The 12/17/1998 testimony of Kelly Bopray emphasized the hydric nature of the soils and also
relied on soil morphology to a large degree as an indicator of the presence of wetland hydrology.
However, subsequent analysis of soils information as documented in the August 2, 2000 PEC
report indicates that the soils do not consist of native hydric soils covered with thin upland fill
deposited in 1994. Rather site soils consist of thick deposits (12-30+ inches) of hydric and non-
hydric fill deposited as early as 1961. These fill events constitute a significant alteration of
hydrology necessitating a complete re-evaluation of previous delineations and interpretations.
The presence of hydric fill must be accounted for in an assessment of hydric soils. The August
2, 2000 PEC report provides Technical Note 5 as guidance that indicates that the site soils cannot
be considered hydric by hydric soils criteria..FurthermOre, the presence of hydric fill originating
as lagoon spoil limits the application of hydric soil indicators to non-relict, redoximorphic
indicators such as the presence of 2% or more redoximorphic features around living roots or the
smell of hydrogen sulfide gas. These indicators were evaluated in the field; however, only one
profile (see Profile//5, PEC August 2, 2000 Report), had evidence of the presence of an aquic
moisture regime.
Hydric soils are soils that meet the hydric soil definition, i.e. "soils that formed under conditions
of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic
conditions in the upper part." [Federal Register, July 13, 1994). As such, the presence of criteria
and hydric soil indicators is positive evidence of hydric soils. With the possible exception of a
small area around Profile//5, criteria and hydric soils indicators point to the soils on the site
being non-hydric.
The TEP "generally agrees with [NRCS] Hydric Soils Technical Note 5" and also appears to
concur that the amount of fill historically placed on the Becker property was sufficient to render
Supplement: Becker Wetland Information
PEC Project No. 2000-047
1;cbm~'y B, 2001
Page 5
the soils non-hydric under the guidance contained in that Technical Note. However, the TEP
suggests that "new" hydric soil could develop above the elevation of the original ground surface
within the fill profile due to; (1) surcharging of the original hydric soil or (2) a water level above
the surface of the original soils. The 'rEP states that "[s]ince the soils developing in the fill
material are relatively young (40 years), they might not have developed sufficiently to meet
NP, CS field indicators criteria". Notwithstanding that fact that 40 years is more than enough
time for redoxymorphic features to develop, the mere possibility that hydric soils may someday
reform in the lower part of fill pile is not tantamount to those soils having already formed. The
TEP's comment seems to support rather than refute our conclusion as to the absence of hydric
soils.
However, even if we agreed that "new" hydric soil was forming for the reasons suggested by the
TEP, the TEP should be proactively recommending an incidental wetland exemption on that
basis. The incidental wetland exemption states that "[a] replacemem plan for wetlands is not
required for activities in wetland areas created or reestablished solely as a result of: ...(C) actions
by public or private entities that were taken for a purpose other than creating the wetland" (Minn.
Rules 8420.0122 Subpart 5(C))(emphasis supplied). As stated in our December 21, 2000 letter,
we believe that the soils on the Becker site were rendered non-hydric in 1961 through filling. If
they were to subsequently become hydric, through subsidence or an artifically maintained higher
lake level, the re-establishment of hydric soils would represent created or incidental wetland. In
guidance attached to its year 2000 amendments to the WCA rules, BWSR "[c]larifies that the
term "create" here is broader than rule definition and thus this exemptiOn can apply to wetlands
that have reformed subsequent to effective drainage or being totally filled (emphasis supplied)."
Vegetation
We will not re-hash the vegetation discussion contained in our December 21, 2000 letter. The
only point we would stress is that the dominant hydrophyte (i.e. reed canary grass) that the 'rEP
relied on is a highly invasive plant that thrives in disturbed areas and has actually been found by
researchers to be .drought-tolerant Because. of its adaptability and invasiveness, it is an
unreliable indicator of jurisdictional wetland, particularly in disturbed areas. Furthermore, the
guidance cited in the hydric soils section, above indicates that vegetation must be reviewed
critically in areas that have been hydrologically altered by drainage or filling. We believe that
the TEP has not critically reviewed the vegetation parameter in the light of a drastically disturbed
setting.
Re-Application for Incidental Wetland Exemption
On behalf of the Becker's we have re-applied for an incidental wetland exemption relating to
their property. While the preponderance of the available evidence indicates no wetlands to exist
on the property, we have applied for an incidental wetland exemption to provide the city with an
alternative to rendering a no loss determination. Mr. Becker previously applied for an incidental
wetland exemption in March 2000. The exemption was denied on the basis that the applicant
hadn't demonstrated that the property was sufficiently filled to render it non-wetland. We have
supplied that information as follows:
Supplement: Becker Wetland Information
PEC Project No. 2000-047
February 8, 2001
Page 6
(1)
The historic aerial photographs contained in our August 2, 2000 report show the enire
neighborhood encompassing the Becker property to have been filled.
(2)
The topographic and soil profile information we supplied shows that sufficient fill was
placed to render the soils non-hydric and eliminate wetland hydrology.
(3)
Not-withstanding the TEP's concerns about the accuracy of past topographic surveys, the
1992 Cardarelle survey is consistent with the amount of fill we described in our August 2,
2000 report. That survey was signed by a registered land surveyor who attested to its
accuracy. The elevations shown on that survey are consistent with the topographic
surveys the city has on file for the adjacent properties (1700 Jones Lane and 1701
Baywood Lane). The Cardarelle survey is the best pre-1994 topographic information
available and should be considered reliable.
Topography
The TEP points to discrepencies among the various surveys done on the site and suggests that,
due to these discrepencies, we cannot rely on any of them to determine whether the site was
"overexcavated" during the City-directed fill removal in 1994. The TEP's analysis is
documented in a graphic entitled "Cross Sections Lots 7 and 8", attached to the TEP report. This
analysis is flawed because: (1) not all of the "surveys" included in the analysis are actually
legitimate topographic surveys, (2) the analysis only depicts one cross-section which may or may
not be representative of the overall character of the property before and after the 1994
excavation.
The 1993 drawing prepared by Design 2 Architects does not purport to be an accurate
topographic survey and was neither prepared or signed by a Registered Land Surveyor (RLS).
The origin of the topographic information it depicts is unknown and we agree that its accuracy is
suspect. For that reason, we did not rely on this survey in our analysis. In contrast, the 1992
Cardarelle survey referenced in our report is held out to be an accurate topographic survey and
was prepared and signed by an RLS. It is the only reliable pre-1994 topographic survey
information available for the site. Absent substantive information that this survey is inaccurate,
it is inappropriate for the TEl) to suggest that the Cardarelle survey is in error.
The October 23, 2000 supplement to the October 10, 2000 TEP report discusses the "+/- 1 foot"
margin of error inherent in surveys with a 2-foot contour interval. We would point out that the
surveys that continue to be relied on by the City of Mound in its development review process
have the same contour interval. From our review of file materials for recently developed,
similarly situated properties, the city routinely relies on surveys with 2-foot contour intervals in
granting development approvals. If surveys of that accuracy level what the city requires and
relies upon for other projects, the city should have no compunction about relying on them here.
Supplement: Becker Wetland Information
PEC Project No. 2000-047
February 8, 2001
Page 7
Standard of Proof
We believe that the available evidence demonstrates clearly and convincingly that the Becker
property was rendered non-wetland by the 1961 fill event. It is true that Minn. Rules 8420.0210
require the applicant to submit proof that a WCA exemption applies. However, the rules do not
set forth a specific standard of proof. In the vegetation discussion on page 2 of the October 10,
2000 TEP findings the TEP cites a preponderance of the evidence as the appropriate standard of
proof under the WCA. Notwithstanding this statement, the TEP seems to be requiring the
applicant to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no wetland existed on the Becker property
after the 1961. The applicant should be held to the same standard of proof as the TEP. We
believe that the preponderance of the evidence we have supplied indicates that the Becker
property does not encompass jurisdictional wetland and, that even if it did, such wetland would
be covered by the incidental wetland exemption.
CiTY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364-1687
PH: (952) 472-0600
FAX: (952) 472-0620
WEB: www. cityofmound.com
To: Mayor and Council
From: Kandis M. Hanson, City Manager
Re: Leaf Disposal
Date: February 8, 2001
During the 2001 City Budget process last fall, some of you asked staffto study and
provide you with options on leaf disposal programs. Since that time, staff, the haulers
and a representative from SMC at Minnetrista have contributed to gathering the data that
has gone into formulating the best possible options that are available to the City of
Mound residents for leaf disposal. Your discussion and your directives will guide staff
toward any changes that need to be made.
Option 1
Have garbage haulers dispose of leaves at SMC site in Minnetrista
Garbage haulers would be required to pick up leaves at home, curb-side. They would
take them to the Minnetrista site. This requires an Ordfnance amendment.
Pros:
- Residents would have a very easy way ~f disposing leaves: haulers would pick them up
printed on recycled paper
and dispose them.
-Leaves, grass clippings and milfoil may be dropped seven days a week, spring through
fall.
Issues:
- Who will pay for the additional cost? The City could subsidize hauler for the full cost, a
portion of the cost or none.
- The leaves would have to be debagged. No plastic is allowed at this site per Minnehaha
Water Shed District, MNPCA, and Hennepin Co.
- If the City would require haulers to pick up leaves and dispose of them free of charge to
their customers, they would have to spread the cost across all of their customers.
- Haulers now charge 50 cents a bag. That charge fairly accurately represents their cost
for curb-side pickup. Correspondingly, the City subsidy could be expected to be as high
as $20,000 to $30,000 annually.
Option 2
Garbage haulers would dispose leaves at NRG in Shakopee
The garbage haulers would be required to pick up leaves at curb-side. They would take
them to the NRG site in Shakopee.
Pros:
- Residents would have a very easy way of disposing leaves: haulers would pick them up
and disposed them.
- The leaves do not have to be debagged: no plastics restriction at NRG.
Issues:
In addition to the above listed issues,
- NRG charges $36.00 per ton. (Year 2000 rate.)
- There is a limited time when haulers can pick up leaves: generally a two-week time
frame. (Blackowiak)
Option 3
Keep program as it is
Residents take leaves to the Minnetrista site and pay based on SMC gate fees o__r those
with no means of transportation pay haulers to dispose of leaves for them curbside.
Pros:
- Residents who need the service pay for it: a user-based program.
- It is the most economical way to dispose of the leaves.
- We would be supporting the site that we advocated to have for many years. If this site
is not supported and goes out of business, Mound will have no local drop site for leaf
and brush disposal. (See attached memo dated October 24, 2000 further listing the
reasons why we should support the new compost site located in Minnetrista.)
- The City would be able to keep the recycling fees at a reasonable level.
- The City could negotiate a subsidy to SMC for part or for the full gate fee charged.
- $10,000 should cover for leaves, grass clipping, and milfoil disposal the first season.
(Not guaranteed for future years.)
Issues:
- Residents would have to take the leaves to the Minnetrista site or to pay haulers to take
them at a cost of 50 cents a bags.
- Some residents would not clean up their properties if transport depended upon them.
Note:
Here are a few things that we became aware of as we talked about this issue:
- BFI has a limit of 10 bags or bundles per week, from April to November. They charge
$48 per year for the service.
- Blackowiak sets a date - weekends. Very limiting for the customer.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends Option 3 for thc reasons cited. Although they may not appreciate it
now, supporting this composting site is going to be critical for Mound residents from
here on out. Also, being a user-based program, this is the most fair approach to our
Mound customers. It does not present costs to the residents who do not usc thc service.
Otherwise, there is no way in which this service can be provided with out financially
impacting all of Mound residents.
CHANGE is difficult. That is what occurring here. A year or so into this program,
people will forget how it used to be.
To: Mayor and Council
From: Kandis M. Hanson, City Manager
Re: Leaves Disposal
Date: October 24, 2000
After having enjoyed the beautiful green leaves on our trees through the summer and the
spectacular colors through the autumn season, Mound residents now have to find a way
to dispose of all those fallen leaves. It is one chore that maybe we could do without in
more than one way.
In the past, the City worked hard to convince the City of Minnetrista that they should
support a private arrangement in their city for a compost site. At the same time we have
used the Lost Lake site to accommodate as much as possible with the process of leaves
composting and disposal.
This year we are at a turning point. Finally there is a compost site in Minnetrista. It is
located on Highway 7 to the East of St. Bonifacius, sharing the same entrance with
Widmer, Inc. Not only people can drop off leaves and branches, but they can also pick up
composted material and wood chips.
Being a for profit operation, the compost site needs our support. The City of Mound is
asking and encouraging residents to make use of the site as much as possible. It would be
very disappointing if we lose them because of lack of business.
Here are some reasons why this new arrangement is so important to us:
The unavailability of space in Mound.
As you know, the Lost Lake site will be part of the downtown redevelopment. With
the post office removal and completion of the dredging of the canal, the available
space will be gone.
Leaves need to compost at least two years to become a usable material. That makes
it cumbersome to have the site at the Lost Lake site. We have heard that the smell
has also been a BIG issue.
o
The City of Mound does not have the equipment nor staffto process the material to
a finished usable product.
Hennepin Parks, the place where we have hauled leaves in the past, does not accept
them any more. They are short of staff and, given the large volume, they do not
have space to put them. The other site in Chaska is no longer in operation.
5. Costs to mn any leaves disposal program would be paid from fees charged to
residents. The Recycling Fund revenues are being used almost totally for recyclables
pickups and, in part, for Spring Cleaning Day. The projected budget would call for a
fee increase just to support those two programs. We are not proposing a fee increase
for the year 2001, but we would have, if the City had to incur those additional costs.
We believe that the City of Mound has struggled through with this issue in the past the
best it could. Now that we have a site available within a reasonable distance, we would
encourage people to make use of the place, support it and make it viable for our
convenience.
ORDINANCE NO. -2001
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE V OF
THE MOUND CODE OF ORDINANCES
DRAFT
The City of Mound Does Ordain:
Article V of the Mound Code of Ordinances entitled Fees, Charges and Rates is hereby
amended in the following respects:
entirety.
Section 510 entitled Fees, Business Licenses and Permits is hereby repealed in its
II. Section 520 entitled Building Permits, Plumbing and Related Fees is hereby
repealed in its entirety.
III.
its entirety.
Section 540 entitled Sewer and Water Rates, Charges and Fees is hereby repealed in
IV. A new Section 510 is hereby adopted to read as follows:
SECTION 510 - FEES AND DEPOSITS, LICENSES AND PERMITS.
Section 510:00. Establishment of License, Permit and Miscellaneous Fees by Resolution. License,
permit and miscellaneous fees established under the ordinances of the City of Mound shall be
determined from time to time, by resolutions of the City Council. Such fees are to be paid, in full, at
the time of application. No application or request shall be deemed complete until any required fee
or deposit is paid. The fee will be returned to the applicant in the event the application or request is
denied or withdrawn.
Section 510:05 Establishment of Deposits by Resolution. The City Council is authorized to
establish by resolution, from time to time, deposits that will be required for the consideration of
licenses, permits and other requests for City action. The deposit will be paid at the time the
application or request is made, and will be applied to cover the expenses of the City incurred in
connection with consideration of the request. The amount of any deposit specified by resolution
shall be deemed the minimum deposit, and the City may require additional amounts, and
discontinue further consideration of the request until such further deposit is made. Unused deposits
shall be remmed following final consideration of the request.
Section 510:10. Authority for Each Fee or Deposit to be Stated. Any such resolution establishing
fees or deposits shall state the ordinance section, if any, pursuant to which each particular fee is
being established.
Section 510:15. Official Copies of Fee or Deposit Resolutions. Three copies of the most recent
resolution establishing such license, permit and miscellaneous fees or deposits shall be marked
JBD-185095vl
MU220-2
"Official Copy" and shall be filed and made available for use and examination by the public in the
office of the City Clerk.
Section 510:20. Payment of Fees and Deposits. The provisions of Sections 510:00 and 510:05
relating to the timing and application of fees and deposits supercede and replace any provisions
contained in the ordinance coveting the same subject.
Section 510:25. Resolution to Control. Once established, fees and deposits set by resolution shall
supercede and replace any stated fee or deposit contained in the ordinance coveting the same
matter.
V. The Acting City Clerk is hereby directed to carry out the provisions of Section 510
by removing all references to actual fees contained throughout the Ordinance Code and replace such
reference with the phrase "established in accordance with the provisions of Section 510 of the City
Code."
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mound Minnesota this
2001.
__ day of
Pat Meisel Mayor
ATTEST:
Karol Charon Acting City Clerk
JBD-185095vl
MU220-2
o_o_o
Governor's budget due
next week
Next Tuesday, Gov. Jesse Ventura
will unveil his proposal for the
2.002-2003 state biennial budget
as well as initiatives to reform the
state's tax structure. With the
governor's budget introduction,
the legislative session will begin in
earnest as the House and Senate
committees begin their hearings on
the proposal.
Apparently, the governor's budget
and tax proposals are not completely
finalized. Yesterday, a new concept
was leaked that would allow taxpay-
ers in the Twin Cities seven-county
metropolitan area to vote on whether
an additional metro-wide sales tax
levy should be enacted to finance
transit operations.
We believe that many of the
governor's initiatives for tax reform,
which we have outlined in previous
LMC publications, will be included
in the plan. Most significantly, the
state will assume 100 percent of
the cost of the general education
levy for the state's school districts.
This takeover will cost approxi-
mately $900 million per year. The
governor will also propose cuts in
the state's income tax rates.
To fund these new commitments,
the governor will likely propose an
expansion of the sales tax to many
services, including professional
activities such as legal, engineering
and architectural services. Aisc, the
plan will apparently include a new
state-imposed school property tax
that will be levied against commer-
cial and industrial properties. The
governor will aisc propose redirect-
-> Adninistrator Page 881 0£ 882
FRIDAYFAX ,,
lng existing state budget resources
by eliminating or greatly reducing
city homestead and agricultural
credit aid (HACA).
One small bit of good news--the
governor will propose the elimina-
tion of the sales tax on local gov-
ernment purchases. This tax is
estimated to cost cities 560 million
per year and counties an additional
$40 million. However, when coupled
with the elimination of nearly
,$200 million in city HACA, cities
will need to raise property taxes
and fees by at least ,$140 million
to cover the cost of the changes.
The next most important date in the
session may occur in late February
when the Department of Finance
updates the state's budget forecast.
Recent softening in the state's
economy could translate into lower
expected state revenues and
smaller surpluses. If the forecast is
down substantially, the governor
may have to make major revisions
to his budget and tax proposals.
The House Ways and Means
Committee is currently scheduled
to hold a hearing on the governor's
proposal at 10:15 a.m. on Wednes-
day, Jan. 24. The committee will
hear from Finance Commissioner
Pamela Wheelock, Assistant
Finance Commissioner Peggy
Ingison, and Revenue Commis-
sioner Matt Smith.
"Work Force" Housing
The Senate Jobs, Housing and
Community Development Commit-
tee, chaired by Sen. Ellen Ander-
son (DFL-St. Paul) will be discuss-
ing various aspects of housing
Spec'~at
Number
January 19, 2001
development in Minnesota commu-
nities. The focus of the meeting will
be on the incentives for and
impediments to affordable "work
force" housing. Among those
testifying are the LMC, AMM, the
Builders, the Realtors, and the
building trades union.
The hearing will be significant for
municipalities due to the increasing
rhetoric LMC staff has been hear-
ing regarding city building permit
fees, development agreements and
park dedication requirements.
Other criticisms of cities regarding
"work force" housing are city
subdivision and design standards
that some say act as disincentives
or barriers to fulfilling the state's
housing needs. The meeting may
become a forum for the real estate
industry to paint cities as revenue
hungry entities that use fees to
cushion general funds.
Despite the potential negative
comments that may be brought to
the table, cities are prepared to let
legislators know about city housing
programs, the innovative commu-
nity partnerships and the need for
more partnerships with the employ-
ers in our communities. Cities are
also seeking constructive ways to
work around market forces that
tend to be driving up land and
housing values that are out of the
control of municipalities. Cities are
prepared to look at local budget
decisions, to seek legitimate
suggestions for cost containment
and to defend the accountability of
city revenues and expenditures.
The hearing will be held at 9 a.m.,
Wednesday, Jan. 24 in room 123
of the State Capitol.
For more information on ci~.' legislative issues, contact an)' member of the League of Minnesota Cities Intergovernmental ltelations team,
(651j 281-1200 or (800j 925-1122
FRIDAYFAX
200! -- P~E 2
Page 00Z Of OBZ
Bill introductions
Historic structure rehabilitation
A bill introduced in the Senate on
Thursday, S.F. 169, would provide
a state income tax credit for taxpay-
ers that incur costs in historic
structure rehabilitation efforts. The
bill applies to rehabilitation efforts
for certified historic structures or
structures in certified historic
districts that are offered or used for
residential or business purposes.
The tax credit would be an amount
equal to 25 percent of the total
costs of the rehabilitation. To
qualify for the credit, the rehabilita-
tion costs would need to exceed
50 percent of the total basis in the
property The bill outlines an
application process and provides
for a mortgage credit certificate in
lieu of the income tax credit at the
election of the taxpayer.
The League of Minnesota Cities
policy statement (LE-6 Redevelop-
ment Programs) asks the Legisla-
ture to consider tax incentives,
including income tax credit legisla-
tion, to encourage local historic
preservation efforts.
The bill S.F. 169 was introduced by
Sans. Sandy Pappas (DFL-St. Paul),
Larry Pogemiller (DFL-Minneapolis),
John Hottinger (DFL-Mankato),
Dennis Frederickson (R-New UIm),
and Bill Belanger (R,Bloomington).
EMS special taxing districts
bill Introduced
A bill that would authorize two or
more political subdivisions to
establish a special taxing district for '
emergency medical services was
introduced in the House on Thurs-
day. EMS special taxing districts
would have property tax levy
authority, the ability to incur debt,
and could exercise any underlying
powers of its participating political
subdivisions where necessary or
reasonable to support its services.
The bill outlines the permissible
uses of levy proceeds, provides for
governing boards, advisory coun-
cils, addition and withdrawal of
participating political subdivisions,
and dissolution.
H.F. 192 is authored by Reps. Kevin
Goodno (R-Moorhead), Doug
Fuller (R-Bemidji), Gene Pelowski
(DFL-Winona), Richard Mulder
(R-Ivanhoe), Doug Peterson (DFL-
Madison), Loren Jennings (DFL-
Harris), Al Juhnke (DFL-Willmar),
John Dom (DFL-Mankato) and
Thomas Huntley (DFL-Duluth),
and has been forwarded to the
Health and Human Services
Finance Committee.
TIF companion bill Introduced
H.F 187, the companion bill to S.F.
73 (Rest, Belanger and Pappas),
was introduced on Thursday by
Reps Ron Abrams (R-Minnetonka),
Dan McEIroy (R-Burnsville). Bill
Kuisle (R-Rochester), Dennis
Ozment (R-Rosemount), and Ann
Lenczewski (DFL-Bloomington).
Keg registration bill to be heard
A bill that provides for identification
of beer kegs, H.F. 58 (McGuire,
Bernardy, Dehler, and Entenza) will
be heard in the House Civil Law
Committee at 10:15 a.m. Wednes-
day, Jan. 24, in the Basement
Hearing Room of the State Office
Building.
le~a%ete~
LEAGUE
Legislati
February 1, 2001
0 F M I N N ~i:i!i:S 0TA
:::
CITIES 2001
onference
im
Sheraton Midway Hotel, St. Paul
City officials get the big story on the Big Plan and more
City life under"W': reflections of veteran Capitol reporter are highlights of conference
Registration fee: S70 for
members; S20 foryouth.
Howto register: Register online anytime at
www.lmnc.org tonlin¢ registrations will be billed).
Questions? Call Jodi¢ Tooley (651) 281-12S1
or Cathy Dovidio (651) 281-1250.
Jan 26 2881 17:11:33 Via Fax -) a&ministra(or
FRIDAYFAX
Page 881 0£ 882
N umber
January 26, 2001
More on governor's tax
plan next week
Next week, the House Tax Committee
will hold several hearings on the
governor's tax plan. On Tuesday
and Wednesday at 10:15 a.m.,
in Room 200 of the State Office
Building, the committee will devote
the entire meeting to discussing the
proposal.
The Senate Tax Committee hearings
this week yielded little comprehen-
sive information on the governor's
proposal and little public reaction.
Due to the complexity of the pro-
posal and the lack of specific
information and bill drafts, many
groups have temporarily withheld
comment
At next week's legislative confer-
ence, Commissioner Matt Smith
and House Tax Chair Rep. Ron
Abrams will participate in a discus-
sion of the governor's plan. Senate
Tax Chair Larry Pogemiller is trying
to adjust his schedule to make an
appearance
Working group to filter
TIF issues
A TIF working group of the Senate
Tax Committee, co-chaired by
Senators Linda Scheid (DFL-
Brooklyn Park) and Bob Kierlin
(R-Winona), was created Jan. 23.
Other Tax Committee members will
presumably volunteer to participate
on the TIF working group but full
working group membership has yet
to be identified. While no formal
action will be taken, the TIF working
group will filter out the TIF bills for
the Property Tax Budget Division
initially and the full Tax Committee
ultimately, and will separate consen-
sus items from those that are likely
to be more controversial.
Governor's proposed
budget impacts TIF
The League has stressed to legisla-
tors that if the state assumes
funding for K-12 general education
costs, the amount of increment
available for tax increment financing
projects will be dramatically reduced.
Simply eliminating the education
portion of the property tax for TIF
purposes may significantly hamper
the ability of development authori-
ties to create viable TIF districts,
particularly for costly activities such
as redevelopment and housing.
On a positive note, in his proposed
budget released Wednesday, Gov.
Ventura recognized the impacts of
his plan on existing TIF districts and
provided $65.6 million annually for
the years 2003, 2004, and 2005 for
the Dept of Revenue TIF grant
program to assist distrids treat
experience deficits. Concluding that
the state takeover of education
funding will make the LGA/HACA
offset obsolete, the governor also
recommended elimination of the
offset at an annual cost to the state
of $54 million.
Senate committee gives
first nod to lowering
DWI threshold
Earlier this week, the Senate Crime
Prevention Committee passed
SF 118 (Foley), a bill that would
lower the legal blood alcohol content
(mAC) level for impairment offenses
from 0.10 to 0.08. The Legislature
last year rejected the measure,
which also applies to activities
including hunting and operating
other motor vehicles such as off-
road recreational vehicles, motor
boats ~d aircraft.
It is expected that SF 118 and its
companion, HF 51 (Goodno), will
move forward this session. Before
a0jocrmng last year, Congress
passed a 008 driving while impaired
(DWi) bill that included a measure
tying states' adoption of the 0.08
threshold to highway funding. If
Minnesota fails to adopt the lower
threshold, the state stands to lose
S25 million in federal highway funds
by 2007
Althcugh the measure passed with
little opposition, committee members
requested an assessment of the
local fiscal impact of 0.08 accom-
pany the bill when it receives a
hearing in the Finance Committee.
Unjustified fees and
excessive government
regulation
The EuildersAssociation of Minne-
sota and the Minnesota Association
of Realtors unveiled their legislation
agenda this week, citing city govern-
merit regulation and development
fees as. core to the lack of affordable
housin¢ in the state.
Information on the package was
released during a Senate Jobs,
Housing & Community Development
Committee on Wednesday. The
committee agenda was slated to be
a discussion about the method by
For more information on city legislative issues, contact an)' member of the League of Minnesota Cities lmergovert~tnelllal ~etatioas team.
(65J} 281-1200 or (800) 925-I122
2001 -- P),s~ 2
Page 88Z 0£ 882
which developments are put
together. The private building
industry took the opportunity to
suggest "regulatory reform" to
improve the affordable housing
market.
Among the ideas:
· Special Revenue Accounts for all
development and building fees
with no general fund crossover.
· Mandatory 10-dayturnaround
on building permit applications.
Failure to provide a written
rationale why the approval may
take longer than 10 days would
result in mandating the local
government refunding all fees and
deeming the permit approved.
· Special assessment appeals
waivers will become illegal.
Mandatory reporting to the state,
in detail, the fee revenue collec-
tion and expenditure
· Plan check fees not allowed for
second reviews unless there are
substantial modifications to the
plan from the original application.
Urgent input sought on peace officer authority
of mayors and councilmembers
Under current Minnesota Statute 412.101, mayors and city councilmembers
in non-optional plan B cities may be designated peace officers, These
designated officers have all the powers and duties, of town constable,
Citing 412.101 as obsolete: the Peace Officer ~andards and Training
(POST) Board is bringing forward a bill to repeal the statute. The LMC
has been solicited for input on the legislation. If you have thoughts or
concerns about the potential repeal, please contactAnne Finn, LMC, at
afinn@lmnc.org or (651) 281-1263.
Seeking input on partition fence bills
Changes to fence law are currently being considered in both the House
and Senate in HF 174 (Nornes) and SF 206, (Larson). As introduced, the
bill would require the landowners of adjoininc; property to build and
maintain a fence only when bo~.h parties des;re.: ',.he land to be fenced
Current law specifies both owners to share i2 ire building when one of
the landowners desires the fence.
The bill was amended in the House Local ano Metropolitan Government
Committee this week. Ti~e amended bill state~, th, at fence viewers shall
not require an owner who can prove no neec for a fence to pay any share
of the cost of construction or maintenance ol tP, e fence. If the owner later
develops a need for a fence within seven yea:~ cf completion, then either
of the owners can request the fence viewers to reevaluate and reassign
shares of the cost of construction and maintenance.
The Senate version, SF 206, will be heard Jan. 31 by the Agriculture
Committee, Capitol 107 at 10 a.m. The House Agriculture Committee
has not yet scheduled a hearing.
What do you think? Any concerns, ideas, or questions regarding this bill
can be referred to Jennifer O'Rourke at (651) 281-1261, or jorourke~
Imnoorg. Look for more information in next week's Bulletin.
Le g islati v o n fe [.e c e_
February 1,2001 Sheraton Midway Hotel, St. Pa ul
City officials get the big story on the Big plan and more
City life under"W'; reflections of veteran Capitol reporter are highlights of conferenc~
Registration fee: S70 for members; 520 for youth. Questions? Call Jodie loolcy (6S1) 2£1-1251 or ,Sat,by Dovidio (6£1) 281-1250.
-> A&ninistrator
FRIDAYFAX
A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities
Page
881 Of 881
Number
February 2. 2001
Shooting range bill aims
at local government
zoning authority
The House Local Government
Committee will hear "The Shooting
Range" bill Feb. 5 in Room 200 of
the State Office Building.
The bill, HF 209, authored by Rep.
Tom Hackbarth (R-Cedar), essentially
prohibits local governments from
regulating the operation of shooting
ranges provided the shooting ranges
operate as per "generally accepted
operation practices." "Generally
accepted operation practices" are
adopted bythe DNR and shall
incorporate the shooting practices
endorsed by a nationally-recognized
nonprofit firearms organization.
Local governments may not regulate
the shooting range when repairing,
remodeling, improving, replacing or
reinforcing any structure on the
property, even if it is operating under
a non-conforming use permit. Local
governments may not restrict hours
of operation or place noise controls
on the facility. If an '=act of God" or
"act of war" causes any shooting
range structure to be damaged, the
range must be allowed to resume
any conforming or non-conforming
use upon its reconstruction. How-
ever, in the event that a clear and
proven safety hazard exists due to
the operation of the shooting range,
the local government or state may
close the range and pay for all
relocation expenses.
Call your legislators. Call the bill's
author. Call the House Local Gov-
ernment Committee. Tell them Your
thoughts on the bill.
The 60-day rule bill finds
opposition
As townships, cities, and counties
work together to remove the
procedural traps set in Minnesota's
"60-day rule," builders and develop-
ers work to derail SF 200. The bill,
authored by Sen. Jim Vickerman
(D-Tracy), is designed to clarify
what a written request is, to make
clear what motions are necessary
to deny a request, and to allow local
governments to publish a complete
written statement supporting the
denial at the next meeting of its
governing body ..
The bill was heard in the Senate
State & Local Government Opera-
tions Committee, also chaired by
Sen. Vickerman, last Wednesday.
The bill was tabled after the Minne-
sota Association of Realtors (MAR)
and the Builders Association of
Minnesota (BAM) expressed opposi-
tion to the bill. Among the concerns
raised were that local governments
are seeking this legislation in an
effort stop litigation. Also, that local
governments want to delay publish-
ing written findings-of-fact in order
to "doctor" the reasons to fit legal
requirements between meetings.
The LMC, the Association of Minne-
sota Counties, and the Minnesota
Association of Townships are
working on an amendment to put to
rest the concerns and move forward
with clarifying a cumbersome law.
Ramp meter study results
Yesterday, the Dept. of Transporta-
tion (MnDOT) released the final
results of an independent study on
ramp metering in the Twin Cities
metro area. The study evaluated the
traffic flow and safety impacts
associated with turning off all
430 ramp meters for six weeks
last fall as mandated by the 2000
Legislature.
The report can be viewed in its
entirety at ww~v. dot.state, mn. us/
rampmeterstudy/reports.html.
Upcoming meetings
Monday, Feb. 5--
10 State Office Building
Regulated Industries--
Chr. Rep. Ken Wolf
Agenda: HF 510 (Wolf) relating to
telecommunications; modifying and
recodifying telecommunications
laws (Governor's Telecommunica-
tions Reform Bill). Testimony by
Deputy Commissioner of Commerce
Tony Mendoza.
To view the Senate and House
calendars for next week's commit-
tee hearings, jam-packed with city
issues, see: vcww. house.leg.state.
mn.us/hlnfo/schedule/Index.htm
or http://www, senate.leg, state.mn.
us/schedule/Index.htm.
For more information on ci0' legislative issues, contact any member of the League of Minnesota Cities Intergovernmental I~etations team.
(651) 281-1200 or (800) 925-1122
Page 1 of 3
KandisHanson
From: "Barbara Olson" <olsonb(~westonka.k12.mn.us>
To: <kandishanson@msn.com>;
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 2:35 PM
Subject: westonka.news Vol. 1, No. 14
westonka.news
Vol. 1, No. 14
January 19, 2001
The Westonka Public Schools' channel for direct electronic communication to interested
parents, staff, and community members, providing up-to-date information about education in
District 277. westonka.news publishes weekly. Look for it in your mailbox on Fridays.
Westonka Public Schools, 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A, Mound MN 55364;
http://www.westonka.k12.mn.us; tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043; e-mail:
welisten ('¢._.westo n ka. kl 2. mn. us.
Contents
1. News Briefs
--These Speakers May Change Your Life
--Citizen Input Needed on District Curriculum Committee
--School Board Officers
2. Focus Topic: Community Education Staff to Focus on Growing Program Demands
3. Upcoming Events
4. We Want to Hear from You
NEWS BRIEFS
**These Speakers May Change Your Lfe**
"Think About It" will be the topic of a conversation with author Mike Patrick, who turned a
paralyzing football accident into a new outlook on life. Patrick has a message for all families
with children, from tots to teens, about ways to think through problems and find solutions.
Students at Shirley Hills and Hilltop Primary Schools will have an all-day visit from Mike during
the week of January 22. Parents and interested community members can hear what he has to
say at a special evening presentation, Tuesday, January 23, from 7-9 p.m. at Grandview
Middle School, cafeteria, 1881 Commerce Boulevard, Mound. Free admission; freewill
donation at the door. '"
01/19/2001
Page 2 of 3
Misti Snow, editor of the Star Tribune's Mindworks column and author of "A Message from
Children" will be the keynote speaker at a workshop on Saturday, February 3, from 10 a.m. to
noon at Mound Westonka High School, Little Theater, 5905 Sunnyfield Road East, Minnetrista.
Breakout sessions will include: how to recognize depression; current trends in chemical use in
our community; how to take back family life from overscheduled activities; and a continued
discussion with Misti Snow on her keynote presentation. Free admission, but pre-registration is
requested. Please call 491-8040 to register.
Both speakers are sponsored by the Joint Parent Advisory Group, Westonka Public Schools,
and the Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative.
**Citizen Input Needed on District Curriculum Review Committee**
If you're interested in being a part of reviewing curriculum materials for the Westonka Public
Schools, consider applying for a position on the District Reevaluation of Learning Resources
Committee. The reevaluation process is part of a comprehensive plan that meets state,
national and North Central Association (an accrediting association) guidelines. Committee
member terms are for one year. The committee meets when a request has been filed for a
reconsideration of instructional materials.
For more information or to request an application, contact the Superintendent's Office,
952.491.8007, or e-mail Mary Landberg, superintendent's secretary, at
landbergm@westonka.k12.mn.us.
**School Board Officers**
At its January organizational meeting, the Westonka School Board elected officers as follows:
Chair: Bill Pinegar; Vice-Chair: David Botts; Clerk: Mary Landberg; Treasurer: Bruce Charon.
Committee assignments will be voted on at the February meeting.
FOCUS TOPIC
**Community Education Staff to Focus on Growing Program Demands**
Westonka's Community Education and Services department has realigned two staff positions
in order to meet growing needs of the program.
Mary Hughes has been hired as community education supervisor, with overall responsibility for
the department. A veteran of community education programs in Greater Minnesota, Hughes
brings a great deal of vitality and experience to the position.
Formerly director of the community education program in the Bird Island Olivia Lake Lillian
District (BOLD), Hughes has a passion for community educatic~n. She says, "1 strongly believe
in the benefits and influence a great program can have for a community. Through education
01/19/2001
Page 3 of 3
and collaboration, citizens can create carin9, constructive, and effective responses to local
needs. Community education is a great way to get school district citizens involved with
decision making. I am anxious to meet people in the district, and I will continue to be a team
player in a well established community education program, as well as bringing new ideas and
leadership to the organization."
Roxanne Palm will join the community education staff on January 29 as recreation program
coordinator. Palm has extensive experience in the Maplewood parks and recreation program.
Questions regarding youth and adult recreation programs may be directed to Mary Hughes
(952.491.8042; hughesm("C_.westonka.k12.mn.us) until Palm comes on board.
UPCOMING EVENTS
--January 22, 7:30 p.m., School Board Study Session, Shirley Hills Meeting Room
--January 23, 7-9 p.m., Mike Patrick, "Think About It," Mound Westonka High School, Little
Theater (see News Brief above); free admission.
--January 26, K-4 Late Start (11:10 a.m.); No School Grades 5-12; Teacher Workshop Day
VVE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU!
We would like to hear your feedback on any of the topics above, or any other school-related
issue. Use whichever way works best for you: send an e-mail message to
<welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us>; call the District Feedback Line at 952.491.8260; or mail
your comments to Barbara Olson, Community Relations Coordinator, Westonka Public
Schools, 2450 Wilshire Blvd., Suite A, Mound MN 55364
To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to Barbara OIson at
<olso n b@weston ka. k 12. mn. us>
It is the mission of the Westonka Public School District, in partnership with students, parents,
and the community, to create the environment necessary to achieve quality education for
lifelong learning.
Westonka Public Schools
2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A
Mound MN 55364
tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043
welisten@westonka.k 12. mn. us
http://www.westonka, k 12.mn.us
westonka.news is published by the Community Relations Department, Barbara Olson, editor.
01/19/2001
Page 1 of 3
KandisHanson
From: "Barbara Olson" <olsonb@westonka.k12.mn. us>
To: <kandishanson@msn.com>;
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 9:04 AM
Subject: Editor's note:
Editor's note: With my apologies, this issue is being distributed on Monday instead of Friday. I
was out of the office all day Friday.
westonka.news
Vol. 1, No. 15
January 29, 2001
The Westonka Public Schools' channel for direct electronic communication to interested
parents, staff, and community members, providing up-to-date information about education in
District 277. westonka.news publishes weekly. Look for it in your mailbox on Fridays.
Westonka Public Schools, 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A, Mound MN 55364;
http://www.westonka.k12.mn.us; tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043; e-mail:
welisten @westo n ka. k 12. mn. us.
Contents
1. News Briefs
--Riding Out High Gas Prices
2. Focus Topic: Understanding ADHD
3. Upcoming Events
4. We Want to Hear from You
NEWS BRIEFS
**Riding Out High Gas Prices**
When natural gas prices soared recently, business services director Chuck Herdegen and the
district facilities staff put their heads together and created a plan that will help the district ride
out high gas prices, while ensuring that the district's emergency oil reserve remains in good
shape.
The district keeps a supply of fuel oil in its reserves for emergency use. From time to time, the
old oil needs to be used and replaced with fresh.
01/29/2001
Page 2 of 3
As it happens, that regular replacement cycle has coincided with the energy price spike. By
burning off the old oil, the district is able to ride out the current high gas prices and, at the
same time, perform a regular maintenance task.
FOCUS TOPIC
**Understanding Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder**
On January 30, the Westonka Special Education Advisory Council will sponsor a special
presentation by Gary Johnson, PhD on Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). During
this presentation, Dr. Johnson will share information on the diagnosis and treatment this
condition in children and adolescents. Topics covered may include research findings, genetic
factors, medications, bio-feedback, nutrition, exercise, neurocognitive training, coaching,
school accomodations.
This presentation will be at Mound Westonka High School, 5905 Sunnyfield Road East,
Minnetrista, from 6-7:30 p.m. It is a free event and is open to parents, staff, students, and
interested community members.
UPCOMING EVENTS
--January 29, Joint Parent Advisory, 3:30 p.m., Early Childhood Center
--January 30, Understanding ADHD (see Focus Topic above), 6 p.m., Mound Westonka High
School
--January 30, Basic Standards Test, Gr. 10 Composition
--January 30, Early Childhood Advisory Council, 6:30 p.m., Early Childhood Center
--January 30, PTO, 7 p.m., Grandview Middle School
--January 31, Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment, Gr. 11 Math
--February 1, Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment, Gr. 10 Reading
--February 3, Parent Workshop featuring Misti Snow, author and editor of Star Tribune
Mindworks column. The workshop will offer a variety of topics of interest to parents. 10 a.m. to
noon, Mound Westonka High School; call 491-8040 to register.
WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU!
We would like to hear your feedback on any of the topics above, or any other school-related
issue. Use whichever way works best for you: send an e-mail message to
<welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us>; call the District Feedback Line at 952.491.8260; or mail
your comments to Barbara Olson, Community Relations Coordinator, Westonka Public
Schools, 2450 Wilshire Blvd., Suite A, Mound MN 55364
01/29/2001
Page 3 of 3
To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to Barbara Olson at
<olsonb@westonka.k12.mn.us>
It is the mission of the Westonka Public School District, in partnership with students, parents,
and the community, to create the environment necessary to achieve quality education for
lifelong learning.
Westonka Public Schools
2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A
Mound MN 55364
tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043
welisten@westonka.k 12. mn. us
http://www.weston ka. k 12. mn. us
westonka.news is published by the Community Relations Department, Barbara Olson, editor.
01/29/2001
Page '1 of 2
KandisHanson
From: "Barbara Olson" <olsonb@westonka.k12.mn.us>
To: <kandishanson(~msn.com>;
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 1:58 PM
Subject: news on a minor bus accident
To: Key Communicators
There was a bus accident this morning that involved some students from Hilltop Primary
School. Below is the text of a letter from Principal Paul Schullo; the letter will go home today
with students who were on that bus.
This is just for your information-you may hear people ask about it, and you might help by
sharing the following details.
Dear Parents of Students on Hilltop Bus #104:
The bus your child rides to school, Bus #104, was involved in an accident this morning.
Because the students were practicing good bus safety habits, all were seated at the time of the
accident and the only injuries reported were a few bumps and bruises.
Here's what happened:
Bus #104 was going eastbound on Lynwood Boulevard, through the "S" curve by the football
field. A Chevy Suburban-type vehicle with a plow attached was going westbound through the
same S curve. The Suburban hit the bus, causing damage to the front left corner of the bus.
The impact caused the bus to come to a sudden stop.
The driver of the Suburban expressed great concern about the safety of the students on board.
The school bus driver went through the bus and checked to see if any students had been
injured. Aside from a few bumps and bruises, there were no serious injuries.
The accident left the bus inoperable, so Bus #118 was dispatched to transfer students to
school. It arrived at Hilltop about 11:25 a.m. A full police report was completed.
Bus #104 is operated by Prairie Bus Company, a transportation company which has a contract
with the Westonka Public Schools to provide bus service for a number of routes. Both the
driver and a supervisor from Prairie Bus Company provided information for this letter.
If you have any questions about this accident, please feel free to call me at 952.491.8501.
Please compliment your child on the fact that his or her good bus safety habits reduced the
chance of serious injury.
Sincerely
Paul Schullo
Principal
01/30/2001
Page 1 o£ 3
KandisHanson
From: "Barbara Olson" <olsonb@westonka.k12.mn.us>
To: <kandishanson@msn.com>;
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 3:13 PM
Subject: westonka.news Vol. 1, No. 16
westonka.news
Vol. 1, No. 16
February 2, 2001
The Westonka Public Schools' channel for direct electronic communication to interested
parents, staff, and community members, providing up-to-date information about education in
District 277. westonka.news publishes weekly. Look for it in your mailbox on Fridays.
Westonka Public Schools, 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A, Mound MN 55364;
http://www.westonka.k12.mn.us; tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043; e-mail:
welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us.
Contents
1. News Briefs
--Grandview Music Teacher Sings at Carnegie Hall
2. Focus Topic: Upcoming Maintenance/Technology Bond Referendum
3. Upcoming Events
4. We Want to Hear from You
NEWS BRIEFS
**Grandview Music Teacher Sings at Carnegie Hall**
Grandview vocal music instructor, Andrea Schussler, has added another accomplishment to
her distinguiShed resume: singing at Carnegie Hall in New York City. Schussler was the only
Minnesotan chosen to participate in the Carnegie Hall Choral Masters Workshops, which were
initiated by the late Robert Shaw. She was selected by audition as one of 25 sopranos in the
100-member choir, conducted by Sir Neville Marriner. Schussler is now a veteran of Carnegie
Hall performances, having also performed there in 1995.
School news reporter, Carol Shukle, is writing on a feature story on Schussler for the local
papers, so you'll be able to read about her experience in more detail later.
02/0.5/2001
Page 2 of 3
FOCUS TOPIC
**Upcoming Maintenance/Technology Bond Referendum**
On Saturday, March 17, voters in Westonka Public School District 277 will decide on a bond
referendum to approve funds for routine maintenance and technology upgrades.
A letter is being sent to all district residents next week, outlining the need for the bond and
explaining state funding for "capital outlay" projects, such as maintenance and technology.
A referendum committee of volunteers, headed by local Realtor George Jones, is mobilizing
and making plans for sharing information with school district parents, community groups, and
residents.
Both the school board and the volunteer referendum committee believe their primary task is
making sure people have clear information about the proposed projects. Here's how district
staff will get the word out:
--Letter to all district residents (to be mailed next week)
--Detailed information on the district Web site, www.westonka.k12.mn.us. The Web site will
have the letter, and a building-by-building project list, with supporting details and photos, when
appropriate. It will also have an estimated tax impact chart, so people can see the annual tax
impact for a range of property values.
--Detailed information, including all of the above, will be available for public review at each
school building.
--Information will go into a variety of publications, including the community education
catalogue, the Lake Minnetonka Chamber of Commerce newsletter, principals' newsletters
(when publication timelines allow), and others.
--The referendum committee will head up a speakers bureau (for short presentations at
community meetings) and a telephone bank (for reminder calls to voters). **If you belong to a
group that might be interested in hearing a short presentation about the bond referendum,
please let us know (you can reply to this message).
School district staff are committed to answering people's questions about the bond. If you have
a question, please don't hesitate to ask. You can:
--Call the Bond Hotline: 952.491.8443.
--Send the question via e-mail: welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us.
--Examine the referendum information on the Web site and follow the e-mail link.
--Stop by any school office for more written detail.
--Call or write school board members.
Readers of this electronic newsletter, in particular, are strongly encouraged both to ask their
own questions, and to share questions or concerns they've heard from others. School district
staff will answer questions directly, and will post responses to common questions in the Laker,
so everyone has a chance to read the answer.
02/05/2001
Page 3 of 3
UPCOMING EVENTS
--February 3, Parent Workshop featuring Misti Snow, author and editor of Star Tribune
Mindworks column. The workshop will offer a variety of topics of interest to parents. 10 a.m. to
noon, Mound Westonka High School; call 491-8040 to register.
--February 6, 8th Grade Minnesota Basic Skills Test, Reading.
--February 6, Grade 1 Music Program, 6:30 p.m., Shirley Hills Primary, 2450 Wilshire
Boulevard, Mound. Free and open to the public.
--February 6, Grade 3 Music Program, 7:30 p.m., Shirley Hills Primary, 2450 Wilshire
Boulevard, Mound. Free and open to the public.
--February 8, 8th Grade Minnesota Basic Skills Test, Math.
--February 8, Book Fair, Fine Arts Night, Showcase, Variety Show, and Ice Cream Social, 6
p.m., Grandview. Middle School, 1881 Commerce Boulevard, Mound.
--February 10, Metro Alliance Conference JV Wrestling Tournament, 9 a.m., Mound Westonka
High School, 5905 Sunnyfield Road, Minnetrista.
WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU!
We would like to;hear your feedback on any of the topics above, or any other school-related
issue. Use whichever way works best for you: send an e-mail message to
<welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us>; call the District Feedback Line at 952.491.8260; or mail
your comments to Barbara Olson, Community Relations Coordinator, Westonka Public
Schools, 2450 Wilshire Blvd., Suite A, Mound MN 55364
To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to Barbara OIson at
<olsonb@westonka.k12.mn.us>
It is the mission Of the Westonka Public School District, in partnership with students, parents,
and the community, to create the environment necessary to achieve quality education for
lifelong learning..
Westonka Public Schools
2450 Wilshire BoUlevard, Suite A
Mound MN 55364
tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043
welisten @westonka. k 12. mn. us
http://www.westOnka.k 12.mn .us
westonka.news is published by the Community Relations Department, Barbara Olson, editor.
02/05/2001
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA
7:00 PM, Wednesday, January 24, 2001
Tonka Bay City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock
· "Save the Lake" Recognition Banquet Dinner, 2/1/01 @ Lord Fletchers of the Lake
READING OF MINUTES- 1/10/01 LMCD Regular Board Meeting
PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.)
1. WATER STRUCTURES
A) Eagle Bluff HOA, consideration of new multiple dock license, with minor change, application
to add bench/swim platform on the east-end of the main docking facility from Outlot C for the
2001 boating season;
B) 2001 Multiple Dock Licenses, staff recommends approval of 2001 renewal without
change multiple dock license applications as outlined in 1/18/01 staff memo;
C) Shorewood Yach Club (Site 2), consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of
new multiple dock license, special density license, and variance applications from LMCD Code
for 35 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 350' of continuous shoreline (previously tabled at the
7/26/00 Regular Board meeting);
D) Additional Business;
2. LAKE USE & RECREATION
A) Staff update on Sheriffs Water Patrol Proposal for the 2001 Boating Season (handout);
B) Additional Business;
3. FINANCIAL
A) Audit of vouchers (1/16/01 - 1/31/01);
B) December financial summary and balance sheet;
C) Additional Business;
· SAVE THE LAKE
A) Consideration of one-time funding for recruitment of Special Deputies for the 2001 Boating
Season (handout);
B) Additional Business;
5. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
6. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE
7. ADMINISTRATION
8. OLD BUSINESS
9. NEW BUSINESS
10.ADJOURNMENT
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
7:00 PM, Wednesday, January 10, 2001
Tonka Bay City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Bob Ambrose,
Wayzata; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Lili McMillan, Orono; Tom Skramstad, Shorewood;
Herb Suerth, Woodland; Katy Van Hercke, Minnetonka; Sheldon Wed, Greenwood. Also present: Charles LeFevere,
LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director; Judd Harper, Administrative Technician.
Members Absent: Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Craig Eggers, Victoria. The City of Minnetrista currently has no appointed
representative.
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock
Babcock reminded the board that the Save the Lake Recognition Banquet is scheduled for Thursday, 2/1/01, at Lord
Fletcher's of the Lake.
READING OF MINUTES- 12/13/00 LMCD Regular Board Meeting
MOTION: Foster moved, Gilman seconded to approve the minutes of the 12/13/00 Regular Board meeting as submitted.
VOTE: Ayes (8), Abstained (2, Wert and Dahlen); motion carded.
PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda.
There were no comments from the public on subjects not on the agenda.
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.
Foster moved, Wert seconded to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Items so
approved included: lB, Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Significant Activity Report; 4A, Minutes from the 12/8/00
EWM/Exotics Task Force Meeting; and 4C Consideration of the sale of the 1986 Chevrolet Suburban used in
conjunction with the EWM Harvesting Program, with staff recommending the Board to ratify the sale to Central Auto, Inc.
~n 12/19~00 in the amount of $525.00.
Ambrose arrived at 7:05 p.m.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
January 10, 2001
Page 2.
PUBLIC HEARING
· City of Minnetonka Beach, Consideration of new multiple dock license application to reconfigure a non-conforming
facility under LMCD Code Section 2015.
Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. He asked the applicant and public if they had any comments.
Mr. Mike Bloom, Mayor of Minnetonka Beach, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He made the following comments:
· Minnetonka Beach has a long-standing tradition of providing access to the lake for non-riparian residents
within the city. A number of sites, which include parks, beaches, and multiple dock facilites, have dedicated
shorelir~e to allow for this to occur.
· The proposed changes at dock sites 6, 6A, 20, and 23 are relatively straight forward, with their being some
problems at dock site 10. He provided a historical overview of dock site 10.
· Some years ago, there was a road between the lake and the houses in that area. Prior to the establishment
of the District, this road was vacated to the abutting homeowners, with some dghts reserved to the City of
Minnetonka Bear. h. The city attorney has provided a legal opinion that the city has not given up the legal
rights to use the ;lroperiy associated with the vacaled road for docking purposes. He stated that he was
unaware of ar,), legal opinion contrary to this.
· He provided a description of the firelane that dock site 10 originates from, noting that it appears as though it
is located in front of the abutting property to the north because of the unique lot line extensions: The dock'
that was historically placed at this site has been denied because of LMCD Code and how it defines boat'.'"
storage with authorized dock use areas. A problem associated with this is that the City of Minnetonka Beach
has docking rights associated with the abutting propedies because of the street vacation. ':
· He expressed concern about re~!uiring the city to meet side setback Code for BSU #2 that opens towards
the side i:)ecause the facility existed prior to the establishment of the Code requirement. He questioned why'
the setback is riel curremly being met because the City of Minnetonka Beach has docking control of the
shoreline to the north for several hundred feet.
· He entertained comments or questions from the Board. .':
Babcock asked when the street was vacated, whether there was general language relating to dockage or did it have
specific language relating to size, width, and counts.
Bloom stated that the language was pretty general, noting it was targeted to use and enjoyment~
Babcock stated if the City of Minnetonka Beach is taking the position that they have control of the shoreline beyond
the 30' wide firelane, it could cause problems for the docking at the dparian properties that they take claim to because
of the street vacation. This shoreline would need to be included in the non. continuous shoreline calculations for the
CitY of Minnetonka Beach, and that any docking that originates from this shoreline would be subject to LMCD Code
for docking regulations through their multiple dock license. He questioned whether the City of Minnetonka Beach ' '
would take the approach to go to these affected reSidents and require them to remove their docking.'
Bloom stated that was not the claim of the City of Minnetonka Beach. The poSitio.n of the'city is that
maintain some docking rights through the vacation of the street. ' '~ ~' . ' ' '"-;' "'~: ':': . '
Babcock stated that he believed the docking dghts of the property associated with the vacated street is either under
the jurisdiction of the City of Minnetonka Beach or it is not. If it is, a broader application needs to be submitted that
includes the residential docking at this property as part of the city's multiple dock license.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
January 10, 2001
Page 3
Foster questioned whether it is feasible for the city to take a small part of the street vacation to alloW them to meet
side setback requirements, and then to relinquish the remaining street vacation to the abutting residents to allow ~-
them to continue to put their own dock out.
Bloom stated that he believed that would be very difficult.
Babcock stated that he recalled this issue existed when a compromise was reached in around 1996. The
compromise was that the docking configuration at dock site 10 required annual mutual consent from both abutting
property owners. Change of the abutting property owners was discussed at that time and that there was the
possibility of on-going mutual consent being rescinded. With mutual consent being rescinded from the abutting
property owner to the north, changes need to be made to comply with Code.
Wert questioned whether the abutting property owners on both sides of the firelane believe they have riparian rights
to the lake.
Bloom stated that he believed that the owners of these properties believe they have riparian rights.
Wert questioned whether it is possible for the city to relocate BSU #2 to another location at dock site 10 or to another
dock location within the city.
Bloom stated that he believed that is a possibility; however, some of the other sites are not as desirable. He
questioned whether the removal of BSU #2 at dock site 10 is going to address the concerns raised by the neighbor to
the north.
Babcock stated that when this dock site was reviewed in around 1996, site 10 was allowed to continue through a
Code amendment that was adopted, subject to future approval of abutting property owners. Consent has been
withdrawn by the abutting property owners to the north and this issue needs to be addressed.
Bloom stated that the abutting property owner to the south, Mr. & Mrs. Bergerson, have consented to the docking
arrangement for the 2001 boating season and that written consent will be forwarded once the city receives it. When
the street was vacated, there was not an ordinance in place that required docking and boat storage to be contained
within authorized dock use areas.
LeFevere stated that docking at site 10 needs to be contained within the authorized dock use area established from
the 30' wide firelane, with dock length and side setback restrictions. It appears that the applicant does not contest
that the property owners that abut the vacated street have their own docking rights. The applicant cannot convey
docking rights through the vacation of the street yet maintain docking rights in the same lakeshore, which would
circumvent District side setback requirements.
Babcock questioned why a side setback variance was not required for dock site 10 when a 5' setback is documented
on the approved site plan and the' Code requires doubling of setbacks when a multiple dock facility abuts a non-
multiple dock facility.
Nybeck stated that doubling of side setbacks was not required for the Minnetonka Beach multiple dock facility
because they were grandfathered prior to the 1978 date that required doubling for multiple dock facilities that abut
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
January 10, 2001
Page 4 '
non-multiple dock facilities.
a minimum of 20'.
For side opening slips, the side setback requirement is equal to the depth of the slip, with
?" i :=. ~, . :,: '.L"~:. ,~
Foster stated that the applicant should possibly considering relocating BsU #2 as a' tie-bn'along the main struCture
dock site 10 or move it to the south side of the docking structure. \ .
Bloom requested the Board to allow BSU #2 to continue at its current location. If the Board does not allow it to
continue, the city would abide by the decision of the District and would consider relocating it to another location that is
not as desirable.
Foster asked Bloorn for a coherent argument that the District could use to approve the request made by the City of
Minnetonka Beach.
Bloom states that he believed the Distdct could approved the proposed application for the following reasons: · Docking rights were maintained in the resolution vacating the street.
· These docking rights have been historically maintained.
· Before and ~fter the back licensing to 1977, the City of Minnetonka Beach'has reserved these rights.
· Dock site 10 'was g randfathered in and side setbacks for side opening slips did not exist at the time.
Babcock ststed that he was unaware of the District bending side setback restrictions for an"a~)piicantWh~ is"pr°viding
access to a limited segment of the public rather than the public as a whole.
Gilman expressed concern about the City of Minnetonka Beach asking the District to reconsider an agreement that
was made in around 1996, noting it was adopted in the Code through an ordinance amendment.
Babcock stated that he recalled the mutual consent requirement being extensively discussed prior to the adoption of
the ordinance amendment. He encouraged the City of Minnetonka Beach to live up to these expectations. There
being no fudher discussion, Babcock closed the public hearing at 7:51 p.m.
Nelson questioned whether there are any possibilities to relocate BSU #2 to another location at dock site 10..
Foster stated that he would like to approve BSU #2 at dock site 10; however, he did not see a logical reason to allow
it to continue.
Babcock stated that he was disappointed that the request has come from the city to allow BSU #2 at dock site 10 to
continue. He had no problems with the changes proposed at dock sites 6, 6A, 20, and 23. At dock site 10, he had
problems and he encouraged that there be two separate motions for these issues.
MOTION: Foster moved, Gilman seconded to approve the new multiple d°ck'lice~Se 'a~Plic~ii0~ f°r'the:200 i"~(~ating
season for the City of Minnetonka Beach, approving the changes at dock Sites 6, 6A, 20 and 23, subject to
eliminating BSU #2 at dock site 10 because annual mutual consent hasceased..~ .: .. ,
Foster stated that the motion does not prevent the City of Minnetonka Beach from making application to relocate BSU
#2 dock site to another site at a later date.
Babcock stated that if the District approves the license application this evening, the application would be considered
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board l'/leetin9
January 10, 2001
Page 5
closed and the city would need to make a new application and pay related fees, unless the Board determined.to ~
waive them. He believed the motion might be premature because of this.
Bloom stated that he would prefer a ruling by the District this evening and the city would come back to resolve the ~
issue with BSU #2 at dock site 10 probably within the next 60 days.
LeFevere stated that he did not believe Finding of Fact and Order need to be prepared for doc site 10. The record
should reflect that the basis for turning down BSU #2 at dock site 10 is that it is not a lawful structure with the
withdrawl of mutual consent from the abutting property owner to the north. He recommended this as a friendly
amendment to the motion. Foster and Wert agreed to this.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
LAKE USE & RECREATION
A. Staff update on Sheriff's Water Proposal for the 2001 Boating Season.
Babcock asked for an update on this agenda item.
Nybeck stated that nine member cities have committed to this proposal for the 2001 boating season and five
member cities have either indicated no or they are looking for additional information. These five member cities
include Minnetonka, Mound, Shorewood, Spring Park, and Victoria. Discussions are planned with the city .
councils at Minnetonka and Spring Park on 1116101, with contacts to be made to the other member cities.
Progress on this proposal will be reported at the next Board meeting.
The consensus of the Board was that a plan of action, with time frame, should be addressed in the next 30 days.
This would include deciding how to make up the difference if some member cities decide not to voluntarily
participate in the financial contributions and when to notify the Water Patrol and Hennepin County to move
forward with the plans for increased Water Patrol presence for the 2001 boating season.
C. Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance relating to intoxicating liquor licenses; amending LMCD
Code Section 5.03 by adding new Subd. 4.
D. Discussion on proposed updates to the policy on priorities for issuance of on-sale intoxicating liquor license.
Babcock consolidated discussion of these two agenda items because they are related to each other. He asked
for feedback, discussion, or a motion from the Board.
The Board discussed clarification and simplification of language in the draft ordinance amendment and whether
priority rights should be granted for the year following a boat!rig season when a charter boat and intoxicating.
liquor license is issued forthe prior season and the boat was notoperated.
Babcock recommended that the words "and right to apply for a license that year" be added after the word
"priority" in the fourth line under Section 2.2.2 in the draft policy.
MOTION: Wert moved, Foster seconded to adopt the ordinance amendment as submitted, to waive second and
third readings, and to adopt it.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
January 10, 2001
Page 6 ~
VOTE:' Motion carried unanimously. ..-.., ...-. : .. ~':.: .:,-....:,~..
MOTION: Foster moved, Skramstad seconded to approve the draft policy on priorities for issuance of on-sale
intoxicating liquor licenses for charier boats on Lake Minnetonka,' with the' language recommended by
Babcock.
VOTE: Ayes (10), Nayes (1, Gilman), motion carried.
E. Additional Business.
The;e was no additional business.
2. WATER STRUCTURES
There was no discussion.
FINANCIAL
A. Audit of vouchers (12/16/00 - t2/31/00) and (11/1/01 - 1/15/01).
Nelson reviewed the audit of vouchers for payment as submitted.
MOTION: Gilman moved, IvlcMillan seconded to approve the audit of vouchers as submitted:
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
B. November financial summary and balance sheet.
Nelson reviewed the November financial summary and balance sheet as submitted.
MOTION: Gilman moved, Skramstad seconded to accept the November financial summary and balance sheet
as submitted .
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
C. Additional Business.
'1' here was no additional business.
EWM/EXOTCS TASK FORCE ' "': .... " ' :" '
B. Discussion of proposal to conduct Lake Minnetonka Milfoil WeeVil surVeys and Augmeniati°n~ :': ";'" . '
Mr. Dick Osgood, Ecosystem Strategies, provided an overview of the proposal.. He made the following .' :'
comments:
· He has been working with the Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA) through the Lake Minnetonka Citizens
Monitoring and Education Network for the past 18 months, funded through the LCMR. The proposal is to
take advantage of work done by Dr. Ray Newman from the University of Minnesota (U of M) controlling
milfoil using weevils.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular l~oard Meeting
January 10, 2001
Page7
· Weevils are small animals that live amongst native nodhern watermilfoil that do not do much within that
environment. In other areas around the United States, there has been research that weevils can be
coaxed to assist in the controlling of eurasian watermilfoil (EWM) to some degree. There currently is
limited work being done at the U of M and the MN DNR to find ways to grow weevils and introduce them
into lakes for the purpose of controlling EWM, with mixed results.
· The proposal addresses using the volunteers to survey where weevils exist within EWM in Lake
Minnetonka, which would not involve any additional costs to the District. This a key aspect to the
proposal to identify the areas of the lake where large populations of weevils exist and so coordination
can take place with the harvesting program. The second aspect of this program is the augmentation of
weevils from one area of the lake to other areas of the lake. Dr Newman detailed a proposed budget for
this aspect of the program, noting it might need to be doubled to take into account a control site. He
suggested that a lot of the details should be finalized through the EWM/Exotics Task Force and the Save
the Lake Advisory Committee.
· He entedained feedback or comments from the Board.
The Board discussed a number of items. Some of these items included: · Possible sites around the lake where augmentation could occur, including the 101 Causeway and
Diamond Reef.
· The need to coordinate the proposal amongst the agencies that would be involved, including the U of M,
the MN DNR, the LMA, and the District.
· Whether there are additional funds from other sources that could leverage possible District funds, such
as the Minnesota Sea Grant.
· The advantages to the augmentation of weevils from within Lake Minntonka versus weevils produced
elsewhere.
· Whether it is feasible to conduct surveys and augmentation for the 2001 season.
· What would be involved in the training of the volunteers to conduct the surveys.
· The life span of a weevil and what they do during the winter months.
· The process involved in the augmentation of weevils within the lake.
· Comparing the effective research of weevil augmentation versus the cost per acre to treat the lake with
weevils.
The consensus of the Board was that the concept is worth further pursuing and that there is additional work to
be conducted through the EWM/Exotics Task Force. When this work is completed at the Task Force level, the
proposal should be brought back to the Board for further review with a recommendation.
D. Additional Business.
Suerth expressed concem with the zebra mussel program for Lake Minnetonka and suggested that feedback
through an open public forum would be beneficial. He recommended that this public forum be held sometime in
the near future.
The consensus of the Board was for staff to coordinate an open public forum to discuss~zebra'musselS
sometime during the next few months.
SAVE THE LAKE
A. Consideration of one-time funding for recruitment of Special Deputies for 2001 Boating Season.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
January 10, 2001
Page 8
This agenda item was tabled to the 1/24/01 Regular Board Meeting. .,,.,i ,-..: ,~
B. AdditionalBusiness. ~...~.
McMillan slated that she had spoken with MCWD staff regarding the Cynthia Krieg Watershed Stewardship
grant application for the production of a lakescaping educational presentation to be forwarded to the member
cities. The grant ~,pplicatior, was denied by the MCWD: however, they indicated they would like to work with the
District on this project. She indicated that she would b~ working with the Public Relations staff member on this
project and that she would keep the Board updated on the progress of this project.
ADMINISTRATION ·
A. Discussion of recommendations from the Nominating Committee for 2001 LMCD Board Officers
Babcock stated that the nominating committee has met to make recommendations for 2001 LMCD Board
Officers, effective the first meeting in February, The recommendations from nominating committee are:
· Bert Foster- Chairman
· Craig Nelson- Vice Chariman
· Tom Skramstad- Treasurer :
· Lili McMillan- Secretary
He stated that he would like to open up nominations from the floor for 2001 Board Officers.
MOTION: Wed moved, Gilman seconded to open up nomination from the floor for 2001 Board Officers.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Babcock indicated that there were no nominations from the floor.
MOTION: Gilman moved, Suerth seconded to close nominations from the floor for 2001 Board Officers.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Gilman moved, Ambrose seconded to accept the nominations from the nominating committee for
2001 Board Off~cers.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
B. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
Nybeck asked the Board for feedback on the written Executive Director Report that summarized the daily activities of
staff.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
January 10, 2001
Page 9
The consensus of the Board was that the Repod was beneficial and that it should be prepared for review by the
Board monthly. , - ~
8. OLD BUSINESS.
Skramstad asked for an update on the proposed Upland Farm project on Six Mile Creek in the City of Minnetrista.
Nybeck stated that the project is currently under review by the MN DNR, the MCWD, and the City of Minnetrista.
The concerns raised by the Board at a previous meeting, which included environmental and boat density concerns,
were forwarded to the MN DNR when they requested review and comments from the District on the proposed
project. Staff will keep the Board informed on the status of the proposed project.
9. NEW BUSINESS.
There was no new business.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Douglas Babcock, Chairman
Albert Foster, Vice-Chairman
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA
7:00 PM, Wednesday, February 7, 2001
Tonka Bay City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Foster
READING OF MINUTES- 1/24/01 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 request discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from
the consent agenda.
LAKE USE & RECREATION
A) Schoell & Madson, Inc., review of 2000 Lake Minnetonka Boat Use Study (previously
mailed oUt- please bring to meeting);
B) Staff update on the issuance of Intoxicating Liquor Licenses for the 2001 season (handout);
C) Update on Sheriff's Water Patrol Proposal for the 2001 Boating Season (handout);
D) Additional Business;
WATER STRUCTURES
A) Mr. Miles Canning, review of 1/29/01 letter requesting full refund of $250 deposit received in
conjunction with variance application from LMCD Code (The Board awarded a refund of
$122.40 to the petitioner at the 11/15/00 Regular meeting);
B)
Shorewood Yacht Club (Site 2), status report from LMCD Attorney on the Findings of Fact
and Order for approval of new multiple dock license, special density license, and variance
applications from LMCD Code for 35 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 350' of continuous
shoreline;
c)
(*) Excelsior Bay Harbor, staff recommends the Board refund $100 for the over-payment
of its 2000-2001 deicing installation, license;
Upland Farms Project, review and comments on MCWD and MN DNR permit applications
submitted for the dredging of Six-Mile Creek for a 14 slip marina project;
E) Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance relating to multiple dock licenses;
amending LMCD Code Section 2.03, subd. 7;
F) Additional Business;
FINANCIAL
A) Audit of vouchers (2/1/01 - 2/15/01);
B) December financial summary and balance sheet;
C) Additional Business;
SAVE THE LAKE
A) Consideration of one-time funding for recruitment of Special Deputies for the 2001 Boating
Season;
B) (*) Staff recommends Board approval of refund of $28 for duplicate payment made by Mr.
Malcolm Reid for 2/1/01 "Save the Lake" Recognition Banquet Dinner;
C) Additional Business;
.,.r' EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
ADMINISTRATION
A) Staff update on appointment of Board representatives Whose termS'expire'd ir¥2000;
B) Additional Business;
7. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE
8. OLD BUSINESS
9. NEW BUSINESS
10.ADJOURNMENT
,.', ; ·; i :, · .', "'
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
7:00 PM, Wednesday, January 24, 2001
Tonka Bay City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chair Foster called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Bert Foster, Deephaven; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Bob Ambrese,
Wayzata; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Lili McUillan, Orono; Tom Skramstad, Shorewood; Katy Van
Hercke, Uinnetonka; Sheldon Wed, Greenwood. Also present: Chades LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck,
Executive Director; Judd Harper, Administrative Technician.
Members Absent: Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Herb Suerth, Woodland. The City of
Minnetrista currently has no appointed representative.
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Vice-Chair Foster
Foster reminded the Board that the Save the Lake Recognition Banquet is scheduled for Thursday, 2Jl/01 ,' at Lord'
Fletcher's of the Lake.
Nybeck stated that seating capacity for the Banquet Dinner is limited to 85, and that the number of confirmations is
nearly reaching the total capacity. Any Board members who want to attend the Banquet Dinner and have not contacted
the District should do so as soon as possible. ~ .....
READING OF MINUTES- 1/10/00 LMCD Regular Board Meeting
MOTION: Nelson moved, McMillan seconded to approve the minutes of the 1/10/00 Regular Board meeting as
submitted.
VOTE: Ayes (6), Abstained (2; Ahrens and Eggers); motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENTS. Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda.
There were no comments from the public on subjects not on the agenda.
WATER STRUCTURES
A. Eagle Bluff HOA, consideration of a new multiple dock license, with minor change, application to add a
bench/swim platform on the east-end of the main docking facility from Outlot C for the 2001 boating season.
Foster introduced the agenda item by asking if any representatives of the applicant were present and if they had
any comments. Staff has recommended approval of the proposed application for the 2001 boating season,
contingent upon receiving no negative feedback from the City of Minnetrista and the MN DNR. He asked staff if
there had been any negative feedback received from these agencies.
%%
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
January 24, 2001
Page2
Harper stated he discussed the proposed application with the Minnetrista City Planner~ and he' repolted that they
foresaw no problems. If problems arose with the proposed application, the City of Minnetrista indicated that they
would repod back to staff prior to the meeting. No additional feedback has been'received from the city. The MN
DNR has expressed no opposition to the proposed application. - ".., .... ..
MOTION: McMillan moved, Gilman seconded to approve the new multiple dock license, with minor change,
application for Eagle Bluff HOA for the 2001 boating season.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
2001 Multiple Dock Licenses, staff recommends approval of 2001 renewal without change multiple dock
license applications as outlined in 1/18/01 staff memo.
Harper requested that the Board delete the Hennepin County Depadment of Environmental Services renewal
without change multiple dock license application flom the 1/18/01 staff memo.
Nelson asked why staff wanted that application removed from the list for Board consideration.
Nybeck stated that Hennepin County has submitted a new site plan for the facility on spring Park.Bay'and that
there is a need to review it to verify that no changes are proposed.
MOTION: Gilman move. d, Ahrens seconded to approve the 2001 renewal Without change multiple'dock license'
applications as outlined in 1/18/01 staff memo, deleting the Hennepin County Department of
Environmental Services renewal application.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Ambrose and Wed arrived at 7:13 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 variance applications from LMCD Code for 35 Boat Storage Units (BSU's)
on 350' of continuous shoreline (previously tabled at the 7~26~00 Regular Board Meeting).
Foster asked staff for background on this agenda item.
Nybeck stated three applications were received by the District this past spring for a site to the west of the
existing, grandfathered Shorewood Yacht Club, site 1. The proposed site is currently licensed for seven Boat
Storage Units (BSU's) on 350' of continuous shoreline. The proposed applications included a new multiple dock
license, a special density license, and variance from LMCD Code to store 35 BSU's. The Board at four previous
meetings reviewed these applications, and he summarized the details of these meetings as follows: .~
· A public hearing was scheduled for the 5~24~00 meeting, with the public hearing continued to the 6/14/00
Regular meeting at the request of the applicant. :" "" ' : '. :' :" ": '. ''~ :-"
· The public hearing was continued and closed at the 6/14100 meeting, with two motions made and
approved by the Board. First, the applicant was notified that an additional 60 days was needed to'
process the proposed applications, per state law. Second, the Board decided not to require a
discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) if the calculations for dock structure and
maneuvering space did not exceed 20,000 square feet. There were pending concerns raised by the
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
January 24, 2001
Page 3
Board that needed further evaluation by staff and the application, They included whether.a mandatory
EAW needed to be conducted by the District and whether the proposed site is contiguous with ithe
original Shorewood Yacht Club site to the east.
The two concerns raised at the 6/14/00 meeting were fudher discussed' at the 6/28/00 meeting. The
Board approved a motion to direct counsel to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the
proposed applications, with physical hardships of topography of land and shallow water, and public
amenities as determined by the Board. This motion was subject to not receiving objection letters from
the City of Shorewood and the MN DNR.
The Board at the 7/26/00 meeting reviewed the draft Findings. Officials from the City of Shorewood
indicated that rezoning of the parcel needed to be done by the applicant and they encouraged the District
to allow them to resolve this prior to addressing the draft Findings. The Findings were tabled at this
meeting subject to two conditions. First, District counsel was directed to prepare and secure a waiver
letter from the applicant extending the 60 day window required by the state law, which was
accomplished. Second, the applicant was directed to work with the City of Shorewood on resolving land
use issues. The applicant has addressed this and they have requested that the applications be removed
from the table and considered at this meeting.
Foster stated that he was just made aware of two issues that LeFevere has identified in the Findings of Fact
from the City of Shorewood. He asked for further explanation from LeFevere.
LeFevere stated the draft Findings prepared for consideration by the Board imposed a condition that the
proposed site be left in a natural, unimproved state. In the Shorewood Findings of Fact, it states that the .
applicant proposes to locate a small sailboat storage rack and to erect a boat dock frame and canopy on the
proposed site. He questioned whether that is matter of concern to the Board and that there might be a need to
amend the draft Findings to allow for these structures.
Foster stated that he believed these two structures are more within the jurisdiction of the City of Shorewood
rather than the District. He supported the idea of amending the draft Findings to allow for these structures.
LeFevere reminded the Board that the natural, unimproved state was used as a physical hardship to grant the
proposed applications. The Board considered this request from the applicant in evaluating the proposed
variance application and the Board needs to determine whether they are comfortable amending this condition in
the draft Findings. A second issue relates to the issuance of a special density license and the Code prohibiting
the granting of such a license if it includes a watercraft storage facility for parties that have an interest in
specified riparian or non-riparian property.
Foster stated that the General Rule in the Code allows for development of up to one BSU for every 50' of
continuous shoreline. For other facilities, such as a commercial marina or a municipality, one BSU is allowed up
to a maximum of every 10'. These facilities need to be open up to the public and he believed the draft Findings
for the proposed applications were prepared with this in mind.
LeFevere stated he believed the applicant has represented .at Previous meetings that boat sto'rageat the
proposed facility would not be tied to parties that have an interest in specified dpadan or non-riparian property.
This might be the case now; however, there is reference to an easement of the owner of property located at
5585 Timber Lane in the City of Shorewood Findings of Fact. He was unsure on whether this easement was
tied to the owner that lives at this residence or if it is tied to this piece of real estate. Further reseamh needs to
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
January 24, 2001
Page 4
be conducted on the easemenl agreement to determine whether it wOuld disqualify the'applicant from receiving
. ; ,., .~: : ,, .:..,~:..
a special density license.
~.. i :' i ;,;:: !~';:'? .. :'.f
Foster clarified for the Board that the Code would not prohibit the commercial marina owner from having a
contract with this resident for the rental of the slip. The Code would prohibit the commercial marina owner from
having a contract with a specified piece of riparian property, no matter who owns it. He concurred that this a
potential problem that needs further clarification from the applicant.
Mr. John Cross, owner of the Shorewood Yacht Club, provided some historical background with the City of
Shorewood and the District on the proposed project. Il look several years working through the couds to get to
this point and he was surprised about the concerns raised regarding the easement on the proposed site plan.
The easement is for lookout and boat/beach purposes. He stated the sailboat storage rack and sailboat storage
rack would be used in conjunction with the sailing school and would not need to be constructed if it caused
problems with District Code.
Foster stated that the main issue for Board discussion was whether the easement was tied to specified riparian
or non-riparian property. He suggested the Board might want to consider changing the language in the draft
Findings from natural, unimproved state to essentially natural state. He questioned whether the easement, issue
could be resoived this eve~ing. ' .:
LeFevere stated that the language in the Shorewood Findings of Fact makes it'appear that'the ea§~ment is'
granted to the specified property at 5585 Timber Lane and that these rights would be transferred in the sale of
the property.
Wert questioned whether it is feasible to deduct the shoreline associated with the easement from the 350' of
continuous shoreline and adjust the BSU's applied for accordingly. He understood the applicant might not agree
to this compromise but it would allow him to proceed with the majority of the proposed project.
LeFevere stated that he was not prepared to address that compromise at this time.
Foster stated he believed the applicant needs to forward a copy of the easement to LeFeVere for fudher'review.
He understood the applicant would like to stad construction of the dock through the ice; however, this issue
needs to resolved by the Board prior to construction.
Van Hercke questioned whether it would be appropriate for the Board to hold a special meeting for
circumstances like this.
Nybeck suggested that if the Board would like to hold a special meeting, he would proPoSe moving the meeting
scheduled for 2/14101 to 2/7/01. ' ' :' ':'" "
The consensus of the Board was to move the Board meeting scheduled for 2/14/01 'to 2~7/01'.i '~''' '": ' ',''i ".
' . ~ · : .'~: :,',. fl, 7",~','" i:~1,",-~''''' ~..;!i. ,;.,i ;'.;';;;:,:~,,; ~
Wed stated that he would favor a motion to approved the Findings ~f Fact 6r:aPPro~,al of the'PrOposed'.;;~·
applications, subject to LeFevere reviewing the easement agreement to verify that it would not prevent the
District from approving the special density license application. If problems arise dudng review of the easement
agreement by LeFevere, it should be brought back for fudher review by the Board.
MOTION: Wed moved, Ahrens seconded to approve the Shorewood Yacht Club (site 2) Findings of Fact for the
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
January 24, 2001
Page 5
proposed applications, subject to changing the language in the fourth condition from "natural .....
unimproved state" to "essentially natural state", and Subject to re~)iew by LMCD counsel that.the
easement agreement does not violate District Code relating to special density licenses.' '"
Foster stated if LeFevere believed the easement agreement does not comply with District Code for Special
density licenses, this agenda item will be brought back for further discussion at the 2/7/01 Regular Board
meeting.
LeFevere stated the Findings of Fact from the City of Shorewood references a small pedestrian bridge over the
water between the two sites. He believed this was not included in the proposed site plan when the Findings of
Fact and Order were prepared and the Board should address it.
Cross stated the bridge would be a dock for walking purposes between the two sites.
LeFevere stated when the proposed applications were reviewed by the Board, it was unclear whether the two
sites were contiguous or if there was a riparian property between them. When the Findings of Fact were
prepared, this was taken into account noting that probably only a small watercraft would be allowed in the dock
use area and it should be able to maneuver around the proposed dock. A dock across this area would prevent
navigation from this possible riparian property and would contradict the current Findings.
Cross stated that he would agree to not constructing the dock as a small pedestrian bridge over the water
between the two sites. .
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Ambrose moved, Ahrens seconded to reschedule the next Regular Board meeting from 2/14/01 to
2/7/01.
VOTE: Ayes (9), Nayes (1, Gilman), motion carried.
D. Additional Business,
Nybeck updated the Board on the City of Deephaven new multiple dock license application, with a public
hearing conducted at the 12/13/00 Board meeting. The public headng was scheduled to be continued at this
meeting; however, it was not scheduled at the request of the City of Deephaven. They have requested
continuing the public hearing to the 2/28/01 regular meeting.
LAKE USE & RECREATION
A. Staff update on Sheriffs Water Proposal for the 2001 Boating Season.
Foster updated the Board on the meeting .with Minnetonka. There .was significant discussion with the .:
Uinnetonka City CounCil during a Worksho'p Session on 1/16/01 regarding the proposal. The City of Minnetonka
expressed concem about voluntarily contributing 20% of the.member city commitment, although they have
approximately 50% of the taxable market value. They expressed concem about Uinnetonka having a small
percentage of the shoreline on the lake and stated they would like a different funding method explored by the
District, although the Mayor supported the current funding method for funding the District. He concluded that
Minnetonka is not interested in participating in voluntary funding of this proposal and that he would like to have
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meetin~j
January 24, 2001
Page 6'
staff work on possible alternative funding methods, using information a~ailabie'thro'ugh the Metropolitan ~CoUncil
and the Lake Minnetonka aerial surveys. . . ....
On the
·
collection of additional information, the Board discussed a number of ideas. These included:
The concept of modifying questions within the user attitude' survey of the Lake Minnetonka aerial surveys
to find out more information on where the boals are coming from that boat on the lake.
· Some Board members questioned whether the District should go through the exercise of collecting this
information and how the District would benefit from this information if it were collected.
· Some Board members stated that they believed this information would help in the long-term to suppod
this proposal with Hennepin County, especially if the majority of boat owners that use the lake reside
within the county.
· Including what body of water is primarily used by boaters on their registration forms.
Van Hercke expressed her appreciation for padicipation by Foster, LeFevere, and staff at the Minnetonka City
Council Workshop meeting. She stated that she believed Minnetonka suppods the Water Patrol proposal for
2001; however, they did not support the formula proposed that is consistent with the budget levy formula.
Foster stated that he also attended a Spring Park City Council meeting on 1/16/01. It is questionable whether
they would voluntarily padicipate in the funding for the 2001 boating season and that it is scheduled to be voted
on sometime in February. .::.......:.~ : -..:
Wert asked how the District would bridge the gap of the member cities that do not financially participate in this
proposal.
Foster stated that he believed the gap could be made up utilizing private contributors. He believed that
continued contacts should be made with the city councils at Mound, Shorewood, and Victoria.
Ahrens stated that the City of Mound believes that Special Deputies should be used instead of licensed
Deputies if the main focus of the proposal is quality of experience issues rather than public safety. She
understood that the Special Deputies have received significant training similar to licensed Deputies.
The consensus of the Board was to fudher visit the proposal with the remaining cities that have not committed
financially to it. Fudher discussion of this proposal is planned at an upcoming Board meeting.
B. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
FINANCIAL
A. Audit of vouchers (1/16/0,1 - 1!31/0!).
Nelson reviewed the audit of vouchers for payment as submitted. :~... :.~ , :i.; :,:.'.! ::;.~ ~..: ,,, .., .::,,::, ,.,,. ...... ,.:,
· , ---,-,. : ,..,..,~.,.:.:::,.
MOTION: Foster moved, Gilman seconded to approve the audit of vouchers as submitted.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
January 24, 2001
Page7
December financial summary and balance sheet.
Nelson reviewed the December financial summary and balance sheet as submified. ~ '
MOTION: Foster moved, Wed seconded to accept the December financial summary and balance sheet-
as submitted.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Foster stated that he would like to reconsider the previous motion and table this agenda item to allow for Chair
Babcock to review and comment on it.
MOTION: Foster moved, McMillan to table discussion of this agenda item to the 2/7/01 Regular Board meeting.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
C, Additional Business.
There was no additional business.- ·
SAVE THE LAKE
A, Consideration of one-time funding for recruitment of Special Deputies for 2001 Boating Season.
The consensus of the Board was to table this agenda item to the 2/7/01 Regular Board Meeting.
S. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
5. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
Nybeck reported on the following: · A newspaper article was included in the handout folders on the use of weevils in Lake Minnetonka.
· A letter to the editor was included in the handout folders on the proposed Upland Farms Project in Six-Mile
Creek. Additionally, a letter was included in the handout folders from Tom Casey on this proposed project.
The Board discussed the proposed Upland Farms Project in Six-Mile Creek. There was discussion on previous
comments submitted on behalf of the Board of Directors to the MN DNR on this proposed project. The Board
discussed these concems, noting they addressed potential environmental concems on Halstead Bay because of the
possible dredging of Six-Mile Creek and potential boat density concerns on Lake Minnetonka. The consensus of
the Board was for staff to forward pending dredging permit applications from the MN DNR and the MCWD on this
project for further review. The Board also directed staff to prepare a draft letter to be forwarded to these agencies
restating the concems of the District on this project. ~ - ·
6. EWM/EXOTCS TASK FORCE
There was no discussion.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regutar Boar~l l~eting
January 24, 2001
Page8
7. ADMINISTRATION
There was no discussion.
8. OLD BUSINESS.
There was no old business.
9. NEW BUSINESS.
There was no new business.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Albed Foster, Vice-Chairman
Craig W. Nelson, Treasurer
0
,,%
0
0
AMM FAX
II
January 22-26, 2001
Kandis Hanson
Page 881 0£ 881
Association
Hetropolitan
HunicipalJties
Metropolitan Council to Update and
Revise the Regional Blueprint
At the January 17. 2001 meeting the Metropolitan Council was briefed by
~ staff regarding the Update and revision of the regional blueprint. The
· ~Council intends to complete the revision by December 2002. Among the
issues to be discussed as part of the revision are the following: · Nodes, Corridors and Hubs
· Urban Reserve--2020 to 2040 and 2050
· Fiscat Policy
· Redevelopment and lnflll
· Natural Resources/Rivers: Opportunities and Constraints
· Adjacent Counties
The issues will be developed in light of the smart growth strategy. Adoption of a
revised regional blueprint will lead to new system plans that serve as the basis for
the comprehensive planning process. Additional information will be available
within the next few months.
Affordable Housing
Report
On January 30 the legisla-
tive Auditor is scheduled
to release its report on afford-
able housing. The report was
directed to focus on barriers
and should include recommen-
dations for legislation. A
summary of the report will be
the subject of an AMM
Newsfax.
Governor's Budget and Several Hearings Scheduled
Budget. On Tuesday, Jan. 23,
the Governor will present his
biennial budget at a briefing
scheduled atthe Science Museum.
The budget will hopefully include the
details of the property tax changes for
such issues as levy limits tax incre-
merit financing, the local government
sales tax exemption and local aids. In
addition the proposed budget for state
agencies will be announced.
~,~l.~.tj.~j~tr.a~..is foxed to aH AMM city
managers and admh~istralors, legislative
contacts attd Board members~ Please share
this fax with your mayors, councHmembers
and staff to keep them abreast of impor-
toni metro Oil): issues.
145 U~dversity Avent~e H/est
St. Paul.. M:%: 55103-2044
Phone: (6519 215-4000
Fax: (6519 281-1299
E-mail: amm,~ammJ 45, org
Tuesday afternoon the Revenue
Department will hold a meeting summa-
rizing the budget's impact on cities.
Comprehensive Planning Bill
(HF46). Authored by Rep. Eric
Lipman, the bill would reestablish local
control over the comprehensive local
planning process. The bill would repeal
the Metropolitan Council's land use
planning authority and its review of
local comprehensive plans. If adopted
the bill would be effective the day after
final enactment. If you have any
concerns regarding HF46 please
contact Gene at the AMM or your
house member. The bill could be heard
next month.
Housing Development Process:
Hearings and Meetings. The Senate
Housing and Economic Development
Committee will also hold a hearing on
Wednesday Jan. 24 regarding how
housing is proposed approved and
developed in cities. The AMM staff will
participate in a panel of local officials
that will discuss local government
procedures. Other panels will consist of
developers and builders who will
probably raise concerns about local
regulatory barriers. It is anticipated that
the committee will draft a housin§
policy bill that may include changes to
the super majority requirement for
certain zoning decisions, inclusionary
housing authority and regulatory
barriers.
Regulatory barriers are often men-
tioned as impediments to producing
affordable housing but the barriers are
not defined. The AMM will continue to
be involved in the issue and has
scheduled several meetings this week
with representatives of builders and
developers to discuss the issue
Fe5 8G Z88! 14:3G:44 ~ia Fax -> Xandis
AMM FAX
NEWS
February 5-9.2001
Page 88! Of 881
etr0p01itan
Hunicipalities
Metropolitan Council Continues Discussion of
Housing Performance Standards
Twhe Metropolitan Council at its
ednesday Jan. 24, 2001
meeting discussed in detail the
housing performance standards and its
application to Metropolitan Council
programs.
As a result of the discussion and
other public meetings the performance
standards have been modified from the
original draft. Among the modifications
are the following:
· A separate standard has been
developed for counties
· Points for participation in the Livable
Communities have been deieted
· Recognition of a city's prior efforts in
providing affordable housing are
recognized
· Credit for housing preservation and
attempts to develop affordable
housing are included
The standards will be reviewed by the
Livable Communities Committee and
the full Metropolitan Council It is
anticipated that the standards will be
adopted for a public hearing scheduled
for March 21,2001. Copies of the
standards should be mailed by the
Metropolitan Council to all cities after
the February 14 meeting.
A.Tf.I'I .~;ew.q Fax is faxed to all AMM city
tnatla~_ ers atld adtninJ$lralors, legislative
cottlacls aad Board m embers. Pleas e share
th is fax with you r ~n ayo rs, c au ~ cihne tnbers
and staff to keep them abreast of impor-
tant metro oily issues.
145 University Avenue West
St. Paul, M.%' 55]03-2044
Phone: (65D 215-4000
Fax: (6519 281-1299
E-mall: am,n.~,n,n ] 4 5. org
The standards will be used by the
Metropolitan Council to determine a
score and rank cities and counties for
use in evaluating and establishing
priorities for M et ropolita n Cou nc il
funding programs. The amount of
emphasis or weight given to the
standards wilt be atthe discretion of
the Metropolitan Council.
The Metropolitan Council is also
considering a set-aside of its various
funding programs into a special fund.
The fund would support regional
projects that meet regional needs
including affordable housing The
details of the set-aside are not com-
pleted but it is possible that transporta-
lion funds will be part of the fund.
The AMM has suggested that the set
aside be established and is concerned
the application of the performance
standards to funding programs may not
lead to increased affordable housing
production. Cities are encouraged to
review the standards and comment
through AMM or directly to the Metro-
politan Council on the concept and the
padicular standards.
Legislative Auditor's Report on Affordable
Housing Released
The Legislative Auditor's report
regarding affordable housing and
the Livable Communities was released
on Tuesday January 30. 2001. The
repod also includes an assessment of
the Livable Communities Act (LCA).
While the Auditor states that the LCA
"has been only marginally successful in
producing affordable housing", it has led
some municipalities to focus more
attention on affordable housing. The
report does not offer recommendations
for local or state action. A copy of the
repod can be obtained from the Office
of the Legislative Auditor at 651-296-
4708 or reviewing its website at
www. auditor, leg state, mn. us.
Comprehensive Planning Bill to be heard
in Subcommittee
Wednesday Hearing Postponed
The House Metropolitan and Local
Affairs Committee will not consider
on Wednesday, Feb. 7, 2001 Rep
Lipman's bill (HF 46) that would repeal
the Metropolitan Council's comprehen-
sire planning authority The bill will be
heard in the Metropolitan Council
Subcommittee within the next few
weeks The AMM will continue to follow
the bill
If you have any concerns regarding
the bill please contact Gene at the
AMM t651-215-4001 ).
VOL XVIII NO 2
FEBRUARY- 2001
January 22, 2001
PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE
Dear Members and Friends,
Our senior center project is on schedule. Carpeting, floor tile, wallpaper .have
all been chosen. At the last Building Committee meeting the bathroom countertops
and stall colors were discussed. It was the consensus that brighter colors would be
used in these rooms. Kitchen bids will be going out soon. The structure will soon be
sealed in with the completion of the roof. Then the heat can be added and the cement
floors will be poured.
We have already had inquiries about reservations for the use of the center. A
committee is working to determine the rules and costs. We still need to raise the last
5% needed to fund the project. We are planning under the able leadership of Dorothy
McQueen another fundraising breakfast buffet for Sunday, March 4t~. Dorothy and
Margaret Thorne would be happy to accept offers of volunteer help for that day.
Please call either Dorothy at 472-1248 or Margaret at 472-3973 to sign up for a shift.
And, of course, plan on coming on that day and think about others that you can bring
or encourage to come.
See you all at the Business Meeting on February 6th,
Marilyn Byrnes
President
HENNEPIN COUNTY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
10709 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 260,Minnetonka, Minnesota 55305 952-541-7080
January 22, 2001
Ms. Patricia Meisel
Mayor
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mayor Meisel:
Minnesota Statutes Section 383B.77, which authorized the creation of the Hennepin County
Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HCHRA), requires the HCHRA to annually notify
suburban HRAs and EDAs of the programs the HCHRA intends to operate within their
communities.
The HCHRA is administering several suburban Hennepin County programs in the year 2001.
Communities may exercise their option to not have the HCHRA administer one or more of the
programs within their community by submitting a resolution to that effect to the HCHRA, within
45 days of the date of this notice.
The HCHRA is administering the following programs:
Minnesota Cities Participation Program First-Time Homebuyer Mortgages.
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) Housing Rehabilitation Programs - includes
the Rehabilitation Loan Program and Accessibility Loan Program.
MHFA Home Improvement Loan Programs - includes the Fix-up Fund and the Community
Fix-up Fund. Excludes the city of Bloomington.
MFHA Community Revitalization Fund Program - single family, accessibility modular ramp
grant.
Minnesota 4d Property Tax Classification Program - inspections and monitoring - excludes
the cities of Bloomington, Brooklyn Park, Hopkins, Plymouth, Richfield and St. Louis Park.
This is a property tax reduction program for residential rental properties meeting specific
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Mike Opat Mark Stenglein Gail Dorfman Peter McLaughlin Randy Johnson Mary Tambornino Penny Steele
Mayor Meisel
January 22, 2001
Page 2
requirements for affordable housing, including rent and household income hmitations.
Affordable Housing Incentive Fund Program (AHIF) - developed in response to the shortage
in Hennepin County of housing affordable to low-income households. An initial allocation
of $3 million ($2 milhon from Hennepin County and $1 million from the McKnight
Foundation through the Family Housing Fund) was offered through a request for proposals
for affordable housing projects.
The project(s) identified on the attached list has/have been selected to receive development
assistance through the first funding round of this program.
Please note that it is a requirement of the AHIF Program that all project proposals
demonstrate municipal support prior to actually receiving assistance. As an action separate to
this letter, the Hermepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority will be requesting a
city council resolution (if not currently in place) in support of selected individual projects.
We look forward to continuing to work with you in implementing these programs and to develop
additional innovative approaches to address housing and community development needs.
Please contact Rod Waara at 952-541-7088 if you have any questions about HCHRA programs.
Enclosure
CC:
HCHRA Commissioner
City HRA or EDA Chair
City Manager/Administrator
Gary L. Cunningham
January 23, 2001
To: Kandis Hanson, City Manager and Mound City Council
(HAND DELIVER AT COUNCIL MEETING)
From: Tom Casey, Park Commissioner (472-1099)
Re: Application for Re-appointment to the City of Mound Park
and Open Space Advisory Commission
It is unfortunate that the process to reappoint me to the
Park Commission has become so protracted. In attempt to
expedite my reappointment, I offer the following remarks:
Attorneys will tell you that lonq-time practice neqates
a written policy. The long-time practice of the City of
Mound (at least since 1989) has been to automatically
reappoint members of advisory commissioners who express
this desire for reappointment. Before the expiration
date of the term, the City Manager writes a letter to the
commissioner asking him/her whether he/she desires to be
reappointed. If the answer is yes, the city council vote
is a mere formality. Per this long-standing practice,
you asked me in writing several months ago to indicate
whether I desire to be reappointed. I faxed to you my
answer - "YES." Mr. Fackler acknowledged at our December
8, 2001 Park Commission meeting that the City of Mound
received my answer.
City Council Resolution 89-139 states that a "vacancy"
exists only if the commissioner's term expires and the
commissioner does not desire to be reappointed. Only
after a "vacancy" exists does the city advertise the
vacancy, take applications, and interview candidates.
I find no other written policy that contradicts this
language. In summary, this written policy supports the
lonq-standinq city practice I have mentioned in paragraph
1 above.
There is sound public policy behind paragraphs 1 and 2
above; it alleviates the "SPOILS SYSTEM." In other
words, assuming 3-year staggered terms on an advisory
commission, the majority of votes on any advisory
commission can be changed within 13 months! For example:
January, 2001 - 1/3 of the park commissioners are
appointed by the city council; January, 2002 - another
1/3 of the park commissioners are appointed by the city
council.
The results of the SPOILS SYSTEM are political
retaliation, "political" appointees, high turnover,
discontinuity, bad morale, and lack of "institutional
memory".
As I stated before, there is precedent for my
concern. Political retribution was exacted on Bill
-1-
Darling, a former Park Commissioner who ran for Mayor in
1996. After the election, the Park Commission was
reduced in size by the City Council so that Mr. Darling
could not be re-appointed as a Park Commissioner.
(The reform of the SPOILS SYSTEM began in the 1880s
with the passage of the Pendleton Act. Let's not go
backwards.)
Natural attrition of advisory commissioners is
already high on the park commission. Why make matters
worse?
Sound public policy is to create advisory
commissions who have the "long view" and who can give
city council members (particularly newly-elected) the
benefit of their vast experience, without fear of
retaliation.
4. On Thursday, January 11, 2001, the Park Commission
unanimously agreed to only interview candidates for the
new seat on the Park Commission. (The effective date of
the appointment would be after the publication date of
the ordinance.) The Park Commission unanimously agreed
with what I have stated in this memo; i.e. that a
long-standing practice is to automatically reappoint
commissioners who desire reappointment; and a "vacancy"
does not exist under Resolution 89-139; and that sound
public policy exists for this protocol.
5. There is no reason for me not to be reappointed. I have
received Certificates of Appreciation after the end of my
previous terms. (I supplied (under protest) an
application for reappointment that far surpasses my
opponents in content.)
6. The City Council already has a remedy for "dead wood" on
the Park Commission. Mound City Code, Section 255:05
states that a Park Commissioner "... may be removed by a
four-fifths vote."
7. The City Council has the authority under the Resolution
9Z-~36 to reappoint me based on my resume only. This
Resolution states in part, "... if candidates who wish
to be considered for appointment cannot be present for
the interviews that the commission and the City Council
will base their decisions on the resumes submitted."
In conclusion, I respectfully request that you follow
your previous written resolutions and long-standing past
practice by reappointing me to the Park Commission at your
earliest convenience. In the interim, I will continue to
serve as park commissioner, based on our 01/09/01 telephone
conversation and Mound City Code 255:05, which states in
part, ,,Appointees shall hold offices until their successors
are appointed and qualified." THANK YOU.
-2-
LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
4071 SUNSET DRIVE · RO. BOX 385 · SPRING PARK, MN 55384-0385 · 952. 471-7125 · FAX 952. 471-9151
January 23, 2001
DEEPHAVEN
EXCELSIOR
GREENUVOOD
INDEPENDENCE
LONG LAKE
MEDINA
MINNETONKA
BEACH
MINNETRISTA
ORONO
ST. BONIFACIUS
SHORE~VOOD
SPRING PARK
Gino Businaro
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Rd.
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Gino and the City of Mound:
Thank you for your communication and the Mound payment of the Studio Usage Fee.
I did deposit the check this week as you requested.
The LMCC studio has some very active producers fi.om Mound who have been
producing a number of programs spotlighting the youth sports programs in Mound. I
have always thought that having the area youth on the local channels is sending a
message to them that they are important to our communities.
Thank you for the support of the studio facilities and community television.
Sincerely,
Sally Koenecke
TONKA BAY
VICTORIA
IItOODLAND
J~ r~uary 25, 2001
U:'aited Properties tn: Mike Sims
00 West 80'1' Street
oomington, MN 55431
:' Fletning Letter of Intent, Mound Marketplace
l~ar Mike,
As we discussed by phone, Moond M,-u-ketplace LLC has worked closely with the City of Mound
to provide this new retail center. The City participated with CUP and Plat approvals, locating its
liquor store in the center, and financially, to correct poor soils. One of the communiD' objectives
is~o work with local business people.
Qhestlons have been raised as to whether the opcralor of' the grocer3' store will be f]om outside
tl~e Mound area and not your existing operator. We know that Fleming and the local Jubilee
ogerator have been interested in this site for years. We are excited to be v, orkmg directly,
Fleming because of the strong financial backi,g to die grocer)' operation. Brian Pellowski and I
are assuming that you are considering Frank Boese as the operator and tha~ relocating to Mound
.Mar. ketplace is in conjunction with the expiration of your current lease in Mound. We would
a~preciate confirmation of this.
\Ve would also like to set up a continuing communication process ~,i~h thc CiD' regarding the
o~erator mad any common interests the Mound liquor s~ore and Fleming have in common in
1~. und Marketplace.
We look £ov,vard to proceeding with lease negotiations with Fleming and the slarl of construction
f~ Mound Marketplace.
L~wrence W. Olson
y L!wrenceW. Olson
c6.1: Brian Pellowski
m ~lm'rvwo\m km\O 1251009.1tr
SPkUCE TR~ CENTRE
· I~,o0 UNIVERSITY AvE · SUITE
ST. PAUL
LEN HARRELL
Chief of Police
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MOUND POLICE
5341 Maywood Road Telephone
Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch
Fax
EMERGENCY 911
472-0621
525-6210
472-0656
Kandis Hanson
Chief Len Harrell
Monthly Report for January, 2001
STATISTICS
The police department responded to 492 calls for service during the month
of January. There were 20 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses
included 2 criminal sexual conduct, 3 burglary, 1 vehicle theft, and 14
larcenies.
There were 39 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses 2 child abuse, 2
forgery/NSF check, 3 criminal damage to property, 6 liquor law
violations, 5 DUI's, 1 simple assaults, 9 domestics (6 with assaults), 2
harassment, and 9 other offenses.
The patrol division issued 79 adult and 3 juvenile traffic citations. Parking
violations accounted for an additional 37 tickets. Warnings were issued to
74 individuals for a variety of violations.
There were 2 adults and 2 juveniles arrested for a felonies and 13 adults
and 7 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were 8 misdemeanor
adult warrant arrests.
The department assisted in 8 vehicle accidents. There were 30 medical
emergencies and 27 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on
10 occasions in January and requested assistance 5 times.
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT - January, 2001
II.
III.
IV.
INVESTIGATIONS
Sam Nelson replaced Dan Niccum in investigations. Officer Niccum has
been reassigned to the SWMDTF. The Investigators worked on 4 child
protection issues and 2 criminal sexual conduct cases in January. Other
cases included burglary, assault, theft, absenting, possession of stolen
property, counterfeit money issue, violation of an Order for Protection,
damage to property, harassment, trespass, vehicle theft, forgery, and NSF
checks.
Formal complaints were issued for gross misdemeanor criminal damage to
property, gross misdemeanor worthless check, gross misdemeanor DWI,
gross misdemeanor theft, attempt to evade taxes, no insurance, and
derelict auto.
PERSONNEL/STAFFING
The department used approximately 44 hours of overtime during the
month of January. Officers used 42 hours of comp-time, 197 hours of sick
time, 32 holidays, and 74 hours of vacation. Officers earned 34 hours of
comp time.
Officer Ewald continues to recover from shoulder surgery and will be out
at least until February 9th.
TRAINING
Officer Alexander attended a juvenile specialty course as well as officers
attended EMT refresher in January.
COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER
CSO Salter had 92 calls for service; 26 animal complaints, 58 ordinance
violations, and 4 miscellaneous contacts. Four citations were issued.
RESERVES
The reserves donated 118.5 hours of community service in the month of
January. The officers continue to work sporting events for the school
district. The unit consists of seven members currently.
February 2, 2001
Engineering
· Planning
· Surveying
Ms. Glenda Spiotta
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Gray Freshwater Center
2500 Shadywood Road, Suite 37
Navarre, Minnesota 55331
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
Surface Water Management Plan Review Responses
MFRA# 10293
Dear Glenda:
Last summer the MCWD reviewed the proposed Mound Surface Water Management
Plan (SWMP) and provided the City with review comments. The comments were
contained in a letter from your engineering consultant dated June 10, 2000. Through the
fall months the City met with you and your staff to better understand the comments and
how to best incorporate them into the SWMP. City staff has also discussed the comments
and various options with the Mound City Council.
Attached to this letter is a point-by-point response to the MCWD's comments. After we
have agreement that the response or action meets the watershed's requirements the
SWMP will be updated accordingly. We trust that the responses and actions can meet
both the needs of the MCWD and the City.
On behalf of the City we are requesting that the MCWD review the attached and provide
us with your comments. If possible, we would like the Board of Managers to consider
approving the SWMP later this month or early in March. If you have any questions or
need additional information, please call me at (763) 476-6010.
Sincerely,
Daniel M. Parks, PE
cc: Kandis Hanson, City Manager
Loren Gordon, HKGI
/dmp
15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447
phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532
e-mai/: mfra@mfra, com
MCWD-Mound SWMP Review Comments and Responses (2/2/01)
1. All ordinances providing the basis for the transfer of permitting authority
should be included in the plan.
2. Adoption of applicable ordinances by the City must take place before permitting
authority for Rules B, C, D, G, and N is transferred to the City of Mound.
The City is undertaking a review of its ordinances for consistency with the provisions of
the SWMP. Existing ordinances will be updated or new ordinances will be established to
implement the SWMP and assume the permitting authority from the MCWD for Rules B,
C, D, and N. The City will not assume the permitting authority for Rule G.
3. Areas and elevations for stormwater storage should be included in the SWMP.
The SWMP has identified 18 major subwatershed areas within the City of Mound. The
subwatersheds are shown on the map in Appendix F. Most of the land area in Mound
drains directly into Lake Minnetonka and its many bays surrounding the City. There are
three major subwatersheds that do not directly discharge into Lake Minnetonka. Those
areas drain into Lakes Dutch, Langdon, and Saunders. Ultimately, all surface water
runoff from the City of Mound reaches Lake Minnetonka.
The highwater levels for Lake Minnetonka have been identified by FEMA and the
MCWD. As part of this SWMP, a detailed hydrologic analysis determined the 100-year
highwater elevations for Lakes Dutch, Langdon, and Saunders. In addition, a basic
hydrologic study was conducted for the other 15 subwatersheds. The study provides
information such as drainage areas, runoff conditions, and peak 5-year and 100-year
flowrates. The results of that analysis is included in Appendix L.
The SWMP did not include an analysis of smaller subdistricts unless there had been
previous flooding problems, or if required for storm sewer improvements. There are a
number of previous developments within the City that have created ponding areas. Those
subdistricts and ponding area were analyzed with the development proposal and
established normal and highwater level conditions. Although not specifically included in
the SWMP, that information is available for review at the City.
Future developments within the City will need to comply with the requirements of the
SWMP for rate control and water quality improvements. Minimum floor elevations will
need to be at least 2 feet above projected 100-year flood levels, or the RFPE. In the case
where there is no 100-year highwater level estabhshed, either a highwater level will be
determined as part of the development or there will be a minimum separation of 3 feet
required between the lowest floor and an established Ordinary Highwater Level (OHW).
4. Existing and allowable volumes and rates of stormwater runoff for each
subwatershed should be established.
The City of Mound is nearly entirely developed and the future stormwater rates and
volumes will be nearly the same as existing rates and volumes. Peak stormwater rates for
the 18 major subwatersheds within the City are included in Appendix L.
The subwatershed disharge rates will be controlled on a regional basis (where feasible)
and generally maintained at existing conditions. Discharges from the three lake
subwatersheds will be controlled by the existing or proposed lake outlets. Discharge rates
for subwatersheds draining directly into Lake Minnetonka will be controlled on a case-
by-case basis with development proposals.
5. An inventory of wetland functional values and a management classification
system should be included.
In 2001, the MCWD will conduct a wetlands functions and values assessment for
property within the City of Mound. The City will provide the MCWD with available
wetland information and participate in determining wetland ranking criteria and reference
wetlands for ecological functions. When completed, the MCWD assessment will be
included in the SWMP as an Appendix.
After completion of the assesment, the City will consider developing a management
classification system for the inventoried wetlands.
e
A wetland management policy and ordinance must be established to meet or
exceed Rule D requirements including required buffers and mitigation for
excavation in wetlands.
The city will incorporate the following wetland protection measures in the SWMP.
A. Wetland Buffers
The City will encourage natural wetland buffers around existing wetlands or replacement
wetlands in major development proposals. The buffer shall be a native vegetative strip
with average widths based on the size of the abutting wetland as shown in Table 6 below.
The minimum buffer widths shall not be less than 50% of the table value and the
calculation of the average width shall not include buffer widths greater than 150% of the
table value.
TABLE 6 - WETLAND BUFFER WIDTHS
Adjacent Wetland Size (Ac)
0-1.0 16.5
1-2.5 20
2.5-5.0 25
>5.0 35
Buffer Width (it)
(Same buffer widths as MCWD Plan)
B. Excavation in wetlands
The City will manage wetlands in conformance with the Minnesota Wetlands
Conservation Act (WCA) of 1991, its amendmems and roles (MN Rules Chapter 8420).
In addition, the City will require the following:
Wetland excavations for the purpose of wildlife enhancement will comply with the
criteria described in the MDNR publication "Excavated Ponds for Waterfowl"
(1992).
Wetland replacement at the ratio of 2-acres of replacement wetland for each 1-acre of
wetland excavation will be required in semi-permanently or permanently flooded
areas of Type 3, 4, and 5 wetlands.
7. Policies for stream and lake crossing permitting should be included in the Plan.
The City will not assume the permitting authority for MCWD Rule G - Stream and Lake
Crossings. That permitting will remain with the MCWD.
APPENDIX L
HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Direct Runoff (cfs) Outlet Discharge (cfs)
Land Lake
SUbwatershed Area Area 5-year 100 -year 5-year 100-year
ID (acres) (acres) CN ToC~
1. Dutch Lake 16302 175 69 NA3 NA3 NA~ 5.5 19.2
2. Lake Langdon 376~- 140 75 NA~ NA~ NA~ 4.4 14.8
3. Saunders Lake 4552 45 77 NA3 NA3 NA~ 1.2 3.2
4. Halstead Bay 45 72 0.5 41.7 115.1
5. Priest Bay 95 75 0.75 79.2 203.4
6. West Cooks Bay 98 75 0.5 108.3 276.1
7. East Cooks Bay 78 77 0.5 96.0 233.2
8. Lost Lake 207 51 92 1.0 292.9 541.0
9. So. Hatrisons Bay 129 80 0.5 183.9 418.7
10. No. Harrisons Bay 118 72 0.5 109.3 301.8
11. Jennings Bay 90 77 0.5 110.7 269.1
12. West Arm 29 75 0.3 42.8 107.5
13. Seton Lake 64 75 0.5 70.7 180.3
14. Emerald Lake 130 75 0.75 108.4 278.4
15. Black Lake 82 70 0.5 66.6 195.5
16. Spring Park Bay 24 75 0.5 26.5 67.6
17. Phelps Bay 160 75 0.75 133.4 342.6
18. Whipple Wetland 91 65 0.5 50.0 178.0
1. ToC: Time of Concentration (hours)
2. Includes areas in Minnetrista
3. Not applicable-routed through numerous subwatersheds
JAN / FEB 2001
vo, 3No I I lC;il I
www.smallcities.orgThe newsletter for municipal decision makers in small, growing cities
orking with your city attorney
effectively and efficiently
town
~ Q&Aon
brownfields
· Small cities ?.-:;. -'
. grapple with various
for c~)uncil
· Year I ~esults ~d.;::, ' :':
Small Com,n!pnity ' -*'"
~ · Making decisions
' - . .,;: . -z .' . :..~., --
UPCOMING
council perform better
development
Negotiating the relationship between the council and the city attorney can be
second in difficulty only lo that of the city manager. While there's not daily
interaction, there are null~erous opportunities for misunderstanding and
miscommunication. Thal's why two Maryland city attorneys, each with 15-20 years
of scrvice, are cml,hatic thai they always meet with the council when new council
members are elected.
"Elected of tic ials come and go so we have to re-educate them as to what thc
attorney's real job is," explains Sueilen Ferguson, who represents several Prince
George's County, Md. municipalities. David Podolsky represents several
Montgomew County, Md. cities and he also gives an informal briefing for new
members on "what my role is and isn't and how to use my services most efficiently.
I also give them some background on their jobs, such as the fact that they can't
speak for the govemmeu! without the rest of council agreeing."
Podolsky has established a conununication protocol with all of the cities that
employ him because othc~'ise, he says, certain very specific problems will arise.
"A council member will call me with a view and ask for advice," he explains.
"Another council member will call (on the same topic) with a different set of facts
and I will give my legal opinion. At the next meeting, each of those cotmcil members
says thc attorney agrees with him. This does a disservice to everyone and is
unintemionally mislcadin~ because of two different opinions based on two different
fact patterns." In addition, he notes individual phone calls are a waste of taxpayers'
money just to have thc city attorney give the same opinion twice, or even four
times, as was the case in one jurisdiction.
The protocol Podolsky has established is that there is a central point of
contact such as the manager or the mayor so that if it's a topic of interest to
everyone, there's'one sel of facts to deal with when rendering an opinion. The
exce'ption is when individual council members have authority over a particular area;
the protocol may allow them to contact the attorney on that particular subject.
Ferguson has a related role that "if we're dealing with a sensitive issue, I tell
everyone that ifI take a question from a council member, I will do that only in the
presence o fall council members. 1 don't want one person thinking another person
ha,~ bcttcr lines ot'comnmnication. 1 provide the question and the answer to
continued page 2
everyone on council." In addition, Ferguson informs
each new council that before embarking on a research
request by an individual council member she will inform
the chief administrative officer, whether mayor or
manager, so there are no billing surprises later.
Both attorneys discuss the matter of confidential-
ity and executive sessions when they meet with new
council members. Ferguson reminds them they have a
"fiduciary" duty, a special higher duty to keeprnatters
in executive session confidential. Podolsky points out
that if one council member breaches confidentiality in a
matter of pending or even potential litigation then all the
other council members and the attorney can be sub-
poenaed by the other side. "Attorney-client privilege is
waived when a client breaches it."
Who does the attorney represent is a question
that may arise in several contexts and that city attor-
neys often debate among themselves. Sometimes the
council may be feuding among itself or a mayor and
council are at loggerheads. A citizen may think the
attorney represents the citizenry.
"I represent the city government and the elected
officials insofar as they represent-the city," says
Ferguson. "When there's conflict on the council, an
attorney has to step back and take each situation on its
facts and work t!~rough it because attorneys are
prevented from l ;eing in conflict between clients."
Ferguson once represented a city some of whose
council members were sympathetic to a citizen who
had brought suit. She told the council she would give
progress updates on the suit but none of the details in
order to avoid compromising the city's strategy.
Ten no-no's
Ferguson and Podolsky were on a panel last year
for the Maryland Municipal League for which they
compiled a list often Things Municipal Attorneys
Don't Do. While Podolsky notes there certainly might
be more, these were some of the most obvious that
came to mind.
l. Don't become involved in matters when
they have conflicts of interest. This can range from
acting as prosecutor in a personnel hearing that could
eventually be appealed to the council to living in the
community and having to prosecute a neighbor. Every
2 Small Cities JANIFEB 2001
city in Maryland has an ethics commission so Ferguson
insists that the cities she represents have a separate
attorney for that commission.
2. Don '! &'come i, vo/ved h~ mattel:~, where
th~, do not have the ,ece. vxarv xkill or evpertixe.
While ciW a~omeys may be so~e of the last general
praclitionem around, says Ferguson, there may be
times when a specialist is called fon For instance, she
says telecommunications is such a new field with fist-
moving developments that her finn has decided not to
tackle those issues. Al the same time, Podolsky
advises that city attorneys monitor the work and the
billing ofoutside fim~s.
3. Don't reveal coqfidences. While this is an
obvious prohibition, Podols~ has also refi~sed confi-
dences. "Ifa council member tells me something and
says he doesn't want the rest ofthe council to know, I
remind them I don't work for them individually, I work
fi~r the council."
4. Fail to rctttrtl /;hottc ca/Ix ol'./iti[ to re,vpottd
5. Don ? encore'age litigation as a./h'st choice.
Podolsky explains that the attomey'sjob is to get the
city where it needs Io go as inexpensively as possible.
6. Doit 't talA' to the pivss without a,thoriza-
tiotr While some towns may want their attorney to be
a spokesperson, Podolsky says it can raise some
complicated issues. For instance, there might be a
conflict between an honesl answer to a reponer's
question and harm 1o the city. Sometimes, council
members have refewed the press to Podolsky when he
knew nothing about the issue and the council hadn't
taken an official position. It can be awkward for the
aUomey.
7. Doll 't ttltd~,rmitlc or overrule policy dcci-
xhmx. City attorneys must fi~llow the council;s instruc-
lions whether they disagree or nol.
8. Don 'l phu.c thc interest, v q['at(~, imlividual in
the government ahead ql'the interests (?/'the
nicipalio~ Podolsky once had to investigate a fomer
ciw employee's allegations against the ciw manager
without the manager's knowledge. ~e allegations were
baseless and Podolsky's repma won the case but the
manager still had htm feelings.
9. Fail to recognize the d(ffbrence be~,een
legal i. vsuet on one haml aml political, engh~eering,
.financial, etc issues on the other: While an attorney
may think a council has made errors injudgrnent, it's
not his/her job to criticize it, overrule it, write some-
thing that's inconsistent with it or tell them it's illegal if
it, s not. I-te hag to defer to their authority, explains
Podolsky.
10. Don't become overly involved in the
political process or fail to recognize that there are
political consequences to actions and decisions.
Podolsky says he has seen attorneys get very frus-
trated when a council doesn't follow their advice,
particularly when the law is clear on a specific issne.
But legal considerations are just one of the factors a
council must consider. From the political standpoint, a
council might decide it's better to be sued, lose and
blame the judge for a decision rather than make it
themselves.
Ferguson might add an eleventh point, noting that
"I explain to tl:.:m that one of my roles is not to advise
them whether they should vote for something or not. 1
can give the legal and practical aspects of it but 1 can'l
tell them whetl:er to do it or not." ·
ICMA Award winner
Tips for turning a town around
In the 1980s, the city of Ionia, Mich. (pop.
15,000) fell on hard times. Halfway between Lansing
and Grand Rapids, this 150-year-old historic commu-
nity has beautiful homes and commercial buildings but
it was not a go~d place to live and work. Operating
under a strong-mayor form of govemment, "the town
had been asle~ :p since the late 60s," says
Tom Weiczorck, city manager since 1989 and thc
2000 recipient oflCMA's Award for Excellence. "We
provided a low level of service and that's all people
expected. We didn't pave streets or fix sidewalks.
Parks equipment was falling apart and city facilities
and equipment were in bad shape." The prison
industry was and is a mainstay of the local economy
with 5,000 inmates in five facilities and 2,000 employ-
ecs. The problem was they were all in the surrounding
townships because the city had no annexation policy;
worse, township interaction was adversarial.
in his first week on thc job, Weic~¥ek discov-
ered tile city had only $3,000 in liquid reserves with a
$42,000 payroll coming up. }te solved the immediate
crisis by collecting some outstanding bills, negotiating
early payments for purchases of land and city items,
and getting council authorization for loan transfers from
the city's enterprise funds. But there were a lot more
crises to come. The next one was two months later.
After road crews had ripped out pavement to begin a
Main St. prqicct, tile state Bureau of History called to
tell him all federal money had been pulled because the
previous administrator had thiled to indicate the road
was in a National ttistoric District. Luckily, the city got
state funds for a temporary asphalt road because it
took four years to finish the project. Wieczorek
worked with numerous stale and federal entities as well
as tile community to an'ange tbr thc resurfacing with
replica brick, winning the city a st:tlc historic preserva-
tion award in the process. At the same time, this led to
the expansion of the historic distqSct and more funding
sources.
By Dec. 1989, the city's wastewater treatment
system was at capacity and had been regularly in
violation of its discharge permits. The state offered
2 percent loan money if the city could design, plan and
bid out the $6.75 million project out by May.
\\qeczorek met the deadline and brought four sur-
rounding townships into a consortium, which resulted in
2.5 million gallons of extra capacity and no increase of
sewer rates.
Since he look over as manager, Wieczorek has
m, erseen the re-paving of every street in hmia and tile
rebuilding of major streets will be complete in 2003.
L:very city building has hcen renovated or brought up
to code; a river trail and park expansion has been
complclcd and sidewalks reconstructed.
Along with infi-astructure improvements,
WiecTorek has overseen and implemented the passage
of a new city chmler, which changed tile tbrm of
government to council-manager. Tile number of
employees has been reduced by nearly n third and all
tivc labor union Collll'aClS have been negotiated without
arhitration. Thc city's millage rate was tnt ti'om 15 mils
to three when council passed a new city income lax on
residents and non-residents working in the city. The
city has doubled in size and there has been over
JAN / FEB 2001 Small Cities 3
Pinky
Charon
FROH: Haxfield Research Inc. 01-31-01 03:05pm p. 1
of 1
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CASE STUDIES Janua.r):2001
Maxfield
Research's
Insight
Maxfield Research has over 17 years of
experience In marc(et research. Tho
expertise we have gained throughout the
years enablss us to offer solutions Io the
many issues cities & deveJopem face,
The relationship ~,e develop with our
clients Is a critical coml~oaent to the
success of our al~proach to housing
research and allows us to serve as e
source of direction and information during
development and ;21an'~ing.
Our involvement in ~e housing industr},
allows us support our clients with valuable
information regarding regulations and
industry news that affect planning and
development.
We also have the insiehl to determine
viable solutions to the issues inherent to
pla'~ning for growth. We provide research
for smart development.
r' sno~lE be sent to others f~r o~anlZe~lon.
:kl Pefl,~la a~ 6f2.904.7987. '
Met Council Assembles
"Smart Growth"
Consulting Team
Driving Into or out of the '~n
Cities, you might not notice all
the new housing developed far
from the City's center - but you
will notice the surprisingly high
amount of traffic on the freeways.
The housing isn't always
noticeable because It Is built on
large lots scattered over a large
geographic area. Tlals Iow-
density housing, often referred to
as urban sprawl, is consuming
lar~ce amounts of land and has
prompted public sentiment that
we need to grow smarter, "Smart
Growth'" is now a buzz word
describing new ways of
developing neighborhoods that
are more urban in design and
consume less land,
Metropolitan Council has
assembled a consulting team led
by nationally recognized urban
planning experts Calthorpe
Associates based in California to
plan developments utilizing smart
growth prlndpals on five Twin
Cities "opportunity" sites. As a
part of this team, Maxfield
Research Inc., workinG with ZHA,
a market and economic firm
based In Maryland and
Zlmmerrnan/Volk: Associates, a
market and economic firm based
in New Jersey, will assess what
mix of uses will be most
successful on the sites, given the
region's real estate market
dynamics, economic growth
patterns, and the physical
opportunities within the area.
The market team will also
estimate the quantity of
development for various land
uses that the sites could support
and their estimated rates of
absorption.
The five opportunity sites are
located in St. Paul, Brooklyn
Center, P, amse); Maple'wood and
Cnaska. The plannln§ and
design process has Just begun
anC the consultant team is
scheduled to present their
findings sometime mid-year. We
at Maxfield Research are excited
to be a part of the consultant
team and we believe that the
Twin Cities development pattern
in the future will be greatly
influenced by our region's efforts
to reduce urban sprawl.
~nce 1983, Maxfie/d has been
helpir9 cities and municipzfilies
throughout tl~e up,er midwest pla~
to meet their housin~ needs, If )~u
would like tnfonnePon on how
MexfleN can help you m~ke your
ptann'ng oecisions, conlact Jay
Thompson at 612.904.7~73.
MaxfieLc Re_<eerch Inc. - 510 Marquette Avenue · Suite 300 - Minneapolis, MN · 55402 · ;hore 632,338.0012 · )~x 612,338.5288