The URL can be used to link to this page

1996-10-08 AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1996, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. *CONSENT AGENDA APPROVE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 PAGE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ................................... 3325-3332 RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE FOR LOTS 4-8, BLOCK 2, AVALON, RANDY MORIARTY, 4536 DENBIGH ROAD AND ROBERT BAUMGARTEN, 4552 DENBIGH ROAD. CASE g96-31 .................... 3333-3344 Co RESOLUTION APPROVING BATCH #9, PUBLIC LANDS PERMITS....~..~c.'-..~..~. ...................................... 3345-3348 Do RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPLICATION OF STEVE CODDON FOR A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT. ~a.~/~.. ......... 3349-3350 RESOLUTION APPROVING PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR AHRENS, 4673 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, TO INSTALL AN ~/.~~., .'j-? .xff~... UNDERGROUND PIPE ON DEVON COMMONS. . .~9 3351-3354 Fo SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER CHANGES TO MOUND CITY CODE SECTION 500, RE: FEES FOR VARIOUS LICENSES AND PERMITS. SUGGESTED DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1996 ............... 3355-3356 Go STREET LIGHT REQUEST FOR GROVE LANE AND BEACHWOOD ROAD .......................................... 3357-3360 H. APPROVAL OF THE TRANSFER OF TWO CEMETERY LOTS ................... 3361 I. APPROVAL OF KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS PERMITS ......................... 3362 J. PAYMENT OF BILLS .......................................... 3363-3378 3321 Mound City Council Agenda October 8, 1996 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING: PUBLIC HEARING: UNPAID WATER AND SEWER BILLS ..... ~. ................ 3379-3382 3383-3384 REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL RE: FUTURE BUILDING PLANS, WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZENS - CATHY BAILEY, SENIOR CITIZEN COORDINATOR. o PROPOSAL FOR CITY INVOLVEMENT IN A PUBLIC SKATING RINK ON PROPERTY OWNED BY WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT ~ . AND LOCATED WEST OF POND ARENA - PETER MEYER ...................... 3385-3490 6. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. PROPOSED DISSOLUTION OF RELATIONSHIP WITH WEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING BOARD, d- A.K.A. SUBURBAN ALLIANCE. (JQ/' .t,-"-~.¢ ................................... 3491-3500 8. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. DEPARTMENT HEAD MONTHLY REPORTS FOR SEPTEMBER .............. 3501-3533 Bo LMCD REPRESENTATIVE'S MONTHLY REPORT FOR SEPTEMBER. PLEASE NOTE THAT IN THIS REPORT ARE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS YOU HAD AT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. ALSO NOTE A CLARIFICATION FROM JIM FACKLER, PARKS DIRECTOR, REGARDING QUESTION #4 & #5 .................... 3534-3537 Co MATERIAL PREPARED BY BRUCE CHAMBERLAIN IN PREPARATION FOR THE OCTOBER 17, 1996 WORKSHOP MEETING WITH THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT AND OTHERS RE: LOST LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. PLEASE REMEMBER TO BRING THIS MATERIAL WITH YOU TO THE MEETING .................. 3538-3563 LETTER FROM NORM COLEMAN, MAYOR, CITY OF ST. PAUL, INVITING THE CITY OF MOUND TO ATTEND A CONFERENCE ON PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS SET FOR TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1996 IN ST. PAUL. WE CAN SEND UP TO 6 PEOPLE. I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO INVITE 4 MEMBERS FROM THE EDC WHICH WOULD INCLUDE COUNCILMEMBER JENSEN AND BRUCE CHAMBERLAIN AND MYSELF. IS THIS OK? ............................. 3564 Eo REMINDER: LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES REGIONAL MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1996 AT THE NEW WATERTOWN CITY HALL. THERE IS AN AFTERNOON PROGRAM BEGINNING AT 2 PM, SOCIAL HOURS BEGINS AT 5 PM, FOLLOWED BY A DINNER AT 6 PM. PLEASE LET LINDA KNOW IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ATTENDING. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS EVENT IS ALSO THE SAME DAY AS THE SCHEDULED WORKSHOP WITH THE 3322 Mound City Council Agenda October 8, 1996 Page 3 Go MCWD RELATED TO THE LOST LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. YOU COULD ATTEND THE AFTERNOON SESSION BUT WOULD HAVE TO MISS THE EVENING DINNER AND PROGRAM. THERE ARE OTHER REGIONAL MEETINGS SCHEDULED AROUND THE STATE BUT THE CLOSEST IS WATERTOWN. REMINDERS ON UPCOMING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS/WORKSHOPS: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1996 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 7:30 PM DISCUSSION WILL BE HELD TO THE PROPOSED 1997 BUDGET. PLEASE BRING COPIES OF THE BUDGET WITH YOU TO THE MEETING. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1996 - WORKSHOP MEETING WITH MCWD - 7:30 PM, CITY HALL. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1996 - CANVASSING OF THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION - 7:30 PM. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 .......................................... 3565-3567 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 1996 .............. 3568-3571 3323 Eo$ Architects and Engineers WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER October 3, 1996 SCENARIO ONE Site(s): Shirley Hills 1. Mothball or sell existing Westonka Community Center. 2. Construct District Programs and District Offices. 3. ,,,,,Euadia~or Gymnasium is uncertain.-- b/o(' ~-v-e;P-a,09-~p~'~ 4. ~(ies)~ fund construction of Senior Center. 5. Funding for WeCAN and Headstart is uncertain. SCENARIO TWO Site(s): Shirley Hills & High School Mothball or sell existing Westonka Community Center· · . OF'C . " Construct D~str2ct P~'~s at Shirley Hills. LeaseC°nstructDistrictGymnasium~ at__High School.~(')-~~ City(les) to fund construction of Senior Center at Shirley Hills. Funding for WeCAN and Headstart is uncertain. SCENARIO THREE Site(s): Shirley Hills & Lynwood 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Demolish existing Westonka Community Center. Construct District Programs at Shirley Hills. Lease District Offices. City(ies) to fund construction of Gymnasium at Lynwood. City(les) to fund construction of Senior Center at either site. Funding for WeCAN and Headstart is uncertain. SCENARIO FOUR Site(s): Lynwood 2. 3. 4. 5. Demolish existing Westonka Community Center. Construct District Programs or District Offices. Lease District Offices or District Programs. City(ies) to fund construction of Senior Center and Gymnasium. Funding for WeCAN and Headstart is uncertain. WESTONKA PUBLIC $CHOOL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 277 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD · MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 TO: PETER MEYER ~ FROM: MARK L. CASE, BUSINESS ADMINISTRAT tO~~''/'~ DATE: APRIL 8, 1996 RE: ICE RINK - DISTRICT PROPERTY AS A FOLLOW-UP TO YOUR QUESTION REGARDING LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR AN ICE RINK LOCATED ON THE DISTRICT'S PROPERTY AND OPERATED BY THE CITY, IT WOULD BE THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE PRIMARY COVERAGE AND TO LIST THE DISTRICT AS ADDITIONALLY INSURED. A FORMAL LEASE AGREEMENT WOULD THEN BE ESTABLISHED LISTING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE USE OF THE PROPERTY AND WOULD INCLUDE A HOLD HARMLESS CLAUSE FOR THE DISTRICT. I HOPE THIS ADDRESSES YOUR QUESTION. IF YOU ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR NEED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE CALL ME AT 491-8021. To: From: Mound Mayor and City Manager Randy Moriarity 4536 Denbigh Road Mound, Mn. 55364 RECEIVED OCT- ? MOUND PLAAIIU~Ay~ Subject: Subdivision Case #96-31 Dear Mr. Mayor and Mr. Shukle, I hereby request a continuation of the approval of the final resolution on my subdivision, Case #96-31, until the first meeting in November. I understand this would be on Wednesday Nov. 6th. This is due to scheduling conflicts. I would like to be in attendance that evening. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,_...._, RarfOy Mori~rity / 4536 Denbfgh Road Mound, Mn. 55364 I 1[ MINUT~ . MOUND CITY COUNCIL . SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, September 24, 1996 at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Phyllis Jessen. Also in attendance: City Manager Edward j. Shukle, Jr., Building Official Jori Sutherland, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Engineer John Cameron and Acting City Clerk Linda Strong. The following interested citizens Amy Cicchese ~,,a.. ,,,_ . w_ere also present: C/ifil _ ~ , R..,u.v ~vionarty, Todd HOvre~ ,.- ~ord Larso,, ,¥arlin.?icheneder, Kristi Dzik. j . ',? oreve UOddon, Bev Susan Roberts, Marilyn Byrnes, ureensut, Frank Ahren~ ~,-- -' -oh.n Dzlk, Doug Je,~s .... Botko, Jack Cook, Jim Suhon, *, xviarlc Jorland, Peter ~,t^. _ ~' ."?. ann Jepson, A1 aha r._.,_ . . Joseph VanLaanen. ~-~yer, Mark Goldber~ ~,~_,_ ~.'~ .~tay_ Leacti, David ,:,, ,,~u~ ~mlm, Chna Anderson Mayor Polston opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. RECYCLOTTo WINNER Mayor Polston announced that Leland Lundgren of Evergreen Road had received 50 Westonka dollars for his recycling efforts. Mayor Polston stated that the agenda contained a Consent Agenda, which meant that the items in this portion of the agenda would all be voted on by roll call in one Vote. He then asked if anyone of the Council or persons in attendance w/shed to discuss any of the following items. There was one minor Correct/on to the Minutes of 9-11-96. None of the persons in attendance spoke. The following items were moved by Councilmember Ahrens, by roll call Vote, ~assed Unanimously.. seconded by Councilmember Jensen, and 1.0 1.1 1.2 RESOLUTION #96-92 Ahrens moved, APPROVE MINUT~ OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1996, REGULAR COUNCIL MEET/NG. As amended. APPROVE MINUTES OF MEETING. SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WESTWOOD Cn:,r,, ,., ~_A~GE ADDITION -- ~'""'~, LOT 8 Ev,-,~.,~., ~_ ~'f 6219 BLOCK 2, WESTWOOD, PID ' -~,.-r.t'~' 'IHAT PART..., Jensen seconded, unanimous. 23-11%24 23 0019. PZ g96-47 1.3 Minutes ' Mound City Council ' September 24, 1996 RESOLUTION//96-93 ~c~NcoNFORM~ "I_'~.~ '4-17 BLOCK 12, AV,n~n-,~-, PID 19-117-23 31 0114. pZ#96-48 Ahrens moved, lensen seconded, unanimous. APPROVE A vARIANCE FOR FENCE MATERIAL AT 2116 NOBLE BLOCK 1, A.L. ADDN TO LAKESIDI~ 31 0001. PZ//96-49 Ahrens moved, lensen seconded, OLUTION TO APPROVE A 1.5 RESOLUTION 6'96-95 RES -- AN ExISTIN .... ,W, TiON OF A RECOGNIZI~_ _~eyGE TO ALLOW DETACHED ~3~a~,~x,o AT 2645 sHANNON coNFORMING DETACHED GARAGE LANE, LOST 1-3 & 8-10, BLOCK 22, sETON, PR) 19-117-23 23 0134. PZ# 96-50 Ahrens moved, 3ensen seconded, unanimous. 1.6 RESOLUTION//96-96 REsoLUTION TO APPROVE A sIDE yARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A PATIO ROOF AT 5046 BAYPORT ROAD, LOT 14, BLOCK 2, JOHN. S. CARLSON ADDITION, PR) #13-117-24 43 0033. p&Z g96-51. Ahrens moved, lensen seconded, unanimous. 1.7 RESOLUTION//96-97 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR sUBDIVISION FOR LOTS 13, 14, 15, BLOCK 15, PID'S 13-117-24 14 0046/0047/0039- p&Z//96-53. Ahrens moved, lensen seconded, unanimous, woRKSHOP ON THE LOST SE .C~IA2~,xrx:~rgNT PROJECT (wORK, trot WILL BE ATTENDED BY CITY LAKE IMi'~.u-~"'~-" , EK WATERSHED DI_S~T~'I.E~' tt..rax-~--'"'- C~ ~~' TS CITY ~x~rr 96 7:30 PM. CO~ ' _ Ns~T~ ' --~ OB~ 17, 19 , x,a~a~ RS EDC, CO _.~ DAY, OCT PERSONS. ~v~ 2 ! II Minutes. Mound City Council. September 24, 1996 Ahrens moved, Jensen seconded, unanimous. 1.9 SET CANVASSING OF CITY OF MOUND MUNICIPAL ELECTION. SUGGESTED DATE: WEDNF~DAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1996, 7:30 PM. Ahrens moved, Jensen seconded, unanimous. 1.10 SET BID OPENING FOR SNOW REMOVAL FROM PARKING LOTS IN CENTRAL BUSINESs DISTRICT (CBD) FOR 1996-97 SNOW SEASON. SUGGESTED DATE: OCTOBER 18, 1996. Ahrens moved, Jensen seconded, unanimous. 1.11 SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) FOR LOST LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SUGGESTED DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1996. Ahrens moved, Jensen seconded, unanimous. 1.12 PAYMENT OF BILLS. Ahrens moved, Jensen seconded, unanimous. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 1.13 CASE //96-31: MINOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE RANDy MORIARTY, 4356 DENBIGH ROAD, AND ROBERT BAUMGARTEN, 4552 DENBIGH ROAD, LOTS 4-8, BLOCK 2, AVALON, pID//19-117-23 24 0008 & 0048. DEN/AL RECOMMENDED. Building Official Jori Sutherland reviewed the report. The Planning Commission had recommended den/al of a different version of this plan in June. Part of the reason it was denied in June was that it created a new nonconforming lot and violated the bluff provisions. The new proposal establishes three Tracts labeled A, B and C. Tracts B and C contain existing homes. The home on Tract A will be eventually removed and rep/aced with a new residence. Ail three tracts comply with side yard setback requirements and hardcover restrictions for non-lots of record. There are 4 variances three of the proposed tracts are in an area of very steep topography. Sutherland stated applied for. All of the third lot appears to be an economic issue and not a hardship issue. He also mentioned the survey that the creation was not clearly understandable and more information would be needed. The Planning Commission voted 7-1 to deny the request. Randy Moriarty and Jack Cook spoke before the Council regarding their efforts to make this plan workable. Hanus stated he had voted against the denial at the Planning Commission because the lots would be 3 Minutes - Mound City Council - September 24, 1996 · · fs has been done before. He stated they ha.d conforming ~^~ i- . ---..:-~ .-~..,sicallv possible, j~l,~,, ........ ,~.;~ ,,,~o. of building, su~ leviated all nonconIorm~u=~_?~. ';'.; ..... m~.nt P does not a,~ow u,o al - -tated the Slaorelana ~w~u,,~,. ........ lan plans to work around the bluff on a bluff, lessen sta not in favor. Polston asked if the applicant could possibly redesign the and they responded that they already had done that to remove the as many variances as possible. The only problem that is left is the bluff. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving a minor subdivision and variance for lots 4-8, Block 2, Avalon and to include the 5 conditions listed in the Planner's report and to add condition//6 to include the removal of the house to the west (Tract C) before approval of the subdivision. The vote carried 3-2, lensen and lessen voting nay. ROCL TION WEEK OV OCTOBEa nS ,,MINNESOTA CITIES W~t~l~ ~- THE CITY OF MOUND. City Manager Ed Shulde stated the Acting City Clerk Linda Strong had been preparing plans for an Open House. Strong stated October 8, 1996 was planned for an Open House at Mound City Hall to celebrate the "Minnesota Cities Week" in Mound. She mentioned several activities going on that day; The Laker will have information. Schools and parents and the public were invited to stop by to learn about their city government. She stated it would be a non-political campaign event. Ahrens moved, lessen seconded the following resolution: 2C~9I~S6 , x,o n RESOLUTION #96-98 RESOLU .... -..~v a~ OUND OCTOtit~l~ u-1 , · WEEK" IN Ttir~ t.a~-- ,-,-' M The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.15 CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMITS - BATCH 41830 Mark Smith & Gina Anderson 4665 Island View Drive 42406 Robert Eidem & Nicole Blum 42961 Curtis Olson 43020 Michael Kane 43080 Arlene Eskedahl 43120 Carrell Kucera 43180 lerry Marek 43235 Glenn & Amy Hurd 43420 Stephen Hewitt 43450 Mark Goldberg 4743 Island View Drive 4801 Island View Drive 4805 Island View Drive 4815 Island View Drive 4823 Island View Drive 4829 Island View Drive 4833 Island View Drive 4849 Island View Drive 4853 Island View Drive 4 I IL Minutes - Mound City Council. September 24, 1996 Jon Suthefland, Building Official stated the staff recommended approval of this batch of public lands permits. There were no structures involved. Stairs over the tip-rap of dock #43450 were discussed briefly. Sutherland stated the applicants had one year from approval date to take the appropriate action. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus, and carried unanimously to approve Batch//9 of Construction on Public Land Permits. A resoultion will be prepared for the October 8th meeting. 1.16 CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERM/T APPLICATION FROM STEVE CODDON FOR A STAIRWAY AND PATHWAY ACROSS THE UNIMPROVED R.O.W. OF BLACK LAKE LANE, LONGFORD ROAD, AND PARCELS 23, 29 & 30 IN BLOCK 11, SETON. Jon Sutherland, Building Official, stated the applicant is requesting a Construction on Public Lands Permit to install a stairway and wood chip path on public lands. The only purpose of the stairway and path is to provide access to a privately owned parcel that the applicant is using as a dock site location. The area has steep slopes and significant tree cover and is a natural area, with the lower portion being wetlands. This is not a dedicated NCA area yet. According to the a survey dated 10-5-95, most of the applicant's parcel is under the ordinary high water (OHW) and may not be accessible during periods of high water. Staff recommends approval with several conditions. The Council discussed this with Mr. Coddon. Polston stated he had walked the area and he would recommend denial as the steps would cause a problem with the natural area, the walkway would be under water often and the area would be open to the public and cause parking problems along Black Lake Lane. Ahrens stated the Council had never granted a Construction on Public Lands Permit to access private property. Cordon said he could eliminate the path. 1.17 MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to deny a Construction on Public Lands Permit for Steve Coddon for a stairway and pathway across the unimproved right-or-way of Black Lake Lane parcels 23, 29 and 30 in Block 11. Seth- ~ and. Lo. ngford Road and ~ REQUEST FOR PUBLIC LAND PERMIT BY BEVERLY VANLAANEN TO ALLOW FOR AN INVISIBLE FENCE TO BE LOCATED ON ADJACENT ALLEY ADJACENT TO 2137 ASHLAND LANE, LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK 7, AL. ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK. Jon Sutherland, Building Official, stated the applicant is seeking an after the fact Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow invisible pet fencing to remain on Waterside Commons. Staff became aware of the installation through a complaint from a dock site holder. There are about seven dock sites that access at this point. The individual expressed concern about how closely the dog is allowed to roam by the dock sites and access walkways as well as the apparent lack of restraint. 5 Minutes - Mound Cit~ Council - September 24, 1996 Mr. VanLa~en was present and stated the fcnc~ is underground and the frequency is high enough so the dog does not go onto the commons. Hanus stated the dog could still be on public property. MOTION by Jessen, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to deny the after the fact Public Lands Permit application from Beverly and Joseph VanLaanen, 2137 Ashland Lane for an invisible fence to be located on the Waterside Commons. The electric invisible fencing is to be removed and the City is to inspect the site following the removal. 1.18 REQUF~T FOR PUBLIC LAND PERMIT BY FRANK & ANDREA AHRENS TO INSTALL UNDERGROUND PIPE ON DEVON COMMON LOCATED ADJACENT TO 4673 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOTS 2, 17 & SE 1/2 OF 18, BLOCK 1, DEVON. Building Official Jon Sutherland stated the applicant is seeking a construction on Public Lands Permit to allow for a below grade 1-1/2 6 pipe to carry water to a pump which will be located on private property. The pipe will located approximately 6" below grade. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Hanus to approve a Public Lands Permit for Frank and Andrea Ahrens 4673 Island View Drive, Lots 17 & SE 1/2 of 18, Block 1, Devon, Dock site//41902, Devon Common, Type D Shoreline for an underground PVC pipe. The vote carried 4-0, Ahrens abstained. 1.19 cOMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS pRESENT. Mayor Polston asked if there was anyone present who had a comment or suggestion. Peter Meyer, member of the Parks and Open Space Commission and a member of the Westonka Citizens for a Community Skating Rink, stated he was there to ask for support to complete the community skating rink located on school property, this fall. He asked that the Council allocate $3200 from the NCA budget to benefit the rink. He also stated that the Pond Arena now does not offer any open skating time. He presented the Council with a resolution he had prepared. The Council will take the proposed resolution with additional information under consideration at a future meeting. There were no more comments or suggestions. 1.20 CITY ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT ON pUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO SHERWOOD DRIVE. City Engineer John Cameron presented the Preliminary Engineering Report for the Improvement of Sherwood Drive. He reviewed the report with the Council and stated the improvement project was feasible. He did suggest the City pay a portion, this would be to cover the street area of the cost. This has been done in the past. Minutes - Mound City Council - September 24, 1996 MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to accept the Engineer's Feasibility Report on Public Improvements to Sherwood Drive and to set a public hearing date of November 12, 1996. The residents affected will be notified. 1.21 EXECUTIVE SESSION City Attorney Curt Pearson stated the City is negotiating with property owners around the Lost Lake Improvement project for the purchase of land for permanent easement purposes. He requested to meet with the Council in Executive Session to discuss with them an update. The Council went into Executive Session at 8:50 PM. The Council returned from Executive Session at 8:59 PM. Pearson stated that a tentative agreement had been reached with Mr. Wagman, one of the property owners. The Council needed to take action to direct him to prepare the proper documents. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to reduce to writing the proposed settlement with Mr. Wagman and accept the settlement. 1.22 _INFORMATION/MiSCELLANEOUS AUGUST 1996 FINANCIAL REPORT AS PREPARED BY FINANCE DIRECTOR. GINO BUSINARO, Bo Eo Fo PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1996. PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1996. LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE MINNESOTA CLERKS AND FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION INFORMING LINDA STRONG, ACTING CITY CLERK, THAT SHE HAS MET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATION AS A "MINNESOTA CERTIFIED MUNICIPAL CLERK." CONGRATULATIONS, LINDA! MEMO FROM JOANNE PORTER, SPRING PARK RE: CROSSWALK ON COUNTy ROAD 15 NEAR HOUSE OF MOY. REMINDER: LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES REGIONAL MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1996, AT THE NEW WATERTOWN CITY HALL. THERE IS AN AFTERNOON PROGRAM BEGINNING AT 2 PM, SOCIAL HOUR BEGINS AT 5 PM., FOLLOWED BY A DINNER AT 6 PM. PLEASE LET LINDA KNOW IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ATTENDING. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS EVENT IS ALSO THE SAME DAY AS THE 7 Minutes - Mound City Council - September 24, 1996 SCHEDULED WORKSHOP WITH THE MCWD RELATED TO THE LOST LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. YOU COULD ATYEND THE AFTERNOON SESSION BUT WOULD HAVE TO MISS THE EVENING DINNER AND PROGRAM. THERE ARE OTHER REGIONAL MEETINGS SCHEDULED AROUND THE STATE BUT THE CLOSEST IS WATERTOWN. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Polston and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 PM. City Manager Attest: Acting City Clerk 8 RESOLUTION //96- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIV/SION AND VARIANCES FOR LOTS 5, 6, 7, 8, & SWLY 1/2 OF LOT 4, BLOCK 2, AVALON 4536 & 4552 DENBIGH ROAD PID'S 13-117-24 14 0008 & 0048 P&Z CASE//96-31 WHEREAS, the owners of the subject property, as listed below, have submitted a request for a Minor Subdivision in the manner required by Mound City Code Section 320 and Minnesota State Statute Chapter 462, and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder: Lot 5 & Swly 1/2 of Lot 4 - Randy Moriarty, 4536 Denbigh Road Lots 6, 7, & 8 - Robert Baumgarten, 4552 Denbigh Road and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-IA Single Family Residential Zoning District, which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, a 15 foot rear yard setback, a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and a 10 foot setback from the top of a bluff, and; WHEREAS, the subdivision establishes three Tracts labeled A, B and C. Tracts B and C contain existing homes. The home on Tract C will be eventually removed and replaced with a new residence, and; WHEREAS, all three tracts comply with side yard setback requirements and hardcover restrictions for non-lots of record, and; WHEREAS, there are three variances involved with this request, as follows: A variance from the bluff setback provisions for each lot. - A front yard setback for the existing home on Tract B of 15.28 feet. Setback variances for the existing home on Tract C, unless the structure is removed. The existing detached garage would require a 16.6 foot front yard setback variance, and more information would be necessary to clarify the variances for the home as the survey is illegible. WHEREAS, all three of the proposed Tracts are in an area of very steep topography, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended denial with 7 in favor and 1 opposed, and; WHEREAS, the City Council has determined a practical difficulty exists and the proposal is in substantial compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, it is desirable to have the house on Tract C removed, and the minor subdivision and proposed new dwellings are consistent with the development in the surrounding neighborhood, and; WHEREAS, the majority of the properties on Denbigh are similarly situated as far as impacting the bluff. Proposed Resolution Moriarty P. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, Minnesota, as follows: BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, The City does hereby approve the minor subdivision as shown on the attached Exhibit 'A', and subject to the following conditions: a. A park dedication fee of $500.00 for the one new parcel being created shall be paid prior to release of this resolution for filing. b. The site contains three existing water services and three existing sewer services. One of the sewer services is located in an unusable location and as a result, the applicant will need to construct a new sewer service for Tract A. The sewer service for Tract A shall either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided such as a cash escrow or performance bond, prior to release of this resolution for filing. c. A grading, drainage and erosion control plan should be submitted as part of the building permit application for review and approval by the City Engineer. d. The applicants shall provide drainage easements along all new lot lines, 5 feet in width along all sides lot lines, 15 feet in width along rear lot lines, 10 feet in width along the front of Tracts A and C, and 4.5 feet in width along the front of Tract B. The easement descriptions and easement documents must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and then must be filed in conjunction with this resolution at the County. Proof of filing the easements must be provided to the City of Mound prior to building permit issuance. e. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,170.90 shall be paid prior to release of this resolution for recording. f. The house and garage located on the proposed Tract C shall be removed prior to release of this resolution for filing (note: this resolution must be filed within 180 days, see #7). A demolition permit is required. The City does hereby approve the following variances in conjunction with the minor subdivision: a. A variance from the bluff setback provisions for each lot. b. A front yard setback variance for the existing home on Tract B of 15.28 feet. The existing legal description is: Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 2, Avalon, and Lot 5 and the Southwesterly half of Lot 4, Block 2, Avalon. Proposed Resolution Moriarty P. 3 The proposed legal descriptions are as follows: Tract A: The Northeasterly 15.00 feet of Lot 7 and the Southwesterly 35.50 feet of Lot 6, Block 2, Avalon. Tract B: The Southwesterly Half of Lot 4, all of Lot 5 and Lot 6, except the Southwesterly 35.50 feet of said Lot 6, Block 2, Avalon. Tract____~C: Lot 8 and Lot 7, Block 2, Avalon, except the Northeasterly 15.00 feet of said Lot 7. It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant upon compliance with all conditions contained herein. The applicant shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of the City The applicant shall also have the responsibility to pay all costs associated with such recording. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SEFYEMBER 24, 1996 REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 1.13 CASE //96-31: MINOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE. RANDY MORIARTY, 4~6 DENBIGFI ROAD, AND ROBERT BAUMGARTEN, 4552 DENBIGIt ROAD, LOTS 4-8, BLOCK 2, AVALON, PID//19-117-23 24 0008 & 0048. DENIAL RECOMMZNDED. Building Official Ion Sutherland reviewed the report. The Planning Commission had recommended denial of a different version of this plan in June. Part of the reason it was denied in June was that it created a new nonconforming lot and violated the bluff provisions. The new proposal establishes three Tracts labeled A, B and C. Tracts B and C contain existing homes. The home on Tract A will be eventually removed and replaced with a new residence. All three tracts comply with side yard setback requirements and hardcover restrictions for non-lots of record. There are 4 variances applied for. All three of the proposed tracts are in an area of very steep topography. Sutherland stated that the creation of the third lot appears to be an economic issue and not a hardship issue. He also mentioned the survey was not clearly understandable and more information would be needed. The Planning Commission voted 7-1 to deny the request. Randy Moriarty and Jack Cook spoke before the Council regarding their efforts to make this plan workable. Hanus stated he had voted against the denial at the Planning Commission because the lots would be conforming except for the bluff area. Building on bluffs has been done before. He stated they had alleviated all nonconformities physically possible. Jensen stated she did not want another house built on a bluff. Jessen stated the Shoreland Management Plan does not allow this type of building, she was not in favor. Polston asked if the applicant could possibly redesign the plans to work around the bluff and they responded that they already had done that to remove the as many variances as possible. The only problem that is left is the bluff. MOTION by Ha. nm, seconded by AJarens to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving a minor subdivision and variance for lots 4-8, Block 2, Avalon and to include the 5 conditions listed in the Planner's report and to add condition #6 to include the removal of the house to the west (Tract C) before approval of the subdivision. The vote carried 3-2, Jensen and Jessen voting nay. m R]~SOLL]'I'ION {96 ?ZOO TRACT A The Nodheasterly 15.00 feet o[ Lol 7 and Ihe Southweslerly 35.50 feel o[ Lot 6, Bock 2 Avalon. TRACT B ' The Soulhweslerly Half o~ Lot 4, all o~ Lol 5 and Lol 4, excepl lhe Soulhweslerly 35.50 feet of said Lo[ 4, ~l~ck 2, Avalon. TRACT C Lot 8 and Lot 7, Block 2, Avalon, except lhe Norlheasterly 15.00 feel of said Lot I hereby cerllty II,al Ibis pla,,, survey or report was prepared by fne or under my dhecl supervision al{d {hal I JOB # Book - Page Scale ? DENBIGH RO~D A~ ~v~ ......... 8 BLOCK 2 ~V~LON PID ~9-2~7-23 24 00o8 ~ uv~ Mark Koegler, city Planner, reviewed the planning report. Koegler reviewed that a slightly different version this case was previously reviewed by the Commission in June and denial was recommended. Subsequently, the case was withdrawn prior to the City Council meeting, and a modified request has now been submitted. The primary reasons for previously recommending denial was that it created a new nonconforming lot and it violated the bluff provisions. The new proposal eliminates the nonconforming lot concern, but still has a substantial impact on the bluff. The new proposal establishes three Tracts labeled A, B, and C. Tracts B and C contain existing homes. The home on Tract C will eventually be removed and replaced with a new residence. All three tracts comply with side yard setback requirements and hardcover restrictions for non-lots of record. The variances involved in this request are: - A variance from the bluff setback provisions for each lot. - A front yard setback for the existing home on Tract B of 15.28 feet. - A variance for having only one off-street parking space on Tract B. The Zoning Code requires two parking~paces per single family dwelling unit. - Setback variances for the existing home on Tract C, unless the structure is removed prior to filing of the subdivision and variance approval. The existing detached garage will require a 16.6 foot front yard setback variance, and more information will be necessary to clarify the variances for the home as the survey is illegible. All three of the proposed Tracts are in an area of very steep topography. The construction methods as proposed were reviewed. The creation of the additional lot appears to be an economic issue that does not substantiate a hardship finding. The location of the new home is a concern because it lies whOlly within the bluff area itself. The surrounding neighborhood contains homes that are constructed in a similar physical environment although they are perhaps not as severe as the subject lots. However, this proposal involves the creation of a new lot, not simply to add or replace an existing grandfathered dwelling. Koegler reviewed the recommendation for denial received from the DNR. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the requested variances and minor subdivision because of the lack of hardship in this case. If the Planning Commission moves to SEFrEMBER 9, 1996 .. 2 Planning Commission Minutes i~ iL Ii, , 11 September 9, 1996 approve the request based on a finding of practical difficulty, it is suggested that consideration be given to tabling the request pending preparation and submission of a detailed grading, drainage and utility plan for all three Tracts for review by the City Engineer prior to final action on this request. If the Planning Commission moves to approve the request either now or at a subsequent meeting, conditions of the approval should include: Compliance with the park dedication requirements of the Mound Subdivision Ordinance. The site contains three existing water services and three ~xisting sewer services. One of the sewer services is located in an unusable location and as a result, the applicant will need to construct a new sewer service for Tract A. The sewer service for Tract A should either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided such as a cash escrow or performance bond. Unless submitted as part of a previous requirement, a grading, drainage and erosion control plan should be sub ~o,f th_e..bullding permit application for ~--:-- mi. tted as part · ~=v~ew aha approval by une city Engineer· The applicants shall provide drainage easements along all new lot lines, 5 feet in width along all sides and front lot lines and 15 feet in width along rear lot lines. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,170.90 shall' be paid prior to release of the resolution for recording. Jack Cook who is representing Mr. Moriarty, stated that there is a problem with the bluff zone, but Mr. Moriarty considers that as a hardship. Cook emphasized that a benefit to this proposal is that the house on Tract C will be removed, and he emphasized the poor condition of this dwelling. Hanus asked if they would be willing to remove the house prior to the filing of the subdivision resolution. Mr. Cook confirmed that they would be willing to remove the dwelling on Tract C in conjunction with the approval. Hanus asked the planner if it would be the preference of the City to have to bluff line remain as is, or to fill the area of the bluff on Tract A to bring it in line with the bluff line of Tracts B & C. Koegler replied that they would not support a reduced front yard setback to mitigate the bluff impact, because space is needed in the front for off-street parking. He indicated that the normal comment from the DNR is, any time there is a bluff situation it is a recommendation for denial. The neighborhood is similarly constructed, but the DNR looks at it differently when someone is Planning commission Minutes September 9, 1996 building a new structure versus replacement or adding onto an existing structure. Koegler summarized, if you can bring the house a little closer to the street without infringing upon the public safety, it is probably preferable from a bluff standpoint. Koegler noted that the Shoreland Management ordinances requires permits for fill in a bluff zone. Reifschneider received clarification from the Planner on how this plan differs from the original request. Reifschneider commented that he has problem with proposed Tract A due to the steep topography and feels that Tract A would be better utilized for driveway and off-street parking use to serve Tracts B & C. He also expressed a concern about the conjestion on Denbigh when cars are parked on the road. Voss confirmed that the street would probably never be widened. Cook stated that there is an erosion problem on Tract A and feels that construction of a home on the parcel will correct this situation. Mueller questioned Mr. Cook about the seven trees that are more than 7 to 10 inches in diameter that are existing on the property and asked if they would be removed. Cook confirmed that some trees would need to be taken out, but they could be replaced. Mueller noted that with the new dwelling the surface run off will be created more drainage and faster drainage, cook stated that the existing tree root system, new trees, and new retaining walls will help the run-off situation. Mueller confirmed that the width of the structure proposed is 26 feet. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller to recommend denial of the subdivision request and variances due to lack of hardship, as recommended by staff. Hanus stated that there is no other way to build a house in this area without impacting the bluff zone. He feels the applicants have redesigned their request and worked to alleviate problems that were presented the first time through, and he believes that with the right types of retaining walls, gutters, and other mitigating avenues, even with adding hardcover, the water can be controlled better that with what is there now. Mueller feels that by planting more trees, any erosion problems could be alleviated. Hanus stated, assuming the home proposed on Tract A meets all the required setbacks, he does not have a problem with the proposal. Voss stated that he agrees with the DNR and staff in that hardship has not been demonstrated in any way for creating a new lot or for granting a variance. 4 Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 Mueller referred to the letter in the packet which was received on June 25, 1996 which expresses a concern about the parking of vehicles on Denbigh Road and adding another residence for the sole purpose of creating an additional lot in order to benefit financially. Mueller does not see a hardship to allow the creation of a new lot. MOTION carried ? to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Burma, Weiland, Michael, ross, Reifschneider, and Mueller. Hanus was opposed. This case will be heard by the City Council on September 24 1996 Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design RECEIVED SEP 0 6 1996 MOUN9 PLANNING & INSP. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. k-tH PLANNING REPORT. TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: September 5, 1996 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision with Variances APPLICANT: Randy Moriarty and Robert Baumgarten CASE NUMBER: 96-31 ItKG FILE NUMBER: 96-51 LOCATION: 4536 Denbigh Road and 4552 Denbigh Road EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R- 1 A) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission fa'st reviewed a subdivision request for this property in June of this year. At that time, the proposal received a denial recommendation from staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial on an 8 to 1 vote. As a result, the request was subsequently withdrawn prior to the time that it went to the City Council. The request has now been modified and is back before the Planning Commission for review and action. The original request was denied for a number of reasons, the primary ones being that it created a new nonconforming lot and it violated the bluff provisions of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The new proposal eliminates the concern about creating a nonconforming lot but still has a substantial impact on the bluff that exists on the site. The proposal that is now before the Planning Commission seeks to establish three tracts labeled as A, B and C. Tract A will be established as a new lot and Tracts B and C contain existing homes. It appears from the survey that the existing home on Tract C will be eventually removed and replaced with a new residence. As shown on the survey, all of three of the tracts comply with side yard setback requirements and hardcover restrictions for non-lots of record. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Planning Report - Moriarty Minor Subdivision and Variances September 5, 1996 Page 2 In order for the minor subdivision to be approved, the Planning Commission will also need to approve a number of variances. Because of the topography of the site, the bluff 1/ne meanders through the upper one third of all three of the parcels. This results in virtually all of the proposed home on Tract A 134ng within the bluff, substantial portions of the home on Tract C lies within the bluff and a portion of the existing home on Tract B lies within the bluff. As a result, a variance from the bluff setback provisions of the ordinance will be needed for each of the lots in order to approve the subdivision. Variances will also be needed for the two existing homes. The home on Tract B is proposed to remain. It observes required side and lakeshore setbacks but is located 4.72 feet from the front lot line resuking in a required variance of 15.28 feet. The Zoning Code also requires two parking spaces per single family dwelling unit. The existing home on Tract B appears to only supply one space in the existing garage. There will also be variances necessary for the existing dwelling on Tract C unless the structure is to be removed prior to the filing of the subdivision and variance approval. The survey that was submitted was so illegible that it is impossible to identify the exact variances required. From the survey it is possible to determine that the existing detached garage is located 3.4 feet from the front lot line resulting in a 16.6 foot variance. More information will be necessary to clarify the locations and magnitude of variances for the existing home on Tract C. All three of the proposed Tracts are in an area of very steep topography. The lots drop approximately 40 feet from Denbigh Lane to the shore of Lake Minnetonka. As was noted previously, all are in a bluff area and in some cases, the slope exceeds 45%. Constructing homes in this area will need to involve extraordinary measures. The method proposed for constructing the new homes is shown on the applicant's attachment labeled Full Cross Section. Construction will involve the installation of a retaining wall in the lower reaches of the property which will have a height of approximately 17 feet. The back of the home will then be built on the new grade that is established by the retaining wall. From the information submitted, the Building Official has determined that it appears that the height of the building complies with the height restrictions in the Zoning Code. Building height will be reviewed again upon submission of a building permit application. The Full Cross Section drawing shows the front setback at 15 feet which is not consistent with the site survey which identifies a 20 foot setback. The five foot shift will have a minor impact on the height and location of the proposed retaining wall. COMMENT: The issuance of variances requires a finding of either hardship or practical difficulty. In this particular case, staff cannot support a hardship finding since the property has an existing use as two single family homes. The creation of the additional lot appears to be an economic issue that does not substantiate a hardship finding. The location of the new home is also a concern because it lies not only within the required bluff setback area but also almost wholly within the bluff area itself. Planning Report - Moriarty Minor Subdivision and Variances September 5, 1996 Page 3 Admittedly, the surrounding neighborhood contains homes that are constructed in a similar physical environment although they are perhaps not as severe as the subject lots. In this case, however, the proposal is to create a new lot, not simply to add to or to replace an existing grandfathered dwelling. If the Planning Commission feels that the facts of this case support a finding of practical difficulty, approval of the variances and the minor subdivision could be granted. If it is to be approved, however, staff feels that additional engineering information needs to be submitted because of the extreme grade conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the requested variances and minor subdivision because of the lack of hardship in this case. If the Planning Commission moves to approve the request based on a finding of practical difficulty, it is suggested that consideration be given to tabling the request pending preparation and submission of a detailed grading, drainage and utility plan for all three Tracts for review by the City Engineer prior to final action on this request. If the Planning Commission moves to approve the request either now or at a subsequent meeting, conditions of the approval should include: 1. Compliance with the park dedication requirements of the Mound Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The site contains three existing water services and three existing sewer services. One of the sewer services is located in an unusable location and as a result, the applicant will need to construct a new sewer service for Tract A. The sewer service for Tract A should either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided such as a cash escrow or performance bond. 3. Unless submitted as part of a previous requirement, a grading, drainage and erosion control plan should be submitted as part of the building permit application for review and approval by the City Engineer. 4. The applicants shall provide drainage easements along all new lot lines, 5 feet in width along all sides and front lot lines and 15 feet in width along rear lot lines. 5. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,170.90 shall be paid prior to release of the resolution for recording. RESOLUTION #96- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL PERMITS FOR PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LANDS KNOWN AS DEVON COMMON "BATCH #9" DOCK SITES 41824, 42406, 42961, 43020, 43080, 43120, 43180, 43235, 43420, and 43450 WHEREAS, the City of Mound is in the process of updating the permits for structures located on public lands, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320 requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park or commons, and; WHEREAS, "Batch #9" details the private encroachments located at Dock Sites, and these encroachments have been inspected by the Building official and Dock Inspector according to the Procedure Manual, and; WHEREAS, the City Council has directed the Commons Task Force to look at the process for dealing with structures on the commons (i.e. buildings, flagpoles, decks, etc.), and City staff s withholding all action on these type of structures until the Council reviews the recommendation of the task force and gives staff further direction, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission has reviewed this Batch #9 and has recommend approval, with the conditions of approval as listed, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve Public Land Permits for Batch #9, subject to the "conditions of approval." All conditions of approval must be completed within one (1) year of approval by the City Council or the dock license will be withheld until completion. These permits will expire five (5) years from the date of issuance and must be renewed with change in dock license holder. Batch #9 Public Land Permits 4665 ISLAND VIEW DR MARK SMITH & GINA ANDERSON CONTACTED? YES DEVON COMMON, CLASS C - ELECTRIC LIGHT & OUTLET -PHONE APPROVE ELECTRIC LIGHT & OUTLET.* REMOVE OR RELOCATE PHONE OUTLET ONTO PRIVATE PROPERTY. Proposed Resolution Batch #9 P. 2 ABUTTING ADDRESS ROBERT EIDEM & NICOLE BLUM 4801 ISLAND VIEW DR CURTIS OLSON CONTACTED7 YES 4.805 ISLAND VIEW DR MICHAEL KANE CONTACTED? YES ENCROACHMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEVON COMMON, CLASS D APPROVE STAIRWAY WITH REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENT TO BE MADE BY APPLICANT AND AS APPROVED BY BUILDING OFFICIAL. DEVON COMMON, CLASS B - STAIRWAY - PLANTINGS - RETAINING WALL o ELECTRIC LIGHT - STAIRWAY - RETAINING WALL - ELECTRIC LIGHT & OUTLET APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. OLD LIGHT HAS BEEN REMOVED. ~,PPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. APPROVE LIGHT & OUTLET,~ 4.815 ISLAND VIEW DR ARLENE ESKEDAHL CONTACTED? YES 4.823 ISLAND VIEW DR CARRELL KUCERA CONTACTED7 YES 4.829 ISLAND VIEW DR JERRY MAREK CONTACTED? YES 4.833 ISLAND VIEW DR GLENN & AMY HURD CONTACTED? YES DEVON COMMON, CLASS C - STAIRWAY W/ LANDING - RETAINING WALL - STONE WALKWAY AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. STAIRWAY - pLATFORM - STORM WATER/ ROOF DRAIN APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. APPROVED AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. - STAIRWAY - WALKWAY - DECK {PORTION) DILAPIDATED. REPLACE TO CODE AS APPROVED BY BUILDING OFFICIAL. APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. DILAPIDATED. REMOVE ENCROACHING PORTION. Proposed Resolution Batch//9 P. 3 ABUTTING ADDRESS ENCROACHMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 4849 ISLAND VIEW DR STEPHEN HEWITT DEVON COMMON, CLASS B - STAIRWAY (A) ON APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. HILLSIDE CONTACTED7 YES - STAIRWAY (B) ON RIP RAP APPROVE STAIRWAY TO BE INSTALLED AS A TRANSITION OVER THE RIP RAP. THE STAIRWAY SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO CODE, AS APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. - RETAINING WALL APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. 4853 ISLAND VIEW DR MARK GOLDBERG CONTACTED7 YES DEVON COMMON, CLASS C - STAIRWAY (A) ON HILLSIDE - STAIRWAY (B) ON RIP RAP - ELECTRIC LIGHT & OUTLET APPROVE AS IS, ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. APPROVE STAIRWAY TO BE INSTALLED AS A TRANSITION OVER THE RIP RAP. THE STAIRWAY SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO CODE, AS APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. APPROVE PENDING ELECTRICAL INSPECTION.* All electrical work on public property is required by State law to be installed by a qualified licensed electrical contractor and inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The City Council must first approve of the proposed installation. A scaled site plan must be submitted showing in detail the location of all electrical services on the public land. All power supply to the abutting property must be properly disconnected until such work is approved by the City Council. The applicant must verify disconnection with staff. MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SEFrEMIlER 24, 1996 1.15 CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMITS - BATCH #9. 41830 Mark Smith & Gina Anderson 42406 Robert Eidem & Nicole Blum 42961 Curtis Olson 43020 Michael Kane 43080 Arlene Eskedahl 43120 Carrell Kucera 43180 Jerry Marek 43235 Glenn & Amy Hurd 43420 Stephen Hewitt 43450 Mark Goldberg 4665 Island View Drive 4743 Island View Drive 4801 Island View Drive 4805 Island View Dnve 4815 Island View Drive 4823 Island View Drive 4829 Island View Drive 4833 Island View Drive 4849 Island View Drive 4853 Island View Drive Jori Sutherland, Building Official stated the staff recommended approval of this batch of public lands permits. There were no structures involved. Stairs over the rip-rap of dock #43450 were discussed briefly.Sutherland stated the applicants had one year from approval date to take the appropriate action. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus, and carried unanimously to approve Batch//9 of Construction on Public Land Permits. A resoultion will be prepared for the October 8th meeting. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPLICATION OF STEVE CODDON FOR A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT WHEREAS, Steve, Coddon has applied for a Construction on Public Lands Permit to construct a st ' " ~ 9 and 38, Block 11, Seton (Unim~%~Y~a~nd3 pathway across =ufoss parts of Lots 1, 7 and 8 ~v~u ~±ac~ Lake Lane) and , ~ocK 11, Seton, and part of mproved Lon~ford Road to reach property at 4600 Lon~ford Road, W~EREAS, this is an extensive proposal for a private improvement on public land and there ' . wood chip pathway will wash ......... ~s concern that the ro os constant nee~ ~ .... ~ =~=~ ~er a rain and ~-- ~.~P. ed ~ ~ maintenance, and u~e wi±± De a WHEREAS, construction of an improvement on City owned property through natural areas which lead to private property can cause future problems when a public path and leads the user to a private use, WHEREAS, the applicant's property is frequently covered by water and is so low that the applicant is usin~ the property to dock a houseboat and there will be times when there will be no access to his unimproved area unless a dock is extended over his property and public lands, and WHEREAS, the applicant recently purchased the property knowin~ it was basically landlocked and he described it as "like ownin~ a parcel on Bi~ Island; I'm ~ettin~ to it by boat at the present time,,, and WHEREAS, the public commons which abut the applicant's property are classified as an "E" class lakeshore, meanin~ it is to be left in a natural state and is not available for public use other than as open space and a natural area, and WHEREAS, any needed excavation or benchin~ in this area will require substantial erosion control measures durin~ construction and on an on~oin~ basis if the area is disturbed and will result in the removal of trees in an area designated to remain in a natural state, and WHEREAS, any improvements in this area would require a city contract to protect a~ainst erosion and for maintenance and would expose the City to potential liability for users of this private path or public land, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the Mound City Council as follows: CAPl10762 MU200-30 1. The application of Steve Coddon for a Construction on Public Lands Permit" is denied for the following reasons: a. It is an intrusion on public lands which are currently in a natural state for a private purpose and is very extensive. b. It would expose the City to potential liability concerns for safety of a privately constructed and private improvement on public land. c. It is inconsistent with the "E" Class assigned to this area by the Park and Open Space Commission. d. It will create substantial erosion problems for the area. e. It places the City in the position of having to have and maintain a contract with a private party to assure the path is properly maintained and does not lead to erosion or become a potential hazard to users. f. The request is inconsistent with the findings set forth in the Whereas provisions of this resolution. The Whereas provisions are incorporated in and are made a part of the reasons for denial. 2. The applicant knew when he acquired his parcel that there was not access to the land in high water times except by water. 3. The granting of this application would be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community in that it would place an on-going responsibility upon all the citizens to provide access to one privately owned parcel. CA~110762 MU200-30 RESOLUTION ~)~_ RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT FOR AN UNDERGROUND PVC WATER PIPE TO BE LOCATED ON DEVON COMMON ABUTTING 4857 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, DOCK SITE//43520 WHEREAS, Frank and Andrea Ahrens have applied for a Construction on Public Land Permit to allow the installation of an underground PVC water pipe to be located on Devon Common abutting their property at 4857 Island View Drive, Lots 17 & SE 1/2 of 18, Block 1, Devon, Dock Site//41902, and; WHEREAS, the purpose of the pipe is to carry water to a pump which will be located on private property, and; WHEREAS, the pipe will be located approximately six inches below grade, and as shown on the attached Exhibit 'A', and; WHEREAS, there are no other existing encroachments located on this portion of common, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park or commons. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve a five (5) year Construction on Public/.and Permit for an underground PVC water pipe to be located on Devon Common abutting the property at 4857 Island View Drive, Lots 17 & SE 1/2 of 18, Block 1, Devon, Dock Site//41902. This permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. RESOLUTION {96- , EXHIBIT 'A' CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FRANK Prepored fort 4857 I~land View Drive 11'5" x 11'5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 17 and the southeasterly 25.00 feet, /~j~ ~ front and rear, of Lot 18, in Block 1 of '. '~/// DEVON, according to the plat thereof on ~ /~. (/~.~& ~ile or of record in the office of the '.% /~-7,.3 '~ /~egistrar of Titles, Hennepin County, ~../- ~_ ~' Minnesota. ' ~ES - MOUND CITY COUNCrL - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 1.18 REQUEST FOR PUBLIC LAND PERMIT BY FRANK & ANDREA AI:IRENS TO INSTALL UNDERGROUND PIPE ON DEVON COMMON LOCATED ADJACENT TO 4673 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOST 17 & SE 1/2 OF 18, BLOCK 1, DEVON. Building Official Jon Sutherland stated the applicant is seeking a construction on Public Lands Permit to allow for a below grade 1-1/2 6 pipe to carry water to a pump which will be located on private property. The pipe will located approximately 6" below grade. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Hanus to approve a Public Lands Permit for Frank and Andrea Ahrens 4673 Island View Drive, Lots 17 & SE 1/2 of 18, Block 1, Devon, Dock site #41902, Devon Common, Type D Shoreline for an underground PVC pipe. The vote carried 4-0, Ahrens abstained. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Staff Report DATE: MEETING DATES: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 5, 1996 Park and Open Space Commission - September 12, 1996 City Council - September 24, 1996 Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant Jon Sutherland, Building OfficiO__, Jim Faclder, Parks Director _~_ Request for Public Land Permit from Frank & Andrea Ahrens 4673 Island View Drive, Lots 17 & SE 1/2 of 18, Block 1, Devon Dock Site 41902, Devon Common, Type D Shoreline Background/Comments. The applicant is seeking a construction on Public Lands Permit to allow for a below grade 1-1/2" PVC pipe to carry water to a pump which will be located on private property. The pipe will be located approximately 6 inches below grade, and as shown on the enclosed survey. Special permits are required for construction of any type on public land as specified in City Code Section 320. There are no other existing encroachments located on this portion of Devon Common. Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of a five (5) year permit for the below grade PVC pipe, as requested. This permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. The abutting property owners have been notified of this request. printed on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 CITY OF MOUND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING INCREASE OF LIQUOR FEES Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Mound will hold a public hearing regarding the proposed increase in various licenses i.e., Liquor, Beer, Wine. The public hearing will be held during the November 12, 1996 City Council meeting, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN., at 7:30 pm. All persons wishing to speak regarding the proposed license increase will be heard. Publish in The Laker, October 11, 1996. Notices will be sent to affected businesses October 10, 1996 (Stat. 340A.409, Subd. 4.). Linda Strong, CMC, Acting City Clerk pr~nted on recycled paper City of Mound Fees, Charges and Rates Proposed 1997 Changes T~'0e of License Amusement Centers (Arcades) Cigarette Sales Cigarette Sales Cigarette Sales - Vending Tree Surgeon 'Amusement Devices Billiard and Bowling Dog Dog Duplicate Tag Late applications Restaurants, Cafes Returned Check Charge Search/Special Assessments On-Sale Liquor (Class A) On-Sale Wine Club Special Sunday (Class B) Beer Beer Beer Fencing Retaining Wall Permit Zoning Variance Conditional Use PermitNacations Zoning Amendment Platting Vadance Plats & Subdivision ( * ) See note Heating, Air, Vent Plumbing Permit Fees Sewer Water/Sewer Building Fees ( * ) Note: _Conditions and Terms Annual/proposed is per machine Annual Monthly Annual Annual Annual, per machine Annual, per alley/table Two years, neutered/spayed-with proof Two years, unneuteredlunspayed On or before May 10 add Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual On-Sale Annual Off-Sale TemporarY Daily Permit plus per day after third day Per Application See 1994 Uniform Building Code See separate sheet for price range changes Per Application Per Application Per Application Per plat/plus per lot Per Application PreliminarY Plat Final Plat Minor Subdivision (Lot Split) plus per lot over two lots Minimum, First $5,000 Price Fee base Outside Sewer/Water Private Water Well 10% increase - Metro Charges 5% increase per G.O. Bonds Agreement See 1994 Uniform Building Code See separate sheet for price range changes Escrow fees will be assessed to cover all extra expenses to City. Current proposed $100.00 $100.00 12.00 24.00 1.00 2.00 50.00 25.00 30.00 25.00 35.00 10.00 20.00 8.00 15.00 14.00 20.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.0O 10.00 20.00 4,000.00 4,500.00 200.00 500.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 300.00 200.00 300.00 25.00 50.00 10.00 15.00 2.00 3.00 15.00 25.00 15.00 21.00 50.00 200.00 200.00 150.00/5,00 50.00 150.00 100,00 50.00 7,00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 09/04196 Gino-fee97 % IQcreas_e NIA 100.00% 100.00% NIA 20.00% 40.00% 100.00% 87.50% 42.86% 100.00% 100.00% 100,00% 33.33% 100.00% 12.50% 150.00% 5O ,OO% 50.00% 50.00% 100.00% 50.00% 50.00% 66.67% 40.00% 100.00 250.00 250.00 Delete/Duplication Delete/Duplication 200.00 150.00 75,00 10.00 1% of contract price 20.00 20.00 20.00 21.00 100.00% 25.00% 25.00% 33.33% 50.00% 50.00% 42.86% 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 10.00% 5.00% 40.00% MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMO Date: September 25, 1996 To: Chief Harrell From: Officer Ewald, #18 Re.' Street light request for Grove Lane and Beachwood Road On 09/09/96, at 1600 hours, Officer Ewald was advised by Chief Harrell to conduct a street light survey in the area of Grove Lane and Beachwood Road. Chief Harrell gave Officer Ewald a petition that had been signed by eight residents that live in the area of Grove Lane and Beachwood Road. Officer Ewald talked with the following persons who had signed the petition for a street light: Sharon and Bob Ruud of 3638 Grove Lane, stated it is very dark in the area and it is not safe for the children. area. Mr. and Mrs. Chris Humbert of 2628 Grove Lane, stated it is very dark in the Mr. and Mrs. Michael Host of 2635 Grove Lane, stated it is very dark in the area and they have two small children. Mr. and Mrs. Ron Ruud of 2740 Grove Lane, stated it is very dark in the area and there are many children in the area. Mary DeSantis of 5955 Beachwood Road, stated it is very dark in the area and that a street light would help. Missy and Jim Zuccaro of 2625 Grove Lane, stated the street light is needed, as it will help light the area of the bike path, which runs between upper Beachwood Road to lower Beachwood Road. area. Jim Crawford of 2608 Grove Lane, stated he would like to see better lighting in the Robert Shidla of 5975 Beachwood Road, stated he has four small children and it is very dark in the area, along with the fact that there were bicycle thefts in the area last year. Officer Ewald also talked with other residents in the area that were not listed on the petition: Jim Knorr of 2615 Grove Lane, stated it is very dark in the area and thinks a street light would be a good idea. Douglas Bran& of 2609 Grove Lane, stated it is very dark and would go along with a street light in the area. Bill Darling of 2600 Grove Lane, stated a street light would be alright and that he would go along with whatever the majority wanted. Kevin Retterath of 2618 Grove Lane, stated that he would feel safer with a street light in the area. Sally Quam of 2720 Grove Lane, stated there is not that much traffic in the area, but the street light could not hurt. Troy Jordan of 2730 Grove Lane, stated he didn't care one way or the other if a street light was installed in the area. There is a street light two blocks west on Beachwood Road from Grove Lane in front of 6048 Beachwood Road. There is also a street light at the dead end of Beachwood Road, one block east~of Grove Lane. Officer Ewald has checked the area of Grove Lane and Beachwood Road several times after dark and believes a street light is needed. The street light would make the area safer for children in the evening and in the morning during the dark winter months when children are picked up by the school bus. Officer Ewald would recommend that the street light be installed on an existing power pole, which is located at the northeast comer of Grove Lane and Beachwood Road. SEACH WOOD ROA P LP,4 T Z' ST/CEET /-/G/UT' 82' Om,~/c/Z~ £w4 L D 18 We, the residents of Grove and Beachwood Lanes would like a streetlight at the corner of Grove Lane and Beachwood Lane. We feel the intersection is too dark in the evening and presents an unsafe corner for the growing number of children in the neighboorhood. Please review the intersection and have a streetlight placed at the corner of Grove Lane and Beachwood Lane. ,Thaok~You, CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 September 27, 1996 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL LINDA STRONG, ACTING CITY CLERK/~.~9 TRANSFER OF TWO CEMETERY LOTS Donald Nielson owns five cemetery lots at Mound Union Cemetery. He has written to request the transfer of two lots (Div. A, Lot 55, Graves 7 & 8) to Walter and Lavonne Neske, Mound residents. Cemetery records agree with Mr. Nielson's request. The Council needs to approve the transfer. IS prmted on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MF.~O]~uNDU~ September 27, TO: FROM: SUBJECT: 1996 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL LINDA STRONG, ACTING CITY CLERKd~';>/ KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS - PERMITS The Knights of Columbus, Our Lady of the Lake Church, are requesting Council approval for three Minnesota Lawful Gambling permits for three separate events: Turkey Bingo Fall Raffle Mid-Winter Blues Bingo 11-23-96 12-15-96 2-7-97 ls printed on recycled paper BILLS ................ October 8, 1996 BATCH 6093 $ 95,275.83 BATCH 6094 151.880.19 Total Bills $247,156.02 L~ .,.3 0 ',0 t~ Z lit ~. 0 Z I =-! ,0 ~o L~ o~ i ~ II i i II :Ir I J mm U] N ~o RESOLUTION NO. 96- October 8, 1996 RESOLUTION ADOPTING DELINQUENT WATER & SEWER ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $47,956.88, TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST LEVY//13743 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the following improvements, to-wit: DELINQUENT WATER AND SEWER BILLS ~/~''~ f Mound: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. Such water and sewer assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments at 8% interest and all on Levy//13743 as follows: PID # AMOUNT PID # AMOUNT 13-117-24 22 0031 203.93 13-117-24 12 0093 110.13 12-117-24 43 0038 212.93 13-117-24 12 0106 339.87 12-117-24 43 0052 175.15 13-117-24 11 0077 200.46 13-117-24 12 0123 129.76 18-117-23 23 0004 272.03 13-117-24 12 0052 190.74 18-117-23 23 0012 259.45 13-117-24 12 0220 188.73 13-117-24 11 0122 140.71 13-117-24 12 0119 266.75 13-117-24 12 0075 230.75 13-117-24 12 0189 246.13 13-117-24 22 0273 94.25 13-117-24 13 0040 173.55 14-117-24 42 0082 225.92 13-117-24 12 0009 383.11 14-117-24 42 0011 93.81 13-117-24 12 0014S 14-117-24 14 0043 134.85 /0015P/0016S 210.35 14-117-24 42 0110 214.42 13-117-24 12 0006 144.71 14-117-24 41 0040 171.60 13-117-24 11 0056 93.35 14-117-24 42 0016 459.33 13-117-24 14 0029 377.75 14-117-24 42 0028 430.15 13-117-24 14 0030 61.44 14-117-24 42 0042 317.89 13-117-24 12 0083 70.03 14-117-24 42 0041 216.77 Public Hearing Assessment Notice - 1996 Unpaid Water and Sewer Bills September 10, 1996 14-117-24 31 0031 14-117-24 34 0020 14-117-24 44 0031 14-117-24 42 0002 14-117-24 42 0023 13-117-24 32 0057 13-117-24 32 0066 13-117-24 31 0075 13-117-24 32 0107 13-11%24 32 0155 13-117-24 32 0153 13-117-24 31 0033 13-117-24 31 0052 13-117-24 43 0072 13-117-24 43 0086 24-117-24 12 0055 13-117-24 41 0042 13-117-24 41 0012 13-117-24 42 0014 13-117-24 42 0022 13-117-24 44 0081 18-117-23 33 0027 18-117-23 33 0026 13-117-24 44 0067 13-117-24 44 0095 24-117-24 21 0030 23-117-24 13 0012 23-117-24 42 0002 23-117-24 13 0016 23-117-24 42 0005 22-117-24 44 0030 22-117-24 44 0031 22-117-24 43 0040 23-117-24 41 0018 23-117-24 41 0021 23-117-24 43 0003 23-117-24 43 0036 23-117-24 42 0054 23-117-24 42 0073 23-117-24 41 0020 23-117-24 42 0016 23-117-24 42 0018 23-117-24 42 0020 406.63 300.00 344.18 296.56 261.32 225.25 267.33 207.58 167.31 180.51 262.96 105.31 115.35 50.00 266.82 248.09 307.85 426.75 230.36 102.53 373.84 330.14 229.39 124.74 156.04 386.68 223.74 206.48 214.05 206.63 216.01 193.94 167.59 581.41 191.95 205.57 284.70 354.50 592.44 297.62 80.40 259.95 391.23 23-117-24 430006 23-117-24 430008 23-117-24 340086 23-117-24 340090 23-117-24 310095 23-117-24 310041 23-117-24 34 0102 23-117-24 240013 23-117-24 240008 23-117-24 310054 23-117-24 340066 22-117-24 440005 23-117-24 320043 23-117-24 32 0050 22-117-24 440002 23-117-24 310066 23-117-24 320063 23-117-24 23 0108 23-117-24 23 0104 23-117-24 130055 23-117-24 130034 23-117-24 240058 23-117-24 240020 23-117-24 130046 23-117-24 130075 23-117-24 24 0033 13-117-24 220251 23-117-24 110006 13-117-24 34 0082 13-117-24 340036 13-117-24 43 0022 13-117-24 440037 24-117-24 120016 24-117-24 12 0020 19-117-23 230093 19-117-23 23 0135 19-117-23 230082 19-117-23 210039 24-117-24 130027 19-117-23 310026 19-117-23 230064 19-117-23 32 0159 19-117-23 240024 291.80 495.71 201.89 362.96 366.30 119.30 330.24 229.13 253.99 376.89 473.66 158.24 252.63 606.73 373.13 454.79 306.88 227.23 255.26 232.33 101.45 422.30 134.40 330.08 92.73 122.91 347.41 399.59 354.07 309.17 272.58 192.18 258.85 336.96 213.24 269.38 270.34 143.45 809.60 236.17 173.09 369.99 328.40 Public Hearing Assessment Notice - 1996 Unpaid Water and Sewer Bills September 10, 1996 19-117-23 32 0033 256.01 24-117-24 44 0060 357.62 24-117-24 41 0063 100.92 24-117-24 44 0062 214.22 24-117-24 41 0042 222.41 24-117-24 44 0176 211.13 24-117-24 41 0087 143.11 24-117-24 44 0111 264.44 24-117-24 41 0148 172.40 24-117-24 44 0182 264.19 19-117-23 31 0108 103.31 24-117-24 44 0188 180.20 19-117-23 31 0062 305.78 24-117-24 44 0073 19-117-23 31 0101 266.87 /0074 294.78 19-117-23 32 0076 322.68 24-117-24 41 0022 131.90 19-117-23 32 0077 337.57 24-117-24 41 0102 172.96 19-117-23 32 0082 287.42 24-117-24 42 0007 261.63 19-117-23 32 0086 299.59 24-117-24 41 0175 174.20 19-117-23 32 0111 273.41 25-117-24 21 0029 311.74 19-117-23 32 0111 142.22 19-117-23 33 0033 278.46 24-117-24 41 0162 235.32 30-117-23 22 0034 239.54 19-117-23 31 0128 197.95 30-117-23 22 0036 115.24 19-117-23 34 0064 382.97 25-117-24 12 0219 209.15 19-117-23 33 0026 260.35 19-117-23 34 0092 183.05 25-117-24 11 0133 425.21 30-117-23 21 0001 275.67 25-117-24 11 0068 192.64 30-117-23 21 0007 265.26 25-117-24 11 0078 218.74 30-117-23 22 0049 382.14 24-117-24 43 0028 286.58 25-117-24 11 0035 112.64 19-117-23 33 0196 295.19 25-117-24 11 0116 147.66 19-117-23 32 0210 100.94 25-117-24 11 0115 256.72 19-117-23 34 0112 140.07 25-117-24 21 0106 257.19 19-117-23 33 0010 307.36 25-117-24 21 0114 270.11 19-117-23 33 0235 289.34 25-117-24 12 0134 298.99 19-117-23 33 0075 319.47 25-117-24 21 0007 334.94 19-117-23 33 0189 171.12 25-117-24 21 0080 176.81 19-117-23 33 0081 212.07 13-117-24 44 0051 204.81 19-117-23 33 0184 336.07 13-117-24 33 0073 110.87 19-117-23 33 0232 180.48 14-117-24 44 0036 514.87 19-117-23 33 0129 246.98 13-117-24 33 0016 344.78 24-117-24 44 0079 365.05 13-117-24 33 0057 171.24 24-117-24 44 0187 185.61 13-117-24 44 0014 135.34 24-117-24 44 0050 183.25 13-117-24 33 0014 125.97 o Payment in full with no interest charges may be made within thirty (30) days (November 15, 1996) from the date the City Council adopts the assessment roll. Payments should be made to the City Treasurer at the Mound City Hall. Public Hearing Assessment Notice - 1996 Unpaid Water and Sewer Bills September 10, 1996 Partial prepayment of the assessment has been authorized by ordinance (Section 370). If you wish to make a partial payment, the payment must be in $100.00 increments. If the total assessment is under $300.00, no partial payment will be accepted. If payment is made after thirty (30) days (November 15, 1996), interest will be charged to December 31, 1996. If the assessment is not paid on or before November 15, 1996 the amount will be spread over the assessment period (1 year). That payment will include interest for fourteen (14) months (November through December of 1996, and all of 1997). Payments will become due with your real estate taxes. All payments thereafter shall be in accordance with the provisions of M.S. 429.061, Subd. 3. The rate of interest to be accrued if the assessment is not prepaid within the required time period is eight percent (8%). The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. J IL October 8, 1996 RESOLUTION g96- RESOLUTION ADOPTING 1996 CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $9796.18, TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST LEVY//13744 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the following improvements, to-wit: 1996 CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE FROM JULY 1, 1995 TO JUNE 30, 1996 IN THE AMOUNT OF $9796.18. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND: Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. Such CBD assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments at 8% interest and all on Levy//13744 as follows: PID# AMOUNT Pm// 14-117-24 44 0001 365.55 14-117-24 44 0003 0 14-117-24 44 0006 0 14-117-24 44 0004 841.90 13-117-24 33 0004 225.44 13-117-24 33 0005 947.70 13-117-24 33 0076 444.77 13-117-24 33 0011 693.43 13-117-24 33 0014 179.01 13-117-24 33 0015 0 13-117-24 33 0016 340.94 13-117-24 33 0017 146.45 13-117-24 33 0077 474.88 13-117-24 33 0073 1,929.64 14-117-24 44 0036 820.83 14-117-24 44 0037 304.51 AMOUNT 14-117-24 44 0038 149.35 14-117-24 44 0039 543.54 14-117-24 44 0042 366.18 13-117-24 33 0047 0 13-117-24 33 0049 352.22 13-117-24 33 0050 385.25 13-117-24 33 0082 284.59 Total 9,796.18 1996 CBD Proposed Resoltuion Page 2 e October 8, 1996 Payment in full with no interest charges may be made within thirty (30) days (November 15, 1996) from the date the City Council adopts the assessment roll. Payments should be made to the City Treasurer at the Mound City Hall. Partial prepayment of the assessment has been authorized by ordinance (Section 370). If you wish to make a partial payment, the payment must be in $100.00 increments. If the total assessment is under $300.00, no partial payment will be accepted. If payment is made after thirty (30) days (November 15, 1996), interest will be charged to December 31, 1996. If the assessment is not paid on or before November 15, 1996 the amount will be spread over the assessment period (1 year). That payment will include interest for fourteen (14) months (November through December of 1996, and all of 1997). Payments will become due with your real estate taxes. All payments thereafter shall be in accordance with the provisions of M.S. 429.061, Subd. 3. The rate of interest to be accrued if the assessment is not prepaid within the required time period is eight percent (8%). The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM October 1, 1996 TO: FROM: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: PROPOSED SKATING RINK-SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY As you know, this item has been before you previously on several different occasions. Peter Meyer has recently requested that you approve an expenditure from the 1996 Budget, Parks Account, in the amount of $3,200 to excavate for a public skating rink west of the Pond Arena, north of the existing hockey rink on school district property. Mr. Meyer indicated at the September 24, 1996 regular City Council meeting that there is money in the budget due to the fact that what was budgeted for cleanup of nature conservation areas was not used in 1996. Before you take action on his request, I think it is appropriate to review the background on this matter and present the issue in a broader context. The Park and Open Space Commission has been concerned for some time that the public skating areas in the City of Mou~,~d are below the standards of other area communities. They have questioned why Mound can t have better skating rinks for its residents? The City Council some time ago directed the Commission to conduct a survey of residents to find out what the interest level was with regard to existing skating rinks and if residents thought that better skating rinks should be created in the community. The survey results did indicate that there was a positive level of interest in establishing newer and better rinks because the demand for skating was apparent. The Commission had requested, through the 1996 budget process to place monies in the Capital Improvement Fund for skating rink improvements. I believe the amount was $5,000 for these printed on recycled paper Memorandum to the Mayor and City Council October 1, 1996 Page 2 improvements. Due to the fact that there was no plan for a skating rink i.e., location, operation, maintenance, etc., I reduced the budget request to $1,500. The City Council subsequently removed that amount because there was no plan for the development of the skating rink. In April of this year, Peter Meyer approached the City Council, at its April Committee of the Whole meeting with a proposal for the development of a public skating rink. The proposal, a copy of which is attached, was merely a statement as to why the rink was needed along with a recommendation that a permanent outdoor recreational ice skating facility be constructed on the school district property west of the Pond Arena between the existing hockey rink and the Babe Ruth field. The proposal asked for $3,200 to be appropriated for site excavation work. The proposal did not include a budget or any cost estimates as to maintenance and operation. The City Council, upon hearing the presentation from Mr. Meyer, took the matter under advisement (see 4/16/96 minutes attached). At the next Committee of the Whole Meeting held May 21, 1996, I reported to the City Council that there had been no change in the discussion regarding the proposed rink. I indicated to the Council that I was waiting for a response from the Community Education and Services Department of the school district with regard to their role in this project (see 5/21/96 minutes attached). There was no discussion on the matter at the June 18, 1996 Committee of the Whole Meeting. At the August 20, 1996 meeting, (see 8/20/96 minutes attached), I reported that meetings had been held with representatives of the school district, hockey association, Mr. Meyer and city staff. Shukle indicated that he was told by school district representatives that until the School Board makes a decision regarding the future of the community center, the matter had been put on hold. Shukle had consulted with John Cameron, City Engineer regarding the design of the rink and was told by Cameron that in order to install a rink properly, a survey and design, estimated to be about $2,000 should be undertaken. The idea here was that if the City of Mound was going to make a financial investment in this site, that the City should do it correctly because the rink would be a permanent one. Also questioned was the subsequent cost estimate prepared by Mr. Meyer. There was some concern expressed by the City Engineer with regard to the estimate on the site preparation. In addition, there was concern expressed by city staff with regard to operation, maintenance, staffing the facility, etc. Community Education and Services did indicate that they were willing to staff the warming house and supervise the additional rink through its budget. Mr. Meyer was looking to the City to flood, handle snow removal and general maintenance of the rink. The school district's role, other than staffing, was limited to providing the land on which the rink could be located. As the minutes of August 20, 1996 state, I did indicate to the school district and hockey representatives that the City would only be interested in participating in this project if it was understood that the rink would be for public skating only and would not be available for hockey use. These minutes also reflect that Councilmember Hanus had some concerns on spending money on Memorandum to Mayor and City Council October 1, 1996 Page 3 property that the City has no control over. Recent Developments As you know, Mr. Meyer has obtained a resolution of approval, a copy of which is attached, from the School Board indicating that they are willing to commit a minimum of two years to allowing the City to construct a skating rink on their property provided that the facility is built by February 1, 1997. Is this enough time for the City to justify a financial investment which could range anywhere from $5,000-$10,0007 (Please note that this range takes into account a survey, design work, site preparation, operation and maintenance (labor, equipment, etc.). It should be noted that these are the startup costs. The operation and maintenance costs, on an annual basis, of course, must be figured into the project as well. I don't have an estimate on that at this point in time. Another issue that surfaced when Mr. Meyer approached the City Council in April was the lack of parking. He proposed that parking be allowed on the west side of Bellalre Lane. The Police Department reviewed it and determined that this would not be a problem should the City Council determine it to be appropriate. Mr. Meyer would also like you to consider this request as part of the skating rink proposal. I have included a copy of the petition, police report and recommendation regarding the parking proposal for your review and consideration. Summary_ of Issues Here is what I see as the questions, concerns, etc., regarding this project: 1. Does the City Council believe it needs a better and more permanent public skating rink to offer its citizens? If yes to #1, should the skating rink be located on school district property? If yes to #2, at what level of investment should the City be involved? Should the City continue to operate and maintain its three public skating rinks (Philbrook, Three Points and Highland)? Should this public skating rink, wherever it is located, be restricted to public skating only? Should the school district take a more active role in the project? If so, to what extent? Who is responsible or "liable" for injuries suffered on the school district property by anyone using the skating facility? School, City or both? Should there be a joint powers agreement stating the who is liable for what, etc.? Memorandum to Mayor and City Council October l, 1996 Page 4 8. Much of what is listed on Mr. Meyer's cost estimate is donated time, equipment, supplies, etc. Are these items one time deals or is there going to be ongoing responsibility for these items? 9. Amount requested from Mr. Meyer is for 1996 only. What about future years? This gets back to initial investment and whether the City should make that investment with the possibility that the School Board may "pull the plug" on the site and the City has made a financial investment that it cannot recover. These are just some of the questions, concerns, etc. that come to mind when thinking about this issue. There may be others but this will give you some basis in which to discuss this matter next Tuesday. I do believe that we can improve our skating rink facilities. For the amount of use that the three park areas get, you may want to consider eliminating those rinks and focusing the dollars toward a permanent rink. I do not believe enough thought has been given to city property where a rink could be located. The focus has only been on the Pond Arena area because of the use of the arena and the existing hockey fink outside. A more thorough review by the Park and Open Space Commission and city staff should be conducted to see where a permanent rink facility could be located. Minutes - Committee of the Whole April 16, 1996 Pro osal for Recreational Ice Skatin Rinks Peter Me er Parks and 0 en .... Peter Meyer was present to present a proposal that has been discussed with the Parks and Open Space Commission as well as other community members and organizations. Mr. Meyer indicated that there is a definite need for a permanent ice skating rink that expands upon the existing rinks that are currently located within the City of Mound. His proposal pointed to having the City making an investment on Westonka Public School's property to locate a permanent rink to the west of the Pond Arena where there is currently an outdoor rink that has been placed there by the Hockey Association. In addition to the rink there is a warming house that was constructed during 1995. The plan would make use of that warming house and expand upon the rink that is currently at the site. The rink is designed to provide skating for non- hockey activities. However, it was indicated that hockey groups would have use of the rink to some extent. Meyer presented some cost estimates on the improvements that would be needed to be made to the site for excavation and berming in 1996 and a proposed budget for 1997. The council expressed a number of concerns related to investment, operations, involvement of the school district, the Hockey Association involvement, the public parking in the area, etc. It was suggested that more information be presented at the next Committee of the Whole meeting from city staff as it relates to these concerns. MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF Ti:IE WHOLE - MAY 21, 1996 City Manager Ed Shukle reported that there was no change in discussion regarding the proposed permanent ice skating rink. He stated that he was waiting for a response from Community Education and Services with regard to the matter. COW Minutes August 20, 1996 Page 4 Outdoor Skatin~ Rink Update Shukle updated the Council on this matter. He stated that meetings have been held with the school district, hockey representatives, Peter Meyer and city staff. Until the school board makes a decision regarding the future of the community center, this matter has been put on hold. Shukle stated that in order to install a rink properly, a survey and design, estimated to cost $2,000 should be undertaken. He indicated that the Community Education department could staff the rink for supervisory purposes but would call upon the city to maintain the rink with its equipment and employees. Shukle stated that he informed the school district representatives and hockey representatives that the City would only be interested in participating in this project if it is understood that the rink would be for public skating only and would not be available for hockey use. Hanus stated that he had a problem with spending dollars on property that the City has no control over. He prefers to see the City develop a public skating area, as has been discussed, in the Lost Lake area once the channel is dredged and further development of that area takes place. FROM: Mound Parks and Open Space Commission ('MPOSC) City of Mound, Minnesota April, 1996 TO: Mound City Council City of Mound, Minnesota SUBJECT: Proposal for Installation of Recreational Ice Skating Rinks 1. The MPOSC is recommending the development of quality outdoor ice skating facilities, including all major construction and maintenance. The commission is asking the Mound City Council to budget, approve, and allocate fiscal 1997 funds to design, build, and maintain the recommended rinks per attachment one. PURPOSE: Enhance the City of Mound, Westonka School District, and the Mound Westonka Hockey Association's already ongoing efforts to provide recreational ice skating for Westonka residents. The lack of consistent Iow cost family and children's activities was identified in the Search Institute's Community Survey as a shortfall in providing a balanced environment for Westonka. A survey conducted in the spring of 1995 by the MPOSC through the "City Contact" revealed that the residents did indeed desire an outdoor public recreational ice skating facilit,/. The three primary purposes would be: (1) Provide wintertime recreational activities for the whole family. (2) Provide a supervised, non-structured recreational activity for Mound's youth, giving them a safe place to meet and socialize during the winter months. (3) Provide a place where residents can meet, have fun, and get to know each other, thus enhancing Mound residents' sense of community. RECOMMENDATION: Develop a permanent outdoor recreational ice skating facility located adjacent to the Pond Arena. Maintain three small community ice skating facilities at Philbrook. Highlands, and Three Points Parks. Provide lighting and basic ice maintenance for a lake rink'at Mound Bay Park. This would include the expenditure of approximately $3,200.00 for site excavation work needed this spring. SPECIFICS: (See attachment 1) COMPARISONS TO OTHER CITIES: (See attachment 2) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Hilltop Elementary School Principal, dated February 1, 1996 Early Childhood Family Education, dated February 5, 1996 WeCAN, dated February 6, 1996 Grandview Primary School Principal, dated February 13, 1996 Shirley Hills Primary School Principal, dated February 22, 1996 Dr. Pamela J. Myers 0Nestonka Public Schools), dated February 26, 1996 Pond Sport Center, dated February 27, 1996 Westonka High School Parent Advisory Board, dated March 6, 1996 Westonka Chamber of Commerce, dated March 13, 1996 Westonka Helping Youth, dated March 15, 1996 Westonka Senior Citizens and Company, dated March 18, 1996 Youth Minister, St. John's Lutheran Church, dated March 27, 1996 Our Lady of the Lake Church, not dated Mound Westonka Hockey Association, not dated City of Wayzata, not dated 30 Developmental Assets, of Search Institute Site Plan Option A Site Plan Option B Parking petition ESTIMATED COST: These items need to be estimated and budgeted as follows: One Time Charge: Excavafion/Berrning Re-seeding Cabinet in warming house for medical/attendantJmisc, supplies First Aid kit Cleaning supplies Snow blower Benches/Picnic t~bles Resurfacing equipment Signs Entry posts and chains Additional lighting Annual Cost: Insurance - general liability rider Ongoing Cost and Future Needs: Painting the hockey boards and warming house Resurfacing equipment Utilities Medical supply restocking Administrative, resun~acing, and attendant wages ASSUMPTIONS: Important to have good ice Important to have warming house and bathroom Important to have attendant Important to separate hockey and open skating Important to have strong city backing, consistent management and maintenance Level site cuts down on labor costs during flooding Donations possible from hockey association (Shorewood does this) Offered without user fees (other cities contacted do not charge) Snow blower on site (other cities provide one for use when plowing is not available) Cost spread between various budgets (other cities do this) ADDITIONAL CONCERNS TO ADDRESS: Parking (see attached parking petition) Potential infringement on other facilities and programs Liability Sincerely, Peter C. Meyer For the Mound Parks and Open Space Commission I4~trt'orffField Ha~orffFietd ~lound Bay Three Points Philbrook ~ghlands L~t Lake Swenso~ P~k '[/i~ Saho~ A B ~ Par'~ P,',rk Park ~g~ Open K R R s~!~ c~ C CR ZR CR .. ~o~ ~ CR ~R rJ,,,~ie CR ~R CR Services w~,~;,~g CR CR Hous~ . . ~.~uooms CR CR Public ~one CR CR u~g CR 3/4 CR 1/4 R C t~.~,.,~ NO YES NO NO NO NO NO r-~,~,~g R R C C C C md B~-mmg s?g, R R ~'~ R R R R R R ~ R R S.ow B~o,,,~ 'R R r)~i~y R R Resuffacin~; ~r~s R R R R c~°~m 22C 220 4(] 15 30 15 lC 20 2'~ Parking C=C~t ~-~Recomm~nd City Population # of Rinks '~ombinafi Hockey Open ~Vkhout ~"r,h ~cndant ?.esurface Staff m Hockc~ ~Varming ~VarminE '~r Week Hours md Open House ~Iouse ~.esurfac~ LomUo 47~ 0 Wood!~d 48,= (~ Tonka 575~ 1 No 2 g St Boni 1,19~ 1 1 11'art Tima ks N-~-Joi T~lta Bay 1,46/ I t 1 a.s Need~ll P Spring 1,75~ Mapl~ 2,117 li ,',to ~s Ncc-de/ W~,~wu 2.49.' 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 Ddmo 2,90( 5 4 3 2 '~5 u M..4~,. 3,.534 3 3 3 qo 5 3(] ;l~l~,~,~ 3,§74 0 ~-veu 3.6,~ 2 2 2~ 2 t 4( Wa.vzata 3,83/] 2 1 1: 1: 1 7 30 1: Oro~o 7.3/2 3 3 3 No ~ Ne~ 30 Mound 9.6431 3 3 3 ble~ As Ne..,a,,~ , Chaahassc 13,388 U 1 ! n Minnetonk 49,285 8 8 8 8 7 ? w£sxoN c vum_ c schoOlS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 277 HILLTOP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 5700 GAME FARM ROAD · MOUND~ MINNESOTA 55364 · PHONE: 472-I600 February 1, 1996 Dear Mound City Council, I'm writing in support of an extra sheet of outdoor ice at the Pond Arena site. In a recent conversation with Pete Meyer, member of the Parks and Open Space Commission, he shared with me the group's plan to provide another sheet of outdoor ice for the residents of Mound. I totally agree with their recommendation. It makes great sense to add this sheet of ice at this site for non- hockey skaters. The warming house that's there could be shared by both groups of skaters. There is currently a complex like this in the City of Chanhassen that works beautifully for hockey as well as for recreational skating. This site at the Pond Arena would complement the other three sites you have in the City of Mound. The schools would have need for this site also. Currently there is not a facility big enough to handle a large group that want to skate outside. The extra budget that would go into maintaining this extra sheet of ice would pay big dividends for the community. Ice Skating keeps kids occupied and off the streets. Please think of the community's needs as you plan budget for the 1996-97 fiscal year. I totally support the group's recommendations. If the school district can help please call my number (491-8501) or Carl Sorenson, Facilities Coo rd in ato r(491-8090) Sincerely, Paul Schullo, Principal Hilltop Primary School WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS ~/DEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 277 5600 LY]',N,/OOD BOULEVARD · MOUND, MINI',IESOTA 55364 Michael G. Looby, Director of Community Education and Personnel Services 472-0341 February 5, 1996 Mound City Council Members Mound City Hall 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 Dear City Council Members, It has come to our attention that the City Council has voted "no" to creating a recreational family ice rink outdoors in our city.. We would like to express our disappointment with this decision and hope that you would reconsider if you had more input from the families themselves. For myself as a child, I have great memories of skating at the local rink and sharing the wanning house with the neighborhood kids. This supervised experience offered a feeling of "community" and "belonging" that is so often missing in youth experiences today. It also offered outdoor recreation La a lar~.e enough area where we could join hands, make a human chain and skate till we all fell down laughing an~ exhausted. Parents many times joined in and whole families would spend the afternoon or evening together. The local rink provided a lot of good wholesome lVlinnesota fun! I now have high school and middle school age children and would dearly love to give them a similar supervised recreational opportunity; a place to meet friends, and be able to join the fun myself. If you are familiar with the Dr. Peter Benson's Search Institute findings, then you are aware that his research or.~anization has developed more than 30 assets that are needed for youth to succeed in life and conu'ibute to'preventing "at-risk" behaviors (see attached list). A community recreational ice rink would offer an environment for asset building in both structured time use outside the school setting and in developing social competence. In addition, our school district's Early Childhood Family Education (ECl:rE) program serves over 115 families in our community.. They have children preschool age and many have older children in the Primary schools. Attached are comments and siguatures from the ECFE executive Parent Advisory Council who feel supportive towards this issue and would use the ice rink for family recreation. Please take a moment to review their input. Youth and their families need as many opportunities to do things together as possible to help build the assets needed for successful communities. Please show that you care by reopening the discussion on the community recreational skating rink. Sincerely, Sand Wine. Coordinator Early Childhood Farmly Educauon Learning Readiness Val Anderson, Chair ECFE Advisory Council munit Westonka Co Action Network · Emergency Assistance · Meals on Wheels · Human Services · )ob Development & Placement 5600 Lynwood Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 (62) 4~_-074~ (6~2) 4F2-)589 SERVICE AREA Greenfield Mound InDeCent, once Rocldord Loret~o St. B0nJfacius Maole P~ain Spnng ~ Min~etonxa ~eacn Ton~ B~ Minne~ns;a We~em Omno BOARD OF DIRECTORS Craig St. ~on/-~Jinnemsta Po/ice Chief Larry Bailey Dire=ot of ;Wst Henneotn Puolic Safety Miry DeVInney Wes~on~a ~o(~$netf Coordinator Comnluntt'./ Tom Garnl3ie Local :3us~ne~man Steve Harpe~tad Corem. unity Volunteer Lan Harmll Mound Police Cr,~ef MaW Hurley A~ult Sas~c Education Program Mgr. Marvin Jollns4n Mayor of InOe~en~tence Sharon McMenamy,.Cook Norwesr San~ Vice Prestder~ Sandy Olstad Pa/fst~ Kate I~rl(Ina $O~C~al Educa~on Teacher Kan Rl134 Pa.~or of Rm A,~$~y~enan Chu~J~ Richard $chlefflr Local A~om~y Sandy Slma~ Head Star~ Manager Fr. Michael P'~zor. Our ~dy of the Lake ChurCh Bob Tomalka CommUn~./ Volunteer Mardl We~ We~onxa C,~amoer-~Irn. ADMINISTRATION Klkl Sonnen Ex, curve Disc:or Medis Helnea AOmml~rar~v~ Diane McCuny Volunteer CoorCinator/Program Manager Rick Polanakl Jots & Bus,ness Oevelof;ment Mnda Rober~a Employment $Oec~alist & Car~er Counselor February 6, 1996 To Mound City Council Members: WeCAN is aware of the Mound Parks Commission recommendation to establish a permanent, recreational skating rink on Westonka School property at 5600 Lynwood. The project is to be a cooperative effort between the City of Mound, Westonka Schools, and the Mound Hockey Association. WeCAN supports this project as a means of providing Iow cost, family activities to Westonka citizens. There are many Iow-income residents who are unable to travel to recreational facilities in surrounding towns. An ice rink would be a welcome addition to the Mound area. WeCAN also supports community efforts to provide safe, adult supervised activities for youth, particularly Iow-income children and young people at risk. This hockey rink would meet that goal. We hope you will thoughtfully consider funding the ice rink. Sincerely, Kiki Sonnen WeCAN Executive Director GRANDVIEW MIDDLE SCHOOL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 277 1881 COMMERCE BLVD · MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 · PHONE: 491-8300 February 13, 1996 Mound City Council Mound, MN 55364 Attn: Mr. Peter Meyer The end of the winter season turns all of our thoughts toward budget and planning for the coming year. As a result, I would like for you to keep the youth of Mound in mind as you plan for the future. As the Grandview Middle School principal, I have been concerned about the opportunities for after-school activities for our students. I have been trying to establish in-school programs for students and I would ask you to consider out-of-school opportunities as well. Middle school age students need to have ample access to facilities for group activities. Thus, ice skating ponds with supervised warming houses and summer recreational areas need to be planned and developed. Doing so will help provide our youth with constructive activities to burn off energy and develop their physical bodies. If you need any additional support, the Westonka Helping Youth (WHY) task force can act as a link between our youth and community in order to promote and challenge our youth to be "The Best They Can Be." I challenge your committee to help solve these concerns by using February: "We Love our Kids" month to actively start the planning to help the youth of our community. Respectfully, Dwight Davis Principal WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS · DISTRICT 277 SHIRLEY HILLS PRIMARY 2450 WILSHIRE BLVD. · MOUND, MN 55364 · 491-8400 Richard G. Nicoli, EdS Prindpal February 22, 1996 Peter Meyer 5748 Sunset Rd Mound, MN 55364 Dear Peter, I whole heartedly support the efforts to establish a community skating rink in the Pond Arena area. Skating is an excellent physical activity for all ages. Our youth would espedally benefit from having an easily accessible place to skate. It is important that the community support this kind of opportunity for our youth. Our kids need healthy ways to play and recreate in our community all year long. I'm sure a skating rink would also be enjoyed by families. This is an excellent service to provide opportunities for families to share activities together in our community. Sincerely, Richard G. Nicoli, EdS Prindpal NOt'e'CH C~'ad~ ~qc~'D~TE'D . ;~CINNF_.SOT~q SeHOOE OrJ ~XCff_F_F.~_NCE WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS btDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 277 5600 LYNW~D BOULEVARD · MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 2/26/96 TCt. FROM: RE: #1 in SAT scores on Lake Minnetonka in 1994 Mound City Council ~ Pamela J M ~~'~ · yers, Ph.D.,X-~uperintendent Community recreational skating facility Peter Meyer, of the Mound Park and Open Space Commission, has initiated conversations with the Westonka Schools regarding location of a community recreational skating facility on school property west of the parking lot on the Westonka Community Center site. At its regular February School Board meeting, 2/12/96, the Westonka School Board heard about the idea, and generated some questions about the project. On behalf of the School Board, I am pleased to support the concept of planning to work together with the City of Mound to provide recreational opportunities to the citizens whom we mutually serve. I encourage the City of Mound to support this concept. The process which I suggested to Mr. Meyer would include the following steps: 1. Action by the Mound City Council to support the Mound Park and Open Space Commission's proposal that a community recreational skating facility be planned jointly between the City of Mound and the Westonka Public Schools, to be located on Westonka Public Schools property. 2. Arrangements be made that this facility be funded by the City of Mound and other appropriate groups, e.g., the Hockey Boosters, and other interested citizens. 3. Participation by representatives of the Mound Park and Open Space Commission, and other interested groups/citizens, on the Westonka Public Schools' Outdoor Facilities Task Force (to be created during the Spring of 1996) whose task will be to update our previous Outdoor Facilities Plan. 4. Approval by the Westonka School Board of any proposed site improvements. We're please to be working together with the City of Mound to provide recreational opportunities for our community. c. Bill Pinegar, Chair, Westonka School Board City of Mound rec planning 2/26/96 2/27/96 Mound Park & Open Space Commission Nlr. Peter Meyer 5748 Sunset Rd. Moun& M.n. 55364 Dear Peter The Pond Sports Center is in support of outdoor ice rinks. Presently located on school property by the arena. I believe there is a real need for two finks, one for open skating and one for hockey games and practice. The Pond Sports Center is so busy with high school games and practice, and youth games and practice, we can not fill the need for ice time. We have set aside two hours a week for open skating and we are always filled to capacity.. People are always requesting additional lime for open skating. I believe the City of Mound and the School District should support this kind of activity. As in the past the Pond Sports Center will continue to allow players and skaters to use our facility such as the telephones, bathrooms and etc. Je~ Kohls · Pond Sports Center WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 277 MOUND WESTONKA HIGH SCHOOL 5905 SUNNYFIELD ROAD EAST * MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 * PHONE 612-491-8100 ADMIN. FAX 512-491-8103 · GUIDANCE FAX 612-491-8119 March 6, 1996 Mr. Peter Meyer 5748 Sunset Road Mound MN 55364 Mound City Council: The Mound Westonka High School Parent Advisory Board (parents and school staff) would like to support the proposal for an outdoor ice skating facility. As a high school advisory board, we are always concerned about having enough healthy community-sponsored and supervised activities for our children. We believe there is a need for a supervised general skating facility and the location being proposed would also be a plus. If you would like to hear in person fi.om a MWHS Parent Advisory Board member, please contact Gene Zulk, Principal at MWHS, to make those arrangements. His number is 491-8101. GZ/jmg GZ6/L04 Sincerely, MWHS Parent Advisory Board March 13, 1996 Cit, y of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 To Whom It May Concern: The Board of Directors of the Westonka Area Chamber of Commerce have agreed to support the concept of adding an outdoor ice skating rink for the community. The Board also stated that in order to support anything further, they would have to see the final plans and know that it was approved by the City of Mound. The Chamber is always in full support of making the Westonka Area a better place for it's citizens. Sincerely, Teresa Fogarty Director W.H.Y... Westonka Helping, You A group of community rn~mber$ committed to ~ t-t~lthy Community, for I-Is~ltl~j/Youth 3770 Ench~nt~ ~n~ Mound, ~ 472-4086, 472-4893, 472-2408 March 15, 1996 TO: Mound Park & Open Space Commission "W.H.Y...Westonka Helping Youth" supports the Mound Park & Open Space Commission recommendation to develop a large outdoor recreational skating facility behind the Pond Arena. As a community we need to work together to create places for youth. "W.H.Y...Westonka Helping Youth" would like to stress the need to recognize we all play an important role in creating a community where children and youth can thrive and be successful. We need to partner with other organizations in creating child- friendly public places and safe places for youth and families to gather. We have to reclaim our personal responsibility for the young. Many programs and team sports are available for our youth in Westonka yet we lack public places and safe places. Creating opportunities like an outdoor recreational skating facility gives our youth visible proof that the community values youth and their needs. We are glad to partner with you in this vision for our kids. Sincerely, ..,,-"1 ,(, _. n.:.:.. / · ,Jean M. Stortz & W.H.Y...Westonka Helping Youth HOME OF THE WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZENS, INC. · 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD · (612) 472-0347 MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 March 18, 1996 Mound City Council Mound, ~ 55364 Dear Mayor and Council Members, We are writing this letter to support the concept of an outdoor skating facility in our community. We can see this to be beneficial to senior citizens both for their own recreational needs, but even more importantly for their grandchildren. Although we have wonderful hockey rinks in our comm-nity, freetime skating is not compatible with hockey sticks and pucks. We could vision a commurfity facility that would bring all ages together in a wholesome way. Thank you for considering this project. Sincerely, Westonka Senior Citizens, A Non-profit Organization Serving The Communities Of Mound · Orono · Spring Park · Minne~ris~a ST JOHN'S 245'1 FAIRVIEW LANE ;U'~.T:'H E R A · MO~ND,~MN 55364 · ... growing in uni~ an~ /eve... N CHU OFFICE 472-'14'16 RC H March 27, 1990 MOUND CITY COUNCIL c/o Pefe~ Meye, b"748 gunsef Rd. Mound, MN. S53C>4 Dear Mound City Council, (~re=fin~s in Christ! ! have been informed that the City of Mound is considerin~ buildin~ and financing a new outdoor ice arena and warmin~ house behind the Pond Arena. ! was also asked ii' ! would be willin~ to write a brie~ 'letter of support', i'd be ~lad to. I have dedicated my life fo youth mini=fry, and have spent 10 !=lears in various forms oi` church camping ministry and 1S years of ~11 time youth and i`amily ministry in 3 di~'erenf churches. I have sen, ed here a~ gl. John's Lutheran Church as pa~or of Youth & Family Mini=fry {;or over ~ur years now. i am very close to the youth of this community and their needs. We have 900 high school youth that are members oi` this church, and 400 children in gunday gchool. ! serve on {he District Guidance Advisory CommFcfee, the W.H.Y. Cornrnit-fee (We=tonka Helping Youth.I, and have been fha chairman o~ fha Mound We=tonka Ministerial Association {;or the la=f three years. ! would like fo express my ~ull support oi` fha creation oi` a new ice arena in Mound. if is abundantly clear fo me -- based on p~aonal experience and my contac-~ with youth in this community -- that Mound needs many more cai'e, super~/ised ai'~ernafives and opportunities i`or youth aRe~ school, evenings and weekends. Another ice arena is a deRnife =fep in fha ri~hf direction. We need fo continue fo find and develop more such alternatives, i sincerely hope you will vcrfe "yes" on this topic. A Congregation of the Evange/ica/Lutheran Church/h/~mer/ca. Eric J. Gusfavson, Jr., Pastor John H. Rogers, Associate Pastor Sandy Olsfad, Parish Nurse Delia Bujold, Family Therapist Ellen Rusin, Family Therapist OUR. LADY OF THE LAKE CHUKCH Religious Education and Youth Nfmistry Office 2411 Commerce Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 . . 4724848 Mound City Council Mound, MN 55364 RE: Outdoor Family Skating Facility Proposal Dear Council Members, On behalf of our elementary, family and youth programs, we would like to express our support for the proposed city outdoor skating fink. The community of Mound as well as our parishioners would benefit by having a place to skate after school, evenings and week-ends. We could use it to promote family actiw'ties and youth events. We hope that you pass this proposal for the benefit of the community. Sincerely, Paula Wood LaVigne Religious Education Dkector Youth Nfmister THE MOUND WESTONKA HOCKEY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 266 MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 To Whom it may Concern, This letter is written on behalf of the Mound Westonka Hockey Association and for all the children in the community who can benefit from having an outdoor skating facility in our city. After constructing the current facility adjacent to the Pond, it was our pleasure to observe the almost constant usage that it received. Not only by our hockey association, but by many children and adults, who would not otherwise be able to find suitable ice to skate on. At the current rate of $1 ]0.00 per hour for indoor ice, it would not be financially feasible for most kids to rent ice whenever they want to skate or play hockey. Even if they were able to afford the costs, there is not currently any extra available ice for them to buy. The association needs the outdoor ice to allow our teams to have full ice practices, which because of indoor ice shortages, we are not able to have any other way. For that we are willing to help with an outdoor rink in any way we can. But our players were far from the only ones using the outdoor facility. There are a lot of children in this community who love to play hockey, figure skate or just recreational skate and there isn't any way for them to pursue these activities without an outdoor facility. If the city would consider taking over this facility, we feel that our entire town would benefit. It would give the youth in this community a place to go that is safe and fun. We appreciate your help and consideration in this matter. T ~h~, k you,.. Pam Anderson President Mound Westonka Hockey Association Mr. Peter Meyer Mound Park Dept. city of Mound 5748 Sunset Rd. Mound MN. 55346 CITY OF WAYZATA 600 RICE STREET, WAYZATA, MINN. 55391 PHONE 473-0234 Sonny Clark Park Supervisor City of Wayzata 600 Rice St. Wayzata, Mn. 55391 Dear Pete, You asked if I might write a letter stating some of the benefits Klapperich Park provides for the community. I'm happy to do so. Believe me, it's an easy task. There are two principal usages for this park. Ice skating and softball. Klapperich Park is dedicated to accommodating family use, as are all of our parks. The skating rink is heavily used. Probably in the neighborhood of 250 people on an average day. This is evidenced by the amount of blade shavings produced each day. Our staff spends about 8 man hours a day sweeping, and tank flooding. We have large numbers of Moms and Dads skating and teaching skating to their small children. As you are probably aware, we cannot seem to build enough ice for hockey in this state. We do not reserve ice time and many parents have called to thank us as it allows "kids" of all ages to get involved in a pick-up game most any time. Our other season is the softball season. For quite a number of years we seemed to have little use during the summer. In the last 5 years or so we have had so many requests for use of our two fields that we have had to schedule use. Klapperich is reserved and used Monday thru Friday by the Wayzata/Plymouth girls youth softball association. Ages 14 and under. Saturday and Sunday are not reserved so that it can accommodate general use. There is steady use for pick-up games during that time. The other field at Wayzata West Jr. High is used by a variety of adult groups such as Police/Fire, Church, businesses and a variety of teams looking for some place to practice. In addition we often have people using the field for such things as touch football, broomball and a number of early riseing golfers practicing with their short irons. As they say "if you build it they will come". Good luck in your endeavor. Sonny Clark ASSET TY~E ~-OUNDARIE$ STRUCTURED TIME USE CUU~A~,qENT POSITIVE VALUES SOcIAL'~' .~ COM~'TENcE 30 Developmental Assets ASSET NAME I. Family support 2. Parent(s) as social resources 3. Parent communication 4. Other adult resources.. 5. Other adult communication Parent involvement in schooling Positive school climate 8. Parentai standards 9. Parental discipline 10. Parental monitoring I1. Time at home 12. Positive peer influence 13. 14. Involved in school extra- curricular activities 15. Involved in community organizations or activities 16. Involved in church or synagogue 17. Achievement motivation 18. Educational aspiration 19. Sc~:ool performance 20. Homework Involved in music 21. Values helping people 22. Is concerned about world hu'nger 23. Cares about people's feelings 24. Values sexual restraint ASSET DEF1NmON Family life provides high levels of love and support Student views parent(s) as accessible resources for advice and support Student has frequent, in-depth conversations with parent(s) Student has access to non-parent adults for advice and support Student has frequent, in-depth conversations with non- parent adults Parent(s) are involved in helping student succeed in school School provides a caring, encouraging environment Parent(s) have stap, dards for appropriate conduct Parent(s) discipline student when a rule is violated Parent(s) monitor "where I am going and with whom I Mil be" Student goes out for "fun and recreation" three or fewer nights per week Student's best friends model responsible behavior Student spends three hours or more per week in music training or practice Student spends one hour or more per week in school sports clubs, or organizations Student spends one hour or more per week in organizations or clubs outside of school Student spends one hour or more per week attending programs or services Student is motivated to do well in school Student aspires to pursue post-high school education (e.g., trade school, college) Student reports school performance is above average Student reports six hours or more of homework per week Student places high personal value on helping other.people Student reports interest in helping to reduce world hunger Student cares about other people's feelings: Student values postponing sexual activity 25. Assertiveness sk.;lls 26. Decision-making skills 27. Fr'~endship-making skills 28. Planning skills 29. £elf-esteem 30. Positive view of personal fi~ture Student Student Student Student Student Student can stand up for what he or she believes is good at making decisions is good at making friends is good at planning ahead has high self-esteem is optimistic about her or his personal future F:'om Benson, P. (1993). The Troubled Jou:.ney: A Port:',zit of 6th-12th Grade Fouth. Minneapolis: Search Institute. $1T~ PLAN r=ter rv eyer 5748 Sunset Road Mound, MN 55364 (612) 472-7449 3-t1-96 Chief I42.rrell 5341 Maywood Road Mound. MN 55364 Dear Chief I-'Iarretl: I am requesting the removal of parking restrictions on th: west side of BeDaire Lane between Alder Road and Elm Road for a one year trial period..Mr. Shuklc told me ,.h;it the process for getting a parking change is to f'fle a request with you, including a site plan md a petition from area residmts. Thc Mound Park and ()pen Space Corm'T~sion ha:~ detcrm/ned that l. lnere is a s~'ere shortag,z of ' low-cost acfivit/cs in ()ur community, for lhmilics and also for children and their fi-lends. Thc Commission, of which I am a member, feels a supe~'i.sed outdoor skating facili~.' would be a cost- effective wav to help till these and many other community needs. We are drat:~,g a detailed proposal to be presented to the Motmd Ci~' Count/1 recommending the development of a skating facility, behind the Pond .-~cna. The added parldng is m¢ortant for our plan to become a reali~~ for thc communi .t'y. Here are thc reasons why I bet/eve this change is reasonable: 1. Parking is allowed on all other streets in thc area. 2. Thc 220' stretch has only two library, driveway access points on it. 3. Citizens ah-early park in this area during ~ school football and hockey games and do not get tagged. 4. These parking spaces will help replace the ~'~inter parking area by thc outdoor hockey rink,, allowing the de~'elopment of a commum~ skat/a~g rink that will benefit all Mound citizens. 5. These parking spaces will help ease the parking concerns the Mound CiD' Council and the Westonka School Board have raised regarding the Mound Park and Open Space Corranission's plan to d~'elop a community, skating rink. 6. Making this change on a one year trial basis would give the opportunity to evaluate before making a permanent decision. Il'you have any questions about this request, please call me at home, 472-7449. Thank you in advance for your time. It is appreciated. Sincerely, Peter C. Meyer Neighborhood Resident Member Mound Park and Open Space Commission We, the undersigned, petition ne City of Mound for the remova/of park/n§ restrictions on the wes~ side of Bella~re Lane between Alder Road and Elm Road for a one year trial period. NAM~ ADDRESS PHONE o 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS Independent School District No 277 SPECIAL/STUDY SCHOOL BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 23, 1996 AGENDA ITEM IV. COMMUNITY SKATING RINK SITE WHEREAS, the Mound City Council is concerned about committing dollars into site work for the Community Skating Rink upgrade, without a guarantee that the proposed area will be designated for skating for a reasonable number of years. WHEREAS, the Community Skating Rink site will not be sold and no other use is planned. WHEREAS, the Community Skating Rink site is outside the footprint of the new Community Center facility. WHEREAS, the existing 1991-1996 long range Outdoors Facilities Plan designates this area for skating. NOW THEREFORE, the Westonka School Board guarantees the Mound City Council that the Community Skating Rink area be designated skating dnk for a minimum of two years provided the City of Mound builds this facility by February 1, 1997. BACKGROUND Peter Meyer continues to work diligently toward collaboration between the City of Mound and the Westonka Schools for the benefit of community access to an additional recreational skating site. The City of Mound is requesting formal School board action supporting the Board's informal support given to Mr. Meyer at the September 14, 1996 board meeting. See attachments. Disk: C. Drive ItemlV I IL ~00. ~,qO0 ~,ffO0 C_. o.~: r ~.sQ r-e~- L e JUN-13-B$ 10:S3 TEL: P:01 PHASE ELECTRIC, INC. · 1,01 James Ave. ..~dle 130 Bloomington, MN 55,431 Tele, l~hooe (e12) 861.~100 Fax (612) 661.2759 FROM: NUMBER. OF PA()ES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET} JUN-13-BB 10:S3 TEL: P:08 PHASE ELECTRIC, INC. · r'_-_.-~-_;~.~ (el 2) 8~1-41 September 24, 1996 To members of the Council: As a citizen of the Mound area for over the past 27 years and also as a parent of two children, I believe the Mound area needs to have a recreational ice rink. I have tried to use the Mound rink last year on several occasions with my children and I have found it to be a very dangerous place to try to skate with hockey pucks flying through the air. As a result of this my family has to go to Wayzata to use their recreational ice rink. I think it is wonderful for our city to support all of it's hockey players, however I am sure a lot of people of all ages would benefit from a recreational ice rink. This would also be a great place for the youth in our community to do something positive. It is a shame that we as a community have to go to our neighboring cities just to ice skate when there are so many great places that we could use for skating in our own backyard. Thank you for your prompt response, I am proud to live in our community where our council really listens to it's people to make our city a better place to live. Heidi Petty I 2.. ( [ ( l { o I 1 ,? 1! COI~I~IEFICE BLVI). L. ,,,~ '"" '"" 'C'£11z£D 3 199 ,o/23m Search Institute 40 Developmental Assets TYPE NAME DEFINITION I. Family support Family life provides high levels of love and support 2. Positive family communication Parents and child communicate positively; child is willing to seek parents advice and counsel SUPPORT 3. Other adult relationships Child receives support from three or more non-parent adults 4. Caring neighborhood Child experiences caring neighbors 5. Caring school climate School provides a caring, encouraging environment 6. Parent involvement in schooling Parents are actively involved in helping child succeed in school 7. Community values youth Child perceives that community adults value youth EMPOI/I/[RMEffi' 8. Youth given useful roles Youth are given useful roles in community life 9. Community service Child gives one hour or more per week to serving in one's community 10. Safety Child reels sate in home, school and neighborhood I I. Family boundaries Family has clear rules and consequences; and monitors whereabouts 12. School boundaries School provides clear rules and consequences BOUNDARIES 13. Neighborhood boundaries Neighbors would report undesirable behavior to family AND 14. Adult role models Parent(s) and other adults model prosocial behavior EXPEClATI0NS 15. Positive peer influence Child's best friends model responsible behavior 16. High expectations Both parents and teachers press child to achieve 17. Music, art, drama Involved three or more hours per week in lessons or practice TIME 18. Sports, clubs, organizations Involved three hours or more per week in school and/or USE community 19. Religious community Involved one or more hours per week 20. Time at home Out with friends "with nothing special to do," two or .. fewer nights per week 21. Achievement motivation Child is motivated to tit) well in school 22. School performance Child has B average or better EDUCATIONAL 23. Homework Child reports one or more hours of homework per day C0MMIIMENI 24. Bonding to school Child cares about her/his school 25. Reading for pleasure Child reads for pleasure three or more hours per week 26. Prosocial: Helpin,.z others Child places high value on helping other people 27. Prosociah Equality and social Child places high vah,e on promoting equality and reducing justice hunger and poverty VALUES 28. Personal integrity Child acts on convictions, stands up for beliefs 29. Personal honesty Child "tells the truth even when it is not easy" 30. Personal responsibility Child accepts and takes responsibility 31. Behavioral restraint Child values sexual and chemical restraint 32. Planning and decision-making Child has skill to plan ahead and make choices 33. Interpersonal competence Child has empathy, sensitivity, and friendship skills SOCIAL 3.4. Cultural competence Child has knowledge o1" and comtbrt with people of COMPETENCES different racial backgrounds 35. Resistance skills Child can resist negative peer pressure 36. Nonviolent conflict resolution Child seeks to resolve conflict non-violently 37. Personal control Child feels she/he has control over "things that happen ~o POSIT]VE 38. Self-esteem Child reports high self-esteem IDENIITY 39. Sense of purpose Child reports "my life has a purpose" .40. Positive view of' personal future Child is optimistic about his/her personal future EVERYONE'S AN ASSET BUILDER The excitino rhino about assets is that everyone--parents. §randperents. teachers, coaches, triencls, youth workers. employers, youth, and others-can bttild therttThe whole community can play a role tn raising confident, cartngyoung people who will be the leaders of tomorrow! Here are some ideas for whatyou can do: · Get to know the names of teenaoers in your neighborhood. · Hu0 a child or teena0er. · Greet youno people with a smile when you pass them on the · Volunteer to be a bio brother or sister to a young person through a mentoring progrom in your community. · Donate children, s and teen's books to a local shelter that serves tmnilies and eAzUdreu. · Invite your e. hild or. the child of a triend to spend an atternoon with you. · Offer to 0ive a parent you know a bre~k by spendin an hour or two with her or his child. It you ere a youn0 person: Find one special adult, other that your parent(s), to spend time with If you are an employe~ Hire a teenager to work in your office two afternoons a weel~ Offer plenty of tr~a~ing, support, and encouragement. Call a young person you know, just to say *hi: Be a youth advocate. Know the issues tlmt affect young people and speak out on their belmlL Remember what it was like to be youn~ If you are a pm-ent: Ask your child to help you with project. Explain what you ~ doing, why, and how. Go to a performance or sporting event o! a child or teenager you know. Get involved with a youth pro, ram in a congregation or community center. Hire young people---rather than professional~--to mow your lawn, shovel snow, or rake leaves. Go lot a walk with a kid. Beh'iend a young person who seems lonely or bored. Six Principles of Asset Building I. All young people need assets--While it is crucial to pay special attention to those youth who have the least (economically or emotionally), nearly all children and adolescents need more assets than they have. Z Everyone can build assets--Asset development requires consistent messages across a community. Ali adults,youth, and children play a role_ 3. lt~ an ongoingprocess--Asset development starts when a child is born and continues through high school and beyond. 4. Relationships are key--A central keyto asset development is strong relationships between adults and young people~young people and their peers, and teenagers and chiidre~ 5. Consistent messages--Asset building requires consistent, positive messages about what is important. 6. Redundancy--Kids need to hearthe same positive messages and feel support over and over again, from many different people_ .. Adapted from Peter L Bere. tm. IIt~t mg Carnmtmities tar Ymah (MinneapolLx. MN: Search Imtitute. 1995). MINNESOTA STUDENT SURVEy YOUR REACTIONS; WHAT SURPRISED YOU... WHAT PLEASED YOU... WHAT DISTURBED YOU .... OUR CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES: WHAT CAN I DO IN MY FAMILY - WHAT CAN I DO IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD - WHAT CAN I DO IN MY SCHOOL - WHAT CAN I DO IN MY COMMUNITY - THIS IR WHAT I WILL DO - MY COMMITMENT TO "ASS~_¥ BUILDING" Search Institute Profiles of Student Life: Attitudes and Behaviors Prepared for: Westonka Public School District g277 Mound, Minnesota August, 1994 Prepared by: Search Institute Thresher Square West 700 South Third St, Suite 210 Minneapolis, MN 55415 1-800-888-7828 This project is made possible with the support of Lutheran Brotherhood. a national fraternal benefit society, through its RespecTeen program. For more information about RespecTeen, call 1-800-888-3820. Search Institute Profiles of Student Life: Attitudes and Behaviors was administered in May, 1994, to a random sample of students in grades 6 through 12 at Grandview Middle School and Mound Westonka High School in Mound, Minnesota. School staff administered the survey, using a set of s=a~dardized procedures described in the Profiles of Student Life Administration Manual. Precautions were taken to assure students of anonymity. In constructing the data set, 27 sux~ey forms were discarded due to inconsistent responding, missing data on 40 or more items, or reports of unrealistically high use of alcohol and other ~rugs (e.g., daily use of multiple d~ugs). Characteristics of the final sample of 583 used in this report are given in Figure 1. Data Quality There is reason to believe that the data gathered in this study are of high quality. Research on self-repot=ed alcohol and other drug use suggests that sample sur~eys of the ty~e reported in this study produce group profiles highly consistent with other methods of collecting chemical use data (e.g., urine testing, police reports, and treatment center records). The validity of other kinds of self-repor~ data (e.g., sexual activity, physical abuse, sexual abuse) is less clearly understood. Data Description In this report, percentages are reported by students' grade, students' gender, and by all students combined. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole n,,~er. In order to protect confidentiality, if the sample size per grade is fewer than 30, student percentages may be reported for combinations of grades (for example, 6th-Tth-Sth, 9th-10th, and 11th-12th). When the sample sizes at the individual grade levels are 50 students or fewer, caution should be used in making comparisons among grades. When a school or agency conducts a second study using Profiles of S=uden= Life, data comparisons across time are subject to these considerations: · Specific scientific tests are the only definitive way to determine the statistical significance of percentage differences. · Without tests, a generally conservative rule is to consider a 10 percent difference as meaningful. If the u,~er of students is 100 or more, a difference of 5 percent may be meaningful. · It is appropriate to make comparisons in percentages for the same ~rade at two different points in time (e.g., 10th graders in spring 1991 to 10th graders in spring 1993). However, comparing the same class over time (e.g., 10th graders in spring 1991 to 12th graders in spring 1993) is problematic. Changes in a class~ the influx of new students, students ~ropping out or moving away, different students completing the sur~ey affec= the comparability of the data. Data Organization The core of this report consists of three parts: Social and Personal Resources, Behavior Patterns, and Opportunities for Helping Your Youth. Major findings for each of the 27 figures appear in the "Key Findings" portion of each figure, and a conclusion follows the figures in Part III. Part IV places the findings in the context of the national study, The Troubled Journey: A Por=rai~ of 6=h-I2th Grade Youth. The repor= was 9repared by Dr. Peter L. Benson, Carolyn H. Eklin, Richard G. Trie~-weiler, Dr. Dale A. Blyth, and Jean Wachs of Search Institute, Minneapolis, a non-~rofit research and evaluation agency specializing in studies of junior and senior high school s=udents. Data Ownershi~ The content of this repor= is the Droperty of the school system identified on the cover. Search Institute will treat it as confidential. Dissemina=ion of parts or all of this report is therefore at the discretion of the school system. These data refer to matters of great importance to educators and other youth-se=ving individuals and agencies, and can be used to increase the understanding of adolescents' strengths and ~rob!ems. For that reason, Search Institute reset-yes the right to combine the figures in this repcr= with those of other communities to report aggregate data, but without attaching specific n~Bers to named co-~nities. FIGURE 1: SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS TOTAL SAMPL£ 585 .ERCENT(~.) Or SZZE TOTAL SAMPLE 100 GRADE* 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 64 11 62 11 96 15 76 13 101 17 97 17 86 15 GENDER* Male Female 281 48 299 51 EACE/ETHNICITY * America~ Indian Asian or Pacific Islander Black or African American Hispanic ~ite 6 1 10 2 $ 1 $ 1 556 95 · Total My not SUB to $83 ~ to missing data. Search Znstitute. 199& PART SOCZAL AND PERSONAL R£SOURC£$ Important resources for positive youth development include family, school, peers, socially-responsible values, access =o carin~ adults, involvement in extracurricular activities, self-esteem and a positive vier of one's personal future. Studen=s' viers of these resources are presented in this sec=ion. (The role of these and other resources in preventin~ at-risk behaviors is discussed in Par= III of this report.) I IL FIGURE 3: ATTITUDES TOWARD SCHOOL [Z combines 'agree" and 'strongly agree" responses, unless otherwise noted] LZKZNG FOR SCHOOL Z like school GRADE GENDER 6 7 8 9 10 11 Z2 ~ F 32 66. 36._ 38 49 52 60 61 50 POS ZTZVE SCHOOL CLZMATE Hy teachers really care about me 20 28 22 29 36 31 48 30 31 My teachers don't pay much attention to me 39 68 54 47 57 ~7 59 $0 [disagree or strongly d~sa&ree] ~ Set a ~o~ o~ encouragement a~ my schoo~ 22 22 Average off above 3 ACHZEVEHENT MOTZVATZON At school I try as hard as I can to.do my best work, .. lC barb. ers me vhen I don't do something veil I don't care how I do in"s'Ch~°i [disagree or strongly disagree] ~vera~e of above 3 items 81.. 80 69 59 53 58 63 S9 70 65 74 80 'eZ *~z" ez 76 79 8~ 77 72 81 87 81 91 83 81 89 76 82 77 73 71 77 76 71 80 KEY FINDINGS Liking for school ranges from 32Z in grade 6 to 60I in 8rede 12. Students, motivation to achieve (average) is greater for females than males. Search Institute, 1994 FIGURE 4: PARENT INVOLVEMENT TN SCHOOLING GRADE GE~3ER (z) combines 'often' a_~d 'vet7 often' responses] 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 H F Parents help with school work Parents Calk rich child about school Parents ask about homework Parents ac~end meetings or events ac school Average of las= 3 items 51 54 35 15 62. 58 50 62 72 71 70 52 53 57 50 17 14 3 28 21 - 52 15 30 62 51 56 29 30 37 35 33 3l KEY FINDINGS Parent involvement in schooling (average) ranges from 33Z in grade 12 to 57I in grade 8. Hales are more likely than females to report parent involvement in schooling (avera§e). 1016 .Based on survey items 25-28 ~mr~ Institute, 199~ J IGURE USE OF TIME Spend time doing homework 0 hours per week 6 or more hours per week Vetch 3 or more hours of TV, average school da7 Listen to $ or more hours of music, average school da7 Go out $ or more evenings per week ~or fun or recreation ~pend 2 or more hours at home ithout an adult present, average school day York 11 or more hours per week for pa7 GRADE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 22 10 7 4 9 5 8 8 23 14 § 37 30 17 29 28 35 2~ 22 13 16 22 Z5 43 29 28 3Z 47 63 63 58 69 63 71 74 65 82 65 67 64 62 69 11 12 15 25 51 64 74 GENDER M F 13 S 15 25 26 21 2.7 39 67 65 67 67 40 38 KEY FINDINGS Students in grade 10 are the most likely to report doing 6 or more hours of homework during an average week. Frequent TV watching (3 or more hours per day) is highest in grade 8. The percentage of students who go out 3 or more evenings per week 'for fun or recreation" ranges from SgZ in grade 8 to 74Z in grade 12o 82Z of students in grade 7 report spending 2 or more hours, on an average school day. at home without an adult present. Based on sureey items 14. 22, 38, 69-71 1016 Search Institute. 1~4 FIGURE 6: INVOLVEMENT IN [Involved a: leas: i hour/week] YOUTH 6 7 8 9 10 ACTIVITIES GRADE GENDER (I) (Z) 11 12. l'l F In band, choir. 'orchestra. music lessons, or practicing musical instrument In team spor~s at school In clubs or organizations at school In clubs or organizations outside of school In church or synagogue programs or ac:ivities 76 79 53 63 62 56 58 65 60 2.7 21 18 26 16 24 28 19 25 63 31 30 50 31 56 47 49 58 60 29 36 31 39 Involved in none of the above activities 0 5 10 8 15 13 15 10 10 Involved in 1 or more of the above activities 100 95 90 92 85 87 85 90 90 Involved in 2 or mor~ of the above activities 88 76 58 68 56 63 56 62. 68 KEY FINDINGS Involvement in 1 or more structured you:h activities ranges from 85I in grades 10 and 12 to !OOZ in grade 6. Males are more likely than females to be involved in =he following ac=iviny: School sports Females are more likely :ban males to be involved in :he following ac=ivi:ies: Music activities School clubs or organizations Clubs or organizations outside school Church or synagogue activities 1016 Based on survey items 73-77 $earch Institute. 199~ E!GURE 7: ACCESS TO POSITIVE ADULT INFLUENCE ?ercentage who... Have had a good conversation with a parent that lasted 10 minutes or more, once or more during last month Have had a good conversation with an adult (not a parent) that lasted 10 minutes or more, once or more during last month -Know 3 or more adults, other ~an parents, whom they would .eel comfortable going to for help if they had an important question about their life Say their parents ask where they are going or with whom they will be, most or all of the time GRADE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 87 79 86 87 86 87 89 68 69 78 76 79 90 89 41 ~4 ~2' ~2 38 48 58 75 77 75 75 8~ 80 77 GEZ',,IDER i',1 83 89 73 86 38 51 73 82 KEY FINDINGS IL Reports of good conversations with parents are most frequent for students in grade 12. Reports of good conversations with other adults are most frequent for students in grade 11. The percentage of students who have access to 3 or more caring adults (not including parents) is highest for students in grade 12 and lowest in grade 10. On the average, females tend to have greater access to positive adult influence than do males. Based on survey items 96-98, 1~0 1016 F1:GURE 8: PEER '" ';' :. :~ t-' ? ;o',',:" TNFLUENCE' GRADE 7 8 9 10 12 NEGATZVE PEER INFLUENCE Most muse aZcohol once a Get L~to t:ouble at. school 22 10 22 9 10 7 $ 17 8 1/+ 8 POSZTZVE' PEER INFLUENCE · Most DO well L~ schooZ HeLp ot~e: people 58 55- 52 59 39 60 58 /+5 62 5/+ KEY FINDINGS Exposure to negative peeg influence is hishest for stuaents in $:ade 10 (based on the ave=age of the 3 negative items). Exposure to positive peer Lufluence is highest fog students Ln grade 12 (based on :he &ye:age of the 2 positive £tems). Males are more likel7 than females to be exposed to negative peer influence Chased on the avegage of the $ negative items). 1016 ~ased on surve7 items 141-145 Search Institute, 1994 GRADE -' GENDER [Z combines "quite." and (Z) (Z) ., "extremely ~mportant" responses] 6 7 8 9 :LO :LZ :L2 ~ F PEOPLE-SERVZNG VALUES Helping ocher people Helping Co reduce hunger and poverty in the vorld Helping co make the vorld a better place to live 81 72 53 67 6Z 75 73 $6 80 Average of above 3 items SELF-$ERVZNG VALUES Having lots of money Having lots of fun and good tames Being popular or vell-lAked Average of above 3 items KEY FINDINGS 50 40 56 45 54 45 43 59 38' 94 85 90 87 88 89 83 91 85 41 . 44 47 37 50 36 30 50 33 62 57 64 56 64 57 52 67 52 People-servLug values (average) ranges from 522 in grade 8 Co 74Z Lu grade 6. Self-serving values (average) ranges from 52Z in grade 12 Co 64Z in grades 8 and 10. Females are more likely than males to.report people-s~rving values (average). FIGURE :LO: VALUES AS BEHAVIOR DETERMINANTS · It is against my values to have sex while I am a teenager.' ~ Not sure' Strongly disagree or disagree ~ Strongl7 agree or agree 70% 60% 50% 40% 50% 52% 45% 39% 36% 3A% 32% 30% 7% 25% 2A% 2% 20% 56% 10% 0% 6 7 8 g Grade Level 10 11 12 KEY FINDINGS Search Institute's national in-depth research on the Values and Choices serualit7 curriculum reveals that the greatest influence on the intention to engage in intercourse is whether or not the student feels it is against her/his values to do so. Values, therefore, are more powerful than even peer pressure in determining intentions concerning intercourse. The percentage of students who agree or strongly agree with the statement ranges from 24Z in ~rade 12 to 63Z in grade 6. 56Z of students in grade 12 report they disagree or strongly disagree with the statement. 1016 Based on sur~ey item 54 ~&r~ Institute, 199~ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 GE~mER Students v~th high self-esteem ~] 53 53 ~0 ~6 39 52 5Z 52 Students good at making decisions [agree and strongly agree] 76 68 Students good at making fr£ends [agree and strongly agree] 72 73 76 78 66 69 77 7O Students reporting a high degree of .loneliness '£2] ";. · 8 10 6 '.'7 ,12 9 6 1 A st~K~eflt ts scm-ed e8 ~ hi~ ~tf~st~ tf he/~e w~ ~.0 ~ ht~ ~ · ~lt~ s~Le ~t 8 .8 FINDINGS The percentage of students having high self-esteem ranges from 39Z in grade 10 to 53Z in grades 6 and 7. Males are more likely than females to have high self-esteem. The percentage of students experiencing a high degree of lonel/ness ranges from 6Z in grades 8 and 12 to 12Z in grade 10. Search InEtitute, 1~ FIGURE 12: VIEW OF THE FUTURE [Z combines "a&ree" and · stron$17 aGree" responses] GRAOE (Z) 10 ZZ 12 GEND~ Z wor:T & lot &bout m7 future ~8 64 67 $$ 65 78 74 63 68 I am good at plannin$ ahead ~8 66 §9 61 ~7 59 58 Ten 7ears from nov, I rill be ve:T happ7 74 74 75 84 58 64 65 71 68 td'~en I am an adult, I t/Link I rill be successful in vhatever York ~ choose to do 75 77 79 79 75 72 78 74 KEY FINDINGS The percentage of s:udents who vor:T a lot about their future ranges from 6,81: in grade 6 to 7811 in Grade 11. The skill of 'planning ahead ~anGes from 47I in g~ade !0 to 66I in Grade ?. Females and males tend to be similar in ~heir view regarding success in future work. 1016 Based on survey items 126-129 Search Institute. 199~ PART BEHAVZOR PATTERNS In ~his secc£on, student behaviors in areas such as alcohol and oCher dru$ use, depression, and abuse are highlighted. Si~nif£canc .findings on ancisocial and prosoc£al BehaviOr as yell as sexuality are also presented. Parc II concludes with a s~,--~ry of aC-risk ind£cacors. (z) (z) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. ~ F a. Been involved in a project to help make life better fo= o~xe= people, last 12 months Never $ o= more t~unes b. Given mote7 o~ time to a charity or organization helps people, iasc lZ mon~Jxs Never 3 or more times c. Spent time helping people vho are poor, hungry, og sick, last 1Z months Never $ o~ more times d. Hours spent per veek in volunteer york to help ocher people None $ o= more hours 40 47 45 32 38 &2 29 49 29 l& 8 17 20 20 12 28 13 22 24 7 12 23 20 10 Z2 13 21 51 69 64 53 62 58 52 68 50 19 6 !l 12 8 11 17 9 15 69 71 73 62 69 77 58 76 7 10 9 17 13 10 18 7 Students with low involvement in prosociai b~vior £13 56 69 63 48 58 6~'- ~5 65 Students with ~ involvement in prosocial behavior Cal 31 17 Z8 $7 35 30 41 25 62 6 17 12 50 S~ KEY FINDINGS The percentage of students rich high involvement in prosocial behavior ranges from 17Z in grade 7 to 41% in grade 12. Females are more likely than males 'to report high involvement in prosocial behavior. Based on surve~ items 62. 67. 68, 152 Institute. 1016 FIGURE 14: ALCOHOL USE ~,ifet~me Once or more 40 or more times GRAD~ GEllER (Z) (Z) ~ast 12 months Once or more 20 or more t/Jaws 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 H F $2 ~8 67 77 82 82 7~ 73 70 2 $ 13 7 10 10 22 13 7 36 26 60 61 74 74 7~ 62 59 0 0 4 3 10 6 19 8 5 ~ast 30 date Once or more 17 8 40 39 45 49 48 39 36 3 or more t/mes' $ 3 24 13 25 22 24 21 15 5 or more last 2 weeks Once or more 8 ~ 25 17 21 23 20 23 14 3 or more times 5 5 5 4 4 8 6 8 3 KEY FINDINGS A majorit7 of students in each grade (ezcept 7) report use of alcohol once or more in their lifetime. The percen=age of students reporting alcohol use once or more in ~he last 30 days ranges from 8Z in grade 7 to 49Z in grade 11. Drinking to the point of intoxication/binge drinking (5 or more drinks on a single occasion during the 2 weeks prior to the survey) ranges from 6! in grade 7 to 25Z in grade 8o 8Z of llth graders report binge drinking 3 or more times, last 2 weeks. /,7 FIGURE 15: [L,,st 12 months] OTHER ALCOHOL ISSUES GRAD~ GENDER (Z) (Z) 6 7 8 9 ZO' ZZ 12 ~ ~ Attended a part7 vhere "or~ber Once or more $ or more t~mes 30 Z9 ~9 58 6~ 79 80 5Z 62 5 8 11 20 32 36 55 27 2~ Once or more 5 or mote t~mes 2 $ 8 7 14 22 24 15 10 0 2 0 0 0 I 5 1 i R~d~en in a car vhose dr£ver had been dr~ing Once or more 5 or'more t4mes 32 19 46 41 $% 43 43 37 $8' 6 0 ' 8 9 7 10 7 7 7 KEY FINDINGS A high percentage of students in Grades 11 an~ 12 report attending drinking parties, once or more, last 12 months. -- 22Z of juniors and Z~Z of seniors have driven a car after drinkinG, once or more, las: !2 mon%hs. Pates, last lZ months, for students who have ridden in a car whose driver had been drinkinG range ~rom 19Z in grade 7 to &6Z in Grade 8. 1016 Based on surve7 items ~mr~ Institute. 1994 GRADE 6 7 8 9 ~0 Z~ Z2 CZGARETT£ USE Once or more, l££eCime Once or more, las~ 30 days ~ pack or more per day, las~ 2 reeks ~8 35 53 38 66 57 55 16 13 35 25 66 27 38 2 2 7 8 16 13 Z6 57- Z0 ~7 27 ~HOK£L£SS TOBACCO USE 20 or more ~nes, Iasc 12 monks KEY FZNDZNGS 3 0 2 5 16 15 17 17 Daily cisareCte use, ½ pack or more, ranses from 2! in 8fades 6 and 7 =o. 16Z in grade 12. 17Z of 12~h graders report use of cheving tobacco or snuff 20 or acre cites, last 12 months. · ased on survey £tems 83,-85, 86,. 107 Searc~ Institute, 199~ .1016 FIGURE 17: [Used one or mote t~mes] OTHER DRUG USE GRADE (Z) 6 7 8 g 10 1i 12 ~RZJUANA 3 5 Lg 24 ~2 $4 ~l L££e~.i. me 3 3 ~7 2Z 35 3~ 40 Last 12 months 3 0 15 15 27 18 27 Last $0 days 27 19 2Z ~9 13 COCAZNE(crack, coke, andy, rock) Lifet/~e L&st 12 months Last $0 days 3, 0 2 I 6 3 2 2 0 2 0 4 i 2 2 0 I 0 2 0 2 AMPHETAMZNE$ L&st 12 months L&st 30 5 6 '15 L4 Lg LO 8 2 3 4 8 8 7 6 Z3 9 17 6 ~SD ( 'acict' ) Last 12 months 0 0 8 6 10 5 8 HEROZN OR OTHER I~ARCOTZC$ Last 12 months 4 2 ILLICZT DRUG. USE INDEX Last. 12 months 6 10 26 28 ~Z 3~ 41 31 16 1 Refers :o ~erce~tage of students ~t~ have used, a~ce or ~e, o~e of the foLLa~ing drugs: cocaine, oracle, heroin ar other narcotics. PCP, L.~, anoheta~ines. KEY FINDINGS ~2! of students in grade 10 report life:ime use of marijuana, one or more times. Use of marijuana, last 30 days, ranges from O! in grade 7 to 271 in grades 10 and 12. Students in grade 10 are the most Likely to report cocaine use, lifetime. The Illicit Drug Use Indek is highest for grade 10. 1016 ~u:-vey itea~'-'87'~2, 108, [10'-112.' 123-125 kmr~ Institute. 1~ .-- 'FIGURE ALCOHOL AND DRUG USE PATTERNS ~ACKGROUND ~NFORMATZON Students were categorized by their alcohol and drug use patterns into one of four categories: problem dr~nker, problem drug user, problem drinker an__d problem drug user, and neiuher problem dr/m3cer nor problem drug user. The creation of the criteria for these categor£es requires making Judgments about what constitutes problem use. Tnile there is no national consensus on what divides responsible use from problem use, these four categories represent one reasonable way to summarize use patterns. The four categories are defined as follows: 1. Problem drinker: ~eported use of alcohol 6 or more t/mes in 'the last 30 days," and/or reported consumption of 5 or more dr/nks in a row during "the last 2 weeks" once or more, and no use of an illicit drug 6 or more t/mes in r. he last year. 2. Problem drug user: [eported use of an illicit drug (e.g., marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, heroin) 6 or more t/mes in the las: year, and use of alcohol $ tines or less in "~he last 30 days," and no report of consuming 5 or more drinks in a row during 'the last 2 weeks.' 3. Problem dr~ker and problem drug use~: [eported use of alcohol 6 or more times in "the last 30 days," and/or consumption of 5 or more drinks in a row during "the las: Z weeks" once or more, combined with the use of an illicit drug 6 or more times in the last year. 4. ~roblem drinker nor_~roblem dru u~: A student is Placed in chis category if he or she does not fall into categories 1, 2, or 3. Note that each student is placed in one and only one category. the distribution of the four categories for each grade. Figure 18b shovs FIGURE 18B: ALCOHOL AND DRUG USE PATTERNS Neither problem Problem drinker Problem drug user Problem d=~uker and problem drug user 10o% 90% 80~ 70% 9% 69%/, 68% 63% 60"/, 30% 20% 10% 0% 9% 6% 8% ,2% 9 Grade Level 14%13% 13% 10 15% 12 KEY FINDINGS The rates for .problem drinker' range from 6Z in grade 7 to 18Z in grade 8. iSZ of 12th graders fall into the 'problem drinker and p~oblem drug user" category'. 94Z of 7th graders are neither problem drinkers nor problem drug users. 37Z of 12th graders are problem drinkers, problem drug users, or both. Based on surve7 items 80, 81. 88, 91. 108, 110-112. · 1016 I' FIGURE 19: COMPARISONS TO NATIONAL NORMS' NATIONAL YOUR 1990 SENIORS 1994 SENIORS (z) Used alcohol, once or more, ltfet/me once or more, last 12 months once or more, last 30 days Drank $ or more drinks in a roy, once or more, last Z weeks 9O 79 81 74' 32 2O Smoked % pack of cisarettes or more per day, last 30 days 11 Used marijuana, once or more, l£fetfune once or more, last 12 months once or more, last 30 days 41 41 27 4O 14 27 Used cocaine, once or more, lifetime once or more, last 12 months .-' once or more, last 30 days 9 2 ~ 2 2 2' Used amphetamines, once or more, lifetime once or more, last 12 months once or more, last 30 days 18 13 9 8 Used illicit drug, once or more, lifetime " 48 1 High school =eniors are corn;tared usir~ n~ti=naL esti--tes fro. the annual l~nitertng the Future Project c~ckacted by the Univer$it7 of Hichigan under contract to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. 42 KEY FINDINGS 48I of your seniors report alcohol use once or more last 30 days compared to 57I of national seniors. ' , Your seniors are less likely than nanional seniors to report 5 or more drinks in a row, last two weeks (intoxication measure). 27Z of your seniors report marijuana use once or more, last 30 days, compared to of national seniors. On the measure of illicit drug use, the rate for your seniors is 42Z compared to 48Z nationally. Based on survey items 78-81 86-92, 108, 113-115 123-125 1016 Search Institute. 1994 FIGURE 20: STRESS, 6 DEPRESSION, AND SUICIDE GRADE GEND~ (Z) (Z) ? 8 9 10 3.1 1Z ]~ F Str&4~, stress, or pressure, past month Not at all Yes, almost mo=e 'c.~.a~ ~ could take 35 24 22 14 Z $ 8 ZO 9 9 12 17 8 26 25 12 14 19 Anxious. worried or upset, past mont~ None or*little o~ the time ~ost or all o~ the time 47 58 41 46 28 27 41 52 28 Sad or depressed, past month Not at all ~ost Or all oE the time 11 11 ll 14 8 15 11 17 7 10 8 22 8 24 14 15 12 18 Tried to commit suicide No Yes, 2 or mo~e times 88 92 78 gl 86 87 90 91 83 5 2 9 3 9 3 $ $ 7 KEY .FINDINGS 35Z'of 6th graders report no strain, stress, or pressure, past month. 4~Z of students in grade 10 report being anxious, worried or upset, past month, most or all off the time. Among loth graders, 24Z report being sad or depressed, most or all o[ the time, past month. ?Z of females and SZ of males report having attempted suicide 2 or more times. 1016 Based on survey items 99,':-101.' 146, 147 ~emrch Institute, 1~4 J J~ FIGURE 2!: SEXUALITY 'Have you ever had sexual /ntercourse ('gone all the way,' 'made love')?, No Once Twice 3 times 4 or more ti~es O~ce or more (,Z) 6 7 8 9 10 13. (Z) Considering only those students reporting sezual intercourse once or more... Always use contracept£on Used contracept£on first time-had sex FINDINGS 12 ~ F 93 88 73 76 57 55 55 65 72 3 7 15 8 14 2 3 11 5 2 2 ~ 0 6 3 2 3 3 0 '0 0 4 0 2 0 0 1 2 3 8 12 22 38 40 20 19 7 12 27 24 43 45 45 35 28 63 43 46 ~2 67 59 67 33 50 47 69 64 77 56 65 72 59. 64 40Z of 12th graders report having had intercourse 4 or more t/mes. Serual intercourse, once or more, ranges from 7Z in grade 6 to &SZ in grades 11 and 12. A majority of sexually-active students in ALL grades report they alvays use contraception. Search FIGURE 22: ANTISOCIAL [Once or more, last 12 months] BEHAVIOR GRADE GENDER (Z) (Z) 6 7 8 9 LO 1l 12 '~ F Gotten ~n:o trouble at school Stolen something from a store 93 68 78 74 6L ~5 60 76 59 Z7 19 38 20 30 22 14 31 18 Gotten into trouble with the police Cheated on a test at school Committed an act of vandalism Z1 24 36 28 34 24 22 35 20 49 29 67 73 71 63 63 60 63 25 Z1 $4 20 21 20 15 33 12 Hurt someone badly enough to require bandages or a doctor Used a kni~Ce, Gun, or some .,..,.:~.... other ',.~tnG to Get something from a person 21 15. 21 8 9 6 8 19 5 "~'5 ' 6 7 $ 2 3 1 6 2 KEY FINDINGS On most of these forms of antisocial behavior, males have higher rates than females. Students in grade 6 are the most likely co report having gotten into trouble aC school once or more, last 12 monr. hs. CheatinG on a test at school, once or more, iast 12 months, ranges from 29Z in grade 7 co 75Z in grade 9. 5~l of students in grade 8 committed an act of vandalism once or more, iast 12 months. 1016 ~ased on survey'items 60, 61'," 65'["65, 66,-120, 121 ..... SearC~ Institute. FIGURE 23: DAYS OF SCHOOL SKIPPED 'Hov many days of school have you massed because you skipped or 'cur'?' [Las= ~ reeks] ~--~'None 1-2 days ~ 3-5 days 6 or more days 9O% 80% 87% 70% 69% 60% 50% 4O% 30% 66% 2O% 6% 8% 8% 56% 35% 0% 7 8 9 Grade Level 10 11 KEY FINDINGS Skipping school 1 or more days, last 4 weeks, ranges from 13Z in grade 7 to 71Z in grade 12 (based on' sum of the 3 categories before round/ng). Based on survey .item 36 1016 Institute. 199~ F!GURE 24: PHYSICAL AND SEXUAL ABUSE. GRADE 6 7 8 g P~TS£C&L Lbuse Once Once o~ more 14 8 11 $ 7 7 8 9 7 $ $ 6 $ 10 a~ 3 4 7 0 2 4 i 2 2 L 2 2 0 0 2 4 $ 6 i 0 5 Z9 15 23 13 22 20 L4 16 20 Once 2-$ ~.:Lme s 4-10 t/nee. Ko:e tha~ 10 Once o~: more $ 8 18 g ~7 18 14 4 22 I "... ~e m e~Lt ~ ~ m ~e 8 ~, ~k'~ bL~ ~Lts. 2 *... ~ ~fl ~ family ~ ~ else d4d s~L y~ tO ~ ~m s~LLy' KEY FZND]:NGS A~an8 8C~ 8ra&ers, 25Z repor:.che7 ~ve been phTsicall7 abused once O~ ~o~e. ~'. ZZZ oE ~emaZes ~d 4Z o~ m~Ze~..~epo~ ~e~sl abuse ~erch Institute, 199~ · AT-RISK INDICATORS' EXPLANATZON Below is a list of 20 indicators, each of which has the potential to limit productivity and/or emotional well-being during adulthood. In this sense, each of the 20 places a young person at risk. Figure 25b summarizes these behaviors or llfe experiences by giving the percentages of students that fall into 3 categories--those with 1 or more indicators, 3 or more indicators, and $ or more indicators. 1. F~EQUENCY O~ ALCOHOL USE: 6 or more times in last 30 days 2. BINGE DRINKING: drunk once or more in last 2 weeks 3. DICIVING AFTER DRINKING: twice or more in last 12 months 4. P-!DING AJFTE~ D~INKING: ridden in a car with someone who had been drinking, twice or more in last ll months 5. CIGARETTES: 1 or more cigarettes per day CHEVING TOBACCO: 20 or more times in last year 7. PROBLEH DRUG USE~: used marijuana, PCP, LSD, cocaine/crack, amphetamines or narcotics 6 or more times in last year ' 8. SEXUALLY ACTIVE: have had serual intercourse 9. CONTRACEPTIVE USE: semually active but do not use contraceptives regularly 10. DEPRESSION: sad or depressed 'most of the time' or 'ali of the time' !1. ATTEMPTED SUICIDE: have attempted suicide once or more ll. BUL!HIA: vomited on purpose once a week or more after eauing 13. GANG FIGHTS: 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. twice or more in last 12 months ~EAPON USE: used knife, gun. or club :o get some:h/rig from someone, twice or more in last 12 months POLICE: in trouble with police, twice or more in last 12 months THEFT: stolen something, :vice or more in last 12 months SCHOOL A~SENCE: skipped school 2 or more days in last month SCHOOL DROPOUT: van: to 'quit school as soon as I can* P~YSICALLY ABUSED: :hose reporting abuse once or more SEXUALLY ABUSED: :hose reporting abuse once or more There are minor differences between the at-risk indicators used here and ~emrc~ Institute. 199~ FIGURE 25 : AT-RISK 'rND CATORS (Z) 6 7 8 9 :LO (Z) ~ose vit~ 1 off more in6tcacors $8 47 75 54 75 74 79 68 67 ~ose vith 3 o~ mo~e 22 21 46 29 48 46 47 43 KEY FINDINGS Although percentages for each indicator are not sho~n, the 3 most common at~r£sk. indicators among your students are: Se=ual activity (31Z) '- School absence (26Z) ~idin$ in a car with someone who has been drinking (Z2Z) Percentages of students vho ezperience i or mor~ of the 20 at-risk indicators r~nge from 47Z in grade 7 to 79Z in grade 12. ~8Z of students in grade 10 erperience 3 or more of the at-risk indicators. 1016 ~em-ch InsCltute, 199( ; !. I IL PART 'OPPORTUNZTZE$ FOR HELPZNG YOUR YOUTH Mos= commun£c£es ~n:the Un£ted'Scates face the problem of a groving at-r£sk populat£on. Par= III looks at some chinss chat might be done about it. It presents information on the fac=ors chat affect the veil-being of your youth and helps you pinpoint chose areas that can be addressed by school and com~un£cy programs, and by increased parent .and commun£cy awareness and ac=£on. FIGURE 26: · vez7 interested'] INTERESTS Cz) 6 7 8 g 10 ll GE3~ER Gettim$ better at makin$ and keeping f:iends Learmin$ boy to :ead bette: Doing ~ings to help · other people Learnin$ values ~hat will help guide me th:pughout my life Learning how ~o deal with pressure to use alcohol orb. er drugs Learning mote about sexu&lity ":~.L~" .: Getting better at ma.king ny own decisions .'-..; ". Having a be=ts: relationship ....... ~ rich my parents 61 .63 47 54. 60 58 47 51 59 39 28 22 24 30 36 26 28 30 56 49 40 49 39 51 47 28 58 50 37 56 37 $~.. lO 23..: 14..:.,13 13 21 18 14 15 15 17 14 .59 52':.~'3Z ' 41 ~.45 42 31 $8 30 22 34 26 32 28 47 52' · 63 49. 'Deciding ~h~ Z should do ..; :- '- with my life ~g 51 41 KEY FIND'rNGS 39 · 45 z7 ' '32 49 54 Over 50Z of students in ALL grades express high interest in the following: ~aking and keeping friends Deciding abou= life The top interest for both males and females is making and keeping friends. Rased on surve2 items 130-138 -'::-"-=". .... '-' "~"~'='"~ ..... ''"';' ' ..... ' 1016 ~earc~ Institute. 199~ 27: FACTORS 1 RELATED TO AT-RZSK BEHAVIORS The £actors below represent £/ndinss from your students' data that show the relat£onship (correlation) between at-r£sk behav£ors and student/home/school characteristics. The more 7our students report each of ~he folIowin~t tho less the7 report beinR involved in ator£sk behav£or~. ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION: POSITIVE FAMILY LIFE: support The desree to eh/ch one cares to do well in school The desree to which one's family provides love and SCHOOL PEP~FORHANCE: How well one does in school, compared to o,her students PARENTAL STANDARDS: The degree to which parent~ would be upset 'if they found out I'd been drinking' SELF-ESTEEH: The degree to which one feels good about oneself EDUCATIONAL ASPIP~TION: The level of interest in pursuing formal education POSITIVE SCHOOL CLIHATE: The degree to which school is viewed as a caring environment POSITIVE PEER INFLUENCE: The de~ree to which one's friends are socially and academically responsible HOHEVO1R/~: Amount of homework done each week PARENT INVOLVEHENT IN SCHOOLING: school life The ez=ent ~o which parents are active in 2 -0.47 -0.39 -0.37 -0.36 -0.34 -0.31 -0.30 -0.28 -0.24 -0.21 Only thc~e factocs are tisted that have · correLatim between -1.{X} e~ -.~ with ~e at-risk i~ {~s~ of the ~ at-risk t~cat~s). Refit to t~ C~cetacim wtth ~e ·t-risk t~x. Institute, 199& CONCLUSION be~v~or~ o~ 7ou~ ~ your ~choo~ ~d co~~. ~e rllu~c~ ~hou~d ha~p As you begin to study and share this report wi~x o~hers in your school and commun£~y, £t might be particularly helpful to develop your o~n s,,mmary of the following issues= · ~nat evidence is ~here for positive youth development? special stren$~hs of your students? , are ~he e.~na~ are ~he aaJor behaviors, values, or at~£tudes, ~hat ~b~eaten .~he health and well-being e~Do the grade and gender differences reveal any spec?al problem areas or ~ransitions ~xat should be addressed? · ~.= what areas do youth express a high interest, and what does this mean ~or school and community programs? (See Figure 26) · ~nat factors are providing youth vi~h some protection against problems, and can ~hese factors be strengthened? (See Figure 27) T~is stud7 gives a snapshot of s~udents at one po~u.t in time. Although it cannot provide an explanation of the cause of problems or the utility of various efforts, it does provide a valuable picture of where your students are and what is likely to happen as they progress ~hroush ~he grades. It is critical that adults realize that caring people in any context can make a stgni£icant d£[ference in promoting positive development rather than negative behavior. Fa~il£es can provide the care, suppo~, standards,' and monitoring at all ages that lay a solid foundation for youth. Schools can provide a climate vhece~n students experience c&c~.ns adults and pee:s both of whom challenge and support their learning and growth. Communities, through organized Stoups or faith institutions, can provide oppor=~i~ies fo= 7ou=h =o experience ~e ~c=eased sense of personal satisfaction ~ha~ comes from do~ o= car~s about o~ers ~d oneself, o= e~ior~S values and issues Steerer ~ ~emselves. In order =o illustrate some of ~hesa issues, ~he hex: sec:ion s-m~arizes ~our ~ou=h data i~ ~erms of a broader framework developed for a national s=ud~ en=£tled~ The Troubled JourneT= & Portrait of 6~h - 12th Grade Youth. 37 PART IV A COHPARATTVE PERSP£CTZVE ON A$SET$~ DEFZCZTS, AND AT-RZSK BEHAVZOR From The Troubled Journey, comes a near way of looking ~c positive youth development. Parc IV compares selected data from your youth co youth in The Troubled Journey national sample. ASSETS, DEFICITS, AND AT-RISK BEHAVIOR." A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE In 1990, Search Institute prepared a report for the Lutheran Brotherhood RespecTeen program called The Troubled Journey: A Portrait of 6th-12th Grade Youth. It is a composite look at 46,799 public school students in grades 6-12 in the first 111 communities (in 25 states) that used the survey 'Profiles of Student Life: Attitudes and Behaviors.' In the report, Dr. Benson suggests a vision of what people in our communities and in our nation want for their children. The vision has five elements. 1. External assets--surrounding all children with networks of care, support, and control 2. Internal assets-nurturing within children the kinds of positive commitments, values, and social competencies needed for positive dev.elopment 3. Deficits---insulating young people from abuse, neglect, indifference, poverty, and hunger - · Pro-social behavior--promoting a prosocial disposition through encouraging and rewarding personal involvement in helping others At-risk behavior--preventing health-compromising, future-jeopardizing behavior choices How well this vision was being met is at the heart of the report. It identifies assets and deficits in students' lives that influence their ability to make positive choices, de;cribes grade and gender differences in these areas, examines how these assets' and deficits are linked to 20 types of behaviors that compromise students' health and/or jeopardize their future, and offers recommendations for families, schools, faith institutions, and communities to help promote positive youth development. The nine figures that follow compare your youth to youth from other communities in the nation on the five core areas of the vision. Each area is briefly, described, and parallel pages in The Troubled Journey are referenced. The national comparison sample is based on 111 communities of less than 100,000 in population and is 90 percent Caucasian (see Figure 1 in The Troubled Journey for additional demographic information). Included in the figures are comparisons of the percentages of youth---in your community and nationally~that meet the vision. Figure A Percentages of Youth with External Assets: Comparisons by Grade' EXTERNAL ASSET 6 7 (%) (%) GRADE 8 9 10 (%) (%) (%) 11 (%) 12 (%) Family support Your Youth 69 66 Youth Nationally 73 67 Psrent(s) as social resources Your Youth 52 55 You~ Nationally 57 53 Parent communicalion Your Youth 34 42 Youth Nationally 44 44 Other adult resources Your Youth 39 44 Youth Nationally 49 49 Other adult communication Your Youth 31 23 · Youth Nationally 26 31 P~rent involvement in schooling Your Youth 31 37 " Youth Nationally 46 39 Positive school climate Your Youth 6 1 6 Youth Nationally 50 36 50 63 41 53 53 61 54 52 48 51 39 47 34 48 42 46 43 41 41 45 41 45 45 54 58 44 47 50 51 56 42 42 38 48 57 47 47 48 48 53 34 39 39 48 65 35 39 45 51 6O 34 18 19 13 5 32 27 21 17 14 21 18 21 24. 27 32 27 25 26 ~1 Parental standards Your Youth 80 84 72 7 2 73 Youth Nationally 89 87 83 78 73 Parental discipline Your Youth $ 2 63 50 47 49 Youth Nationally 66 64 63 61 59 Parental monitoring Your Youth 69 74 73 7 5 8 2 Youth Nationally 71 73 76 79 81 'llme at home Your Youth 59 66 63 46 63 Youth Nationally 64 72 71 73 71 Positive peer influence Your Youth 27 1 6 22 30 25 Youth Nationally 38 35 31 28 28 62 66 47 42 57 50 80 77 80 74 58 48 70 66 35 36 -29 31 Involved in music Involved in school extracurricular activities Involved in community · organizations or activities Involved in church or synagogue Your Youth 44 27 20 41 33 24 29 Youth Nationally 15 33 31 28 25 25 23 Your Youth 80 79 61 66 66. 65 63 Youth Nationally 48 65 63 61 63 63 61 Your Youth 42 31 30 50 31 29 36 Youth Nationally 43 43 41 38 39 38 36 Your Youth 53 47 49 58 40 51 51 Youth Nationally 63 64 62 57 54 52 48 External assets are the interlocking systems of Support, control, and structure that function to provide young people with webs of safety and love important for nutudng healthy development- See pp. 7-13 in The Troubled Journey. Search Institute, 1992 1016 Figure B Percentages of Youth with Internal Assets: Comparisons by Grade* ' INTERNAL ASSET GRADE 6 7 8 9 10 11 (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 12 (%) Achievement motivation Educational aspiration School performance Homework Your Youth 72 6 9 6 $ 67 S 9 6 $ 60 Youth Nationally 82 77 75 72 69 67 68 Your Youth 89 90 8 S 91 93 92 99 Youth Nationally 82 84 84 86 87 87 89 Your Youth 41 44 2 9 4 9 44 51 5 S Youth Nationally 48 46 47 45 43 45 49 Your Youth 8 23 1 4 5 37 30 1 7 Youth Nationally 19 26 25 27 26 28 25 Values helping people Is concemed about world hunger Care'about people's feelings Values sexuaJ restraint Your Youth 67 42 41 4 $ 40 41 47 Youth Nationally 72 59 54 47 44 38 39 Your Youth 48 4 S 4 8 S 0 S 0 59 56 Youth Nationally 54 47 46 41 42 39 40 Your Youth 84 77 76 84' 87 91 88 Youth Nationally 86 85 86 87 88 90 91 Your Youth 6 3 5 0 3 3 3 9 2 5 3 6 2 4 Youth Nationally 53 54 46 34 27 24 21 8 Assertiveness skills Your Youth 77 85 86 86 78 86 Youth Nationally 82 80 81 80 82 84 Decision-making skills Your Youth 63 76 6 7 72 6 9 74 Youth Nationally 65 65 67 67 69 69 Friendship-making skills Your Youth 72 73 ~; 5 78 65 69 Youth Nationally 73 72 73 72 74 76 Planning skills Your Youth 45 66 5 9 61 47 59 Youth Nationally 59 57 58 56 56 55 Self-esteem Your Youth 53 53 4 0 46 39 52 Youth Nationally 52 48 45 43 43 42 Positive view of personal future Your Youth 66 6 5 73 75 59 60 Youth Nationally 68 68 69 66 67 68 87 86 73 72 77 80 53 59 51 47 67 72 Internal assets are the commitments, values, and competencies that young people internalize to help them thrive responsibly. See pp. 7-13 in The Troubled Journey. Search Institute. 1992 1016 Figure C Comparisons of Average Number of Total Assets, and Percentages of Youth Who Meet the Vision* '28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 16.1 -- [] Your Youth I~ Youth Nationally Vision -- 20 or more of the 30 assets 17.4 17.2 16.7 16.$11 16.1 16.1 15.9 16 15.7 6 7 8 9 GRADE 10 11 15.9 15.9 12 Percentages of 6 7 8 youth who meet (%) (%) (%) the vision Your Youth Youth Nationally GRADE 9 (%) 10 (%) 11 (%) 12 (%) 19 26 19 25 26 26 22 35 36 32 27 26 24 25 ' Sea pp. 14 and 17 in The Troubled Journey. Search institute. 1992 1016 I iL .... Figure D Percentages of Youth with Deficits: Comparisons by Grade' DEFICIT 6 7 8 9 10 11 (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 12 (%) Alone at home Hedonistic values TV overexposure Ddnking parties Stress Physical abuse Sexual abuse Parental addiction Social isolation Negative peer pressure Your Youth Youth Nationally Your Youth Youth Nationally Your Youth Youth Nationally Your Youth Youth Nationally Your Youth Youth Na#onally Your Youth Youth Nationally Your Youth Youth Nationally Your Youth Youth Nationally Your Youth Youth Nationally Your Youth Youth Nationally 64 81 65 66 64 62 69 47 56 57 60 61 58 59 58 47 53. 46 44 39 29 44 46 51 50 50 48 45 28 27 35 24 22 13 16 54 48 48 43 39 32 28 8 8 21 28 44 46 67 5 6.~ 13 26 40 54 61 8 19 24 '18 4~ 36 22 11 13 17 21 23 26 27 19 15 23 13 .. 22 20 13 14 17 17 19 19 14 17 $ 8 18 g 17 18 14 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 $ 3 9 g 10 16 $ 5 6 6 7 8 8 8 8 10 $ 7 12 9 6 7 6 6 6 7 7 5 0 2 7 5 g 3 2 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 Deficits are the countervailing influences in young people's lives that interfere with their healthy development. Deficits limit access to external assets, block development of internal assets, or ease the way into risky behavioral choices. See pp. 19-22 in The' Troubled Journey. Search Institute, 1992 1016 Figure E 10 9 Comparisons of Average Number of Deficits, and Percentages of Youth Who Meet the Vision* [] Your Youth [] Youth Nationally Vision = 2 or fewer deficits 7 $ 4 3 2 2 1.9 1 0 6 2.2 7 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.4 9 2.8 2.6 10 2.6 2.7 11 2.4 2.7 12 Percentages of youth who meet the viSion 6 7 8 (%) (%) (%) GRADE 9 (%) 10 (%) 11 (%) 12 (%) Your Youth 6 7 6 8 5 1 6 8 4 2 4 5 5 5 Youth Nationally 7 3 6 9 61 5 7 5 1 4 8 4 9 Search Institute. 1992 1016 Figure F Percentages of Youth Reporting Helping (Prosocial) Behavior:. Comparisons by Grade' 6 (%) GRADE 7 8 9 10 (%) (%). (%) (%) 11 (%) 12 (%) Have spent time helping people who are poor, sick, or unable to care for themselves (last 12 months) Never 1-4 times S or more timee Your Youth 51 .6 9 6 4 53 6 2 5 8 52 Youth Nationally 40 48 52 55 56 56 56 Your Youth 41 31 32 43 35 Youth Nationally 42 39 38 36 34 Your Youth 8 0 4 4 3 Youth Nationally 18 13 1 0 9 1 0 36 34 6 10 31 34 16 10 Have spent time doing volunteer work to help other people (such as helping out at a hospital, ::!-.-~. ~,:~ . daycare center or nursery, food .- shelf, youth program, communi~... service agency, etc.) :- (hOurs 15er week, on average) 0 hours 1-2 hours Your Youth 69 71 73 62 69 77 58 Youth Nationally 61 ' 59 63 67 67 · 67 68 3 hours or more Your Youth 24 1 9 18 21 18 12 25 Youth Nationally 25 28 24 22 22 22 22 Your Youth 7 1 0 9 1 7 1 3 1 0 1 8 Youth Nationally 16 13 1 3 I 1 I I I 1 10 Helping, or prosocial, behavior is a~on that promotes the welfare of others. It includes face-to-face helping of persons in distress, acts of inteq3ersonal kindness, donating time or energy to voluntary service organizat{ons, and efforts to alter political, economic, and social sources of injustice or inequity. See pp. 33-34, and 36 in The Troubled Journey. Search Institute, 1992 1016 Figure G AT-RISK DOMAIN Percentages of Youth with At-risk Indicators: Comparisons by Grade* AT-RISK 6 INDICATORS (%) GRADE 7 8 9 10 11 12 (%). (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) ALCOHOL Frequent alcohol use (6+, last 30 days) Binge drinking (1+, last 2 wccks) Your Youth 2 0 5 8 9 7 14 Youth Nationally 2 3 5 9 12 17 22 Your Youth 8 6 25: 17 21 23 20 Youth Nationally 9 10 1 6 21 27 34 39 Your Youth $ 3 2 0. 1 8 31 21 28 Youth Nationally 4 5 9 13 15 16 1 8 Your Youth 3 0 2 ' $ 1 4 1 4 1 7 Youth Nationally I 2 3 4 5 7 9 2 0 14 14 27 23 2~ Daily cigarette use ILLICIT DRUGS Frequent chewing tobacco use (20+, lifetime) Frequent use of illicit drugs (6+, last year) Sexually active (2+) DEPRESSION/ Non-use of c~ntraceptives Your Youth Youth Nationally I 2 5 8 11 12 1 4 Your Youth 3 5 1 3 1 6 2 8 4 2 4 2 Youth Nationally 7 9 1 5 24 36 48 60 Your Youth 2 5 29 5 0 5 6 3 3 4 0 2 3 Youth Nationally 61 59 55 54 52 49 47 Your Youth 9 8 2 2 8 2 4 1 4 1 5 Youth Nationally 12 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 7 1 7 1 5 Your Youth 1 3 8 2 2. 9 1 4 1 3 ~ ' Youth Nationally 8 9 1 2 1 4 1 5 1 5 14 10 22 9 16 7 8 Depression All, II-SOCIAL Attempted suicide · Vandalism (2+, lut year) BEHAVIOR ' "Group fighting (2+, last year) ...... Police trouble (2+, last year) Theft (2+, last year) Weapon use (2+, last year) Your Youth Youth Nationally 5 7 9 11 11 11 10 Your Youth 23 1 3 1 7 5 4 6 6 Youth Nationally ' 14 13 1 6 1 4 12 11 10 Your Youth ' ?711 i 3 1 9 1 3 I $ $ 1 4 Youth Nationally 3 4 6 7 8 11 10 Your Youth 1 7 1 1 1 9 9 2 2 1 8 8 Youth Nationally 3 7 1 0 I 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 Your Youth 2 5 3 I 0 3 0 Youth Nationally 2 I 2 2 2 2 1 Your Youth 17 3 2 0 2 2 29 3 2 4 .q School absemeeism (2+ days, last month) Desire to drop out Youth Nationally 7 6 7 9 1 0 1 3 14 Your Youth 0 3 5 0 0 I 0 Youth Nationally 2 1 2 I 1 I 1 Your Youth 0 3 I 3 5 I I 1 3 Driving and drinking Youth Nationally I I 3 5 9 24 33 Your Youth 1 7 1 3 2 6 21 2 2 26 26 Youth Nationally 18 21 27 31 36 43 46 Your Youth 31 1 6 2 9 1 7 1 7 20 2 4 Youth Nationally 40 45 47 50 49 56 57 O'~ER Bulimia (1+ per week) Your Youth 0 2 1 1 0 I 0 Youth Nationally I 1 I 2 2 2 2 (2+, last year) Riding and ddnking (2+, last year) Seat belt non-use · 'At-risk' here covers 20 behaviors/choices made by young people that potentially limit their psychological, physical, or economic well-being. See pp. 39-43 in The Troubled Journey. ~ Refers to % of sexually active youth who do not always use contraceptives Search Institute, 1992 1016 J J~ Figure H Comparisons of Average Number of At-~isk Indicators, and Pemer~tages of Youth Who' Meet the Vision* '" 2o Your Youth ~ Youth Nationally Vision = 2 or fewer of the 20 at-risk indicators 18 16 14 12 '10 2 =0 2.7 2.2 2.1 1.5 1.3 3.8 4.2 3.1'-..~ 3.1-;~. 3.1 :. 10 11 12 Percentages of youth who meet the vision Your Youth Youth Nationally 6 7 8 (%) (%) (%) GRADE 9 10 11 (%) (%) (%) 12 (%) 72 81 S9 72 54 57 57 80 78 69 61 53 43 38 · See pp. 46, 52, and 53 in The Troubled Journey. Search Inafltute, 1992 1016 ;lure I VISION Comparisons of Percentages of Youth Meeting Ail Four Vision Criteria* Have 20 or more of 30 assets DEFICITS Have 2 or fewer of 10 deficits .-. PROSOCIAL. BEHAVIOR I hour or more per week AT-RISK BEHAVIOR Have 2 or fewer of 20 indicators Your Youth Youth Nationally 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% O% 14% 13% 15% 12% 7 12% 11% 9% 9 8% 7% 10 11 6% 12 Search Institute, 1992 1016 Two final points from The Troubled Journey are helpful in planning effective prevention and intervention efforts. The first concerns co-occurrence among at-risk behaviors. The data reveal that, due to the patterns of overlapping problems, risk is multiple for many students. Five clusters of co-occurrence are particularly common: (1) alcohol, sexuality, and vehicle safety; (2) alcohol, sexuality, and tobacco; (3) illicit drug use, sexuality, and tobacco; (4) alcohol, antisocial behavior, and sexuality; and (5) depression/suicide, sexuality, and vehicle safety. In the first cluster, for example, if a student is at risk in the area of alcohol use, then the chances of being at risk also in the area of sexuality are 70 percent, and the chances of being at risk in the area of vehicle safety are 86 percent. The more overlapping the problems, the more difficult it is to help youth. Effective strategies for change will, therefore, address multiple behavioral areas, as well as the societal dynamics that give rise to these risky choices. The second point is that some youth, in spite of major deficits in their lives, manage to thrive. The Troubled Journey identifies several distinguishing characteristics of these youth. They are much more likely to: · Be connected to adult-led, structured youth activities (faith institutions, school organizations, community organizations) · Have families that exercise control (parental standards and discipline) · Hold strong educational commitments · Hold positive values (helping people, concern for poor, value on sexual restraint) · Be surrounded by adult care, concern, and support in the family, school, and community contexts The patterns seen in co-occun'ence and in the characteristics of thrivers reinforce the message that, in order to nourish healthy children and adolescents, a two-pronged prevention approachmto prevent deficits and to promote assets---is necessary. No one organization or institution can do that alone. Families, schools, youth-serving organizations, government, business, law enforcement, service agencies, and faith communities each have a role to play. In partnership, their efforts will be even more effective. Yet, in this kind of comprehensive approach, it is important to remember that a contribution in one area----even by one person-- is a significant first step. LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 April 11, 1996 TO: Ed Shukle ~, ~ FROM: Len Harrellc~ SUBJECT: Parking request for Bellaire Lane Attached you will find the report from Sgt. Truax and Officer Ewald regarding the request to change the parking adjacent to the Pond Arena. No opposition has been found in the neighborhood and it appears to be a workable solution for providing more parking in the area. I support the request from Mr. Meyer with the parameters outlined in Sgt. Truax's memo. I am providing the scale drawing done by Officer Ewald for your review; it is the original. I iL To: From: Date: Subject: Chief L. Harrell Sgt. T.M. Truax Wednesday, April 10, 1996 Proposed Temporary Change of Parking: Bellaire Lane Len, Please find attached Officer Ewald's scale drawing of the area under question. I checked with area residents, finding no one opposed to the proposed change, supported by Mr. Meyer's letter and petition. Ewald and I measured the area, finding that if the proposed increase in the parking on the West side of Bellaire Lane was allowed as stipulated on the scale drawing, the roadway should remain adequately serviceable. I checked with Craig Henderson of the Mound Fire Department, finding that MFD had no opposition to the matter. Henderson knew the area and was familiar with the turn involved. Henderson said he saw no reason why MFD's rigs would have any problem making the turn at Alder and Bellaire, if the parking on the west side of Bellaire Lane was limited to, nothing south of the present no parking sign (labeled 'C' on the drawing). Henderson also indicated that the area on the east side of Bellaire Lane, from the corner of Alder Rd. northward, should remain no parking. He felt this a particular concern as the increased parking on the west side necessitates that no vehicles be on the east side of the roadway from the corner northward, as this widens the turning radius of the fire trucks. The width of the roadway at the apex of the turn at Bellaire Lane and Alder Rd. is only 20 foot wide according to Ewald's calculations. This necessitates that the 'No Parking - Anytime' sign, on the east side of Bellaire Lane, be changed to a 'No Parking - This Side' and be brought south from it's present location (not depicted 'on Ewald's Drawing). Henderson indicated that he felt Mound Street Department could also add to the serviceability of the road by remembering to plow the street wide to decrease snow piles narrowing the roadway in the winter months. I recommend that the proposed change be allowed for a trial period of one year. During this trial period our Department will have to enforce no parking vigorously on anything south of the present no parking sign (labeled 'C' on the scale drawing). I recommend the sign change be made to regulate 'No Parking beyond this point' where the present ('C') sign is placed. By conservative measurements, this will allow for 10 additional car spaces for parking on Bellaire Lane. The present no parking from Elm to point 'E' on the west side of Bellaire Lane, going south, should remain no parking. Mr. Meyer awaits your reply, and wished to be contacted prior to 4/12/96, on the results of our study. I will contact him if you wish, but thought you might like to, in particular since it is a favorable conclusion from his point of view. Let me know, T,M. Peter C. Meyer 5748 Sunset Road Mound, MN 55364 (612) 472-7449 3-g-96 Chief Harrell 5341 Maywood Road Mound. MN 55364 Dear Chief Harrell: I am requesting the removal of parking restrictions on the west side of BeHake Lane between Alder Road and Elm Road for a one year trial period. Mr. Shukle told me that the process for getting a parking change is to file a request with you, including a site plan and a petition from area residents. The Mound Park and Open Space Commission has determined that there is a severe shortage of low-cost activities in our community for families and also for children and their friends. The Commission, of which I am a member, feels a supervised outdoor skating facility would be a cost- effective way to help fill these and many other community needs. We are drafting a detailed proposal to be presented to the Mound City Council recommending the development of a skating facility behind the Pond .4a'ena. The added parking is important for our plan to become a reality for the community. Here are the reasons why I believe this change is reasonable: 1. Parking is allowed on all other streets in the area. 2. The 220' stretch has only two library, driveway access points on it. 3. Citizens already park in this area during high ~chool football and hockey games and do not get tagged. 4. These par~g spaces will help replace the winter parking area by the outdoor hockey rink allowing the development of a community skating rink that will benefit all Mound citizens. 5. These parking spaces will help ease the par 'ldng concerns the Mound City Council and the Westonka School Board have raised regarding the Mound Park and Open Space Commission's plan to develop a community skating rink. 6. Making this change on a one year trial basis would give the opportunity to evaluate before making a permanent decision. If you have any questions about this request, please call me at home, 472-7449. Thank vou in advance for your time. It is appreciated. Sincerely, Peter C. Meyer Neigh~ borhood Resident Member Mound Park and Open Space Commission We, the undersigned, petition the City of Mound for the removal of parking restrictions on the west side of Bellaire Lane between Alder Road and Elm Road for a one year trial period. NAME ADDRESS PHONE ~,v'~ qT,2-TL~ 7 13. 14. 15. We, the undersigned, petition the City of Mound for the removal of parking restr/cfions on the west side of Bellaire Lane between Alder Road and Elm Road for a one year trial period. NAME ADDRESS PHONE /7~?,~- 2~, zos~, q'To~ - 37q/ z4~37 Lyh'w OOD BLVD. SITE PI. AN ;-1 ALDER RD. J IL West Hennepin Human Services Joint Powers Cities September 23, 1996 Mayor and City Council of Mound c/o Mr. Edward Shukle, Jr., City Manager 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle, Jr.: During the past weeks you have heard about the status of the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board, also known as Suburban Alliance. Since July several of the city members of the joint powers agreement have worked to try to resolve the financial and functional difficulties of Suburban Alliance. Unfortunately, it does not seem that Suburban Alliance can continue as an organization. At a September 5 meeting of the joint powers cities, a majority of the member cities (12 of 21 cities) reached consensus to recommend to the city councils to dissolve Suburban Alliance. Attached is a report on Suburban Alliance for your city council. The report spells out the legal and financial obligations of the joint powers cities. This report was reviewed with the Suburban Alliance Board of Directors on September 17, and they concur with the proposed plan. The report requests that your city council pass a resolution declaring intent to dissolve Suburban Alliance on January 31, 1997. We hope that you can schedule action by your city council during October. Please forward a copy of the adopted resolution to: Kathy Lueckert, City of Plymouth, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, Plymouth, 55447. The financial obligations of the joint powers cities to pay the Suburban Alliance debt and close out costs are not insignificant. We are working diligently to identify the bottom line and determine the actual obligation of each city. We will forward the number to you as soon as practicable. Thank you for your cooperation. Please give us a call if you have questions. Steve Mielke Hopkins 939-1326 Geralyn Barone Minnetc :-,ka 939-8200 Kathy Lueckert Plymouth 509-5052 Wally Wysopal St. Louis Park 924-2519 MEMORANDUM West Hennepin Human Services Joint Powers Cities DATE: TO: FROM: SUB J: September 23, 1996 Mayors and City Councils of West Hennepin Area On behalf of West ltennepin Human Services Joint Powers Cities: Steve Mielke (Hopkins City Manager), Geralyn Barone 0Vlinnetonka Assistant City Manager), Kathy Lueckert (Plymouth Assistant City Manager) and Wally Wysopal (St. Louis Park Assistant City Manager) Report on the Status of West Hennepin Human Services Board (also known as Suburban Alliance) and Request to Declare Intent to Dissolve Suburban Alliance as of January 31, 1997 ACTION REQUESTED: The West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board (also known as Suburban Alliance) is no longer a viable organization because of significant debt and inability to perform its core functions of human services planning and coordination. During the summer, staff from several of the Suburban Alliance joint powers cities and from Hennepin County have met with Suburban Alliance. Attempts to resolve the outstanding debt issues, keep the agency financially solvent, and provide core services have proven fruitless. The best option is to dissolve the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board. We request that you receive the following report on the status of the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board, review the action plan and approve a motion declaring intent to dissolve West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board as of January 31, 1997. BACKGROUND: The West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board was formed by a joint powers agreement in 1973. In recent years, the organization has employed the name Suburban Alliance. Its purpose was to "...provide an organization through which the parties may jointly and cooperatively coordinate the providing of human services, both publicly and privately, in the territory of the parties." In addition to planning and coordinating human services, the board also provided a forum for citizen participation in human services. One impetus for forming not only the West Hennepin Board but also the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Planning Board and the South Hennepin Human Services Board is that some of the state and federal human services funding received by Hennepin County requires citizen input and participation. At the time the three boards were created, Hennepin County and the cities agreed that such planning and participation is best done at the local level. Joint Powers Cities Report on Suburban Alliance, Page 2 I IL Eight cities were the original members of the Suburban Alliance board. Over time, the number of member cities has grown to twenty one, but an additional four cities receive services but provide no funding. Each member city can appoint two individuals to the Suburban Alliance Board. At their discretion, the board also can appoint various "at large" representatives. Because the size of the board (currently well over forty individuals) makes for unwieldy decision making, the board appoints an executive committee. This group effectively manages the organization. In its twenty three years of existence, Suburban Alliance has expanded its scope from the original functions of human services planning and coordination. Suburban Alliance has managed the Energy Assistance Program (state funding), managed Emergency Services contracts for Hennepin County, and provided home energy audits for NSP. Its planning and coordination funding has been provided by the joint powers cities and by Hennepin County. It alsO spawned two other organizations. Community Builders works to provide housing options for low income residents of western Hennepin County. The Suburban Hennepin Anti-Racism Coalition (SHARC) seeks to combat racism and encourage tolerance. Suburban Alliance has a tradition of human services advocacy and grass-roots citizen participation. Through the years Suburban Alliance and the.joint powers cities have not had an active working relationship. DISCUSSION: Unbeknownst to the joint powers cities, Suburban Alliance ended 1995 with expenditures exceeding revenues. Nearly all of the debt was owed to emergency services providers: Interfaith Outreach, Interchurch (ICA), WECAN, and STEP. Money also is owed to Twin Cities Voice Mail. These organizations had provided services during 1995, but had not been reimbursed for these services by Suburban Alliance. Under the Hennepin County emergency services contract, Suburban Alliance was to approve the emergency services vouchers and to pay them with funding from the County. It appears that some of the emergency service dollars earmarked for the providers was used to pay other obligations of Suburban Alliance. The problem was compounded by increased overhead expenses, due to an office relocation and rental market conditions at the time. During the spring, Hennepin County held discussions with Suburban Alliance about repaying the debt. In May, the Suburban Alliance Executive Director resigned. Suburban Alliance was unable to devise a repayment plan and to provide planning and coordination services which met the requirements of Hennepin County. In July, Hennepin County staff decided to recommend to the Hennepin County Board the termination of all contracts with Suburban Alliance, effectively shutting down the agency. Hennepin County staffthen contacted the joint powers cities and informed them of this recommendation. In general, the call from Hennepin County was the first time the member cities were made aware of Joint Powers Cities Report on Suburban Alliance, Page 3 the scope of the Suburban Alliance problem. The cities requested a one month delay in this recommendation, to see if a solution could be devised. City staff from Hopkins, Minnetonka, Plymouth and St. Louis Park have sought a solution during the last weeks. A workable solution to keep the agency open does not seem possible. With great reluctance, a recommendation to close Suburban Alliance was made to all twenty one joint powers cities in early September. There seems to be consensus among the cities to close the agency's doors by September 30, 1996 and to dissolve the joint powers agreement by January 31, 1997. The focus now has shii'~ed to two issues: the orderly shut-down of Suburban Alliance, and the opening of discussions with Hennepin County about a new human services planning and coordination structure. The city attorneys of Minnetonka and Plymouth/St. Louis Park have stated that legally the joint powers cities are responsible .jointly and severally--for the payment of the debt and costs associated with the agency shut down. The extent of the financial obligation will be discussed in the next section. The cities have devised an action plan to deal with all of the issues surrounding the shut down. This plan is attached. No deadlines are assigned to any of the action steps because the details are still under development. Ali member cities of the joint powers agreement must adopt a resolution dissolving the agency.. The joint powers agreement specifies that member cities have until August 1 of each year to declare their intent to leave the joint powers agreement at the end of the calendar year. If even one city does not take action to dissolve the agency, then Suburban Alliance will continue to exist until January 31,1998. This would not be a desirable situation. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The 1995 audit of Suburban Alliance, completed in 1996, pointed to some of the agency's fiscal problems. While in 1996 Suburban Alliance appears to be operating within its budget, it is doing so without repaying 1995 debt and without having staffto perform core services. The primary reasons for the 1995 debt seem to be: . Suburban Alliance did not react promptly to cutbacks in federal and state funds, keeping staff employed without adequate funds for their salaries. Funding sources, such as emergency service dollars, were commingled in order to pay salaries. · Suburban Alliance, in 1994, was compelled to relocate from free space in St. Louis Park to leased space in Hopkins. The lease is for five years. Monthly rent is $3,000, and leasehold improvements were made which involve an additional $2,000 each quarter. Suburban Alliance has other o:~*standing obligations in addition to the debt owed to the emergency services providers. Listed below are estimates of these obligations: Joint Powers Cities Report on Suburban Alliance, Page 4 =1995 Obligations Emergency Services Providers - Federal Emergency Mgmt. Agency Hennepin County Planning Contract TwinCities Voice Mail ' Subtotal Deferred Revenues $ 66,400 4,274 '9,603 8,000 $ 88,277 $14,500 Twin Cities Voice Mail provides a service to individuals who may not be able to afford telephone service but need a means to receive messages for job searches, etc. Attached is a spreadsheet summarizing Suburban Alliance's projected revenue and expenditures for 1996. In addition, there are unknown 1996 obligations. Estimates of the total amount for which the joint powers cities are liable range from $100,000 to $177,000. A spreadsheet is attached which shows the potential obligation of each city, based on population. It assumes that the cost of debt repayment and close-out costs will be around $130,000. This number does not include any obligations for the remainder of the office space lease, which could be as much as an additional $130,000. We do not yet know how or when the city obligations will be paid, but our intent is to finalize the obligation number before December 31, 1996. The first priority will be debt repayment to the emergency service providers. Hennepin County has indicated its willingness to assist the cities with close out costs by continuing its planning and coordination funding for Suburban Alliance through the end of 1996. This funding will help reduce the overall obligation of each city. The current Suburban Alliance office manager will assist with the agency close-out through the end of the year This individual will administer the emergency services contract for Hennepin County until the end of 1996. Hennepin County is exploring . options available for emergency services for the first six months of 1997. It is likely that either the north or south human services planning boards will manage the emergency services contracts through June 1997. The joint powers cities feel strongly that an independent audit of the agency's books is in order, both now and at the agency's dissolution on December 31, 1996. The audit will determine the final financial obligation of each joint powers city. A CPA familiar with human services planning boards and non-profit organizations may be used to conduct these audits. Joint Powers Cities Report on Suburban Alliance, Page 5 FUTURE OF HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING: The staff of the joint powers cities and county staff feel strongly that there is a need for human services planning and coordination in western Hennepin County. During the fall, the cities will begin discussions with Hennepin County about creating a new entity to do human services planning and coordination. The goal is to h?"e this new structure in place by July 1997. We have learned valuable lessons from this experience. It is likely that the new structure will have the active involvement of staff and/or elected officials from the member cities. Suburban Alliance provided a valuable service for over twenty years. However, the joint powers cities welcome this opportunity to look at what human service needs exist in the 1990s, and examine the best way to meet these needs well into the next century. RECOMMENDED ACTION: We recommend that the City Council adopt the attached resolution which states the intent of the joint powers cities to dissolve the West Hennepin Human Services Board effective December 31, 1996. Another resolution, formally dissolving the organization, will be presented in December. Should you have questions, please give any of us a call: Steve Mielke Hopkins 939-1326 Geralyn Barone Minnetonka 939-8200 Kathy Lueckert Plymouth 509-5052 Wally Wysopal St. Louis Park 924-2519 Joint Powers Cities Report on Suburban Alliance, Page 6 City of Res. 96- DECLARING INTENT TO DISSOLVE RELATIONSHIP WlTlt WEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING BOARD, A.K.A. SUBURBAN ALLIANCE, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 31, 1997 AND PROVIDING FOR ITS ORDERLY DISSOLUTION WHEREAS, the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board, also known as Suburban Alliance, was established by joint powers agreement in 1973 to provide human services planning and coordination in western Hennepin County; and WltEREAS, Suburban Alliance has provided valuable service to western Hennepin County, but due to financial difficulties is no longer able to perform its core functions of human service planning and coordination; and WHEREAS, county and city staffs recommend the dissolution of Suburban Alliance effective January 31, 1997; and WItEREAS, county and city staffs recommend exploring new options for providing human services planning and coordination which can address current needs in western Hennepin County; and WltEREAS, the joint powers cities recognize and accept their obligation ~pay~ and closing costs of Suburban Alliance; NOW TIIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of that it declares its intent to dissolve its relationship with the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board, also known as Suburban Alliance, effective January 31, 1997; and BE IT FURTItER RESOLVED that City Staff are directed to discuss with Hennepin County and the other joint powers cities possible alternatives for human services planning and coordination in western Hennepin County. Adopted by the City Council on Suburban Alliancc Proposed Action Steps · Suburban Alliance Board of Dkectors continues to act as legal entity authorized to. take actions necessary to close agency · City Councils dissolve joint powers agreement and therefore the organization Financial. · · Conduct independent preliminary review and audit of agency to determine exact financial status · Close out existing contracts; finalize emergency service arrangements with Hennepin County for remainder of 1996 and first six months of 1997. · Settle lease issues · Collect debts owed organization · Sell assets · Finalize outstanding obligations (debt and close-out costs) and submit payment obligations to joint powers cities by December 31, 1996. · Conduct independent final audit of Suburban Alliance · Collect outstanding financial obligations from joint powers cities Establish agency close date of December 31, 1996. Office closes September 30, 1996. Inventory physical assets/sell physical assets Provide information/assistance to employees Retain current office manager to assist in coordination for agency close Begin discussions with Hennepin County about new human services planning and coordination structure for western Hennepin County Public Relations · Western Hennepin Human Services Planning Board (a.k.a. Suburban Alliance) created in 1973 by cities in western Hennepin County to provide human services planning and coordination · Suburban Alliance has provided valuable service to the citizens of western Hennepin County, but is no longer a viable organization · Recommendation to close Suburban Alliance difficult for cities to make · Cities and Hennepin County remain committed to human services planning and coordination; this is still an important need · Exciting opportunity to work with Hennepin County to develop human services planning and coordination which meets today' s needs in western Hennepin County West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board Summary of ProJected Revenues & Expenditures (4~96) 12 Month Period Ending December 1996 Dept of Economic Security Hennepin County Member Municipalities NSP Audit Program Rent/Fiscal Agency Total Revenues Direct Assistance Personnel Related Non Personnel Related Total Expenditures Revenues Less Expenditures Energy Citizen Home Assistance Participation Emergency Energy $1 ,O22,500 ' 35,000 76,300 $1,022,500 $117,900 $116,600 $76,300 $775,600 $104,800 $14,000 130,200 57,700 10,200 21,200 116,700 60,200 1,600 17,100 $1,022,500 $117,900 $116,600 $52,300 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 Othez 39,900 $39,900 18,600 21,300 $39,900 $0 Total $1,022,500 199,500 35,000 76,300 39,900 $1,373,200 $894,400 237,900 216,900 $1,349,200 $24,000 Board Meeting July 16, 1996 Sheet1 Suburban Alliance Joint Power_s Cities-Debt and Close-out Obligations City Name Population % of Total % of 130K Deephaven 3,621 1.88 $ 2,437.67 Exc---~lsior 2,367 1.2'-'--------~- $ 1,593.47 Hopkins 16,536 8.5---------~ $ 11,132.10 Ind----ependence 2,952 1.5-'--'-----~ $ 1,987.30 Long Lake 1,951 1.01' $ 1,313.42 Loretto 494. 0.26 $ 332.56 Maple Plain 2,094 1.08 $ 1,409.69 Me-----dicine Lake 373 0.19 $ 251.10 Medina 3,628 1.88 $ 2,442.38 Minnetonka 50,569 26.1_._____~9 _ $ 34,043.24 Minnetdsta 3,758 1.95 $ 2,529.90 Mound 9,592 4.9--------~ $ 6,457.37 Orono 7,~.,~ 3.85 $ 5,011.33 Plymouth * 28,696 14.86 $ 19,317.92 Sh---~rewood 6,613 3.42 $ 4,451.90 'Spring Park 1,757 0.91 $ 1,182.82 St. Lo-------ais Park -- 43,641 - 22.60 $ 29,379.28 St. Bonifacius 1,192 0.62' $ 802.46 Tonka Bay --------~,487~- $ 1,001.05 Wayzata 3,860 2.00 $ 2,598.57 Woo-----dland 48_____~2 - 0.25 $ 324.48 Total 193,10-----'----~ 100 _$13_____~0,000.00 · Plymouth's po___pulation is split be~~l:;urban Alliance and Northwest Hennepin Human Service Council. The City contributes CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Mayor, City Council and City Manager Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager September 96 Monthly Report October 3, 1996 September sales were fairly decent. Gross totals for the month were $126,670. This is down, ($6,212.), from September of last year, as I knew it would be. Last year, in September, there were five weekends compared to four in September of this year. All things considered I am pleased with the results. After three quarters of the year we are standing at $1,220,930. Last year at this time we were at $1,139,785.a difference of $81,145. I am looking forward for us to be way ahead of October and November of 1995. Then, in December, we will probably be down a little because of how the holidays fall. When the year is over we should be about $100,000. ahead of last year. Now that summer has ended we have taken down our wine cooler, frozen cocktail and all warm weather related displays and replaced them with more appropriate Autumn oriented displays. It is amazing the drastic turn around that occurs right after Labor Day, From May through August we have a difficult time keeping our beer cooler shelves full, After Labor day beer sales fall off considerably and the customers shift more towards wine and spirits. It's as if there is some built in biological clock around this area as far as merchandise selection is concerned. It all seems to correlate around this great lake we have. TO: FROM: RE: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR SEPTEMBER FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT Investmen~t Activity Balance:: SePtember 1, 1996 $4,217,851 Money Market 4M Money Market Norwest Bank 1,457 4 Money Market Smith Barney 45 Money Market First Bank 168,973 CP Norwest Bank 5.60% 510,762 CP Smith Barney 5.39% 271,199 CD FBS Investment 5.60% 349,572 CP FBS Investment 5.55% 256,451 Mature~dd; Money Market First Bank (110,000) Money Market 4M (100,000) Money Market Smith Barney (11,199) Money Market Norwest Bank (762) CP Norwest Bank 5.51% (504,218) CP Dain Bosworth 5.43% (399,539) CP Smith Barney 5.54% (257,270) CP FBS Investment 5.54% (247,263) CP FBS Investment 5.63% (422,890) Balance: SePtember 30, 1996 $3,723,173 The month of September was a routine but busy month for the Finance Department. These are some of the non-routine events: On September 11th the City Manager presented the proposed budget and the proposed levy for adoption by the council. That was the culmination of many hours of work that the two of us spent to prepare the document submitted. - On September 23rd Pinky and I purchased and installed a PC for the HRA. I was able to install the software needed and to transfer all the files from the old computer. Now Pinky can use and update all her files and add any other software and applications. - On September 30th Ed, Gayle and I attended the annual Logis Health Care Group meeting. Presentations were made in the area of Life Insurance, Health Insurance, new laws relating to COBRA benefits, and other employees related benefits. The meeting dealt with specific issues that have direct implications for all employees of the city of Mound. !City of Mound Monthly Report I Utilities 10/01/961 Utility-96/ !Month of: September 1996 Residentia| Comm_ ercial Total No. of Customers: Water , Sewer Water Used: (in 1,000 gallons) 1,084 1,081 23,830 124 124 3,842 1,208 1,205 27,672 Billing: Water Sewer Recycle Total $34,836 $49,944 $4,971 51 $5,405 $13,952 $19,463 $40,241 $63,896 ;$_5,077! Payments: Water Sewer Recycle Total $33,073 $51,341 $5,089 [89,503 $6,051 $13,990 25_~0~!36 $39,124 $65,331 $5,184_ $!_09,639 I1 IlL¸ CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 October 1, 1996 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER GREG SKINNER, PUBLIC WORKS SUPERINTENDENT SEPTEMBER MONTHLY REPORT STREETS We completed the sealcoating for this year and we got into some of next years on Three Points in some bad areas. We also did quite a bit of tree trimming along the right-of-way. We cleared out areas by street signs. We will continue tree trimming into October. The brush is being chipped as we trim and added to the woodchip pile. I looked at the final on the road at Pelican Point. It is completed, but some areas had to be repaired or replaced. There was a manhole that was dug and repatched due to a possible frostboil where the road heaved. The next step before winter is to try to get in street lighting and the "No Parking" signs. I met with Jori Sutherland and John Cameron at St. John's Church. There are some problems there regarding the repair of the street and curb where they installed the water. Cameron has written a letter to the contract company for St. John's to get these items repaired. There is storm sewer work incomplete that is allowing debris to get into the system. They will take care of this and clean the storm system for us. We went through the street lights and Christmas decorations. We plan to put them up in October, beginning the 21st. The ornaments will go up the week of the 28th. We will change the banners to the holiday ones. There have many locates this month. It seems people are trying to get these all done printed on recycled paper before the frost. Jerry has been working with the meters. Just as we thought things were going good, another "gremlin" came with the last batch of meter heads that we received. We have been in contact with Schlumberger. They guaranteed us they would take care of the problem, we are not using this shipment. They are sending us different ones. SEWER DEPARTMENT This department has been using the Jet Vac and it works great. We did some storm sewer at Swenson Park and several areas of line around town. The lift stations have been going real well. We got parts for a couple of motor protectors that went out in the storm we had in July from lightening strikes. Basically, we have been cleaning lines. In October we will clean the stations and wet wells, where we also use the new Jet Vac. Bob and Damon or Scott will be flushing hydrants the second week in October. We do this twice a year. They will be doing this at nights from Sunday through Thursday night, from 10 pm to 6 am. GS:Is LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472-0621 Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ed Shulde ChiefLen Harrell Monthly Report for September 1996 The police department responded to 845 calls for service during the month of September. There were 34 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included 2 criminal sexual conducts, 1 robbery, 8 burglaries, 22 larcenies, and 1 vehicle theft. There were 67 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 2 child abuse/neglect, 3 forgery/NSF checks, 8 damage to property, 6 liquor law violations, 10 DUI's, 6 simple assaults, 5 domestics (4 with assaults), 5 harassment's, 6 juvenile status offenses, and 16 other offenses. The patrol division issued 189 adult citations and 8 juvenile citations. Parking violations accounted for an additional 11 tickets. Warnings were issued to 135 individuals for a variety of violations. There was 1 adult and 9 juveniles arrested for felonies. adults and 18 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. additional 14 warrant arrests. There were 33 There were an The department assisted in 7 vehicle accidents, 1 with injuries. There were 27 medical emergencies and 73 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 15 occasions in September and requested assistance 2 times. Property valued at $19,217 was stolen and $13,473 was recovered in September. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTI-ILY REPORT - SEPTEMBER 1996 II. _INVESTIGATIONS The investigators worked on 4 child protection issues and 3 criminal sexual conduct cases accounting for 36 hours of inVestigative time. Additional cases included the continued investigation of the bank robbery in conjunction with the FBI, continued preparation regarding the hazardous material dumping into the sewer system, the personal injury accident involving the downtown crosswalk, and cases involving burglary, assault, theft, damage to property, forgery, possession of stolen property, gross misdemeanor DWI, NSF checks, threats, harassing communication, and absenting. Formal complaints were issued for criminal sexual conduct in the 1st degree, worthless check, possession of stolen property, gross misdemeanor harassment, and dog at large. III. Personnel/Staffine The department used approximately 52 hours of overtime during the month of September. Officers used 28 hours of comp-time, 144 hours of vacation, 55 hours of sick time, and 13 holidays. Officers earned 30 hours of comp-time. Several officers assisted in the September 21st Lake Minnetonka Exercise hosted by Mound. IV. Several officers attended mandatory training during the month of September provided by PTAC. Sam Nelson attended the two week D.A.R.E. officer training and will become our D.A.R.E. officer for 1996-'97. One officer attended Emergency Medical refresher training. I IL MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT- SEPTEMBER 1996 Vo COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICEI~ Officers Packard and Clark addressed 34 animal complaints, 55 ordinance violations, and 137 miscellaneous calls for services. 4 citations were issued in September. '~ ~oat MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT SEPTEMBER 1996 OFFENSES CLEARED EXCEPT- CLEARED BY ARRESTED REPORTED UNFOUNDED CLFJU~D ARREST ADULT JUV ~RT I cRIMES Homicide Criminal Sexual Conduct Robbery Aggravated Assault Burglary Larceny Vehicle Theft Arson 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 1 0 2 22 0 0 1 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ToTAL 34 I ~ART II CRIMES Child Abuse/Neglect 2 2 0 0 0 Forgery/NSF Checks 3 0 0 1 2 Criminal Damage to Property 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weapons 0 0 0 0 0 Narcotic Laws 6 0 0 6 3 Liquor Laws 10 0 0 10 10 DWI 6 0 1 3 2 Simple A~sault 4 0 0 3 2 Domestic Assault 0 0 0 0 Domestic (No Assault) 1 0 Harassment 5 0 1 0 Juvenile Status Offenses 6 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 2 Public Peace 1 0 0 1 1 Trespassing 14 0 i 12 11 All Other Offenses 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 1 0 0 6 0 0 3 TOTAL 67 2 3 41 18 ~ART II & pART IY Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Medicals Animal Complaints Mutual Aid Other General Investigations TOTAL 6 1 0 27 73 15 613 735 HCCP Inspections ToTAL 845 44 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT SEPTEMBER 1996 GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY Hazardous Citations Non-Hazardous Citations Hazardous Warnings Non-Hazardous Warnings Verbal Warnings Parking Citations DWI Over .10 Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Adult Felony Arrests Adult Misdemeanor Arrests Juvenile Felony Arrests Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests Part I Offenses Part II Offenses Medicals Animal Complaints Ordinance Violations Other Public Contacts THIS YEAR TO LAST YEAR MONTH DATE TO DATE 142 693 38 411 47 223 90 544 139 804 11 450 10 53 7 40 6 50 1 15 0 0 1 32 47 307 9 51 18 148 34 242 67 615 27 273 73 454 55 205 613 6,429 TO TA~L Assists Follow-Ups HCCP Mutual Aid Given Mutal Aid Requested 1,435 12,039 663 540 143 55O 512 265 40 34 66 25 0 17 281 41 119 196 580 264 498 428 5,399 10,661 65 629 684 23 295 286 2 43 27 15 141 151 2 78 116 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT OCTOBER 1996 DWI More Than .10% BAC Careless/Reckless Driving Driving After Susp. or Rev. Open Bottle Speeding No DL or Expired DL Restriction on DL Improper, Expired or No Plates Stop Arm Violations Stop Sign Violations Failure to Yield Equipment Violations H&R Leaving the Scene No Insurance Illegal or Unsafe Turn Over the Centerline Parking Violations Crosswalk Dog Ordinances Code Enforcement Seat Belt MV/ATV Miscellaneous Tags TOTAL 10 7 2 4 1 102 1 0 23 1 6 0 2 0 11 0 0 11 4 3 7 2 0 3 200 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT SEPTE53BER 1996 Insurance Traffic Equipment Crosswalk Animals Trash/Derelict Autos Seat Belt Trespassing Window Tint Miscellaneous TOTAL WARRANT ARRESTS Felony Misdemeanor 40 39 16 0 1 3 0 0 0 19 118 0 14 6 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Run: 2-0ct-96 10:29 PRO03 Primary ISNts only: No Date Reported range: 08/26/96 - 09/25/96 Activity codes: ALL Property Status: ALL Property Types: ALL Property Descs: ALL Brands: ALL Models: ALL Officers/Badges: All Prop Prop Inc no ISN Pr Tp Oesc SN MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Property Report STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED Prop Date Rptd Stolen Date Recov'd Quantity Act Stat Stolen Value Recov'd Value Code Page Brand Model Off-1 Off-2 Assnd Assnd A Prop type Totals: B Prop type Totals: C Prop type Totals: O Prop type Tota[s: E Prop type TotaLs: G Prop type Totals: j Prop type Totals: 0 Prop type Totals: p Prop type Totals: R Prop type Totals: S Prop type Totals: T Prop type Totals: V Prop type Totals: X Prop type Totals: y Prop type Totals: **** Report Totals: 12,500 12,500 900 650 200 0 487 0 56 0 500 0 140 0 650 0 59 0 966 0 1,777 50 521 2 14 0 77 0 370 271 19,217 13,473 2,000 4.000 1.000 2.000 5.000 1.000 2.000 2.000 4.000 23.000 3.000 5.000 1.000 2.000 5.000 62.000 Run: 1-0ct-96 13:21 CFS08 Primary ISN*s on[y: No Dar ..... '~orted range: 08/26/96 - 09/25/96 Th. ,nge each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: Activity Resulted: AIl Dispositions: At[ Officers/Badges: Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION 9430 9~. 9451 9561 PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS H/R PROPERTY DAMAGE ACC. DOG BITE MOUND POLZCE DEPARTMENT Enfors CaLls For Servfce INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE Page ~1 NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 9000 SPEEDING 102 9001 J-SPEEDING 8 9002 NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L 1 9012 OPEN BOTTLE 1 9014 STOP SIGN 6 9018 EQUIPMENT VIOLATION 2 9 CARELESS/RECKLESS 2 9030 CROSSWALK VIOLATION 4 9034 STOP ARM VIOLATION 1 9040 NO SEATBELT 2 9100 PARKING/ALL OTHER 11 9200 DAS/DAR/DAC 4 9210 PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED 23 9220 NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF 11 9240 CHANGE OF DOMICILE 2 9312 FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS 5 9313 FOUND PROPERTY 14 9315 UNCLAIME DESTROYED ANIMALS 3 1 4 2 Run: 1-0ct-96 13:21 CFS08 Primary %SN's only: No Date Reported range: 08/26/96 - 09/25/96 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Now Received: AIl Activity Resulted: Att Dispositions: Att Officers/Badges: All Grids: ALL Patrol Areas: AL[ Days of the week: AL[ MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Carts For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS 9562 CAT BITES 1 9566 ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS 3 9567 DANGEROUS DOG 2 9710 MEDICAL/ASU 1 9720 MEDICAL/DOA 1 9730 MEDICALS 22 9732 MEDICALS/CI 3 9800 ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED 5 9801 DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT 1 9802 PUBLIC ASSIST 2 9900 ALL HCCP CASES 2 9904 OPEN DOOR/ALARMS 1 9920 INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 7 9930 HANDGUN APPLICATION 6 9950 INFO/INT 2 9951 SEX OFFENDERS 2 9980 ~ARRANTS 14 9990 MISC. VIOLATIONS 2 9992 MUTUAL AID/8100 3 9993 MUTUAL AID/6500 7 9994 MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER 5 A5351 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT'FAM 4 Page Run: 1-0ct-96 13:21 CFS08 Primary JSN's on[y: No Dat~-J~eported range: 08/26/96 - 09/25/96 Ti nge each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: AIl Activity Resulted: Ali Dispositions: AIl Officers/Badges: AIl Grids: AIl Patrol Areas: AIl Days of the week: AIl MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS A5353 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM'HANDS-ADULT-STR A5354 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-CHLD-FAM A5355 ASLT 5'MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-CHLD-ACQ A5502 ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-NO WEAP-ADLT-ACQ A9502 TERR THREATS-INFLT BH-UNK WEAP-ADLT-ACQ B1264 BURG 1-OCC RES NO FRC-N-UN WEAP-COM THEFT B3" BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-U-UNK ~EAP-COM THEFT 83494 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT B3894 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-U-UNK ~EAP-COM THEFT 84090 BURG 4-AT FRC NRES-U-UNK ~EAP-UHK ACT 84730 BURG 4-UNOCC NRES FRC-D-UNK ~EAP-UNK ACT C3112 FORGERY-MS-MAKE ALTER DESTROY'CHECK-BUSINESS I3060 CRIM AGNST FAN-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD J2700 TRAFFIC-GM-AGG DUI-UNK INJ-UNK VEH J2701 TRAFFIC-GM-AGG DUI'UNK INJ-MV J2EO0 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV TRAFF-GM-FAIL TO SUBMIT TO TEST-UNK INJ-MV TRAF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER ]NFLUENCE OF LIQUOR TRAFF'ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 NORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-NV 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 1 4 J2E01 J2R01 J3500 J: J3EO0 J3E01 Page 1-0ct-96 13:21 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 08/26/96 - 09/25/96 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: AlL Activity Resulted: At[ Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: Alt Grids: ALL Patrol Areas: AIl Days of the week: AIl ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors carls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS L3143 CBC 2-NO FRC-OTH FAM-13-15-F 1 L7071 CSC 4-UNK ACT-ACQUAINT-UNDER 15-F 1 M3001 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER 4 M3005 JUVENILE'USE OF TOBACCO 2 M4199 LIQUOR - OTHER 2 M531~ JUVENILE-CURFEW 1 M5350 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY 3 M7701 FALSSELY IMPERSONATING ANOTHER 1 N3080 DISTURB PEACE-MS-INTERFERE WITH PRIVACY 1 N3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS 5 03602 OBSEHITY-M$-INDECENT-EXPOSURE'TO ADULT 1 P0119 PROP DAMAGE-UNK LVL-PRIVATE'OTHER INTENT 1 P3110 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE'UN[ INTENT 4 P3119 PROP DAMAGE-MB-PRIVATE-OTHER INTENT 1 P3129 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PUBLIC-OTHER INTENT 1 P3130 PROP DAMAGE-MS-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT 1 P3310 TRESPASS-MS-PRIVATE'UNK INTENT 1 Q3299 STLN PROP-MS-POSSESS-OTH PROP-200 OR LESS 1 R2191 ROBB-AGG-NO BH-HIGHWAY-NO WEAP-ADULT-FAM 1 TC159 THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP 1 TF025 THEFT-2~-5OO-GM-BU[LD[NG'F[REARMS 1 TF159 THEFT-201-5OO-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP ~ Page 4 Run: 1-0ct-96 13:21 CFS08 Primary ISN's onty: No De~-Reported range: 08/26/96 - 09/25/96 T ange each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: AIl Activ(ty Resulted: AIl Dispositions: AIl Officers/Badges: AIl Grids: AIl Patrol Areas: AIl Days of the week: AIl ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Ca[Is For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS TF169 THEFT'201-5OO-GM-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 1 TG031 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-COIN MACH-MONEY 1 TG059 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-YARDS-OTHR PROP 2 TG061 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MAILS-MONEY 1 TG069 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MAILS-OTHER PROP 1 TG151 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH'MONEY 1 T~ THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-OTHER 6 TG169 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 2 U3028 THEFT-MS-ISSUE WORTHLESS CHECK-200 OR LESS 2 U3288 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS 1 U3498 THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS 2 VA022 VEH-MORE THAN 2500-FE-THEFT-TRUCK-AUTO 1 X3360 CRIM AGNST ADM JUST-MS-VIOL HARRASS REST ORDER 1 Page ~5 **** Report Totals: 401 Run: 1-0ct-96 14:13 OFF01 Primary ISN's on[y: No Date Reported range: 08/26/96 - 09/25/96 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: AL[ Activity codes: Officers/Badges: All Grids: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES COOE DESCRIPTION REPORTED A5351 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAH 4 A5353 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-ADULT'STR 2 A5354 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-CHLD-FAM 1 A5355 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-CHLD-ACQ 2 A5502 ASLT 5-THRT BOOILY HARM-NO NEAP-ADLT-ACQ 1 A9502 TERR THREATS-INFLT BH-UNK NEAP-ADLT-ACQ 1 BURG 1-OCC RES NO FRC-N-UN NEAP-CON THEFT 1 BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-U-UNK NEAP-COM THEFT 2 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK NEAP-CON THEFT 1 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-U-UNK NEAP-CON THEFT 2 BURG 4-AT FRC NRES-U-UNK NEAP-UNK ACT 1 BURG 4-UflOCC NRES FRC-D-UNK NEAP-UNK ACT 1 FORGERY-MS'MAKE ALTER DESTROY-CHECK'BUSINESS 1 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD 1 TRAFFIC-GM'AGG DUI-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 1 TRAFFIC-GM-AGG DUI-UNK INJ-MV 2 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 1 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV 1 TRAFF-GM-FAIL TO SUBMIT TO TEST-UNK INJ-MV 1 TRAF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR 3 TRAFF-ACC[D-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE 4 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 1 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV 4 B1264 83394 B3494 B3894 B4090 B4730 C3112 13060 J2700 J2701 J2EO0 J2E01 J2R01 J3500 J3501 J3EO0 J3E01 Page ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED 0 4 1 Z I 0 3 75.0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 2 0 0 1 1 2 100.0 0 I 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 2 1 0 0 I 1 5C 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 2 1 0 1 0 I 50.0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 0 I 0 0 1 100.0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0 0 I 0 I 0 0 I 100.0 0 I 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 100.0 0 4 0 4 0 0 4 100. 0 1 0 I 0 0 I 100.0 0 4 0 4 0 0 4 100.0 Run: 1-0ct-96 1~:13 OFF01 Primary ISN's only: No fla~O--~eported range: 08/26/96 - 09/25/96 Ti nge each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: AIl Activity codes: Officers/Badges: Grids: AIl MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page ACT ACTIVITY COOE DESCRIPTION L3143 CSC 2-NO FRC-OTH FAM-13-15-F L7071 CSt 4-UNK ACT-ACQUAINT-UNDER 13-F M3001 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER M3005 JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO M4199 LIOUOR - OTHER M5313 JUVENILE-CURFE~ M5350 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY M7~ ...... FALSSELY IMPERSONATING ANOTHER N3080 DISTURB PEACE'MS-INTERFERE WITH PRIVACY N3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS 03602 OBSENITY'MS-]NDECENT-EXPOSURE.TO ADULT P0119 PROP DAMAGE-UNK LVL-PRIVATE-OTNER INTENT P3110 PROP DAMAGE'MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT P3119 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-OTHER INTENT P3129 PROP DAHAGE-MS-PUBLIC-OTHER INTENT P3130 PROP DAMAGE-MS-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT P3310 ~3299 ~2191 'C159 F F159 F169 TRESPASS'MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT STLN PROP'MS-POSSESS-OTH PROP-200 OR LESS ROBB-AGG-NO BH-HIGH~AY-NO WRAP-ADULT-FAN THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP THEFT'201-5OO-GN-BUILDING.FiREARMS THEFT'201-5OO-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTN PROP THEFT'201-5OO-GM-WATERCRAFT.OTH PROP ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED 1 100.0 0 0.0 4 100.0 2 100.0 2 100.0 1 100.0 2 66.6 1 100.0 0 0.0 25.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Run: 1-0ct-96 14:13 OFF01 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 08/26/96 - 09/25/96 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: All Activity codes: ALL Officers/Badges: All Grids: ACT ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION TG031 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-COIN MACH-MONEY TG059 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-YARDS-OTHR PROP TG061 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MAILS-MONEY TG069 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MAILS-OTHER PROP TG151 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-MONEY TG159 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-OTHER TG169 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-WATERCRAFT'OTH PROP U3028 THEFT-MS-ISSUE ~ORTHLE$S CHECK-200 OR LESS U3288 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING'200 OR LESS U3498 THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS VA022 VEH-MORE THAN 2500-FE-THEFT-TRUCK'AUTO X3360 CRIM AGNST ADM JUST-MS-VIOL HARRASS REST ORDER MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT REPORTEO FOUNDED OFFENSES PENOING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEAREO 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 6 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0.0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 5 1 0 1 0 0 I 0 1 100.0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 0.0 I 0 1 0 I 0 0 I 100.0 **** Report Totals: 96 3 93 45 29 15 4 48 51.6 RUN: ADU04 1-0CT-96 'Y ISN'S ONLY? NO NAME TYPES: ALL ACTIVITY CODES: ALL INSTALLATION NAME -- MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT ENFORS ADULT SUMMARY BY INCIDENT - 08/26/96 THRU 09/25/96 IL WITHIN 'DATE ARRESTED' PAGE 1 INCIDENT PER INC NAME NUMBER SEQ SEQ TYPE GRID ADULT NAME OFF DATE OF RACE DATE OF: NO. BIRTH SEX REPORT ADDRESS CITY STATE ARREST 96001631 1 1 A 10 96001631 2 1 A 10 96001698 1 1 A 30 96001718 1 1 A 40 96001735 1 1 A 40 '. ~43 1 1 A 40 96001749 1 1 A 42 96001749 1 2 A 42 96001750 1 1 A 30 96001750 1 2 A 30 96001765 1 1 A 30 96001767 1 1 A 50 96001781 1 1 A 40 96°01812 1 1 A 40 96001812 1 2 A 40 WICKLUND, ANGEL BETH 418 9/02/68 F 23096 SHUTTLEWORTH RD SIREN WI TAYLOR, VALERIE JEAN 418 8/18/70 F 3455 SHORELINE DR NAVARRE MN HOWARD, CATHLEEN MARIE 416 6/26/66 F 1511 MAY ST LONG LAKE MN HALPIN, WILFRED III 411 1/12/71 M 1425 POPPYSEED DR NEW BRIGHTON MN BARTHEL, TIMOTHY JON 422 12/27/75 5322 MAYWOOD RD MOUND MN MITTELSTAEDT, SARAH FRANCES 416 11/08/71 F W 4579 SHORELINE DR SPRING PARK MN OLSON, LANCE NORMAN 419 7/01/50 4217 CHIRSTY LN MINNETONKA MN OLSON, LANCE NORMAN 419 7/01/50 4217 CHIRSTY LN MINNETONKA MN STOTTLER, TODD WAYNE 419 7/21/73 8549 KENNEDY MEMORIAL DR ST BONI MN STOTTLER, TODD WAYNE 419 7/21/73 8549 KENNEDY MEMORIAL DR ST BONI MN BECKER, SHAWN MICHAEL 419 5/14/69 M W 2350 RIDGE DR ST LOUIS PK MN DATE OF ACT SUPPLEMENT ARREST DISPOS. CODE ID NUMBER DISPOSITION ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION 8/14/96 8/26/96 N3030 REL BAIL OR RO 8/26/96 DISTURB PEACE-MS-DISORDERLY CONDUCT 8/14/96 8/26/96 N3030 REL BAIL OR RO 8/26/96 DISTURB PEACE-MS-DISORDERLY CONDUCT 8/22/96 9/05/96 U1018 REL BAIL OR RO 9/05/96 THEFT-FE-BY CHECK-200 OR LESS 8/26/96 9/11/96 U3028 REL BAIL OR RO 9/11/96 THEFT-MS-ISSUE t4ORTHLESS CHECK-200 OR LESS 8/27/96 8/27/96 M4199 REL BAIL OR RO 8/27/96 LIQUOR - OTHER 8/28/96 8/28/96 A5353 REL BAIL OR RO 8/28/96 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-ADULT-STR 8/29/96 8/29/96 J3501 REL BAIL OR RO 8/29/96 TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE 8/29/96 8/29/96 J3E01 REL BAIL OR RO 8/29/96 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV 8/30/96 8/30/96 J3501 REL BAIL OR RO 8/30/96 TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE 8/30/96 8/30/96 J3E01 REL BAIL OR RO 8/30/96 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV 8/30/96 8/30/96 L3143 8/30/96 CSt 2-NO FRC-OTH FAM-13-15-F MINNICH, GUY ALAN 419 4/22/62 M W 8/31/96 4842 LANARK RD MOUND MN 8/31/96 BARTHEL, TIMOTHY JON 425 12/27/76 M W 9/03/96 5522 MAYWOOD RD MOUND MN 9/11/96 HOPPER, GREGG ARTHUR 417 11/28/49 11 SHORELINE PL SPRING PARK MN HOPPER, GREGG ARTHUR 417 11/28/49 11 SHORELINE PL SPRING PARK MN HELD 8/31/96 A5351 HELD ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT ATTEMPTS NRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAM 9/11/96 03299 REL BAIL OR RO STLN PROP-MS-POSSESS-OTH PROP-200 OR LESS 9/05/96 9/05/96 J2701 REL BAIL OR RO 9/05/96 TRAFFIC-GM-AGG DUI-UNK INJ-MV 9/05/96 9/05/96 J2R01 REL BAIL OR RO 9/05/96 TRAFF-GM-FAZL TO SUBMIT TO TEST-UNK INJ-MV RUN: 1-0¢T-96 ADU04 PRIMARY ISM~s ONLY? NO NAME TYPES= ALL ACTIVITY COOES= ALL ]NSTALLAT[ON NAME -- MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT ENFORS ADULT SUMMARY BY [NC[DENT - 08/26/96 THRU 09/25/96 gITHIN 'DATE ARRESTM PAGE 2 INCIDENT PER INC NAME ADULT NAME NUMBER SEQ SEQ TYPE GRID ADDRESS 96001814 1 1 A ELI, CYNTHIA BELLE 40 5853 FAIRFIELD RD 96001821 1 1 A POE, GARY LEE 40 7895 RANCNVIEW LN 96001821 1 2 A POE, GARY LEE 40 7895 RANCHV[EW LN 960018~9 1 I A MAGEE, PAUL TIMOTHY 10 6009 R[DGEWOOD RD 96001852 1 1 A TESSMER, MEREDITH MARIE 10 10 POLAR RIDGE DR 96001869 1 1 A ROBINSON, JEAN MARY 50 5110 WINDSOR RD 96001869 2 1 A HARTMAN, DAVID RORY 50 5124 WINDSOR RO 96001875 1 1 A PIEPER, ROBERT DUDEK 30 1400 WESTJ~KX)O DR 96001875 1 2 A PIEPER, ROBERT DUDEK 30 1400 WESTWOOD DR 96001894 1 1 A YOST, ERIK MATTHEW 20 2005 KELLY DR 96001894 1 2 A YOST, ERIK MATTHEW 20 2005 KELLY DR 96001900 1 I A HARMSEN, JOHN ARTHUR 30 12500 MARION LN 96001900 I 2 A HARMSEN, dOHN ARTHUR 30 12500 MAR[ON LN 96001906 1 1 A ESS, THOMAS WALLACE 30 2043 LAKESIDE LN 96001906 1 2 A ESS, THOMAS WALLACE 30 2043 LAKESIOE LN OFF DATE OF RACE DATE OF: NO. BIRTH SEX REPORT CITY STATE ARREST DATE OF ACT SUPPLEMENT ARREST DISPOS. CODE ID NUMBER DISPOSITION ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION 425 1/12/55 F W MOUND MN 404 10/02/54 MAPLE GROVE MN 404 10/02/54 MAPLE GROVE MN 417 2/14/57 MOUND MN 415 4/18/72 F W YOUNG AMERICA MN 425 9/30/29 F W MOUND MN 425 3/05/51 M W MOUND MN 418 10/03/51 M W MOUND MN 418 10/03/51 M W MOUND MN 419 7/20/70 GOLDEN VALLEY MN 419 7/20/70 M W GOLDEN VALLEY MN 9/04/96 9/04/96 A5353 REL BAIL OR RO 9/04/96 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-ADULT-STR 9/06/96 9/06/96 J2701 REL BAIL OR RO 9/06/96 TRAFF[C-GM-AGG DUI-UNK INJ-MV 9/06/96 9/06/96 JZE01 REL BAIL OR RO 9/06/96 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV 9/08/96 9/08/96 P3310 REL BAIL OR RO 9/08/96 TRESPASS-MS-PRIVATE'UNK INTENT 9/11/96 9/11/96 J3500 REL BAIL OR RO 9/11/96 TRAF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR 9/12/96 9/12/96 X3360 REL BAIL OR 9/12/96 CRIM AGNST ADH JUST-MS-VIOL HARRASS REST ORDER 9/12/96 9/12/96 X3360 REL BAIL OR RO 9/12/96 CRIM AGNST ADH JUST-MS'VIOL HARRASS REST ORDER 9/15/96 9/15/96 J3501 REL BAIL OR RO 9/15/96 TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE 9/15/96 9/15/96 J3E01 REL BAIL OR RO 9/15/96 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV 9/19/96 9/19/96 J3501 REL BAIL OR RO 9/19/96 TRAFF-ACCID-MS'DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE 9/19/96 9/19/96 J3E01 REL BAIL OR RO 9/19/96 TRAF-ACC-MS'AL 10 MORE-UNK INd-MV 404 8/22/52 M W 9/19/96 9/19/96 J2700 HELD MINNETONKA MN 9/19/96 TRAFF[C-GM-AGG DUI-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 404 8/22/52 MINNETONKA MN 422 10/05/42 MOUND MN 422 10/05/42 MOUND MN 9/19/96 9/19/96 J2EO0 HELD 9/19/96 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 9/20/96 9/20/96 J3500 REL BAIL OR " 9/20/96 TRAF-ACCID-MS'DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQL 9/20/96 9/20/96 J3EO0 REL BAIL OR RO 9/20/96 TRAF-ACC-MS'AL 10 MORE-UNK [NJ-UNK VEH RUN: 1'0CT-96 ADU04 PR'~'RY ISN'S ONLY? NO NAME TYPES: ALL ACTIVITY CODES: ALL INSTALLATION NAME -- MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT ENFORS ADULT SUMMARY BY INCIDENT - 08/26/96 THRU 09/25/96 JL lJ, WITHIN 'DATE ARRESTED' PAGE 3 INCIDENT PER INC NAME ADULT NAME NUMBER SEQ SEQ TYPE GRID ADDRESS 9600190? 1 1 A KELLER, KURT WILLIAM 10 5985 LORING DR 96001909 1 1 A CASEY, SEAN JAMES 50 4968 AFTON RD 96001909 2 1 A CHENEY, MICHELLE 50 1314 RAVEN~K)OD CfR 96001934 1 1 A TOBIAS, JOHN DAVID 50 3038 BRIGHTON BLVD OFF DATE OF RACE DATE OF: NO. BIRTH SEX REPORT CITY STATE ARREST 421 2/23/60 N W 9/21/96 MINNETIRSTA MN 9/21/96 421 5/18/76 M W 9/22/96 ]MOUND MN 9/22/96 421 5/07/77 F W 9/22/96 ~ACONIA MN 9/22/96 421 2/19/68 M W 9/25/96 MOUND MN 9/25/96 DATE OF ACT SUPPLEMENT ARREST DISPOS. CODE ID NUMBER DISPOSITION ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION 9/21/96 J3500 REL BAIL OR RO TRAF-ACCID-MS-DR]VE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR 9/22/96 M4199 REL BAIL OR RO LIQUOR - OTHER 9/22/96 M4199 REL BAIL OR RO LIQUOR - OTHER 9/25/96 A5351 HELD ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAM ~RT TOTALS - NUMBER OF INCIDENTS: 34 RUN: 1-0CT-96 JUV04 PRIMARY ISN'S ONLY? NAME TYPES: ACTIVITY CODES: INCIDENT PER INC NAME NUMBER SEQ SEQ TYPE GRID 96001538 2 1 J 50 96001538 3 1 J 50 96001538 4 1 50 96001686 2 1 30 96001686 3 1 J 3O 96001719 1 1 5O 96001728 1 1 3O 96001735 2 1 4O 96001745 1 1 10 96001747 1 1 3O 96001747 1 2 37 96001751 1 1 10 96001775 1 96001781 I 96001792 1 INSTALLATION NAME -- MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT PAGE 1 NO ALL ALL ENFORS JUVENILE SUMMARY BY INCIDENT - WITHIN 'DATE CONTACTED' 08/26/96 THRU 09/25/96 JUVENILE NAME ADDRESS OFF DATE OF RACE DATE OF: DATE OF ACT SUPPLEMENT NO. BIRTH SEX REPORT DISPOS. CODE ID NUMBER CITY STATE CONTACT ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION CONTACT DISPOSITION 1 J I J 40 I J 50 BOSMA, JUSTIN RICHARD 3100 INVERNESS LN WILLIAM, MICHAEL LLOYD 4753 KILDARE RD BUTKEVICH, ANDREY 4732 MANCHESTER RD HOMOLA, JOEL RICHARD 2420 WESTEDGE BLVD 417 6/05/81 M W 8/03/96 9/10/96 U1287 MOUND MN 9/10/96 THEFT-FE-SHOPLIFTING-201'500 417 8/24/8/, M W 8/03/96 9/10/96 U1287 MOUND MN 9/10/96 THEFT-FE-SHOPLIFTING-201'500 417 7/24/82 M W 8/03/96 9/10/96 U1287 MOUND MN 9/10/96 TNEFT-FE-SHOPLIFTING'201'500 404 6/14/85 M W MOUND MN REF JUV CT/PRO REF JUV CT/PRO REF JUV CT/PRO 8/21/96 8/30/96 U3498 REF JUV CT/PRO 8/30/96 THEFT-MS-BICYCLE'NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS NC)MOLA, NICK WILLIAM 404 12/13/82 M W 8/21/96 2420 WESTEDGE BLVO MOUND MN 8/30/96 COMBS, SARAH RACHEL 4856 ISLAND VIEW DR PAINTER, ADAM MICHAEL 4890 EDGEWATER DR LITTELL, DARYL WADE 4363 SHORELINE DR KRAUSE, NOAH THOMAS 6510 CTY RD 110 W OVERSTREET, MARISSA DAWN 1700 JONES LN 8/30/96 U3498 REF JUV CT/PRO THEFT-MS-BICYCLE'NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS 422 11/17/80 F W 8/26/96 8/26/96 M5350 MOUND MN 8/26/96 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY 416 3/30/82 M W MOUND MN REF JUV CT/ 8/26/96 8/26/96 03602 REF JUV CT/PRO 8/26/96 OBSENiTY-MS-INDECENT-EXPOSURE'TO ADULT 422 9/24/81 M B 8/27/96 SPRING PARK MN 8/27/96 411 7/14/83 M W 8/28/96 MOUND MN 8/28/96 416 10/03/80 F W 8/29/96 MOUND MN 8/29/96 416 10/03/80 F W MOUND MN OVERSTREET, MARISSA DAWN 1700 JONES LN RUPPERT, JOSHUA DAVID 4480 MANCHESTER RD BOSMA, JUSTIN RICHARD 3100 INVERNESS LN LITTELLL, DARYL WADE 4363 SHORELINE DR 415 10/21/79 MOUND MN 8/27/96 M4199 REF JUV CT/PRO LIQUOR ' OTHER 8/29/96 A5355 REF JUV CT/PRO ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-CHLD-ACG REF JUV CT/PRO 8/29/96 M7701 FALSSELY IMPERSONATING ANOTHER 8/29/96 8/29/96 M3005 8/29/96 JUVENILE'USE OF TOBACCO 8/30/96 8/30/96 M3005 8/30/96 JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO 425 6/05/81 M W 9/01/96 MOUND MN 9/01/96 425 9/24/82 M B 9/03/96 MOUND MN 9/03/96 COPHER, ERIC WAYNE 422 3/15/82 M W 9/03/96 3080 DUNDEE LN MOUND MN 9/04/96 REF dUV CT/PRO REF JUV CT/PRO 9/01/96 A5351 REF JUV CT/PRO ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT ATTEMPTS NRM-NANDS-ADLT'FAM 9/03/96 Q3299 REF JUV CT/Pen STLN PROP-MS-POSSESS-OTH PROP-200 OR LESS 9/04/96 83894 REF JUV CT/PRO BURG 3-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT RUN: 1-0CT-96 JUV04 ~Y ISN'S ONLY? NO NAME TYPES: ALL ACTIVITY COOES: ALL I IL INSTALLATION NAME -- MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT ENFORS JUVENILE SUMMARY BY INCIDENT - WITHIN 'DATE CONTACTED' 08/26/96 THRU 09/25/96 PAGE 2 INCIDENT PER INC NAME NUMBER SEQ SEQ TYPE GRID JUVENILE NAME ADDRESS OFF DATE OF RACE DATE OF: DATE OF ACT SUPPLEMENT CONTACT NO. BIRTH SEX REPORT DISPOS. COOE ID NUMBER DISPOSITION CITY STATE CONTACT ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION 96001792 2 1 J 50 96001823 1 1 J 30 96001823 2 1 J 30 96001823 3 1 J 30 96001864 1 1 J 4O 864 2 1 d 40 BUTKEVICH, ANDREY PETROVICH 422 6/24/82 M W 47~2 MANCHESTER RD MOUND MN 9/03/96 9/04/96 POSTHUMUS, SAMUEL ADAM 404 7/04/80 M g 9/07/96 635 CTY RD 19 MOUND MN 9/07/96 KRAHL, JUSTIN DUANE 404 1/18/80 M W 9/07/96 4700 W. BRANCH RD MOUND MN 9/07/96 GRANT, BRIANNA KAY 404 1/07/80 F W 9/07/96 6050 CTY RD 19 MOUND MN 9/07/96 404 11/04/79 F W 9/15/96 BLOOMINGTON MN 9/15/96 CLOUTIER, JENNIFER ERIN 7204 WEST 114TH ST CfR BENSON, TARA ANN 404 8/07/80 F W 9/15/96 27640 ISLANDVIEW RD EXCELSIOR MN 9/15/96 96001883 1 1 J CAIN, CURTISS ALLEN 418 10/18/81 M W 9/16/96 36 4808 WILSHIRE BLVO MOUND MN 9/16/96 SHANKLIN, TREMAYNE DURELL 418 9/27/82 M B 4773 WILSHIRE BLVD MOUND MN 96001883 2 1 36 9/16/96 9/16/96 96001911 1 1 J GOULD, TERRANCE ARTHUR 422 7/28/80 M W 9/22/96 40 2400 COMMERCE BLVD MOUND MN 9/23/96 96001919 1 1 J FULKS, FANNIE FRANCES 421 5/28/79 F W 9/21/96 40 4721 ABERDEEN RD MOUND MN 9/21/96 96001919 2 1 J OBRIEN, CARRIE ANN 421 3/27/79 F W 9/21/96 40 5011 ENCHANTED RD MOUND MN 9/21/96 96001934 1 2 J RUTHERFORD, AMY IRENE 421 9/08/79 F W 9/25/96 50 2128 BELMONT LN MOUND MN 9/25/96 9/04/96 B3894 REF JUV CT/PRO BURG 3-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-CC~4 THEFT 9/07/96 M3001 dUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER REF JUV CT/PRO 9/07/96 M3001 REF JUV CT/PRO JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER 9/07/96 M3001 REF JUV CT/PRO JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER 9/15/96 M3001 REF JUV CT/PRO JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER 9/15/96 M3001 REF JUV CT/PRO JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER 9/16/96 U3288 REF JUV CT/PRO THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS 9/16/96 U3288 REF JUV CT/PRO THEFT-MS'SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS 9/23/96 M5350 REF JUV CT/PRO JUVENILE-RUNAWAY 9/21/96 M5313 REF JUV CT/PRO dUVENILE-CURFEW 9/21/96 M5313 REF JUV CT/PRO JUVENILE-CURFEW 9/25/96 M3001 REF JUV CT/PRO JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER .REPORT TOTALS - NUMBER OF INCIDENTS: 27 II IL CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: October 3, 1996 City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ ~, SEPTEMBER 1996 MONTI-ILY REPORT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY_ There were 62 building permits issued in September for a construction value of $1,346,456, this brings year-to-date construction value to $9,050,817. This is more that $3 million ahead of last year's record pace. This value included four single family dwellings and a twin home at Pelican Point. We issued 38 plumbing, mechanical, and miscellanous permits for a total of 100 permits this month, and 621 year-to-date. The record setting numbers for construction activity and value is continuing as the cold weather approaches. PLANNING & ZONING The Planning Commission reviewed six variance cases, one conditional use permit and one minor subdivision this last month. Since the ordinance for the streamlining of variances has been adopted; two properties have taken advantage of the new ordinance in the month of September bringing the year-to-date total to four. JS:pj printed on recycled paper SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (CONDOS) TWO FAMILY / DUPLEX MULTIPLE FAMILY 13 OR MORE UNITS) TRANSIENT HSG. (HOTELS / MOTELS) SUBTOTAL COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC / SCHOOLS SUBTOTAL ADDITIONS TO PRINCIPAL BUILDING DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS DECKS SWIMMING POOLS REMODEL - MISC RESIDENTIAL REMODEL -MULTIPLE DWELLINGS SUBTOTAL COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC / SCHOOLS / CHURCH DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS SUBTOTAL City of Mound BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT Month: SEPTEMBER Year: 1996 )NTH t/PERMITS VALUATION iF UNITS 4 479,581 26 2 523,639 10 6 1,003,220 36 tt PERMITS VALUATION # PERMITS 1 1 2 # PERMITS VALUATION # PERMITS 5 128 483 22 5 59,575 18 6 23,608 54 1 37 123,370 171 2 53 335,036 268 # PERMITS VALUATION # PERMITS 2 1 7.700 5 1 500 2 2 8,200 9 RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TOTAL DEMOLITIONS TOTAL 1 # PERMITS 62 VALUATION 1,346,456 8 5 13 36 PERMIT COUNT ~ 'BUILDING 62 328 FENCES & RETAINING WALLS 5 25 SIGNS 0 9 PLUMBING 16 109 MECHANICAL 11 87 GRADING 0 2 S&W, STREET EXCAV., FJRE, ETC. 6 61 TOTAL ~ DATE VALUATION 2,890, 486 780 454 5,670,940 VALUATION 10,000 200 000 310,000 VALUATION 556,924 193 712 150,656 4OO 690 921 81,640 1,674,253 VALUATION .65,124 1,200 500 1,395,624 VALUATION 9,050,817 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Mayor, City Council and City Manager Jim Fackler, Parks Direc~~.~/, September monthly Reporl: /~/ October 5,1996 ~ GENERAL COMMENT.:_ The dry summer continued through out most of the month so alot of maintenance was done in areas such as painting. Clean up parks maintenance shop, tractor repair, truck service and small projects similar to the installation of a fence at Mound Bay Park. The staff has been reduced by two. This took effect at the end of the first week of September. Currently, I have one full time maintenance person until mid November and a part time person for twenty four hours per week. The full time position will not begin until April 1997 and the part time position will be reduced in hours as winter sets in. TREES: Eight trees were marked for removal from city property for hazardous conditions. DOCKS: The dock inspector has been cleaning up inspection notices sent out in August. There is generally good cooperation from dock site holders but there is always the exception. Some need two or three notices along with verbal contact to comply. That is why a I IL recommendation looking into allowing the city to take more aggressive action to resolve an issue after multiple attempts by the staff is being proposed to the Parks & Open Space Commission. If it is approved, staff will provide it to the City Council. CEMETERY: The only activity in the cemetery has been the placement of headstones. We often get requests, as we did this month, to allow a stone larger than city ordinance allows. This is generally due to multiple burials in one or two plots. It is allowed to have an ash and vault or, an ash and an ash burial in one plot. We have to adhere to the sizes of the headstone due to the impact on the adjacent burial plot. If a stone is too large it is likely to be disrupted when a burial takes place next to it. Then we get into the question of whose responsibility it is to repair or even replace the affected stone. TOM REESE PAGE 81 09/25/1996 16:31 612--4724435 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 F..AST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 · WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 ° TELEPHONE 612/473-7033 G. Alan Wlltcutt, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD MEMBERS Dougtas E. Bab¢~c~ Chair, Tonka Bay Tom Reese Vice Chair, Moun~ Joseph Zwak Secreta~. Greenwood Robert Rascop Treasurer, Shorewood Kant Oahlan Mtnnetcnka Beach Bert Foster Deephaven Gretchen Magfich Minnetonka Ouane Markus Wayzata Craig Moiler Victoria Craig Nelson Spring Pe~k Eugene P,~tY Minnetrlsta Paul Stark Excelsior Herb J, Suerth Woodland OPOrtO TO: MOUND CITY COUNCIL DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 FROM: TOM REESE, LMCD REPRESENTATIVE SUBJECT: REPORT ON MEETING WITH C.O.W. During my recent meeting with thc Council Committee of the Whole, several questions were raised that required further research. Summarized here are the answers to these questions so far as we know them today. Q 1. Can city lakeshore be non-contiguous for the purposes of counting entitlements and siting docks? ls this by Ordinance? A 1. Cities in the past have been allowed to treat all city lakeshore as though it were one parcel for the purposes of BSU entitlements and the siting of docks. In the usual sense, this is by past practice, although it is covered in the ordinance pertaining to special density licensing Q Z. What does the ordinance say about ownership of the counted shoreland? A2. The ordinance specifically states that the land must be city owned. This has been interpreted by the LMCD as land for which the city retains the dockage rights, rather than outright ownership for all parcels. I would guess, this could call into question the type of co. ntrol. afforded the city on some of the parcels of counted. This was an issue m Minnetonka Beach. Q:3, Are there any grandfather clauses in present Mound licenses? A :3. Mound has always been considered as conforming, hence there are no known grandfather provisions. Q4. What has been the understanding of the amount of counted shoreline in Mound? A 4. The historical amount of counted shoreline is 27,005 ft. QS. Can the "shoreline" of the new channel be counted in any new entitement? A~. This is a complex question. The general rule is that new shoreline cannot be created by artificial means. It is also understood that Shoreline is counted at the 929.4' NGVD line as it existed on May 3, 19'78. Thus, the dredging probably will not add lineal footage to Mound's entitlement. I IL 09/25/1995 16:3! 612--472443§ TOM REESE PAGE 02 ',~. ,C.a.n n cid.z,? fi. lc a.n adverse .J~ossession sui~ against the ci~ da. ~ ~s possio~e, l~ut highly unlikely. It if did occur, t is not tl~ proper place to resolve it. it would have to be resolvCdh~nLthMeCD courts. lc. Doug Babcock Al Willcutt CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 2, 1996 TO: Mound City Council " FROM: Jim Fackler, Parks Directo~kf" SUBJECT: Lineal Footage for Dock Prog~m I have reviewed the summary given by Tom Reese, Mound's LMCD Representative, dated September 25, 1996, to questions raised by the Council in reference to lineal footage for the City's dock program. There is need for clarification relating to two of the questions: "Q. 4. What has been the understanding of the amount of counted shoreline in Mound?" "A. 4. The historical amount of counted shoreline is 27,005 ft." There have been additions and deletions to the claimed shoreline over the past eleven years since I have been with the City of Mound. This number of 27,005 lineal feet comes from a 1982 record from the LMCD for a new Multiple Dock at that time. It is my understanding that in all the following years that the lineal footage was not required to be listed on the City's multiple dock license renewal. "Q. 5. Can the "shoreline" of the new channel be counted in any new entitlement?" "A.5. This is a complex question. The general rule is that new shoreline cannot be created by artificial means. It is also understood that shoreline is counted at the 929.4' NGVD line as it existed on May 3, 1978. Thus, the dredging probably will not add lineal footage to Mound's entitlement." I IL Memo Lineal Footage for Dock Program October 2, 1996 Through discussion with Greg Nybeck, Administrative Technician, it was determined that there is a misunderstanding about where the shoreline claimed for lineal footage purposes is located for the Lost Lake area. Mr. Nybeck believed that Mr. Reese thought the City was looking to claim the boarder of the dredged channel which is below the DNR OHW of 929.4. In my memorandum to the City Council dated July 18, 1996, which listed noncontiguous shoreline under City control that could be counted I denoted a portion of the shoreline along the perimeter of Lost Lake that I believe to be above the DNR OHW to be counted for possible licensing purposes. I would like to stress that at this time the LMCD believes that the City of Mound is considered conforming and unless an issue is raised, the City will remain so. If there is an indication of noncompliance, in light of the recent Minnetonka Beach compliance issue, the City of Mound would be allowed a 1997 permit, but could be required by the LMCD board to provide an updated survey of all noncontiguous claimed shoreline along with possible legal history on rights to the City to allow dockage at each area to receive a 1998 multiple dock license. In my memo as noted above, a list of the Boat Storage Units (BSU's) for each year was given. By LMCD regulation, each year the BSU count changed, the City could have been required to go through a complete new application procedure which would have included all pertinent information to make an application, such as surveys, along with public hearings. The recommendation from Greg Nybeck is that the City determine a set BSU count for 1997 and reapply each subsequent year with that number. What has to be determined is what that figure will be and the possible impact it could have on the current dock system. Because the dock program in Mound has a history of sensitivity, issues relating to it have potential to become stressful. As long as these concerns are being raised in-house by the Council and not from an outside source, I believe it can be resolved with little disruption to the program. JF:pj Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. MEMORANDUM September 26, 1996 RECEIv 3 ali-' /. ? 1996 From: To: Mound City Council Mound Economic Development Commission Bruce Chamberlain t~. ~. Lost Lake Project Manager Re: Project concerns raised by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The MCWD Board of Managers has raised concerns about the viability of the Lost Lake project. One member of the Board has expressed concerns about aspects of the project in the past. We, as City staff, believed we had addressed and eased many of his concerns. This belief was reinforced with our interpretation of the MCWD's official comments to the EAW dated July 3, 1996 to which we directly responded with the sincere belief that the Lost Lake project generally meets MCWD rules. It has been since the EAW process ended that we have become aware that several MCWD board members still have concerns. The MCWD sent me a letter dated August 23, 1996 stating that the Board has "serious concerns about the project and about the project's compliance with MCWD rules". I attended the September 12 MCWD meeting to discuss the issue. We determined at the meeting that it would be good to bring the City and MCWD together to discuss the project, air concerns and hopefully find common ground. A workshop including the MCWD, City Council and EDC has been scheduled for Thursday October 17, 1996 at 7:30 in the Mound council chambers. The purpose of the workshop is to help each party understand all the issues surrounding the project and hopefully find consensus on basic goals for Lost Lake and downtown Mound. Representatives from Peterson Environmental and Braun Intertec will be present to address issues about the ecology of Lost Lake, the pollution testing that was completed in and around Lost Lake and staff' s interpretation of permit issues. The MCWD will also have staff at the meeting to address technical and permit issues. Attendance at the workshop is very important. If you have any questions, feel free to call me. Enc. CC: Gene Strommen, District Director Minnehaha Creek Watershed District M:VvlOUND'x94-40xCOUNCIL3.MEM 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 I i ! I _ 07103196 18:27 F.~ $12 47-9 4242 ~:t'ry ~v ~mt~ ~NCK ASSOC. MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICY ~0 ~ Gray Fr. shwater Center, Na~. 2500 Shad~ood Road, Suite 37 ~=elsior, Minneso~ 55331 Phone: 61Z/471.0~gO Fax: $. HattfleL Secretary: Thornu W. LaBaunty, Trlasumr, Monica Th~m~ Maale. Jr. ~uly 3, ~9~ Mr. Bruce Chan2berl~ Economic Dcvelopm~nt Coordimtor City of Mound 5341 iVfaywood Road Mound, MN 55364...1697 Comments on Lost Lake Project EAW Dated Sune 3, 1996 Wenck File #0185-04-162 Dear 1VLr. Chamberlain: I am writing on behalfof the Minneh~a Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Board of Managers to provide the following comments on the above-referenced EAW: I. l: is the policy of the MCWD Board of Managers to preserve the natural appearance of shoreline areas, recreadonaI, wildlife and Hsheries resources of surfm:e waters, and surface water quality. State law and MCWD Rules prokibit dredg/ng to cream nav/gat/onal access where none exists, and require that any dredging of exining navigational access comstitut~ the minimal impact solution to m:hieve a specific need with respect to ~I1 or. he re~onable ai:¢matives. 2. Any dredging ifperrrdrted, should specify, multiple silt flotation curtains to bc installed w/thin the channel to confine sediment d/srurbcd during ch'edging to Thc channel and prevent wa:er quality impa~t~ to Cooks Bay, Lake Minnetonka. 3. The pern~g process will provide for more detailed Dis~'ict direc~on on specific dredging proposals. 002 ~oo21oo3 DL~'~I~ Dh'actor Eugane la. stromrnen. Ass~lant District Directce Suzanne M. Wmedman 0?/03/96 15:~? F.L~ $t2 '479 ~2~2 ~CK ASSOC. ~¢ Mx. Bruce Chamb~:%ain City o~Mound July 3, 1996 ?agc 2 4. Thc ~CXVD stro~ supports pl--~ to complete · downtown stormWat~r mana~ent plan and construct the associated ~N'LFR,P stormwatcr ~oads ~ part of the c[ow~town reclcv¢],opment. 5. Any shoreU, nc Lmp~ovemcnt work will ~equi~¢ a permit pu~uant to MCWD Ku~¢ F. ~ you for thc opportunity to commit on thc proposed project. If you have ~ny question~ mlat~ to thc above comments or MCVCD permit ~equircments, please ¢_~!1 District Dkector Ocn¢ Sl~omz'nen a~ 471-0590 or myself at 479-4224. ;SOCD:~ C. Andzcw E. Syve~son, ~ Environmental Engineer A~sfljv Ocnc S=ommcn, District Director MCWD Board of Mmagcrs Louis Smith, Smith Patke~ ! I Crc=tiv~ Solution~ for Lurid Plunrtin~ ~nd Desi.~n I Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT FROM: DATE: Bruce Chamberlain, Downtown Redevelopment Coordinator July 18, 1996 ! ! ! I SUBJECT: Lost Lake Environmental Assessment (EAW) HKG FILE NUMBER: 9440 PROJECT LOCATION: Lost Lake wetland adjacent to County Road 15 in downtown Mound BACKGROUND: The Lost Lake canal project is proposed to restore the historic Lost Lake canal from Cooks Bay on Lake Minnetonka to downtown Mound. In addition to the canal itself the project and connected actions include dredging a portion of wetland for transient docks, restoring previously filled wetland areas, creating a permanent docking facility, restoring wetland vegetation, building a boardwalk, conducting shoreline improvements, building fishing and transit boat piers constructing wildlife nesting structures and making modifications to the Bartlett Boulevard bridge. I I I ! [ [ II A mandatory EAW was prepared for the project pursuant to EQB rule Section 4410.4300 subp. 25 and 27 dealing with work in protected waters. A public comment period was conducted for the EAW from June 3 to July 3, 1996. During that time, nine written and verbal comments were received from various agencies and individuals. This report and attached reports responds to each of the comments specifically. Copies of the comments are included as attachments. Please note that in addition to this report which addresses some of the comments, there are also letters from Peterson Environmental Consulting and Braun Intertec which respond to comments within their realm of professional expertise. ACTION REQUIRED: It is the Mound City Council's responsibility (acting as the Responsible Governmental Unit, RGU) to review the Lost Lake EAW and all official comments received in its regard and take one of the following actions. Require the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). An EIS is an extensive and detailed written statement addressing the environmental impacts of an action. An EIS should be prepared for a project if it has the potential for significant environmental effects. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Il 111 t 11 ! g ti Iii ti I1 ti ! III Ii Il Planning Report - Lost Lake EAW -August- 18, 1996 Page 2 B. Indicate modifications to the project which lessen its environmental impact. These modifications can be imposed as permit conditions or other means. C. Proceed with the project as proposed. COMMENTS: This report will organize response to public comments as simply as possible. Responses to public comment below are organized according to the commenter. If response to comments are addressed by Peterson Env. or Braun, this report will reference attached reports. Please note that only public comments which raise concern about the project are addressed below. Several positive and neutral public comments were made but require no response. Minnesota Historical Society_: No comments which require response were made. Metropolitan Council: No comments which require response were made. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service: The commenter raised a concern about the possibility of secondary channels being dredged ia the future from adjacent shoreline to the main canal. There are currently two secondary channels which lead into the main canal. The project proposer does not propose any secondary charmels. If adjacent private property owners are able to get permits for dredging secondary channels, it is conceivable that they could be constructed. If this occurs to a large extent, the ecology of the wetland could be damaged through fragmentation and added boat traffic. The RGU can find this possibility to be a threat and request that permits received for the Lost Lake project place conditions that no secondary channels from adjacent shoreline be allowed to connect to the main canal other than the two existing and those proposed in the Lost Lake project plan dated 1996. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District: Comment #1 - see Peterson Environmental report. Comment #2 - The commenter indicates that multiple silt flotation curtains should be installed during and for a time after construction to confine sediment and prevent water quality impacts to Lake Minnetonka. Assuming the project proceeds, this suggestion will be followed. The EAW, its comments and responses as well as permit requirements will be consulted during plan .J,._.,, p.~reparation to incorporate issues like this. . Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: Comment #1 - The commenter expresses the same concern as the one immediately above. Comment g2 - The commenter raises the fact that the boat pull-outs were not taken into account when the sediment sampling was completed. The reason is that boat pull-outs were an engineering recommendation incorporated into the project after sediment sampling was done in 1995. It is my understanding from a conversation with Judy Mader from the MPCA (July 17, 1996) that contaminant levels in sediment can change within a very short distance and since the i ! I I I I I I I I PETERSON I:NVIRONMENT^L CONSULTING, INC. July 19, 1996 Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. 7300 Metro Blvd., Suite 525 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 Subject: Dear Bruce: Responses to Comments Lost Lake Channel Restoration EAW We have prepared the following responses to comments generated by the Lost Lake Channel Restoration EAW. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (July 3, 1996) Comment 1: "In this respect, we are disappointed that the project described in the EAW does not contain a designated public access as one of its potential benefits. Inclusion of such an access would offer non-riparian citizens of the City of Mound, as well as citizens from other areas, those benefits being provided to riparian landowners. As you know, we have conveyed this belief to the City on previous occasions." Response 1: The City of Mound has elected not to include a public boat access in the project for the following reasons: (1) A public access would conflict with the intended project purpose, which is to re- establish the historic Lost Lake boat channel in furtherance of the revitalization of Mound's downtown area. The boat channel was used around the turn of the century to provide passenger steamboats with access to the amenities of Mound's downtown area. The current proposal is intended to re-establish downtown Mound's historic role as a retail and restaurant destination for people boating on Lake Minnetonka. The additional vehicular and boat traffic (as well as the increased parking demand) that a public access would generate would detract from the downtown area's appeal and would be incompatible with the intended project purpose. (2) The City has made every effort to minimize the potential for disturbance-related impacts to wildlife in Lost Lake. The City believes that the additional boat traff~c generated by a public access would unreasonably increase the potential for such impacts. Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake EAW Comment Responses Page 2 I I I I 1 I I ,I ii (3) The City believes that adequate public access already exists in the general area. A public boat access already exists at Mound Bay Park, approximately one-half mile from Lost Lake. (4) The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has indicated that "[s]tate law and MCWD Rules prohibit dredging to create navigational access where none exists..." (see MCWD Comment 1 below). It is apparent that MCWD would consider a new City- proposed public boat access as being contrary to their rules. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (July 3, 1996) Comment 1: "It is the policy of the MCWD Board of Managers to preserve the natural appearance of shoreline areas, recreational, wildlife and fisheries resources of surface waters, and surface water quality. State law and MCWD Rules prohibit dredging to create navigational access where none exists, and require that any dredging of existing navigational access constitute the minimal impact solution to achieve a specific need with respect to all other reasonable alternatives." Response 1' The proposed project has been designed to enhance the overall resource value of Lost Lake as well as to re-establish the historic boat channel which connected (and still connects) downtown Mound to Lake Minnetonka. The affected portion of Lost Lake's shoreline has little natural character because it consists entirely of fill material which was historically placed in the lake to create the City road maintenance dump site as well as Auditors Road and its ancillary development. While the proposed project does involve recreational facilities and human use areas, it also includes the removal of 31,000 square feet of old fill and the restoration of natural character to about 665 lineal feet of shoreline which currently consists of fill slopes. With regard to navigational access, none of the proposed facilities would be contrary to state law or MCWD Rules by creating navigational access where none exists. The proposed project does not involve any boat access point and would only serve boats that have already gained navigational access to Lost Lake. Dredging of the Lost Lake channel constitutes a maintenance activity, since the channel still exists and is still navigable by small boats. We have reviewed both state and MCWD regulations that apply to excavation within public waters and find the following: MDNR Regulations MDNR regulations state that "[e]xcavation to provide maintenance of navigational channel projects shall be limited to the length, width and depth dimensions of the original channel"(Minn. Rules 6115.0201 Subp. 4(B)). The proposed channel dredge has been designed to match the channel's historic dimensions and, accordingly, complies with this provision. We have also reviewed MDNR regulations relating to excavation for harbors and boat slips and find that both the proposed transient and permanent docking facilities I I I I I i I I I I I I I 1 I l I IJ IL Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake EAW Comment Responses Page 3 appear to meet MDNR's specific standards for such activities (see 6115. 0201 Subp. 5). Any issues relating to these standards will be resolved with the MDNR during the protected waters permit process. With regard to the extension of navigation access, MDNR regulations prohibit navigational channel excavation where: (1) it is intended to gain access to navigable water depths where such access can reasonably be attained by alternative means which would result in less environmental impact; or (2) "...inland excavation is intended to extend riparian rights to nonriparian lands, or to promote the subdivision and development of nonriparian lands" (see Minn. Rules 6115.0200 Subp. 3 (A) and (B)). None of the proposed excavation work would fall within these prohibited classes of activities for the reasons set forth below. Access to Navigable Water Depths Neither the boat channel nor the proposed docking facilities will have an access point allowing boats to enter protected waters from adjacent uplands. These facilities will be used only by boats that have already obtained access to navigable water depths at alternative locations. Thus, these facilities are not intended to "gain access to navigable water depths". Extension of Riparian Rights to Nonriparian Lands Neither the boat channel nor the proposed docking facilities will extend riparian rights to nonriparian lands. The land involved in the construction of each facility is entirely City- owned and no subdividing is being proposed. All of the transient docks are proposed in locations that already have riparian frontage on Lost Lake; thus, no new riparian lands are being created in this location by the placement of the proposed docks. All of the land from which fill is being removed in the Auditors Road/Post Office area is City property with riparian frontage on Lost Lake. The removal of 14,000 square feet of fill from the Auditors RoacL/Post Office area does not create new riparian lands but rather restores the original shoreline of Lost Lake on lands that are already riparian. No subdivision of land will occur in this location and none of the restored shoreline would be used to dock boats. Similarly, the proposed dredging for the permanent docking facility ~vill involve the removal of 17,000 square feet of historic fill material and will all be done entirely on existing riparian lands that are owned by the City of Mound. The docking facility will not entail any subdivision of land that would extend riparian rights to additional parcels. Neither the owners of boats using the permanent docking facility or any concessionaires 1 ! ! Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake EAW Comment Responses Page 4 the City might contract with to operate the facility would gain any riparian rights; all such rights would continue to reside with the City of Mound. · a e W it'ct e lat' The MCWD regulations state that "No dredging shall be permitted (1) Above the ordinary high water level or into the upland adjacent to the lake or watercourse. (2) Which would enlarge a natural watercourse landward or which would create a channel to connect adjacent backwater areas for navigational purposes. (3) Where the dredging will alter the natural shoreline of a lake. (4) Where the dredging might cause increased seepage or result in subsurface drainage. (5) Where any portion of the dredged area contains any slope steeper than 3:1 in a marina or channel, or steeper than 10 to 1 for an area adjoining residential lakeshore." The dredging of the boat channel is Within the waterbody itself and therefore complies with all of these provisions. Dredging for transient and permanent boat docking areas would remove old fill material from areas which were naturally below the ordinary high water level of the waterbody. The. intent of this regulation appears to be to prevent the artificial enlargement of lakes and watercourses and not to prevent the removal of old fill material. Further, the ~ watercourse is not being manipulated by the proposed dredging; all dredging is within old fill areas. Since the dredging in old fill areas will be done to match the historical bottom profile of the waterbody, no increased seepage or subsurface drainage is anticipated. The shoreline within the old fill dredging area will all be lined with seawall so that erosion due to steep slopes will not be an issue. Also, the MCWD rules state that dredging activities which fall within categories described in #1-3 above may be permitted where the project complies with applicable DNR rules. As described above under "MDNR Regulations", the project does comply with the applicable DNR rules. The MCWD rules also state that "Dredging shall be permitted only for the following purposes: (1) To maintain, or remove sediment from, an existing public or private channel, that does not exceed the originally permitted requirements; or (2) To implement or maintain an existing legal right of navigational access; or (3) To remove sediment to eliminate a source of nutrients, pollutants, or contaminants; or (4) To improve the public recreational, wildlife, or fisheries resources of surface waters." The dredging for the boat channel meets condition #1 above. Dredging in the area of previously-deposited fill material meets condition #4 since it is being done in part to construct a marina which would improve the public recreational use of the waterbody. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Comment 4: With respect to the old dump site/salt storage, aerial photographs from the 1940s seem to show an open water area near the proposed (future) 22 slip docking facility shown in Exhibit 4. In a meeting on March 16, 1995, MPCA staff indicated that it might Gray Freshwater Canter Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre Mail: 2500 Shac~ywaod Road Fxcelsior, MN 55331-9578 Phcne: (612) 471-0590 F~: (612) 471-0682 Email: admln@mnwatershKLorg Web Site: www.mnwatershed.org Boar:l of Managem: , E. Thomas President Pamela G. Bfixt Vice Fresiclent Monica Gross Secretary Thomas W, Lagoun~ Treasurer C. Woodr~.w Love Thomas Maple, Jr. M~colm Reid 11:24 F.{:~ [312 4,-2 (J62H CI'T'i.' OF -ql'f..'.".'D Au~.st 23, 1996 Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Economic Development Coordinator City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 Re: MCWI) Comments on Lost Lake Project EAW Dear Mr. Chamberlain: The Mirmehaha Creek Watershed District ('MCWD) appreciates your prompt txansmktal oft. he City's Determination on the Need for an EIS for the Lost Lake Projeqt and the City's response to the MCWD's comments. I would lil~e to take this opportunity, however, to reemphasize that the Board has serious concerns about the Project as proposed and about the Project's compliance with MCWD Rules. We encourage you to meet with us as SOOn as possible to determine if the Project is even permittable before inve~ng more resources. The Board of Managers meets the second md fourth Thursday of each month. Please contact MCWD Disu'£ct Director Gene Strommen at 471-0590 if you would like to arr~ge such a meeting wkh the Board. ~ u 'j 2 ' 0 0 2 District Office: Sugena R. Stromman District ~irec,'or .:,sst. ~istrict ~irector cc: Mayor of Mo~d Mound City Council MCWD Boa_-d of Managers Sincerely, John E. Thomas President Mirmehaha Creek Watershed District RF..CEIVE13 SEP 2 6 Discussion FROM THE 9/12/96 ~HAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD MEETING REFERENCING THE PROPOSED LOST LAKE ]~OJECT IN MOUND. Managers Present_: President John Thomas; Pamela Blixt, Tom Maple, Jr., Malcolm Reid, Woody Love, Monica Gross and Tom LaBounty. Staff Present: Eugene Strommen, District Director; Suzanne Weedman, Assistant District Director; & Dionne King, Field Technician Consultants Present~'. Louis Smith, District Counsel; lvlike Panzer, District Engineer Guests present_'. Bruce Chamberlain, Consultant for the City of Mound Chair Thomas: OK, next onto Lost Lake. Manager Love & Reid. Manager Love? Manager Love: Mr. Chairman, I may yield to Manager Reid on this. I think what we really want to do is hear from the gentleman present ..... Chair Thomas: OK, but can I review the bidding here? What's the procedural status of this.. Louis, the request for public heating, who's hearing? Smith: The City of Mounds. Chair Thomas: OK, and who's requesting it? Smith: The question is whether or not we would request it. Chair Thomas: The question is whether or not the MCWD would like to request the City of Mound to hold a hearing regarding the EAW? Smith: There is a letter in here (Board Packets), its' 6.g.3 .... Chair Thomas: Yes, but I need it clear in my mind what our role is in this. What is it that the board... Gene, would you help us? Strommen: Mr. Chairman, there was a newspaper public notice, that the City of Mound was inviting any interested parties or organizations to request an Environmental Assessment public hearing of the Lost Lake Project, and in speaking to the City Manager, as well as Bruce Chamberlain, who's here on behalf of the consulting group for the City of Mound, there is already one request for a public hearing and the City of Mound would welcome the District further extending it's request for a public hearing, at which time more details of the project would be discussed, and I believe Mr. Chamberlain can help us with this and what's all involved. I IL Discussion on the Lost Lake Project at the 9/12/96 MCWD Board of Managers Meeting Chair Thomas: OK, so when this comes before this board, the city will be the applicant? and the applicant is asking that a hearing be held questioning whether or not there should be an EAW? I' ' m just missing the point. . Strommen: No. King: Mr. Chairman, It would be, for example, when we do Painter Creek, the EAW, the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, and then we hold a punic hearing to take requests for an Environmental Impact Statement. This request came to us asking if we want the City of Mound to do an EIS, or if we want them to hold a public heating to get a more in depth look at the proposed project. Chair Thomas: Manager Reid and Manager Love are proposing to the Board, that the Board request this procedural hearing. In general, an applicant doesn't like to have this type of process and delay, and what I need to do is understand what's different in this situation that the City of Mound is encouraging people to ask for this. What am I missing? Strommen: Mr. Chair, perhaps Mr. Chamberlain could help us with that. Chair Thomas: I've clearly heard someone say, and I think I saw something earlier, that the City is encouraging this, and that didn't make sense to me so I had to ...... Manager Love: They're affording an opportunity for comments. Chamberlain: Mr. Chairman, my name is Bruce Chamberlain. I'm a consultant for the City of Mound. I'm a landscape architect. I've been working with this project and with the city for a number of years. The process for a federal environmental assessment is that we're working with the federal highway administration on this particular project because that's where the grant is coming from that will pay for a portion of the project. So, because this is .... since it doesn't meet any criteria for a federal EA, but because this project is getting funds from the federal administration, we're doing the EA. The highway administration, asked the City of Mound, as the proposer of the project, to advertise an opportunity for public hearing for the project, and it's not to request an EIS. I want to clarify that. It has nothing to do with going further with this process. Smith: You already issued a statement of negative declaration. Chamberlain: Exactly. What this public hearing will do is allow the federal highway administration to hear peoples thoughts, concerns and issues about the project, and make that a part of public record for their approval of the Environmental Assessment. So our advertisement, the City of Mounds advertisement, for the public hearing, saying that we're requesting, if anyone has, a request for a public hearing, we're inviting you to make that request, and that's something that we're prepared to do. It's not a problem for us to have a public hearing We are truly inviting those requests. - Manager Love: If that is so, then I would support having such a public hearing. I've been a little concerned of late.., if you'd stay at the microphone a minute please. Candidly, I want to ask... I Discussion on the Lost Lake Project at the 9/12/96 MCWD Board of Managers Meeting don't know what the word is... get something off my chest...or whatever. We met on the site I know and I appreciated the opportunity to meet and to discuss the project and concerns. About a month ago, I saw in the paper though, that there had been nothing in the comments received back that would in any way alter or change any substantive comments, and candidly I thought I was fairy straightforward about my concerns. I thought the DNR. was straightforward about theirs, - and I was a little surprised about the comment that there wasn't any serious problems for the project proceeding. Chamberlain: We received official comment from the watershed district and those comments were fairly benign. Are Manager Love: I that could go on, the docking areas, the middle area to the turnaround.., yes, I felt there were some substantive concerns. you talking about other comments that were made? guess I was talking about the site visits that we had, about the type of dredging Manager Blixt: I have a question. Thomas: Go ahead Para. Manager Blixt: I remember.., my question is ....whoever could lead you to interpret our concerns as being benign? Chamberlain: The letter we received from the watershed district didn't outline any specific .- concerns about the project. Unless I'm misinterpreting. Manager Blixt: Well, let me just say that if... I believe, and I don't have a copy in front of me, but if memory serves me correctly, I believe it said something to the effect that the project would need to meet our rules. Chamberlain: Sure. Manager Blixt: And therefore, the question would be to go and look at our rules, I would think, and say.., well, obviously what you have planned is never going to be able to meet the rules. So to me, that is not benign and it means that a project not designed according to our rules is not probably not going to meet our standards. So is that benign? Chamberlain: No, it's not. But it was not outlined like that at all in the letter, with all due respect. Manager Blixt: Well when we say in our letter, that it would need to meet our rules, and you look at our rules, and the rules say X, and X, and X, and we tell you that it's not going to meet the rules, I don't know why you would interpret that as benign. Chamberlain: That wasn't the statement made in the letter. I IL Discussion on the Lost Lake Project at thc 9/12/96 MCWD Board of Managers Meeting Chair Thomas: On-site, did anybody say on site .... I, unfortunately, was not there. But did anybody say that there was not the proverbial snowballs chance that this is going to work? Manager Love: In fairness Mr. Chamberlain, when we met on site, and I really appreciated you taking the time to do that, I think we were pretty straightforward. I was straightforward. We had other managers there and the DNR, and although, there was some variation in the tone and level of concern among the people present, it was real clear, that at least one docking area would be. permanently out of the question and the other one dubious. There was concern expressed about the excavation in the middle and how that would operate. There was concern about the slopes and the sides. I mean, we were certainly talking about the rules of our two agencies and how we weren't sure fi.this could meet those. Chair Thomas: What we didn't want to do was to be put in a situation of having everybody in the western suburbs think this is going to happen and knowing from the start that it's got huge problems, and then being the party poopers. Manager Maple: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering that given the fact that we currently have a piece of correspondence outstanding, as of today, as I understand., you received our letter ? .... Chamberlain: Um hm. Manager Maple: Whatever the interpretation is, it would seem to me that at this point in time, it's probably pretty wise, to let tkings just kind of cool themselves. I would suspect the City of Mound is going to come forward with an application. Chamberlain: Correct. Manager Maple: I/they come fonvard with an application then we can handle it in substance to our rules. Then the discussions can get quite pointed as to whether or not it meets our rules. Chair Thomas: I very much appreciate the spirit, but when would this application come? How much public money and effort is put into the appIication? Would it just be useless? Manager Maple: Well that's a good comment. I sense that we've had a number of applications over the last several years that entail public money to one degree or another, and if that be the judgment of the City of Mound, to go to that expense to prepare that application, I think that's their charter fight to do that. Chair Thomas: No question about it, but I am not sure, and in fact, it is clearly reaffirmed to me tonight that they would make a knowing decision. That they were in a position to make a knowing decision on that. But given that.., you and I agree entirely, it's just, do they understand that it isn't likely to get approved? Manager Maple: Chair, we've got seven managers and they have five council people and a staff. They spend public money every day, we spend public money every day. That would be their thrust Discussion on the Lost Lake Project at the 9/12/96 MCWD Board of Managers Meeting if they're going to spend public money on a major project that they deemed, or wished to do, and I suggest that they make that decision and come forward, whatever the risk. Manager Blixt: Mr. Chairman, I ..... Chair Thomas: Wait a minute. I don't think I'm saying anything different than you are Manager Maple. I just would want them to know, that it might have the proverbial snowballs chance, before they spend the money and I believe that until, about six minutes ago, they didn't understand that, OK? Now, Manager LaBounty. Manager LaBounty: My question is, first of all, when would this hearing probably take place? Chamberlain: Sometime the end of October. Manager LaBounty: OK, I guess my point would be is that obviously there is ..... we need to find a copy of our letter, second of all is that there is a difference in interpretation as to how strongly we felt about it, and as I understand it, this is the final process for determining whether there should be a full EIS performed on this. Strommen: No. Manager LaBounty: No7 Then why would the feds hold a heating7 What's the purpose of it? .'. Chamberlain: There's two different processes. One is the state environmental assessment process and one is a federal environmental assessment process. Manager LaBounty: OK, so now if the feds say l~his has major problems and this doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of meeting the rules and regulations of the watershed district, it's a waste of money. That would mean the projects done - because that's where you get your money. Chair Thomas: But why would the federal government interpret our rules? Manager LaBounty: No, my point is that the next place for us to make our point is at that hearing. Now we can sit here and go back and forth and argue all day long - it's not going to produce anything. The hearing is in October .... what we need to do is go in there, and be prepared properly, and make our case and then let the feds handle it the way they want to. If we find that .... however that comes out ...... the next process at that point, is that we've done our due diligence and spoke to it. Then if that process goes on, at that point we go to a permit Chair Thomas: It appears to me Manager LaBounty, that what has been missing until now, is that little elusive thing called communication. Manager LaBounty: I agree. Il iL Discussion on the Lost Lake Project at the 9/12196 McvqD Board of Managers Meeting Chair Thomas: We kept asking .... now I didn't personally, but I am told, we kept asking the city and hinting, apparently far too subtly, that the sooner we get together and start talking about this the better. Because there are huge big problems in what we are legally permitted to permit and what the city wants to do, and .... Chamberlain: Mr. Chairman, we've had several opportunities to have communications. The first happened in 1994 and a couple of you were at that public meeting discussion about the project which was a way of taking input. The most recent happened at that site visit and it was my understanding, and maybe I misunderstood, that the reason for the site visit, was not to give ' official comment regarding the EAW but to help everyone understand what the project was about so that the watershed district could make appropriate official comments towards the EAW. IfI misunderstood that, I apologize. That may be the case, but I thought ...... Chair Thomas: ....and then we responded in the letter and the letter speaks for itself. Now Gene, have you not had some meetings with, or conversations with folks on the staff' of the city, and clearly told them that this is fraught with problems? Strommen: No sir, not since our response of the EAW has been held. I have not met with stalE. Chair Thomas: OK, but prior to that time? I'm not sure that we need to be doing this request for a public hearing. I'mjust not sure that procedurally, that's what we should be doing, using that as a vehicle to get our message across to them. The vehicle for messages ought to be the US Postal Service, our voice boxes and the telephone. Manager Blixt: Mr. Chairman, I thought that after we saw that article in the newspaper where it was clearly indicated in the paper that some ...... Chair Thomas: That it didn't take. Manager Blixt: ...that it didn't take and that we had asked our ..... Sm/th: We sent another letter. Manager Blixt: ... to send another letter to say, making it clearer. Now, did we not do that9 Sm/th: Yes . Manager LaBounty: That was at~er they made the determination. Manager Blixt: That was atSer, but still, it appears that he still didn't get it? Even after we sent another letter making it clear that this just isn't going to fly. So that's why I'm confused here. Chair Thomas: Manager Gross Manager Gross: In fairness to Mr. Chamberlain, I k/nd of understand how these letters... I've read them.., they're very 'k/nd' in tone. It doesn't come across, and you haven't been party to our previous discussions. In reviewing these letters and saying we need to be clear, and I think it's Discussion on the Lost Lake Project at the 9/17../96 MCWD Board of Managers Meeting important, while he's here, to make it clear, that we have serious problems with the project, and that .... Chamberlain: How can you respond at this point without seeing a permit in fi'ont of you? Manager Gross: Exactly, and that's part of the problem ...we haven't been responding to any kind of a permit except that we understand what you've told us when we stood out there at the site visit, and that's what we're reacting to .... our limited knowledge, and so we haven't done anything formally, but I think we're trying to give you clear indication that you may not want to waste a bunch of money if you're not addressing our rules, because you do need to meet our rules. Chair Thomas: Mike? (District Engineer) IX,tike Panzer: I don't have the letters in front of me, but irrespective of how they are worded, there have been a number of on-site meetings. I'm not sure how far they go back but I think I attended the first kind of organizational one at city hall, where the DNR, the Corps, and virtually everyone had been invited to attend. I think through the course of this thing, I've also attended other on-site meetings. In the comments that I've heard us say, and other parties say, are things like.., there's a serious concern about the practicality of the channel dredging, in terms of slope, stability, width and all those things. And then there's another whole set of concerns. I think it's more on the part of the DNR as I interpret it, about the shoreline, what I would call the shoreline dredging, where you alter the shape and location of the shoreline. That has a whole other set of riparian issues that the DNR probably gets into more than us, but I sense that the DNR has more problem with that part of it than the channel itself. So irrespective of what the letters say, I think there has been concerns expressed as to how feasible this is. Chair Thomas: OK, but when you use the 'feasible and such', it's still kind of dancing around. Isn't it? Panzer: Well, yes. What I mean, is that I don't know if its practicable just from a stability stand point. Chair Thomas: And therefore, it clearly wouldn't meet our rules. Panzer: Well that raises a whole set of water quality ...... reintroduction of sediment issues with prop turbulence and all those things .... Chair Thomas: Mr. Chamberlain, you're right when you say, how can you really address this without a permit in front of you and Manager Maple is right in saying that the city can do what they wish - in spending their money by bringing it along. What my view of this has been, being neither a tax payer in Mound or in Hennepin County, what my view of this has been, is if the watershed district were investing a lot of money in a project that was going to happen in Mound ...... Mound knew that it wasn't going to work, at least in the way that we were doing it .... Discussion on the Lost Lake Project at the 9/12/96 MCWD Board of Managers Meeting Chamberlain: We have not known that .... Chair Thomas: .... wouldn't ....I want to know that on the front end. That's what I thought was the message we were getting across to Mound. I fault you not one wit, for not being a (mind reader), puzzle solver, OK?... now, where do we go? Manager Love: Mr. Chair, I to just want to stress that no, we don't have a permit in front of us. In fact, it's always concerned me about the DNK, who doesn't make serious comment until there is a permit in front of them. I'm surprised that we might have each misinterpreted the meeting, but at that meeting I tried to describe what I thought was very serious and substantive concerns that this board would have. I tried not to speak for the board but we had a number of board members there. Chair Thomas: Is there any board member that has said 'Have at it, go ahead, this looks wonderful'? I mean is there any reason to think that we ...... Chamberlain: I would certainly think that no board member would say that until they had a permit in front of them. Chair Thomas: That's true. Manager Reid: I also think we should end this discussion, quite frankly. We've said enough, we've all gotten a little bit of our views across. We obviously have to have you come here with a permit application, listen to all the facts and make a decision. We're only giving you our sort of.... Chamberlain: Early warning? Manager Reid: ...early warning feelings that 'Hey, there could be some problems', but maybe you can present some case that would just bowl us over. Chair Thomas: That's true, but also Manager Reid, we're not suggesting that you have to wait until your permit is in order. In fact, we are encouraging you to start talking with staff and our engineers, at a very early stage so we work together on it. Chamberlain: I thought we'd been doing that with staffin good faith and I ..... to be completely honest, I have not heard staff express any serious concerns about this project. Chair Thomas: OK. Thank you ........ Tom? Manager Maple: I'd feel really much better if the City of Mound went away from this meeting without either an encouragement or a warning. I don't think its fair to give them a warning and I don't think its fair to give them encouragement. I think the discussion we've had has been worthwhile here but if the City of Mound wishes to proceed with something, they should proceed. Chair Thomas: OK, now .... Discussion on the Lost Lake Project at the 9/12/96 MCWD Board of Managers Meeting Chamberlain: One of the main reasons I came here tonight, wasn't to discuss all this. It was to ask to have a workshop with the watershed district to talk about the project before the permit comes in. Chair Thomas: Fabulous. Chamberlain: I don't know if that's a good idea or not. Chair Thomas: It couldn't be a better idea. LaBounty? Manager LaBounty: Unless I misunderstood something here, wasn't the question whether or not we wanted to have this hearing? Manager Thomas: You're absolutely right. Manager LaBounty: So we would have a chance for input? and that would be our next chance to have public input as to how we feel about the basic project9. Chamberlain: The process, ifI could .... the process of a public hearing is often confrontational. Extremely confrontational. I would appreciate the opportunity of dialogue about the project with the watershed district as a permitting agency, and not hold it in a public hearing form. Manager Reid: But I think there is an advantage to have a public hearing also..True, it does sometimes bring out those people with dissidence, and not just those in support .... ' Chair Thomas: Well then let's let them ask for it .... Manager Reid: .... but I personally would like to also hear what the dissidents have to say because often times they have a point of view that has some validity to it .... Chamberlain: I believe we need both. Manager Reid: ... and from what I've heard of your discussions, I don't know if this is true, I only read the newspapers, is that there hasn't been a whole lot of chance for that. I don't know if that's true but at any rate, I think it would be good to have this here ..... and maybe for our participation to only sit there and listen. Manager Maple: It would seem to me too, that prior to that a workshop would be beneficial because it would bring things to the surface that would be helpful when you do get the permit application. I don't think that's an unreasonable request by the City to have a workshop, I think we'll all ..... Chair Thomas: I think it's wonderful. Manager Love: I would agree with that. D/scusdon on the Lost Lake Project at the 9112/96 MCWD Board of Managers Me~t/ng Manager Gross: We're all in agreement on that. Manager Maple: I think we should go have a workshop. Chair Thomas: But what are we going to do about what's on the agenda here? I'm nervous that .... is it appropriate for us to be requesting a public hearing when we have other ways of getting our point across7 Manager Maple: I move that we not request a public hearing. Our first step is to have a workshop. A workshop would develop pieces ofinforrnation that would then lead to a more productive public hearing. I think the workshop should come first. Let's do that, and then address the public hearing later on. Chair Thomas: Is there a second to that? Manager Reid: Before we second it, just out of courtesy, let's discuss it a little. Manager La.Bounty: You've got a motion, don't you need a second before you discuss it? Chair Thomas: That's what I'm asking for a second ........ I'll second it. Manager LaBounty: Now discussion. Manager Reid: Isn't there a deadline to notify you about requesting a hearing~ Chamberlain: the 24th. · Manager Reid: OK, so if you want to just change your motion a bit so that it says that you'll have a workshop, but that you're requesting a hearing, also a heating atSer.., and schedule it right after that .... Manager Maple: I'I1 accept that. I just want to put the carts in the right place. Manager Reid: Yes, I just want to make sure that we don't m/ss a deadline. Manager Thomas: I also want the record to show that it's our understanding that Ed Shukle, asked the District to request the hearing. Now is that.., because I wasn't getting the same ..... Chamberlain: I don't know. Strornmen: That was the result of a conversation, Mr. Chair, that I had with Mr. Shukle today. Chair Thomas: OK and thank you for bringing this to my attention because I couldn't find it but I knew I had seen it someplace before. It didn't make sense to me that an applicant would be promoting a hearing, because you know how it drives us nuts, when we're being procedurally 10 Discussion on the Lost Lake Project at the 9/12/96 MCWD Board of Managers Meeting tom twixt pillar and post. But if the City is requesting us to request a hearing, I think its appropriate for us to respond Positively. Manager Love? Manager Love: Maybe you're.., then you're saying to ask for the hearing, because what concerns me and to Manager Reids concern, is that we have until September 24 to respond, which is less than two weeks. We either hurry up the schedule with this workshop and then make up our minds or vote on the heating tonight. Chair Thomas: Sounds to me like we wouldn't be supporting what the City wants if we didn't vote for a heating tonight. Now, challenge me on that please if you think we're wrong. Chamberlain: I have no quarrels with that at all. Someone has already requested a hearing so it's a mute point. Chair Thomas: So the City wants us to get on board and ... Manager Reid: ...request it also. Let's do it. Chair Thomas: Now, there's a motion on the floor. I'm willing to withdraw the second if you want to withdraw the motion. Manager Maple: I'll back my motion out. I'll accommodate whatever. Manager LaBounty: Also, isn't this letter from Tom Casey requesting a public heating? Chair Thomas: Yes, but is that letter not addressed to us? Manager Blixt: Yes. Manager Reid: He's an interested public citizen. Chair Thomas: Well he can always address a letter directly to the city also. Manager Reid: So what's the new motion? Chair Thomas: There is not a new motion. Wait a minute, Manager La.Bounty has not finished his thought. ,. that the MCWD will ' ' t Manager La.Bounty: It s jus that he' s asking if... ~t is accurate to assume want to carefully scrutinize the available documents and request a public hearing .... not order' ... its says 'and request'. That's what this whole thing is about ....about requesting a public hearing. Chair Thomas: Yes but ... so I'd answer this letter to Mr. Casey to say, 'no, it's not accurate to assume that'. Manager Reid: But we're going to vote in favor of it. 11 Discussion on the Lost Lake Project at the 9/12/96 MCWD Board ofManagem Meethag Chair Thomas: Right but, I'm not going to go hog wild off.on a tear Tom because we get a letter fi.om somebody. Manager LaBounty: I'm just saying that this is a public hearing and we have the right to request that public hearing. Manager Love: Mr. Chairman, I would make a motion ...... Chair Thomas: Look .... now wait a minute. There's no question of what we have the right to do. I did not think that it was appropriate to do that, but the city asked us to do that, and I think it's just fine to cooperate with the City. Manager Reid: Can I make a motion? Manager Thomas: Yes Manager Reid: The motion is that we would like to request a public hearing and we would ask the city to put together a workshop to give us a little background on the project prior to the public heating. Manager Love: Second. Chair Thomas: The motion and the discussion that will be in the record clearly reflect that this is at the city's encouragement _ that we're making this motion. Anybody that wishes to... that is considering voting against the motion7 .... otherwise I don't think we need further discussion. Those in favor? All ayes Opposed: None Motion carried 7-0. Thank you. End of discussion on Lost Lake. Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. RECEIVED SEP 2 7 To: From: Ed Shukle City of Mound Bruce Chamberlain Date: September 26, 1996 Project: Lost Lake We are sending you Attached Under Separate Cover Via x__ Mail FAX Delivery Service ~Other Enclosed: FYI - I asked Lars to respond to issues raised by the Watershed District. The response if very favorable. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Creative Solutions for Land Planning "nd Desiga Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. September 18, 1996 Mr. Lars Barber, RLA Baird & Associates Ltd. 2981 Yarmouth Greenway Madison, WI 53711 Dear Lars: As we discussed on the phone, questions have been raised by the local watershed d/strict about 1) whether the 5:1 side slopes proposed on the canal are flat enough to discourage sluffing and 2) how long the canal will maintain the proposed bottom elevation before it equalizes with the remainder of the wetland bottom. One other issue was raised which I forgot to mention. A watershed d/strict board member is concerned that when boats stop in the pull-outs along the canal, turbulence from subsequent acceleration will re-suspend bottom sediment. Could you respond to these issues as best as possible. I have enclosed the geotechnical report and some details. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Brace L. Chamberlain, RLA Lost Lake Project Manager Eno. M..X, tff O UND~94-4tT~AIRD I. L TR 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 · :- ~.:SFJ:: -'0'5 P'.32 '_--E_F 26, 'S'6 1-2:38 R.W. Chrlstensen, Inc. September 26, 1996 Mr. Lars Barber, RLA Baird & Associates, Ltd. 2981 Yin-mouth Greenway Madison, WI 53711 Dear Lots: I have reviewed the documents you provided for thc Lost Lake Canal Rehabilitation project. These included a letter to you from Bruce Chamberlain of the Hoisington- Koeglcr Croup dated 9/18/96, Exhibits 2 and 3 and the Oeotechnical Report by Braun Intertec dated 11/30/95. My comments follow. I understand that questions have been raised concerning the stability of 5:1 side slopes, possible heaving of the bottom aider dredging and re-suspension of the bottom sediment due to boats accelerating after stopping in the boat pullouts. The dredged channel will be 2.4 i~. deeper than the existing bottom (Exhibit 3). According to the hand auger logs presented in the Braun Intertec report, the soils effected by the dredging will be peat. The only description of the peat is given on the log of Boring ST-3 where it is described as (muck) with fibers and having a moisture content of 274% and an organic content of 66%. In my opinion, the side slopes will be stable; in fact, the slopes would probably stand nearly vertical in fibrous peat, under water and only 2.4 i~. high. Regarding the possible heave of the bottom (equalization of thc dredged bottom with 'the remainder of the wetland bottom), the stress relief due to dredging will be far too small to cause bottom heave or any other mechanism that would tend to equalize the bottom elevation. I believe that some re-suspension of the bottom sedimem due to boats accelerating is likely. How much is difficult to predict, but the fibrous peat bottom is probably somewhat less susceptible than; for example, a pure silt with no fibers. As you indicated, initially monitoring the ptfllout areas seems to be a pxxtdent approach. If a problem develops, it could likely be corrected by placing a layer of stone in the effected areas. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, R. W, Ct~ristensen, Inc. Richard W. Christensen, P.E., Ph.D. R.W. Chrlstensen, Inc. Richard W. Chrisfensen, P.E., Ph.D. SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS Acaclemlc - Consulting - Projects - lbbll¢c:~flons. EDUCATION Over 30 years of consulting and academic experience In geotechnlcal engineering. Instructor of Civil Engineering at Ohio University (lg60-61). Professor of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison (1964-I972). Included teaching undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education courses; c~eveloplng new courses and CUrricula; supervising graduate students, ond research. Entered consulting In lg72, serving as senlor/pflnclpol engineer with the consulting firms of Dames & Moore0 Harding Lawson Associates, Worzyn Engineering, Woodworcl Clyde Consuffonts, and private consuffing practice. Several hundred projects located throughout the 48 contiguous states, Alaska, and abroad. Projects ranged fram small-scale site Investigations to complex studies involving such sPeclal considerations as: Seisrnic ~a~ltty and geforrnatior~, Liquefaction, Wave, Ice and High Wind Loading, Machine Vibrations, Upclerpinning, Soil No/Ting, Cold Regions and Offshore Design ancl Construction, and SoE Efosoln. Authored numerous research reports, technical papers, (3nd a chapter on oeotechnicol engineering for a handbook on civil and envlrnomental engineering. Ph.D., Civil Engineering, Michigan State Unlversity - 19~4 M.S.. Civil Engineering, Michigan State University - 1960 B.S., Clvl Engineering. San Diego State College - 1956 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE REGISTRATION 4/94-Present: 12/92.Present: 8/89-12/92: 8/87-8/80: 8/83-8/87: 2/79-8/83: 6/72-2/?9: 1/64-6/72: 9/60-61~ 1: Universth/of Wisconsin (Adjunct P~ofessor). Madison, WI ~.W. Christensen, Inc. (President). Fort AtkJn~on, WI Warzyn Engineering. Inc,/EW! Englneerlng Associates/ Wooo~vard Clyde Consultants (Senior Consuff[ng Engineer), Madison, WI R.W. Chr~ensen, ConsuttJng Engineer (Owner), Fort Atkfnson, WI r~.W, Chr~er'~en, Consulting Engineer (Owner}, Anchorage, AK H, aralng Lawson Associates (Prlncrpal Engineer). Oak ~ook, IL & Anchorage, AK Dames & Moore (Pr!nclpal), Park ~dge0 IL & Tehron, Iran University of V~ccnsln (Associate Professor), Mocllson, WI Ohio university (Instructor], Atnen=, OH Professional Englneen Wisconsin, Alaska, Minnesota. North Dakota, CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor September 25, 1996 Mayor Bob Polston City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 390 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Saint Paul, MN 55102 Telephone: 612-266-8510 Facsimile: 612-266-8513 Dear Mayor Bob Polston: No one knows better than you the challenges of funding municipal programs in today' s political climate. Traditional funding sources at the state and federal levels are being cut, and it is more and more difficult for local governments to raise taxes. Yet, the need for many essential services continues to grow. That's why cities all , , e develo in~ innovative public-private partnerships, to make available key services and across the country ar P * · · ' i h rivate sector entities - functions to citizens in new, more cost-effective ways. Working collaborauvely w t p instead of independently or worse, at cross-purposes - can create win/win scenarios and benefit both local governments and private organizations, as well as their customers. In Saint Paul, we are very fortunate to have a number of private business organizations that have formed 'th our cit overnment, such as the Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation and Capital City partnerships x[~,,~l nrTmginen aul businesses have joined with the City of Saint Paul to sponsor a Partnership ........ r ........ t St. P conference on public-private parmerships. Our goal is to provide officials from Minnesota cities with a better understanding of how and where public-private partnerships can work. We also hope to offer useful ideas you can implement in Mound. We have targeted our conference to cities with populations of more than 10,000. The day-long conference, which will be held Tuesday, November 19 in Saint Paul, will be led by Ted Gaebler, author of the groundbreaking book Reinventing Government. The conference will also feature presentations on successful partnerships in Saint Paul and other cities, a luncheon panel discussion with area business leaders, and a cocktail reception and dinner followed by a tour of the Saint Paul riverfront. Up to six people from Mound may attend the conference. I encourage you to attend, and to bring with you your staff or elected officials from Mound who would benefit the most. If you plan to attend the conference, please fill out and return the enclosed postage-paid card by October 1, or call Lynda Chilstrom at 6121292-8062. A complete agenda for the conference will be mailed to you as soon as arrangements are finalized. I believe this conference will be a valuable opportunity for us all to learn more about the public-private partnerships that will play such a vital role in the future of our cities. I look forward to exchanging ideas with you on November 19. Sincerely, Norm Coleman Mayor, City of Saint Paul Enclosure MINUTES-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION-SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 a.m. Members present: Meisel, Brewer, Drahos, Pietrowski, Willette, and Jensen. Absent and excused: Jerry Longpre. Also Present: Sharon Cook, Ex-officio non-voting member; Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator; and Ed Shukle, City Manager. Upon motion by Jensen, seconded by Drahos and carried unanimously, the minutes of the August 15, 1996 meeting were approved. Lost Lake Improvement Project Ed Shukle, City Manager, indicated that the City Council took formal action to condemn the entire property of John Wagman who is the property owner on the east side of the Lost Lake channel at Cook's Bay. He indicated that the Council took the action because of the appraisal numbers being closer on the entire parcel than the numbers on the portion of the property needed for the easement. He further indicated that the City would go through the same condemnation process whether it was for the entire parcel or just the property needed for the easement. In addition, there is a difference of opinion on the ownership of the channel related to the ordinary high water mark of Lake Minnetonka. Further, the difference between the appraisals for just the easement portion are so significant that condemnation is the only remedy unless Mr. Wagman is willing to continue to negotiate. Shukle explained that the Council's action does not preclude the City from continuing to negotiate with Wagman. Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator, indicated that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has some serious concerns about the project. He reviewed those concerns with the Commission and indicated that the City Council is scheduling a workshop meeting with the District for Thursday, October 17, 1996, 7:30 p.m. at Mound City Hall. The EDC is invited to be there for an informal discussion which will hopefully diffuse the negativism that has been expressed by the District towards the Lost Lake Project. Chamberlain also mentioned that the City Council has received a request from the District and another individual to hold a public heating on the Environmental Assessment (EA), the federal environmental document that must be filed on the project. The Council will be setting that hearing for November 12, 1996, 7:30 p.m., Mound City Hall. Auditor's Road Improvement Project~ Ed Shulde updated the right of way acquisition on the project. He explained that four parcels have been listed for condemnation and were approved by the City Council at their last regular meeting. EDC Minutes of September 19, 1996 Page 2 They are the following: Carlock, Lindquist, Johnson and the Marshall Ilsly Trust (Post Office). The Council took this action to meet the deadlines established for the project. Shukle indicated that this not preclude the City from continuing to negotiate for the properties. He further indicated that the Post Office, which the City has verbal agreement on, will most likely be removed from the condemnation order once the written documents are in place. Re orr from Plannin remission Meefin of Au st 2 1996 Bruce Chamberlain and other members of the Commission commented on the meeting held with the Planning Commission on August 26, 1996. Chamberlain indicated that he thought it went well and that a list of issues was developed that will be followed up on when Chamberlain meets with the Planning Commission on September 23, 1996. c rain Plannin remission of e tember 23 1 96 See above. date on the entral Busin ss District CBD Parkin Pro ram Ed Shukle updated the Commission on a recent Committee of the Whole meeting where participants in the CBD program were present objecting to the formula and the cost of the assessment for the 1995-96 assessment year. The City Council indicated that they would reduce the overall assessment by approximately $10,000 for the sealcoating of the parking lots done in 1995 and the City would pick up this cost. He indicated that city staff will be working with the Planning Commission and CBD participants on possible changes to the CBD program. Develo merit at the Inter ection of Coun Road 1 and 15 in Navarre Ed Shukle reported on the development of this intersection as it was related to him from City of Orono staff. Update on Westonka Community_ Center Ed Shukle reported on the recent developments with regard to this matter. He stated that the School Board has decided not to spend any money on improving the existing community center. He further explained that the School Board will be making a decision on a site to locate an administration building with possible community functions such as a multi-purpose gymnasium, senior center and a space for WECAN. There may be participation from area cities on the gymnasium and senior center from a financial standpoint. Letter from TRIAD to the E and Res onse to that Letter EDC Minutes of September 19, ! 996 Page 3 Acknowledged letter and response from Paul Meisel, Chair. There being no further business it was noted that the next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, October 17, 1996, 7 a.m. Sharon Cook is scheduled to bring the rolls. Upon motion by Willette, seconded by Brewer and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 a.m. Ed Shukle City Manager MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 1996 Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Gerald Reifschneider, and Orv Burma; city Council Representative Mark Hanus, Building official Jon Sutherland; and Secretary Peggy James. The following people were also in attendance: Paul Meisel and Mark Brewer. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of September 9, 1996 were presented for approval. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland, to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of September 9, 1996 as written. Motion carried unanimously. DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT. Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Commission Coordinator, reviewed that a month ago he met with the Planning Commission and talked about issues surrounding the downtown project. The first step is for the Planning Commission to review zoning designations in and around downtown to ensure that future development fits Mound's vision. The Commission needs to look at how downtown is laid out and on a functional level how the downtown is used. Chamberlain referred to maps he used for visual aid which delineates areas in the existing downtown B-1 District that he classified as the Destination District, the Pedestrian District, and the Linear District. Chamberlain explained how he arrived at the delineation of the different districts. The Pedestrian District is a central core, you can park your car and walk from busines to business/shop to shop. The Destination Districts are more of an auto oriented area, one is Commerce Place which doesn't fit into the look with any other parts of downtown and the style of development is pulled back from the street and is more auto oriented. The Lost Lake side of downtown is also more of a destination type use. The Community Center was discussed. It was noted that the School plans to demolish the building and reconstruct it, but not necessarily on the same site, so the future use of this site is questionable. The area to the south, the Linear District, or the leg, may need to be classified as something different. This area has a number of different types of uses, it has residential homes, multiple dwellings, and businesses. There needs to be discussion as to how this district should be handled. Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 1996 Chamberlain handed out copies of the RFP's that were sent to developers a little over three years ago, and suggested the Commission take it home to review, and if there are comments they can be discussed at the next workshop meeting. Chamberlain also handed out a designations for the B-1 Zoneuse chart that looks at existing use and how the proposed districts, as proposed, may relate to the current B-1 District. Chamberlain reviewed how the proposed uses in the Pedestrian District vary from the existing B-1 Zone. The uses that would not be permitted in the Pedestrian District are those uses that would collect a large number of people at specific times or those that are more auto oriented type facilities, they are: Animal Hospital, Auction Hall, Boat and Business or Trade School, Churches, Marine Sales, Fraternal Institution, Drive-in Retailing Cultural and Establishment, Hospitals, Limousine Service, Minor Auto Repair/Tire/Battery Stores, Motel and Motor Hotels, Motor Fuel Station, Motor Fuel Station/Convenience Store, Private Lodges and Clubs, Public and Private Schools and Wholesale and Assembly Operations. ' Mueller stated that he likes the focus of a Pedestrian District, and by establishing such they can let developers know that is the City's goal. Mueller suggested they keep the pedestrian traffic with the Community Center. Mueller also suggested that they allow trade schools in the Pedestrian District because he feels this would draw people to the downtown area that would not normally be there. Chamberlain explained how he rationalized the decision not to allow this in that district. He explained that studies show that pedestrians won't cross a span of non-retail use over 30 feet, so if there is a break, something not interesting for the pedestrian to walk by, they won't. He feels it is important to provide pedestrian amenities in the core district. Also, the quarter mile rule works great in Mound because it is so tight. He feels that trade schools could be located in the Destination District, then they are still close enough to walk to the Pedestrian District. Mueller stated, it appears that the 1 ' existing retail Mue~~ ........ p an wall be beneficial ~o ' ~=~ a~Kes the parking in the cente . Clapsaddle questioned the logic for keeping the Commerce Place Center out of the loop. Chamberlain stated that this is a more auto oriented area and that it could not be made to become part of the pedestrian loop, and emphasized that it will be difficult to walk across County Road 15 at that point. Clapsaddle feels they should try to tie more to the center of the core. Mueller feels that the amount of traffic on 15 will attract people to the businesses on the north side of 15. Clapsaddle questioned if they should eliminate the curb parking on Auditors and include Commerce Place in the overall picture. 2 September 23, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes weiland feels that the post office will be a traffic draw. Chamberlain noted that most traffic will follow the new 15, therefore they feel the post office needs to occur at Auditor's Road and 110 to create a draw. Mueller disagreed. He believes the post office will create a congestion point during peak hours such as from 3 - 4:30. Typically people are in a hurry when they go to the post office, they are in and out. Also, the post office closes at 4:30 everyday. He sees the post office as a traffic hazard. Clapsaddle feels the corner of Auditor's Road and Commerce needs high visible retail. Clapsaddle commented on the disadvantages of a parking lot in the center, he feels this sets people up for one- stop shopping. He is afraid pedestrian shopping will be discouraged with retail shops being far away from one another. Chamberlain suggested the Commission keep their discussion focused on the districts and not so much how the buildings are laid out. The on-street parking was briefly discussed. Michael believes it is a good idea. Chamberlain outlined that they need clarification from the Commission on weather the outlines of the districts as shown on the maps make sense for breaking up the B-1 district, and if yes, the commission needs to look at the regulatory proponents for each district. The chair polled each commissioner for their comments. Mueller: Would like more time to think about it. Likes the idea of a Pedestrian District, but noted that it has never been discussed to include the area west of Commerce. He would like to further review the uses for each area to make sure they are not overlooking something. Glister: Need more time to look at it. Voss: Agrees that there needs to be different zoning requirements. He is in favor of having some type of residential within the business district. Michael: He agrees with allowing residential- He compared some of the issues with how Wayzata has developed. weiland: would like more time to review and would like more discussion on the different uses. Reifschnieder: Likes the parking situation and Pedestrian District idea. Burma: He likes how it is laid out and feels the plan was well thought out. The rest will take some time to look at. Clapsaddle: He likes pedestrian concept, and questioned if they should include area to the south east. Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 1996 Koegler commented to the Commission that it would also be helpful if they delved on the southern leg also. Is this area really B-i? Should residential be allowed? Clapsaddle commented that he thinks this development will be successful and that it is a good idea, but is concerned about what it will do to the rest of downtown. Chamberlain summarized, there are two issues they need to talk about, does it make sense to carve up the B-1 Zone, and what to do with the southern leg? Koegler noted that due to increased use from the new redeveloped area, the use of the leg may change, it may demand more multi-family housing. Clapsaddle questioned if they need a corridor study? Voss questioned if they could put a moratorium on the leg? Koegler advised that a moratorium would not be practical at this point because you have to have a reason for it. Mueller feels that a residential use in the leg is important. Chamberlain stated that he will get a copy of the maps to each Commissioner, then figure out a strategy in order to move onto the next step. Mueller requested staff delineate the location of the wetlands on the west side of the Pedestrian District, he feels it is important to know if this area can be developed. This issue will be discussed at the next Planning Commission Workshop on October 21, 1996. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'B REPORT Variance streamlining was briefly discussed. MOTION made by mueller, seconded by voss to adjourn the meeting at 9:14 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Geoff Michael Attest: AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL MOUND, MINNF_SOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1996, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PAGE *CONSENT AGENDA Ao APPROVE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ................................... 3325-3332 Bo RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE FOR LOTS 4-8, BLOCK 2, AVALON, RANDY MORIARTY, 4536 DENBIGH ROAD AND ROBERT BAUMGARTEN, 4552 DENBIGH ROAD. CASE//96-31 .................... 3333-3344 Co RESOLUTION APPROVING BATCH #9, PUBLIC LANDS PERMITS .................................................. 3345-3348 Do RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPLICATION OF STEVE CODDON FOR A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT ................... 3349-3350 E° RESOLUTION APPROVING PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR AHRENS, 4673 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, TO INSTALL AN UNDERGROUND PIPE ON DEVON COMMONS ........................ 3351-3354 Fo SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER CHANGES TO MOUND CITY CODE SECTION 500, RE: FEES FOR VARIOUS LICENSES AND PERMITS. SUGGESTED DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1996 ............... 3355-3356 G° STREET LIGHT REQUEST FOR GROVE LANE AND BEACHWOOD ROAD .......................................... 3357-3360 H. APPROVAL OF THE TRANSFER OF TWO CEMETERY LOTS ................... 3361 I. APPROVAL OF KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS PERMITS ......................... 3362 J. PAYMENT OF BILLS .......................................... 3363-3378 3321 Mound City Council Agenda October 8, 1996 Page 2 o 8o PUBLIC HEARING: UNPAID WATER AND SEWER BILLS ...................... 3379-3382 PUBLIC HEARING: CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS .............. 3383-3384 REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL RE: FUTURE BUILDING PLANS, WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZENS - CATHY BAILEY, SENIOR CITIZEN COORDINATOR. PROPOSAL FOR CITY INVOLVEMENT IN A PUBLIC SKATING RINK ON PROPERTY OWNED BY WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT AND LOCATED WEST OF POND ARENA - PETER MEYER ...................... 3385-3490 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. PROPOSED DISSOLUTION OF RELATIONSHIP WITH WEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING BOARD, A.K.A. SUBURBAN ALLIANCE ........................................ 3491-3500 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. DEPARTMENT HEAD MONTHLY REPORTS FOR SEPTEMBER .............. 3501-3533 LMCD REPRESENTATIVE'S MONTHLY REPORT FOR SEPTEMBER. PLEASE NOTE THAT IN THIS REPORT ARE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS YOU HAD AT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. ALSO NOTE A CLARIFICATION FROM JIM FACKLER, PARKS DIRECTOR, REGARDING QUESTION/f4 &/15 .................... 3534-3537 MATERIAL PREPARED BY BRUCE CHAMBERLAIN IN PREPARATION FOR THE OCTOBER 17, 1996 WORKSHOP MEETING WITH THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT AND OTHERS RE: LOST LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. PLEASE REMEMBER TO BRING THIS MATERIAL WITH YOU TO THE MEETING .................. 3538-3563 Do LETrER FROM NORM COLEMAN, MAYOR, CITY OF ST. PAUL, INVITING THE CITY OF MOUND TO ATTEND A CONFERENCE ON PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS SET FOR TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1996 IN ST. PAUL. WE CAN SEND UP TO 6 PEOPLE. I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO INVITE 4 MEMBERS FROM THE EDC WHICH WOULD INCLUDE COUNCILMEMBER JENSEN AND BRUCE CHAMBERLAIN AND MYSELF. IS THIS OK? ............................. 3564 REMINDER: LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES REGIONAL MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1996 AT THE NEW WATERTOWN CITY HALL. THERE IS AN AFTERNOON PROGRAM BEGINNING AT 2 PM, SOCIAL HOURS BEGINS AT 5 PM, FOLLOWED BY A DINNER AT 6 PM. PLEASE LET LINDA KNOW IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ATTENDING. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS EVENT IS ALSO THE SAME DAY AS THE SCHEDULED WORKSHOP WITH THE 3322 Mound City Council Agenda October 8, 1996 Page 3 Go MCWD RELATED TO THE LOST LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. YOU COULD ATTEND THE AFTERNOON SESSION BUT WOULD HAVE TO MISS THE EVENING DINNER AND PROGRAM. THERE ARE OTHER REGIONAL MEETINGS SCHEDULED AROUND THE STATE BUT THE CLOSEST IS WATERTOWN. REMINDERS ON UPCOMING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS/WORKSHOPS: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1996 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 7:30 PM DISCUSSION WILL BE HELD TO THE PROPOSED 1997 BUDGET. PLEASE BRING COPIES OF THE BUDGET WITH YOU TO THE MEETING. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1996 - WORKSHOP MEETING WITH MCWD - 7:30 PM, CITY HALL. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1996 - CANVASSING OF THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION - 7:30 PM. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 .......................................... 3565-3567 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 1996 .............. 3568-3571 3323 AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1996, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PAGE 1. *CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 17, 1996 CONTINUED CITY COUNCIL MEETING ...................................... 3943-3945 APPROVE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 22, 1996 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ............................... 3946-3952 APPROVE MINUTES OF THE CANVA~RD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 1996 ..................................... 3953 RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE FOR LOTS 4-8, BLOCK 2, AVALON, .RANDY MORIARTY, 4536 DENBIGH ROAD AND ROBERT BAUMGARTEN, 4552 DENBIGH ROAD .............................. 3954-3995 *E. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE HEIGHT, MITCH KNUTgONI.- 6545 BARTLETT BLVD. CASE//96-66. (PLANNING COMMISSION HEARD THIS ITEM AT ITS NOV. 4, MEETING AND APPLICANT WISHES TO HAVE REQUEST EXPEDITED DUE ~TO WEATHER CONDITIONS) .................................... 3996-4021 *//~VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION, FRAIZER/HARTER, 2155 CARDINAL LANE, CASE//96-61 4022-4039 *{3. SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A MODIFICATION TO THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE PROPERTIES FROM R-1 TO R-lA. SUGGESTED DATE: NOVEMBER 26, 1996 .......................... 4040-4041 3940 Mound City Council Agenda November 12, 1996 Page 2 o o *II. APPROVAL OF FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST - 1996 SEALCOAT PROGRAM ..................................... 4042-4043 *I. APPROVE BINGO PERMIT FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT AUXILIARY .................................................... 4044 *J. APPROVE TREE REMOVAL LICENSE FOR WRAMCO, INC .................... 4045 *K. PAYMENT OF BILLS ........................................ 4046-4065 VARIANCE AND MINOR SUBDIVISION, ROBERTA NELSON, ~~ 4739 & 4755 BEDFORD ROAD, CASE g96--63 ................................ 4066-4095 PUBLIC HEARING: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ........................ 4096-4151 PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO SHERWOOD DRIVE. (To be rescheduled to 11-26-96) ............................... 4152 PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED FEE INCREASES FOR CERTAIN LICENSES AND PERMITS ............................................ 4153-4155 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ........................... RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDED JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT - SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY (SRA) ......... - ................ 4156-4177 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. DEPARTMENT HEAD MONTHLY REPORTS .......................... 4178-4205 B. LMCD REPRESENTATIVE'S MONTHLY REPORT ....................... 4206-4207 C. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 10/28/96 ....................... 4208-4216 D. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 11/4/96 ........................ 4217-4233 ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES (AMM) RE: ANNUAL POLICY ADOPTION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 14, 1996 IN ST. PAUL. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ATYENDING. PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE RECEIVED THE PROPOSED POLICIES IN THE LAST COUNCIL PACKET ........................................... 4234-4235 Eo REMINDER: CITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 11TH IN OBSERVANCE OF VETERAN'S DAY. Fo REMINDER: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING, NOVEMBER 19, 1996, 7:30 PM. 3941 ~0U-1~-1996 Irn£roving Quality of Water, Quality af L~ post-it' Fax Note 7671 Freshwater Center HwYS. 15 & 19, Nava~ ~00 ShadywOOd Ro~d Ex~lsior, MN 55331-957B Phone: (612) 471-0590 Fax:. (612) 471-0682 Email: 8dmin~mnwatersl~ed.org Web Site: www.mnwatershed.org John E. ~oma~ President Pamela G. Blixt · Vice pre~iClent Monic~ Gross Se~mtar~ T~omas W. ~Boun~ Tr~urer C. Wo~ro~ Love ~om~ M~e. Jr. ~alcotm Reid Eugene R. Strommen District Director Suzaflne M. wecdman AsSL District Director November 12, 1996 Ed ghuklc, Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shuidc, As follow-up to your Mound City Council Meeting attended on LOJ_L2.~c M.CWD submits thc following comments in relation to the Lost Lake Canal Rehabilitation Project. Please include these comments as part of the public record. 1. Dredging of thc historical channel - · depth - would be permitted to 923.6' for common use channel · width - unstable sidc soils of the channel arc conducive to sloughing; concerned with safety and also thc turbidity and potential for dredging frequency due to boat traffic · spoil disposal site(s) needs to be identified · the proposed turn around loop could exacerbate erosion. We encourage the City to consider a walkway to thc island to eliminate thc circular boat path 2. District Rules flo not allow dredging for thc purpose of creating a channel to connect adiacent backwater areas for navigational purposes (such as is proposed to accommoc~ate the transient docks & fishing pier in Phase 1). 3. District P, ules do not allow dredging above the ordinary high water level or into upland adjacent to the lake or watercourse. Upland dredging to create riparian access for the marina as proposed in Phase II is prohibited by the MCWD and the DNR. -'... o:. HINNEHIqHtq CREEK I~TERSHED Mr. Ed Shukle, Mayor City of MOund Lost Lake Canal Rehabilitation Project November 12, 199ti Page 2 P.02/02 MCWD Ru/es protect water quality and diminish flooding. The applicable D/strict rules are Rule C. Floodplain A/teratio~t, Rule E - Dredging, and Rule F - Shoreline Improvement. MCWD supports tile goal. oF revitalizfng downtown Mound. We look tbrward to working with the City on its stormwater management plan. Sincerely, Board Manager F Bob Polston, Mayor , F' Councilmember Mark l'Ianus ' : '~ I"' Counciimcmber Liz Jensen 1- Councilmcmbcr Phyllis ffessen Senator Gert O/son Ceil Strauss, DNR. Division of'Waters Bruce Chamberlain, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Louis Smith, Smith Parker P.A. Andrew Syverson, Wenck Associates, Inc. TOT~ m m-~ !,1 'Proposed Fee Schedule 1994 UNIFORM E~UILDIIqG CODF-, ¥OL.UMF- 1, TA~L~ 1.A.--BUILDING PERMIT F.~.F-S _~2! .00 for :he first $5(X).00 plus S2.7S for uch a~didonal' SI(X).OQ, or f~ion their, to ~d ~clud~ng SL~I.~ ~o ~-~-~ ~ 51!~ for ~h addifio~ ~l:~.~. or ~ fmc:ion ~f, to ~d mctuomg ' s~.~.~ ....... ~_, ~ ~.~ ~ ~ I ~ for ~e fi~t S~,~. ~ S50.~.~ SS0.~l.~ to SI~,~.~ ~ for the 5~t S50,~.~ plus ~.~ for ~ch addi6ond S I ,~.~- or f~i~ ~of, to ~d i~tudin~ SI~,~.~ Sl~.~i.~ to SS~,~.~ ~ for ~e fiut ulus S5 ~ for ~h ~ditional ~ ~ ~ for ~ S5~,~.~ to S{.~.~-~ 55~.~.~ p~us ~.~ for each ~1.~.~1.~ ~d up ~ ~ for ~e 5~t 5~ ,~,~.~ 71us 5~5 for ~ch f~tion Ins~tio~ ~n~ L lns~tiom outside o[ ~I ~si~ ~u~ ...... ~.~ ~r ~ (minimum eh~e~wo L Reins~i~ f~ ~ u~er p~v~si~s of ~2.~ ~r bou~ ~tion I08.~ ............................... ~ ]. Im~etio~ f~ which no f~ is s~ciRcnil~' ~n~icnte~ (minimum ~a~e~-~lf hour) 4. Addhiond pl~ ~vie~' t~uired by chang:s, a~hions ~2.~ ~r hour* pi ' or ~visions lo ~ ......................... (minimum ch~gc~nc-~n~[ hour) 5. For ~ of outside co~ul~ts for pi~ :~:~ing ~n~ Actual ins~:tions, or ~th .: .......................... -~ ~ to~l hourly cost lo ~ ~u~i~ion whichever is the ~atest. ~is co~ s~ll include su~islon. ~c~e~, e~uipment, hourly wages an~ S 1.00 to S500.00 SSOl.O0 to S_OOO.O0 bcncfiU of the employees involved. *'Actua/cost~ include adminh, tr~tive and overhe"d costs. RESOLUTION #96- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Mound became an associate member of the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) earlier this year; and WHEREAS, SRA has proposed an amended joint and cooperative agreement for each of the SRA members to approve and have executed; and WHEREAS, the amended joint and cooperative agreement allows the City of Mound to be a part of the SRA as an associate member through June 30, 1997 with a waiver of the assessment; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound may elect to continue membership in the SRA following the expiration of the associate membership and would pay the annual assessment of $400 per year per 5,000 population, or fraction thereof; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound may also choose to drop its membership in the organization following the expiration date of the associate membership. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota that it hereby approves the amended joint and cooperative agreement and authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to sign the agreement. The foregoing resolution was moved by and seconded by The following Councilmernbers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: Acting City Clerk CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 November 12, 1996 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL LINDA STRONG, ACTING CITY CLERK AMERICAN LEGION SUNDAY LIQUOR APPLICATION The Mound American Legion is applying for a Sunday Liquor License. In order for a liquor establishment to be open on Sundays, they need to serve food and have seating for 30 people. The Legion has contacted the Hennepin County Health Department for regulations on kitchen set up for their purpose. In speaking with the County Health Department, the Legion has not had a final inspection and according to the County, the work is not yet completed. The County can not approve any license until the work is complete. The Legion has applied for a Heating/Mechanical permit from our Building Department. The permit was approved by the Building Official. However, the contractor listed on the permit is not registered with the City. The permit has not been picked up by the Legion. I spoke with the Minnesota Liquor Control Board today. There are different types of food permits issued and the type of permit issued by the County determines if the applicant can have a Sunday Liquor License. If the County approves the Legion for a small or full menu, the State will consider a Sunday Liquor License. If the County approves the Legion for a Food Handlers permit, they State will not approve a Sunday Liquor License. The type of food license has not yet been defined by the County. The Legion needs Hennepin County approval, then the City needs to approve, then the State will consider the application. The Legion cannot serve liquor on Sunday until all agencies have approved. Council options are either to approve this application contigent upon the approvals being given by the Building Department and Hennepin County and then wait to submit application to the State, or continue this request until the approvals have been received. printed on recycled paper LICENSE # RECEIPT it DATE FEE PAID APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSE AND/OR SUNDAY LIQUOR List Directors I ECEIyE1) NOV 398 Date of Birth N/A TO THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL, Full Name of Applicant . American Legion Post (First) (Middle) (Last) IfCorperation: List Officers and Titles Tom Rasmussent CEO: Vice: Chris Colemane 2nd Vice; Jim Copher, Adjutant; Bob Shanley, Finance Officer Duane Leisinqer, 1st List Stockholders On-Sale Liquor License ($4,000.00) X Sunday Liquor License ($200.00) ~ On-Sale Beer License ($200.00) ~ Off-Sale Beer License ($25.00) ~ On-Sale Wine License ($200.00) Business Name American Leqion Post 398 Address2333 Wilshire Blvd Mound Phone Number 6 1 2 - 4 7 2 - 9 5 8 2 LICENSE EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 1996 EXPIRATION DATE: June 30, COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING REGARDING BONDING: (Must submit Corporate Surety Bond - $5,000) Old Republic Surgery Wisconsin (Name of Bonding Company) (Address of Agent) COMPLETE THE FOLLOV~ING REGAKDING LIQUOR LIABILITY (DKAM SHOP) INSURANCE UNDERWRITER: (Must submit a Certificate of Insurance - $50,000 per person; $100,000 more than one person; $10,000 property destruction: $50,000 and $100,000 for loss of means of support) ATTACH 'CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE' TO THIS FORM. 55 I§ 8 19 Acord 8085 Wayzata Blvd,Golden Valley (Name of Insurance Agency) (Address of Agent) 5 5 4 2 6 (See attached forms for information required by the Minnesota Department of Revenue - Failure to supply this information may jeopardize the issuance of your liquor license.) Signature of Applicant Home Address City and State 54 77 F ECEIVED Hennepin County MOUND PLANNIt G & INSP. An Equal Opportunity Employer October 15, 1996 Mark Koecheler American Legion Post 398 2333 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Mr. Koecheler: I have reviewed the changes to the proposed plan for the remodel project at the Mound American Legion Post 398. The new plans and specifications appear to meet the minimum requirements of Hennepin County Ordinance Number 3, Food Protection, and is approved with the following conditions and requirements. It is understood that all ware washing will be done at the upstairs dish machine. Disposable wares and utensils will primarily used for the bar fare. o Since no prep sink is planned, all food products must be pre-cut, pre-prepped, and pre-washed when purchased or prepared in the upstairs kitchen where a prep sink is located. Se Walls in the back area must be a minimum of Fiberglass Reinforced Panels (FRP), from floor to ceiling or a minimum of eight (8) feet in height. Insulated stainless steel is required behind the cook line. It is understood that the. floor in the bar area and in the back area is quarry tile and the ceiling in these areas is smooth and easily cleanable. A minimum of 70 foot-candles of light is required in cooking and food preparation areas. If a grease trap is required by the City of Mound, it must comply with the Minnesota Plumbing Code, the top must be flush with the floor and it must be easily accessible for cleaning. Obtain all permits and approvals from all appropriate agencies (building, fire, electrical and plumbing) Community Health Department ' ' EnvironmentalHealth ManagementGroup " 1011 South First Street, Suite 215 Hopkins, Minnesota 5,5343-9413 (612)'930-2770 FAX:(612) 930-2782 Recycled Pap~ Mark Koecheler October 15, 1996 Page 2 Periodic inspections may be conducted by our office during the course of construction. A final inspection is required before the facility can be opened to the public. Please respond to the above issues as soon as possible and Prior to beginning work on the project. If you have any questions, please call me at 930-2775 or Larry Myers at 930-2774. Environmentalist cc: Larry Myers, Hennepin County ~-Jon Sutherland, City of Mound St. Cloud Restaurant Supply Co. 3501 GENERAL PERMIT Site Owner Name Address Phone (H) Contractor Name Address Phone (H) Legal Description CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Address 2333 WILSHIRE BLVD. Tenant/Building Name The applicant is: owner _,X contractor __tenant AMERICAN LEGION POST 398 473-5282 (M) MINNETONKA REFRIG 1680 BLUEBIRD LANE 0~73-5282 MOUND;MN 55364 (M) Lot 8,9.38 & ~ OF VAC. ALLEy_ Addition SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT F P~O# 13-117-24 34 0043/0060 Block Plat WATER INSPECTION FEE (CONNECT/DISCONNECT) ............................................................. 73-3154 SEWER INSPECTION FEE (CONNECT/DISCONNECT) ............................................................ 78-3154 PLUMBING (# OF FIXTURES ) ........................... 01-3254 HEATING/MECHANICAL ........ .8..E...E.....]~.(2U.I p. ~E [~ T... Z~.GE lq D ............................................ 01-3257 FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM (SPRINKLERS/TANKS) ............................................................ 01-3252 GRADING, LAND RECLAMATION, AND STREET EXCAVATION ............................................... 01-3256 PLAN CHECK FEE ....................................................................................................................... 01-3253 OTHER SURCHARGE ............................................................................................................................... 01-2222 $ TOTAL AMOUNT .................................................................................................................. $ 15_00 $ $ $ $ 1.50 16.50 Remarks and Special Conditions: This permit becomes nuR and void if work or construction authorized is not commenced within 180 days, or if construction or work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days at any time after work is commenced. I hereby certify that I have read and examined this application and know the same to be true and correct. ~VI provisions of laws and city ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not. The granting of a permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the 'ovisions of any other state or Iocbl law regulating construction or the performance of construction. ~ , / Date Applicant's Signature Date White--File Copy Canary--Inspector's Copy Pink--Finance Copy Gold-Applicant's Receipt 3 5 0 1 EQUIPMENT LEGEND !T-E-M- Q.T-Y-' ..... D E s C.R~Ip_T I__O_N__ .... _M_A_ ~ U_~ ~_C_T_U_ R__E_ _R MODEL NEW EXT FUT. 1 1 Microwave 1100 watts IAnqana RFS11MP2 X 2. I ..... 1 ,Sandwich/Salad Unit 'True TSSU-48-12 X 3 1 Work Table :Advance Tabco ELAG-300 X 4 1 Freezer Fridgedair X __5__ .1___H_ a~i_~ _cl_s i n_k ............. Metalmasters HAS-1OF X .... 6_ .... 1 Duo Truss Shelving X .... 7 1 Duo Truss Shelving X ..8_ .... _1__ Wa_lki!]~Co_ o_l.e__r ........ H_a__r_F_ .o_ r_d ............... X ___9_ ...._1__ :!c_e_~ak_e_r_ .............. Manitowac 600 X 10 '1 Refrigerator Polar Quest PQ2R X AMERICAN LEGION POST 398 23,_33 WILSHIRE BLVD MOUND, MN 55364 § Z Minnetonka Post 398 AMERICAN LEGION MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 Il TO: City of Mound FROM: American Legion Post 398 SUBJ: Mini Kitchen Dear Sir: Please permit this letter to serve as a follow up to our application for a Sunday opening license. We have worked very close with Hennepin County Health Dept. and have installed Madite wall paneling, a new stainless steel employee hand sink, new stainless steel shelving and have repainted the balance of the kitchen and prep area. We have installed two state-of-the-art food prep equipment items consisting of a direct energy transfer grill and a greaseless fryer that uses super heated air to prepare the pre-cooked food. See attached spec. sheets. At present we have not finalized a menu, however, we are considering the following: 1. Burgers 2. Chicken patties 3. Fdes, onion rings, etc. 4. Cold & hot sandwiches 5. Variety of battered finger foods 6. Breaded fish strips 7. Soups including chili 8. Desserts 9. Chips and accessory foods 10. Pizzas Sincerely, Tom Rasmussen Commander Enc, TR/nr GREASELESS FRYER Fry, Grill or Bake delicious and profitable hot foods without the need of a vented hood system! Serve fried foods that are crispy on the outside, moist on the inside, and healthier with 20% to 40% less fat, cholesterol and calories! The Quik n' Crispy* Greaseless Fryer is an efficient, compact counter-top unit that won't eat iuto your bot- tom line. With tile Quik n' Crispy,® you can start serving high margin hot n' fast foods today and realize a com- plete return on your investment in just 2-4 months. With thc cook-to-order capability of the Quik u' Crispy,® food waste is eliminated -- lowering your costs and increasing your profits. This space saving unit does not emit grease laden vapor and, .'ES a result, expensive vented hoods are nor- mally not required. Additional savings are also realized due to substantially reduced insunmce premiums with the elimination of deep fat cooking and venting. You aud your employees will be h:q)py when thc mess, smell, fire hazards and accidents associated with grease become a thing of the past! CALL 1-800-233-0716 For more information or a free on-site demonstration of Quik n' Crispy. ® All Stainless Steel Construction Venth~g Requirements: Normally Not Required (Local Codes Prevail) Approximate Weight: Installed 60 lbs. (Shipping 69 lbs.) Dimensions: 203/ff Wide · 15" Tall · 19 '/," Deep Shipping Carton 24" x 24" x 18" Thermostat: Robertshaw 0-550° F Timer: Diehl 0-6 Minutes O- 15 Minutes © 1996 QNC, Inc. 0896 Using hot air and radiant heat, the Quik n' Crispy® makes oven-ready foods taste like they came out of a deep fat fryer: crisp and brown on the outside, tender and juicy on the inside! Plus, the foods that come out of tile Quik n' Crispy* are 20% to 4096 lower ill fat and cholesterol compared to similar deep fat fried foods. So your customers get the taste they love without the excess cholesterol and fat they are trying to avoid. No matter what business you're in, all you need is one Quik n' Crispy® to begin offering your customers hot n' fast foods around the clock. Offer breakfast foods like breald'ast sandwiches and hash browns. Serve hearty lunch and dinner items like burritos, pizza, corn dogs, egg rolls and hot sandwiches. And keep them coming back for popular snacks like french fries, onion rings, breaded vegetables, fried cheese and more! The Quik n' Crispy* Greaseless Fryer is TIIE affordable, versatile, hassle-free solution that will propel you into the hot n' fast food market quicMy, easily and snccessfully! SPECIFICATIONS: Warranty: 1 Year on Parts 90 Days on Labor List: Undcr~vriters Laboratory (U.L.) NSF International LISTED ® U.S. Patent Number: 5,066,851 Model #GF-II Distributed By: Electrical SpecLfications: Please Specify Voltage When Ordering Single Phase Only · 60Hz 120V 2150 watts 19 amps 208V 6000 watts 29 amps 240V 6000 watts 28 amps Following Voltages Not Listed by U.L. Single Phase Only · 50Hz 220V 2640 watts 12 amps 240V 2880 watts 12 amps Cord: 6' Length 250V 7500 watts 30 amps · (4) #10 Gauge 125V 2500 watts 20 amps · 12/3 SPT-3 Ping: NEMA #14-30P, 125/250V (4 Wire Grounding) NEMA #5-20P, 125V Receptacle: Receptacle: NEMA #14-30R NEMA *~5-20R 30A 125/250V 20A 125V (214) 669-8993 · (800) 233-0716 , FAX: (214) 669-8990 · 12021 Piano Rd., Suite 160 · Dallas, TX 75243 MODEL A975 -1- OPEI~TIONS DF./.SCRIPTION OF OPERATION T~e Instant Burger represents the latest in modern cooking technology. It uses a new scientific method of direct energy transfer to cook the meat. Rather than using electricity to heat up an element, to heat up a griddle, to heat up a hamburger; the Instant Burger passes the energy directly througtl tile hamburger and causes it to heat itself. It does this economically, automatically and in a fraction of the time necessary to cook hamburgers by ordinary methods. In operation, the hamburgers, either in a ball or pre- formed patties, are placed on the bottom plate. The cover is closed. The operator presets the "Degree of Doneness" dial between "Rare" and "Well". The "Start" button is then pressed, automatically starting the cooking cycle. A sophisticated electronic brain then takes over and monitors the energy to the hamburgers and automatically stops it at the correct degree of doneness. The result is a delicious tasting meat. This is especially true since no oil or grease is used to cook the hamburgers. The unit can cook practically any type of ground or tenderized beef, hot dogs, sausage, ground turkey, chicken breast, etc. COOKER OPERATION GREEN LIGHT (COMES OIJ WIIEH BUHGERS A[~E DONE) POWER SWlTCrt POWER ON B LAC_K. KNOB (SETTI¢~G FOR DEGREE OF OONENESS) GENERAL START BUTTON PUStl T0 READY START 0 CHICI(EN COOK ~ o ,,... tlAMI]URGER ~ AMBER LIGtIT HAMBURGER/CilICKEN (COMES ON WH~L~ COOKING) SELECTOR SWITCH Fig. I Before cooking, meat must be fully thawed with no icy spots. It should however, be kept under refrigera- tion. It is also recommended that meat selected have a fat content of 20 to 30%. The operation of the Instant Burger is simple. Plug the unit into a grounded outlet, 115% 30 amp .individual branch circuit. Move "Power Switch" to "On". The green light will come on indicating power is "On". Set degree of aloneness desired b7 setting dial between "Rare" and "Well Done". The finished product may look less done than the setting when you first open the cover. Remember, the meat continues to brown for a short period after it finishes cooking. 'lherefore, do not change the setting too quickly if a bit of pinkness results. If you coat the top and bottom plate surfaces with a thin coating of cooking oil before you start cooking tile first time, they will stay cleaner longer. Fig. 2 1. Hamburger patties must be the same weight to cook evenly. Place hamburger ball or pattie on each side of plate. (See Fig. 2). Hamburger must be placed on both sides. (One hamburger por- tion on either side will not cook.) To cook one hamburger, split into two equal parts and place one half' on each side. 2. Close cover. Lid must be completely closed to lock in place. 3. To cook press "Start" button. "Cook" (Amber) light will come on immediately. 4. When the amber light goes out and the green light comes on and the buzzer sounds the burgers are done. If hamburgers are not cooked sufficiently, close cover and press "Start" button again. When amber light goes out and green light comes on, open cover, remove hamburgers and season with One Step Prep MixTM. 5. If one hamburger is sufficiently cooked and the other is not, remove the cooked hamburger. Place the uncooked hamburger equally across the center of tile bottom plate. Close cover and press "Start" button again. If this happens con- stantly, see Trouble Shooting Outline "UneVen Cooking of Hamburgers". -2- Minnesota Fraternal Insurance Insurance Summary For: AMERICAN LEGION POST #398 Prepared By: Melissa K. Ebert MINNESOTA FRATERNAL INSURANCE 8085 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 100 Golden Valley, MN 55426 612-536-8006 or 800-969-7364 Thix i~ a summary of coverages for your convenience ONLY. Please refer to the policies for actual coverage descrip~n. Minnesota Fraternal Insurance a division of Insuraace Advisors, Inc. [ Golden Valley, MN. GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE and LIQUO'R LIABILITY Summe~ This insurance protects you against a loss as a result of your legal liability to pay damages because of Bodily Injury and/or Property Damage to which this insurance applies, caused by an occurrence. The Insurer also has the right and duty to defend any suit seeking those damages. Limits of Insurance $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 100,000. $ ~ 5,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Policy Aggregate Products / Completed Operations Aggregate Personal Injury / Advertising Liability Per Occurrence Fire Damage Liability Medical Payments LIQUOR LEGAL LIABILITY I-tired & Non owned Automobile Premim Basis Liquor Sales - $145,000 Food Sales - $15,000 This is a sununary of coveragex for your convenience ONLY. Please refer to tim policies for actual coverage desczitxion. Insurance THE NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA A Stock Company, Boston, Massachusetts 02108-3100 MINNESOTA FRATERNAL , "$URANCE PROGRAM ~;OMMERCIAL ACCOUNT POLICY COMMERCIAL LIQUOR LIABILITY COVERAGE PART DECLARATiONS NWK710041 06/18/96 NAMED INSURED AMERICAN LEGION #$98 Aggregate Limit $500,000 Each Common Cause Limit $500,000 ALL CLASSIFICATIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS COVERAGE FORM MAY BE FOUND IN THE ATTACHED SCHEDULES. ATTACHED SCHEDULECS) $1,757.00 TOTAL $1,757.00 00001 001 CLUBS 70~12 PER $1000 SALES 1~5,000 12.1160 * This premium may be subject to adjustment, G66972 (Ed. 6-94) Otb'icE; NAPERVZLLE INSURED COPY Page Ol of Ol FILE NUMBER: NAi09 1 6:~053~00 Insurance THE NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA A Stock Company, Boston, Massachusetts 02108-3100 MINNESOTA FRATERNAL ..... TURANCE PROGRAM COMMERCIAL ACCOUNT POLICY COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART DECLARATIONS ~WKT~OO~ I o6/'~8/96 AMERICAN LEBION #398 General Aggregate Limit (Other than Products--Completed Operations) Products--Completed Operations Aggregate Limit Personal and Advertising Injury Limit Each Occurrence Limit Fire Damage (any one fire) Limit Medical Expenses (any one person) Limit $500,000 $500,000 8500,000 8500,000 8100,000 85,000 ALL CLASSIFICATIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS COVERAGE FORM MAY BE FOUND IN THE ATTACHED SCHEDULES. PRODUCTS AND COMPLETED OPERATIONS ALL OTHER BALANCE TO MINIMUM 8126.00 878.00 82,736.00 TOTAL 82,940.00 .."o · I ~' I { ~uu~ I I I AMOUNT {FINAL RATE ICHARGEO 00001 001 RSTRNTS-WITH SALE OF ALCH BEVTHAT ARE 16811 PREMISES PER S1000 SALES 160~000 9.9995 $1,600 MORE THAN 7SI OF THE TOTAL ANN RECEIPT OF THE RESTAURANTS-~[TH DANCE FLOOR 00001 001 RSTRNTS-WITH SALE OF ALCH BEVTHAT ARE 16817 PRODUCTS MORE THAN 751 OF THE TOTAL ANN RECEIPT OF THE RESTAURANTS-WITH DANCE FLOOR PER $1000 SALES 160,000 0.78q6 $126 00001 001 CLUBS-CIVIC~SERVICE OR SOCIAL-HAVING q1668 PREMISES BUILDINGS OR PREMISES OWNED OR LEASED -NON PROFIT-INCL PROD/COMPL OPS PER 1000 AREA $,900 238.789fl $951 00001 001 BLDGS OR PREMISES-BANK OR OFFICE-MRCNT 61217 PREMISES PER 1000 AREA OR MANUF-MAINTAINED BY INSURED-LESSOR' RISK ONLY-FOR PROFIT-INCL PROD/COMPL 0 800 71.908q $58 00001 001 EMPLOYERS NON-OWNERSHIP AUTO LIA8 0-25 EMPLOYEES 66010 SPECIAL NBR OF EMPLOYEES i 1,oooo $55 00001 001 HIRED AUTO LIABILITY COVERAGE 66190 SPECIAL NO EXPOSURE I 1.0000 * This premium may be subject to adjustment. G66970 (Ed. 6-94) OFFICF. NAPERVZLLE INSURED COPY Page 01 of 01 FILE NUMeER: NAi09 I 62055fi00 I MINUTES-CONTINUED CITY COUNCIL MEETING-OCTOBER 17, 1996-7:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Bob Polston at 7:35 p.m. Members Present: Mayor Bob Polston; Councilmembers: Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Phyllis Jessen. Absent and Excused: Councilmember Andrea Ahrens. Also Present: Ed Shukle, City Manager; Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator and the following members of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD): President John Thomas, Thomas LaBounty, Monica Gross, Pamela Blixt, Malcolm Reid, Woodrow Love, Thomas Maple and Gene Strommen, Executive Director of MCWD. Others in attendance: Ceil Strauss, DNR; Ron Peterson, Peterson Environmental; Mike Graham, Peterson Environmental; Rick Johnston, Braun Intertec; Roger Carpenter, Braun Intertec; Louis Smith, MCWD Attorney; Suzanne Weedman, Assistant Director, MCWD; Andrew Syverson, Wenck and Associates, MCWD Engineer;Klm Polzin, Ceres C°mmunications/MCWD;Gino Businaro, Finance Director; John Cameron, City Engineer; Mike Aspelin, Leah Weycker, State Senator Gen Olson, Stan Drahos, Gary Christensen, Mark Brewer, Bev Botko, Marilyn Byrnes, Peter Meyer, Bill Darling, Tom Casey, Bill Netka, Dorothy Netka, Jo Longpre, Jerry Longpre, Gene Hostetler, Dave Willette, Rex Alwin and Rodney Beystrom. Mayor Polston asked each member seated at the table to introduce themselves. Mayor Polston stated that this was a public meeting and not a public hearing and that a public hearing would be held on the federal environmental assessment on November 12, 1996. Mayor Polston indicated why the City was proposing the project and what the City hoped it would accomplish with the Lost Lake project. Mayor Polston then introduced Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator, to review what has been done to prepare for the project. Chamberlain indicated that the following has been performed: 4. 5. 6. 7. Biological Survey (flora and fauna) of Lost Lake. Sediment (pollution) analysis of the wetland bottom and post office area. The permanent docking area has not undergone the same analysis because it is not part of the phase one project. When and if that portion of the project is pursued, pollution analysis would be conducted as part of the permit process. Geotechnical testing. Site survey - wetland delineation and topographic survey in effected areas. Preliminary construction plans and details to review and test construction methods. Environmental review documents. Coordination with permitting agencies including interpretation of rules. ......... --- ......... 3q'-/3 Continued City Council Meeting of October 17, 1996 Page 2 Chamberlain asked Rick Johnston, Braun Intertec, to explain the testing procedures of the soils within the project area. Johnston reviewed the tested areas explaining that he had been in close contact with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on the procedures followed and sharing the results of the testing with the MPCA. Chamberlain completed his review of the proposed project and asked the Watershed District to share their comments and concerns. John Thomas, President of the MCWD, indicated that the MCWD was happy to sit down with the officials of the City of Mound to review the proposed project prior to receiving an actual permit application. He indicated that the MCWD operates under a set of rules which apply to this project and the project must meet these rules or will be denied a permit. He asked Gene Strommen, Executive Director, to distribute a handout which contained a summary of those rules applying to this project. Thomas then asked Woodrow Love, a Manager of the MCWD, to review the District's concerns on the proposed project in the context of the MCWD rules. Love pointed out that the proposed excavation of the channel and mm-around would be permittable under the MCWD rules. Excavation of the post office area which is previously filled wetland is acceptable since it completes the historic mm-around. He further indicated that although not in the rules of the MCWD but in the policies, the District has allowed further widening of channels. The MCWD would allow a channel wider than the historic width in cases like Lost Lake where the width is needed for safety. The · osed to the pull-outs. The width increase would occ~ MCWD would prefer more w.~d~ .as opp _ confirmed this as a suitable approac~h. H~ around ~:efl Strauss, DNIL also -around to race both the canal and mm- ,.. ,, - --,- ~ffect' that boats would use the mm did express a concern regaromg a race~racr- *,. through this area. The DNR supports converting the center of the mm-around from cattails to a lower growing wetland plant species. Love addressed the proposed dredging in the area that has been labeled Phase 2. Since it (the marina), is proposed on existing upland, dredging of the marina area would not be permitted because it is viewed as an extension of riparian rights (an illegal activity). This aspect of the project is not part of phase one construction but the MCWD would like the City to modify its plans in regard to the marina prior to submitting a permit. Bin Ici tu · · / .Strauss then addressed the propo_sea ns g _Pi L_u:.. ,,; A structure, such as this, w~ncn .extencts . .,__ ~xrv is not suvnortive of the proposeu n~m-~ p}er. ,-,,,m ~ooo;fies the oroposed pier as a i · rmitteO unoer ~x ~ · over the water ~s not pc. .... ,~_,~a ~^ ~vtend over the water. tructure and structures, oy poncy, are nm ano~, ~ ........ , trauss also commented on the proposed sea walls. She indicated that the sea walls proposed for the ~outh end of the canal from the mouth to the bridge are permissible. .2q4¥ I IlL Continued City Council Meeting of October 17, 1996 Page 3 Another concem expressed by Love and Strauss was the impact that the transient docks in the area of the fishing pier had on the project. Strauss and Love suggested in order to minimize the impact to the wetland, transient docks would be better located somewhere within the turn-around area rather than the wing configuration as proposed. X5 Thomas LaBounty, MCWD Manager, stated his concern regarding the Bartlett Blvd. bridge and the height of the bridge. He suggested that the City of Mound address how to deal with the inevitable future pressure by large boat owners to raise the bridge. Larger boats will have greater negative impacts on the wetland and the current design of the canal (primarily depth and maneuvering area) will not easily accommodate larger boats. ~ brought up the idea a gauge in the water at the mouth of the canal indicating bri~,aran~ , ofhaving placed Other issues discussed included the following: 6Q7 The vegetation in the center of the turn-around should be protected from boat encroachment by buoys or other methods. If the transient docks are moved to the turn-around area, the MCWD would be very favorable to and be an active partner in vegetation restoration within the currently proposed docking area. The goals of the MCWD are for the City to begin preparing a surface water management plan with regional sub-watershed ponding as part of the plan, the cleanup of Lake Langdon and the cooperative resolution (along with the LMCD) of issues raised earlier. Mayor Polston thanked the MCWD for attending this meeting and reviewing their comments with the City Council and staff. Mayor Polston indicated that the staff'would be reviewing the comments and suggested alternatives and would be discussing those in more detail prior to submitting a permit application to the MCWD and the DNR. It was then moved by Hanus, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. ~C ~/~~dctfully submitted, MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 22, 1996 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, October 22, 1996 at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Ma)wood Road, in said City. Those present: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Mark Hanus, Liz lensen and Phyllis lessen (arrived at 7:45 pm). Absent and excused: Andrea Ahrens. Also in attendance: City Maria§er Edward I. Shulde, Ir., City Attorney Curt Pearson, Buildin§ Official Ion Sutherland and Acting City Clerk Linda Strong. The following interested citizens were also present: Robert Floeder, Bill and Lorraine Dunldey, Koch, Amy Cicchese, Lorrie Ham, Daryl Geyen, Mark Reschke, loe Zylman and Micheal Aspelin. The Pledge of Allegiance was receited. 1.0 EXERCISE ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1996._ Police Chief Len Harrell informed the Council of the continuous participation of the Geyen's and A1 & Alma's Supper Club in local events. He introduced Lt. Bill Chandler of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office and Tim Turnbull from Hennepin County Emergency Preparedness. Mayor Polston presented Daryl Geyen with an appreciation plaque Lt. Chandler presented Daryl with a plaque from the Hennepin County Water Patrol for Geyen's years of generosity. The following items on the *Consent Agenda were moved by Councilmember Hanus and seconded by Jensen. The roil call vote was unanimous 3-0, Ahrens was absent. Jessen arrived after the vote. *CONSENT AGENDA *1.1 MEETING. Hanus, Iensen, unanimous. Ahrens absent, lessen arrived after vote. '1.2 MEETING. Hanus, lensen, unanimous. Ahrens absent, lessen arrived after vote. '1.3 APPROVE THE ~TES OF THE OCTOBER 15 1996co~EEOFTHE _WHOLE MEETING._ Hanus, Jensen, unanimous. Ahrens absent, Jessen arrived after vote. Minutes - Mound City Council - October 22, 1996 ROBERT BAUMGARTEN 4 52 DENBIGH ROAD. CASE//96-31 At the request of the applicant, this item was removed and continued until November 12, 1996. 5 ISLAND PIPE NDEV N OMM N. s, lensen, unanimous 4-0. Ahrens absent. ~ RF-~OLUTION//96-103 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR AN UNDERGROUND PVC WATER PIPE TO BE LOCATED ON DEVON COMMON ABUTTING 4857 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, DOCK//43520. '1.6 BLOCK 1. HALSTEAD ACRES. CASE//96-54. Hanus, Jensen, unanimous 3-0. RESOLUTION//96-104 Ahrens absent, Jessen arrived after vote. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A DECK AT 3016 WESTEDGE BLVD., LOT 1, BLOCK 1, HALSTEAD ACRES 2ND ADDITION, PID 23-117-24 33 0012, PZ//96-54. *1.7 Hanus, Jensen, unanimous 3-0. RESOLUTION//96-105 BL~UFFS LANE AND RONALD EMMONS 3019 BL~UFFS LANE. CASE//96-55. Ahrens absent, Jessen arrived after vote. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION (LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT) FOR LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 2, THE BLUFFS, PID'S 22-117-24-44 0002 &0003, PZ//96-55. '1.8 VARIANCE FOR ADDITION TO HOUSE A~MES KOCH 4398 ~WILSHIRE BLVD. CASE//96-56. Hanus, Jensen, unanimous 3-0. Ahrens absent, Jessen arrived after vote. Minutes - Mound City Council - October 22, 1996 RESOLUTION//96-106 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AT 4398 WH3HIRE BLVD., LOTS 87 & 100 & P/86, PHELP'S ISLAND PARK FIRST DMSION, PID 19- 117-23 24 0022. PZg96-56. *1.9 ~ABERDlZ, EN ROAD. Hanus, lensen, unanimous 3-0. RESOLUTION//96-107 VARIANCE FOR ADDITI N TO DETACHED ARAGE MARK RESCFIKE 4737 CASE//96-57. Ahrens absent, lessen arrived after vote. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION AT 4737 ABERDEEN ROAD, LOTS 10 & 11, BLOCK 5, DEVON, PID 30-117-23 22 0036. PZ//96-57. *1.10 VARIANCE TO RECONSTRUCT DWELLING LORI & ERRY MAREK 4829 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. CASE//96-58. Hanus, lensen, unanimous 3-0. RESOL~ON//96-108 Ahrens absent, lessen arrived after vote. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SETBACK, LOT AREA, AND HARDCOVER VARIANCES TO ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING AT 4829 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 8, BLOCK 13, DEVON, PID 25-117-24 11 0033. P&Z//96-58. *1.11 Hanus, lensen, unanimous 3-0. RESOLUTION//96-109 VARIANCE FOR DECK REPLACEMENT & EXPANSION STEVE & MARY CHASE, 1765 JONES LANE. CASE g96-59._ i Ahrens absent, lessen arrived after vote. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AT 1765 JONES LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 1, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, PID 13-117-24 22 0030, P&Z//96-59. · 1.12 BID AWARD: CENTRAL BUSINES__S DISTRICT PARKING SNOW REMOVAL. Hanus, Jensen, unanimous 3-0. Ahrens absent, lessen arrived after vote. 3 Minutes - Mound City Council - October 22, 1996 RESOLUTION ~06-110 RESOLUTION APPROVING WIDMER BROS. AS THE SNOWPLOW CONTRACTOR FOR THE 1996-97 SNOW SEASON FOR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING LOTS. '1.13 PAYMENT OF BILLS: Hanus, Jensen, unanimous 3-0. Ahrens ~bsent, Sessen arrived after vote. ~1.14 RE UEST FOR RELEA E OF TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY. The Council discussed the land had been retained on 2-5-82 for Wetland . requested the release of this nro~m, for c.,~.~ ,~ ~.~:A:_, . purposes. Joe Zylman has ., . . ~..j o,~ ~, auju~mng property ownere Mr ? mage lnvetsment Co. plans to develoo th~ -,,~; ............ ~_-5 .... ' ....... ylman of Waters v ,. -ma,~cnt parcel anti woulo ll~:e to incorporate this land into the development. The Parks Director, City Planner, Parks Commission and Planning Commission all recommended that the City retain this property for wetland purposes. Councilmember Hanus stated that the plans for the development required several variances. MOTION by Polston, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously for the City to retain ownership of PID 13-117-24 22 0249, 5490 Three Points Blvd., that part of Lot 25, Lafayette Park, for wetlands and not to release it for sale to adjoining properties. 1.15 1997____~. Mr. Bedell had submitted a letter requesting this item to be continued until the November 26, 1996 City Council meeting. 1.16 COMMENTS AND SUG ESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were none. 1.17 DISCUSSION: SUBURBAN ALLIANCE. City Manager Ed Shukle summarized the issue. He stated there is an estimate of debt proposed to be distributed among the member cities. Mound apparently, did not participate for several years and then began participating again. In 1993, the City rejoined for a fee of $50. Discussion included staff costs and budgets not reflecting true activity. City Attorney Curt Pearson stated that the documents provided in information shows no signatures by anybody. He wondered if we ever signed them. 4 Minutes - Mound City Council - October 22, 1996 MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to direct City Manager and City Attorney to research and identify ff the City has a contractual obligation with the Suburban Alliance. 1.18 INCENTIV~ A COUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE OMML~I~. ACT F R CALENDAR YEAR 1997. City Manager Ed Shukle stated the Council did not respond in time to be included in the 1996 program. The City is now eligible for inclusion in the 1997 Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. A resolution needs to be approved and submitted by November 15, 1996 to take advantage of any grant or loan programs during 1997. Shulde also mentioned that the city of Minnetrista would like to cluster with the City of Mound in the requirements needed to participate. The Council consensus was to participate in 1997 without Minnetrista clustering with Mound to see how the program will benefit Mound. It is possible Mound may consider "clustering" with Minnetrista in 1998. Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution as presented: RESOLUTION//96-111 RESOLUTION ELECTING TO BEGIN pARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIF-~ ACT CALENDAR YEAR 1997. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.19 ADD-ON - MAYOR POLSTON DISCUSSED WITH COUNCIL BOND OPTIONS AVAILABLE FOR THE CITY OF MOUNI) TO CONSIDER IN THE SUPPORT OF A WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER.. Mayor Polston wanted to discuss with the Council information on the different types of bonding available should the City want to participate with some financial support of a new Westonka Senior Center. 1.20 COMMENTS ON PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSI N ~ OF OCTOBER 10 1996. Councilmember Hanus commented on a motion by the POSC to the City Council "for the City to take no more actions directly associated with the dredging or project related preparatory action on the Lost Lake Canal dredging until such time that all the issues associated with it have been resolved". He would like the Council to deny acceptance of the motion because if the Council were to follow this recommendation the project would be guaranteed to have any permits denied by issuing authorities. He stated new discoveries are made all of the time and these actions create a chain of reactions. He also stated this motion was made before the special meeting held on October 17, 1996 with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, DNR, Mound advisory Commissions and the Council. 5 Minutes. Mound City Council - October 22, 1996 1.21 MOTION by Polston, seconded by Jeusen and carried unanimously to communicate with tile Parks and Open Space Commission that after meeting with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, that the Council has great hopes that the project will be a go and the Parks and Open Space Comnaission should also be supportive and promote the project to the public. -INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS_,. A. SEPTEMBER 1996 FINANCIAL REPORT AS PREPARED BY FINANCE DIRECTOR. GINO BUSINARO, Bo MEMO FROM JIM MILLER, LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES RE: NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND 1997 N-LC POLICY AND STEERING COMMITTEES. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED, PLEASE ADVISE SO WE CAN SUBMIT YOUR NAME FOR CONSIDERATION. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS MINUTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 MEETING. De PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE POLICIES PREPARED BY COMMITTEES OF THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIF_3 (AMM). ADOPTION OF THESE POLICIES WILL TAKE PLACE ON NOVEMBER 14, 1996 IN ST. PAUL. (BOOKLET INSERT - COUNCIL) PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTF_3 - OCTOBER 10, 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 1996. THANK YOU LETTER FROM THE SOUTHWEST TRAIL ASSOCIATION FOR CITY SUPPORT. REMINDERS: CANVASSING OF MUNICIPAL ELECTION IS SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6TH, 7:30 PM. CITY OFFICES ARE CLOSED NOVEMBER 11, 1996 IN OBSERVANCE OF VETERAN'S DAY. ANNUAL LAEGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES LEGISLATIVE POLICY ADOPTION CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 22ND IN MINNETONKA AT THE RAMADA PLAZA HOTEL. PLEASE ADVISE LINDA AS SOON AS POSSIBLE IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ATTENDING. 6 Minutes - Mound City Council - October 22, 1996 MOTION by Jensen seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 pm. City Manager Attest: Acting City Clerk 7 I IL MINUT~ . MOUND CITY COUNCIL - NOVEMBER 7, 1996 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in a special Canvass Board Wednesday, November 7, 1996 at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen, and Phyllis Jessen. Also in attendance: City Manager Edward J. Shulde, Jr., and Acting City Clerk Linda Strong. The following interested citizens were also present: None 1.0 RESOLUTION CERTIFYING RESULTS OF MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF THE GENERAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 5, 1996. The following resolution was moved by Jensen, seconded by Jessen as presented: RESOLUTION//96-112 RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE RESULTS OF THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION AS PRESENTED AT THE CANVASS OF VOTE OF THE NOVEMBER 5, 1996 GENERAL ELECTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOTION by P_.olston, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 7:32 pm. Attest: Acting City Clerk City Manager RESOLL1TION RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCES FOR LOTS 5, 6, 7, 8, & SWLY 1/2 OF LOT 4, BLOCK 2, AVALON 4536 & 4552 DENBIGIt ROAD PID'S 13-117-24 14 0008 & 0048 P&Z CASE//96-31 WHEREAS, the owners of the subject property, as listed below, have submitted a request for a Minor Subdivision in the manner required by Mound City Code Section 320 and Minnesota State Statute Chapter 462, and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder: Lot 5 & Swly 1/2 of Lot 4 - Randy Moriarty, 4536 Denbigh Road Lots 6, 7, & 8 - Robert Baumgarten, 4552 Denbigh Road and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-IA Single Family Residential Zoning District, which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, a 15 foot rear yard setback, a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and a 10 foot setback from the top of a bluff, and; WHEREAS, the subdivision establishes three Tracts labeled A, B and C. Tracts B and C contain existing homes. The home on Tract C will be eventually removed and replaced with a new residence, and; WHEREAS, all three tracts comply with side yard setback requirements and hardcover restrictions for non-lots of record, and; WHEREAS, there are three variances involved with this request, as follows: A variance from the bluff setback provisions for each lot. A front yard setback for the existing home on Tract B of 15.28 feet. Setbac ariances for the existing home on Tract C, unless the structure is removed, v e examtin~ de~arage would require a 16.6 foot front yard setb~ would be necessary to clarify the variances for the home as the survey ~s egible. and; WI-IERE~M1 thr~ the proposed Tracts are in an area of very steep topography, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended denial with 7 in favor and 1 opposed, and; Proposed Resolution Moriarty P. 2 WEIEREAS, the City Council has determined a practical difficulty exists and the proposal is in substantial compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, it is desirable to have the house on Tract C removed, and the minor subdivision and proposed new dwellings are consistent with the development in the surrounding neighborhood, and; WHEREAS, the majority of the properties on Denbigh are similarly situated as far as impacting the bluff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve the minor subdivision as shown on the attached Exhibit 'A', and subject to the following conditions: ao be eo A park dedication fee of $500.00 for the one new parcel being created shall be paid prior to release of this resolution for filing. The site contains three ex/sting water services and three existing sewer services. One of the sewer services is located in an unusable location and as a result, the applicant wiI1 need to construct a new sewer service for Tract A. The sewer service for Tract A shall either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided such as a cash escrow or performance bond, prior to release of this resolution for filing. A grading, drainage and erosion control plan should be submitted as part of the building permit application for review and approval by the City Engineer. The applicants shall provide drainage easements along all new lot lines, 5 feet in width along all sides lot lines, 15 feet in width along rear lot lines, 10 feet in width along the front of Tracts A and C, and 4.5 feet in width along the front of Tract B. The easement descriptions and easement documents must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and then must be filed in conjunction with this resolution at the County. Proof of filing the easements must be provided to the City of Mound prior to building permit issuance. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,170.90 shall be paid prior to release of this resolution for recording. The house and garage located on the proposed Tract C shall be removed prior to release of this resolution for filing (note: this resolution must be filed within 180 days, see//7). A demolition permit is required. Proposed Resolution Moriarty P. 3 e The City does hereby approve the following variances in conjunction with the minor subdivision: a. A variance from the bluff setback provisions for each lot. b. A front yard setback variance for the existing home on Tract B of 15.28 feet. The existing legal description is: Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 2, Avalon, and Lot 5 and the Southwesterly half of LOt 4, Block 2, Avalon. The proposed legal descriptions are as follows: Tract A: The Northeasterly 15.00 feet of LOt 7 and the Southwesterly 35.50 feet of Lot 6, Block 2, Avalon. Tract B: The Southwesterly Half of Lot 4, all of Lot 5 and Lot 6, except the Southwesterly 35.50 feet of said LOt 6, Block 2, Avalon. Tract C: Lot 8 and Lot 7, Block 2, Avalon, except the Northeasterly 15.00 feet of said Lot 7. It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant upon compliance with all conditions contained herein. The applicant shall have the responsibility of f'fling this resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of the City. The applicant shall also have the responsibility to pay all costs associated with such recording. This lot subdivision is to be £fled and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution or it shall become null and void. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: and seconded by Proposed Resolution Morarity Pg. 4 The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Manager RESOLUTION ~96 /- ¸NC. TRACT A The No~heasterly 15.00 leet ol Lot 7 and the Southwesterly 35.50 leer o[ Lot 6, Block 2, Avalon. ~ :~'~ 4, BI0~ 3, Avalon. The Southwesterly Hall ol Lot 4, all of Lot 5 and Lot 4, except the Southwesterly 35.50 leer oi said'Lot .. '~i~ TRACT C Lot 8 and Lot 7, Block 2, Avalon, except tl~e No~'theas~e~ly 15.00 leer MINUTES - MOI.rND CITY COUNCII,- SEFIf:h~ER 24, 1996 1.13 CASE//96-31: MINOR SUBDMSION & VARIANCE RANDy MORIARTY, 4356 DEN'BIGIt ROAD, AxND ROBERT BAUMGARTEN, 4552 DENBIGi:i ROAD, LOTS 4-8, BLOCK 2, AVALON, PI:D #19-117-23 24 0008 & 0048. DEaNIAL RECOMMENDED. Building Official Jon Sutherland reviewed the report. The Planning Commission had recommended denial of a different version of this plan in June. Part of the reason it was denied in June was that it created a new nonconforming lot and violated the bluff provisions. The new proposal establishes three Tracts labeled A, B and C. Tracts B and C contain ex/sting homes. The home on Tract A Mi1 be eventually removed and replaced with a new residence. All three tracts comply with side yard setback requirements and hardcover resthctions for non-lots of record. There are 4 variances applied for. All three of the proposed tracts are in an area of very steep topography. Sutherland stated that the creation of the third lot appears to be an economic issue and not a hardship issue. He also mentioned the survey was not clearly understandable and more information would be needed. The Planning Commission voted 7-1 to deny the request. Randy Moriarty and Jack Cook spoke before the Council regarding their efforts to make this plan workable. Hanus stated he had voted against the denial at the Planning Commission because the lots would be conforming except for the bluff area. Building on bluffs has been done before. He stated they had alleviated ail nonconformities physically possible. Jensen stated she did not want another house built on a bluff. Jessen stated the Shoreland Management Plan does not allow this type of building, she was not in favor. Polston asked if the applicant could possibly redesign the plans to work around the bluff and they responded that they already had done that to remove the as many variances as possible. The only problem that is left is the bluff. (Councilmember Hanus was absent and excused from the October 8, 1996 meeting when these minutes were up for approval. He submitted comments on this item, they are as follows). "Hanus stated that in a previous variance granted on the easterly property, one of the findings was practical difficulty due to the location of the bluff line leaving a restricted building envelope and that this applies in this case as well. He sa.id if it were possible to build outside of the bluff or even more outside of the bluff he would be strongly in favor of this. But this is not possible in this entire area. He said all conditions of the new center lot are conforming except for the location of the bluff. He also pointed out other cases that received similar approval for 1/kc conditions. Hanus stated that it is his intention that any building constructed on this lot would be fully conforming except for the bluff setback. Hanus pointed out that in the Planning Commission minutes there was reference to the easterly M~nute. s - MouncI City Council September 24, I996 property not having enough parking but clar~ed that this is an error. There act,_~_ally are two spaces on this lot, one ia the garage and one alongside the garage, so this property does have the reqtfired two spaces. Itanus said that there is aa erosion problem that exists today because runoff is funneled into one area on the center of the proposed center lot. He felt that with proper mitigating techniques such as gutters, retaining wails, and other landscaping methods to direct and slow water flow, that aa actual improvement could be realized over what exists today. Hanus said that the gain to the city is that it will get the removal of a very old, small, rundown house and get new housing in its place. MOTION by ttanus, seconded by Ahrens to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving a minor subdivision and variance for lots 4-8, Block 2, Avalon and to include the 5 conditions listed in the Planner's report and to add condition #6 to include the removal of the house to the west (Tract C) before approval of the subdivision. The vote carried 3-2, Jensen and Jessen voting nay. ?.. motr wsoay commS ON CASE 96-311 MINOR SUBDIVISION & BLOCK 2 AVALON PID 19-117-23 24 0008 & 0048 ~OAD LOTS 4 - 8 Mark Koegler, City Planner, reviewed the planning report. Koegler reviewed that a slightly different version this case was previously reviewed by the Commission in June and denial was recommended. SUbsequently, the case was withdrawn prior to the City Council meeting, and a modified request has now been submitted. The primary reasons for previously recommending denial was that it created a new nonconforming lot and it violated the bluff provisions. The new proposal eliminates the nonconforming lot concern, but still has a substantial impact on the bluff. The new proposal establishes three Tracts labeled A, B, and C. Tracts B and C contain existing homes. The home on Tract C will eventually be removed and replaced with a new residence. Ail three tracts comply with side yard setback requirements and hardcover restrictions for non-lots of record. The variances involved in this request are: - A variance from the bluff setback provisions for each lot. - A front yard setback for the existing home on Tract B of 15.28 feet. - A variance for having only one off-street parking space on Tract B. The Zoning Code requires two parking~paces per single family dwelling unit. - Setback variances for the existing home on Tract C, unless the structure is removed prior to filing of the subdivision and variance approval. The existing detached garage will require a 16.6 foot front ~r~!~aCtkh~avr~iance' and more information will be necessary survey is illegible. ' y ariances for the home as the All three of the proposed Tracts are in an area of very steed topography. The construction methods as proposed were reviewed.' The creation of the additional lot appears to be an economic issue that does not substantiate a hardship finding. The location of the new home is a concern because it lies whOlly within the bluff area itself. The surrounding neighborhood contains homes that are constructed in a similar physical environment although they are ~erhaps not as severe as the subject lots. However, this proposal involves the creation of a new lot, not simply to add or replace an existing grandfathered dwelling.Koeglerreviewed the recommendation for denial received from the DNR. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the requested variances and minor subdivision because of the lack of hardship in this case. If the Planning Commission moves to Planning commission Minutes September 9, I996 approve the request based on a finding of practical difficulty, it · ted that consideration be given to tabling the request ls ~gges .... ~-- and submission of a detailed g~ading, drainage penalng prepa~=~. and utility plan for all three Tracts for review by the city Engineer prior to final action on this request. If the Planning commission moves to approve the request either now or at a subsequent meeting, conditions of the approval should include: 1. Compliance with the park dedication requirements of the Mound Subdivision ordinance. 2. The site contains three existing water services and three existing sewer services. One of the sewer services is located in an unusable location and as a result, the applicant will need to construct a new sewer service for Tract A. The sewer service for Tract A should either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided such as a cash escrow or performance bond. 3. Unless submitted as part of a previous requirement, a grading, drainage and erosion control plan should be submitted as part of the building permit application for review and approval by the City Engineer. 4. The applicants shall provide drainage easements along all new lot lines, 5 feet in width along all sides and front lot lines and 15 feet in width along rear lot lines. 5. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,170.90 shal~ be paid prior to release of the resolution for recording. Jack cook who is representing Mr Moriarty, stated that there is a uff zone, bu~Mr. Moriarty considers that as a problem with the b~ ..... ~ - ~it to this proposal is that hardship, cook empnaslzea un=~ = ~ ..... he emphasized the poor the house on Tract C will be removed, and condition of this dwelling. Hanus asked if they would be willing to remove the house prior to the filing of the subdivision resolution. Mr. cook confirmed that they would be willing to remove the dwelling on Tract C in conjunction with the approval. Hanus asked the planner if it would be the preference of the city to have to bluff line remain as is, or to fill the area of the bluff on Tract A to bring it in line with the bluff line of Tracts B & C. Koegler replied that they would not support a reduced front yard setback to mitigate the bluff impact, because space is needed in the front for off-street parking. He indicated that the normal comment from the DNR is, any time there is a bluff situation it is denial. The neighborhood is similarly a recommendation for constructed, but the DNR looks at it differently when someone is Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 building a new structure versus replacement or adding onto an existing structure. Koegler summarized, if you can bring the house a little closer to the street without infringing upon the public safety, it is probably preferable from a bluff standpoint. Koegler noted that the Shore!and Management Ordinances req//ires permits for fill in a bluff zone. Reifschneider received clarification from the Planner on how this plan differs from the original request Reifschneider commented that he has problem with pro osed ' topography and fee _ P _ Tract A due to . · ls that Tract A wo .the steep drlveway and off-street ua · uld be better utilized f~ = rklng use to serve Tracts B & C. He al expressed a concern about the conjestion on Denbigh when cars are parked on the road. Voss confirmed that the street would probably never be widened. Cook stated that there is an erosion problem on Tract A and feels that construction of a home situation, on the parcel will correct this Mueller questioned Mr. Cook about the seven trees that are more than 7 to 10 inches in diameter that are existing on the property and asked if they would be removed. Cook confirmed that some trees would need to be taken out, but they could be replaced. Mueller noted that with the new dwelling the surface run off will be created more drainage and faster drainage. Cook stated that the existing tree root system, new trees, and new retaining walls will help the run-off situation. Mueller confirmed that the width of the structure proposed is 26 feet. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller to recommend denial of the subdivision request and variances due to lack of hardship, as recommended by staff. Hanus stated that there is no other w . ~rea without impacting the bl,-== - ay to build a house in this u~i zone. He feels the applicants nave redesigned their request and worked to alleviate problems that were presented the first time through, and he believes that with the right types of retaining walls, gutters, and other mitigating avenues, even with adding hardcover, the water can be controlled better that with what is there now. Mueller feels that by planting more trees, any erosion problems could be alleviated. Hanus stated, assuming the home proposed on Tract A meets all the required setbacks, he does not have a problem with the proposal. Voss stated that he agrees with the DNR and staff has not been demonstrated in any way for creating in that hardship granting a variance, a new lot or for 4 planning commission Sep=ember 9, 1996 Mueller referred to the letter in the packet which was received on June 25, 1996 which expresses a concern about the parking of vehicles on Denbigh Road and adding another residence for the sole purpose of creating an additional lot in order to benefit financially. Mueller does not see a hardship to allow the creation of a new lot. MOTION carrie~ 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsa~dle, Burma, weilan~, Michael, ross, Reifschnei~er, and Mueller. Hanus was This case will be heard by the City Council on Segtember 24, 1996. Creative $o]-tions t'or Land Planning ~nd Design P~LANNING REPORT I IL, Il,, RECEIVED S £P O 1996 Hoisington- -MOU~.-a' ?[~,N~II~G & liPS'. Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: September 5, 1996 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision with Variances APPLICANT: Randy Moriarty and Robert Baumgarten CASE NUMBER: 96-31 HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-51 LOCATION: 4536 Denbigh Road and 4552 Denbigh Road EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-lA) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The Planning Comraission first reviewed a subdivision request for this property in June of this year. At that time, the proposal received a denial recommendation from staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial on an 8 to 1 vote. As a result, the request was subsequently withdrawn prior to the time that it went to the City Council. The request has now been modred and is back before the Plarw2ng Commission for review and action. The original request was denied for a number of reasons, the primary ones being that it created a new nonconforming lot and it violated the bluffprovisions of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The new proposal eliminates the concern about creating a nonconforming lot but still has a substantial impact on the bluff that exists on the site. The proposal that is now before the Planning Commission seeks to establish three tracts labeled as A, B and C. Tract A will be established as a new lot and Tracts B and C contain existing homes. It appears from the survey that the ex/sting home on Tract C will be eventually removed and replaced with a new residence. As shown on the survey, all of three of the tracts comply with side yard setback requirements and hardcover restrictions for non-lots of record. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Planning Report - Moriarty Minor Subdivision and Variances September 5, 1996 Page 2 In order for the minor subdivision to be approved, the Planning Commission will also need to approve a number of variances. Because of the topography of the site, the bluff line meanders through the upper one third of all three of the parcels. This results in virtually all of the proposed home on Tract A lying within the bluff, substantial portions of the home on Tract C lies within the bluff and a portion of the existing home on Tract B lies within the bluff. As a result, a variance from the bluff setback provisions of the ordinance will be needed for each of the lots in order to approve the subdivision. Variances will also be needed for the two existing homes. The home on Tract B is proposed to remain. It observes required side and lakeshore setbacks but is located 4.72 feet from the front lot line resulting in a required variance of 15.28 feet. The Zoning Code also requires two parking spaces per single family dwelling unit. The. existing home on Tract B appears to only supply one space in the existing garage. There will also be variances necessary for the existing dwelling on Tract C unless the structure is to be removed prior to the filing of the subdivision and variance approval. The survey that was submitted was so illegible that it is impossible to identify the exact variances requked. From the survey it is poss~le to determine that the existing detached garage is located 3.4 feet from the front lot line resuking in a 16.6 foot variance. More information will be necessary to clarify the locations and magnitude of variances for the existing home on Tract C. All three of the proposed Tracts are in an area of very steep topography. The lots drop approximately 40 feet from Denbigh Lane to the shore of Lake Minnetonka. As was noted previously, all are in a bluff area and in some cases, the slope exceeds 45%. Constructing homes in this area will need to involve extraordinary measures. The method proposed for constructing the new homes is shown on the applicant' s attachment labeled Full Cross Section. Construction will involve the installation of a retaining wall in the lower reaches of the property which will have a height of approximately 17 feet. The back of the home will then be built on the new grade that is established by the retaining wall. From the information submitted, the Building Official has determined that it appears that the height of the building complies with the height restrictions in the Zoning Code. Building height will be reviewed again upon submission of a building permit application. The Full Cross Section drawing shows the front setback at 15 feet which is not consistent with the site survey which identifies a 20 foot setback. The five foot shift will have a minor impact on the height and location of the proposed retaining wall. COMMENT: The issuance of variances requires a finding of either hardship or practical difficuky. In this particular case, staff cannot support a hardship finding since the property has an existing use as two single family homes. The creation of the additional lot appears to be an economic issue that does not substantiate a hardship finding. The location of the new home is also a concern because it lies not only within the required bluff setback area but also almost wholly within the bluff area itself. o o Planning Report - Moriarty Minor Subdivision and Variances September 5, 1996 Page 3 Admittedly, the surrounding neighborhood contains homes that are constructed ha a simi/ar physical environment although they are perhaps not as seVere as the subject lots. In this case, however, the proposal is to create a new lot, not simply to add to or to replace an existing grandfathered dwelling. If the Planning Commission feels that the facts of this case support a finding of practical difficulty, . approval of the variances and the minor subdivision could be granted. If it is to be approved, however, staff feels that additional engineering information needs to be submitted because of the extreme grade conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the requested vahances and mhaor subdivision because of the lack of hardship in this case. If the Planning Commission moves to approve the request based on a finding of practical difficulty, it is suggested that consideration be given to tabling the request pending preparation and submission of a detailed grading, drainage and utility plan for al/three Tracts for review by the City Engineer prior to final action on this request. If the Planning Commission moves to approve the request either now or at a subsequent meeting, conditions of the approval should include: Compliance with the park dedication requirements of the Mound Subdivision Ordinance. The site contains three ex/sting water services and three existing sewer services. One of the sewer services is located in an unusable location and as a result, the applicant will need to construct a new sewer service for Tract A. The sewer service for Tract A should either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided such as a cash escrow or performance bond. Unless submitted as part ora previous requirement, a grading, drainage and erosion control plan should be submitted as pan of the bui/ding permit application for review and approval by the City Engineer. The applicants shall provide drainage easements along all new lot lines, 5 feet in width along all sides and front lot lines and 15 feet in width along rear lot lines. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,170.90 shall be paid prior to release of the resolution for recording. Planning Report - Moriarty Minor Subdivision and Variances September 5, 1996 Page 3 Admittedly, the surrounding neighborhood contains homes that are constructed in a similar physical environment although they are perhaps not as severe as the subject lots. In this case, however, the proposal is to create a new lot, not simply to add to or to replace an existing grandfathered dwelling. If the Planning Commission feels that the facts of this case support a finding of practical difficulty, approval of the variances and the minor subdivision could be granted. If it is to be approved, however, staff feels that additional engineering information needs to be submitted because of the extreme grade conditions. RECOS,IMENDATION: Sta.ff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the requested variances and minor subdivision because of the lack of hardship in this case. If the Planning Commission moves to approve the request based on a finding of practical difficulty, it is suggested that consideration be given to tabling the request pending preparation and submission of a detailed grading, drainage and utility plan for all three Tracts for review by the City Engineer prior to final action on this request. If the Planning Commission moves to approve the request either now or at a subsequent meeting, conditions of the approval should include: 1. Compliance with the park dedication requirements of the Mound Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The site contains three existing water services and three existing sewer services. One of the sewer services is located in an unusable location and as a result, the applicant will need to construct a new sewer service for Tract A. The sewer service for Tract A should either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided such as a cash escrow or performance bond. 3. Unless submitted as part of a previous requirement, a gading, drainage and erosion control plan should be submitted as part of the building permit application for review and approval by the City Engineer. 4. The applicants shall provide drainage easements along all new lot lines, 5 feet in width along all sides and front lot lines and 15 feet in width along rear lot lines. 5. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,170.90 shall be paid prior to release of the resolution for recording. Nm{inn.esota Department of Natural -. , etro Waters- 120 _ _ Resources D Warner Road, St. Paul,/Vf/q' 5510~5-6793 Telephone: (612) 7'72-7910 Fax: ('612) 772-7977 September 5, 1996 I~. Jori Sutherland City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Variance Request, 4536/4552 Denbigh Road, MoHarty, Revised Case No. 96-31, Lake Mirmetonka - Black Lake (27-133-12), City o£Mound Dear Mr. Sutherland: I have reviewed the background information that was distributed for Revised Case No. 96-31 on Auwast 29, 1996. This case essentially involves a replatting in order to create two lots. Within both of the new lots a variance is requested to place the proposed primary structures entirely within the bluff and bluff impact zone; city regulations require a 10 foot setback from the top of the bluff. We recommend that the city ~ the variance request. Hardship has not been demonstrated. The only apparent reason for the request is to g.qn greater economic benefit ~'om the parcel of land. The state statute addressing variances (Chapter 462.357, Subd. 6, (2)) clearly states that t ,;conormc considerations a/one ghall not constitute undue hardship..." As required by the cky's ordnance, a cop7 of the c' ' · · ~ry s declston on this variance request shall be sent to me within 10 days of the final decision. If the city does not deny the request, a copy of'the record the decision was based on shall also be forwarded. Please contact mc at 772-7910 (772-7914. direct/voice mail) if you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist CCS Minnehaha Creek Watershed District City of Mound Shoreland File I.}NR Inft~rm:nitm: 612-2'.}(,.6157. I-~Ot}.7(,t.(,(u)( . T'I'Y: 612 2S~6 54~4. t 8011 657 3:r29 .'%n I;qtm:ml {)]')..,~lun..~ I:mph.yer Application for _MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND_ City of l~Iound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 4'/2-0600, Fax: 472-0620~-r~ pl~,nlng Commission Date: q'~ 'fl (~ ~'~V ~aS'l~} .~{~_ ' Case No._ -- - ........... ' ........ Escrow Deposit: Distribution: ~ ~ ~'-7.q-q 6' city ?la~ner _ - ~i' - Public Works _ Other ,~ City Engin~r $50.00 St,OOO Deficient Unit Charges?_ Delinquent Taxes?. PROPERTY INFORMATION EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION Please type or print ~e followin~ informatmm Subject Address - -7.3 : PID~ ZONING DISTRICT APPLICANT OWNER {if other than applicant} Circle: R-1 R-~ R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 ,. _ ;_ ~ owner other:. The appucan~ ~: [~ ~, · Address_ (M) Phone (Fi) SURVEYOR/ ENGINEER ~2' Phone (H) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this prope~y? [ ) yes, ~no. If yes, T, plicatio must be igned by all wners Date Date EX/STInG LOT .AREA ~7,,f._ ~ EXISTING LOT AREA SQ~FTX30% = I- SQ FI' x 15% = I _1 HOUSE: LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT -~ ,r,.. x ~4' = X X TOTAL ttOUSE G.~LaGE: DRIVEWAY: - X __ TOTAL gARA~ ~.. TOTAL DRIVEWAY X DECK: CiTY OF MOUND HfiRDC~VER CAL, CULA.T[q)N$ {IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE} LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT A,EA · ~'¢~' SO. FT. X ~0~ = {for ~o~, of ~.~o~') ....... SQ. ~. X 15% = (for de,ached buildings only) LOT AREA *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as oudined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,$ubd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submi~ed and approved by ~he Building Official. DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) TOTAL HOUSE ......................... ~ TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. DRIVEWAY, pARKING ~" X ~ ~ = ,/'7~' AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ~- X ~ = ~ ~ x ~ = /¢0 ETC. 7¢ - DECKS 0~en decks {1/~,' rrdn. ol3erting between boards) with pervious surface under are no~ counted as hardcove~ OTHER TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X - 345'- TOTALDEC~ X~ TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA CiTY OF MOUND. IJARDCOVER CAL~ (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE} HOUSE _SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all Iotsl LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Recorci*) LOT AREA ....... _SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached bui/dings only) . . *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks [1/4" cl=ening between boa.ds) with pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER ~_~ ~ TOTAL HOUSE X - = /4 - TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC - - X TOTAL DECK X X TOTAL OTHER HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE '~.~ OVER (in~e~!ff~ence~ ........................... -- ~ '. .~.~-~ DATE :::~'L/~/ COUNciL./UNE 25, L996 City Manager Ed Shuk/e stated the appl/cant had requested this item to be pul/ed from the agenda. The Plarming COmmission had recommended den/a/and he was going to reapply w/th different plans. ~J IL IL JUN m 5 '%,. Co L.J.3 t ~ Jr-e t,- t/'a o u cdL n e-, ~ /~ h a r h o®d Im IL¸ MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 10, 1996 CASE 96-31: MINOR sUBDIVISION RANDALL MORIAR'FY 4536 DENBIGH RrJAu LOTS6 5 &NELY 1 2OF4 BLOCK2 AVALON PID 19-117-23 24 0008 City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report, and noted that the applicant has submitted a revised request which provides conforming lot sizes for both Tracts A and B. Tract A has a total of 6,020 square feet, and Tract B has a total of 8,400 square feet. In order for the subdivision to be approved, the following variances are requested' 1. Recognition of an existing front yard setback variance of 15.28 feet for the existing home. 2. Approval of a variance from the bluff restrictions contained in the Shoreland Management Ordinance. 3. The house on the new lot, Tract A, is proposed to have a nonconforming front yard setback of 15 feet. The applicant is seeking approval to create a new lot which is nonconforming due to size and slope. Most of Tract A lies within a bluff that according to the survey has a slope of 49%. The Shoreland Management Ordinance (SMO) prohibits buildings from being located any closer than 10 feet from the top of the bluff. According to the applicant's survey, only a small portion of a proposed garage on Tract A actually lies outside of either the bluff or the required bluff setback. The proposed subdivision creates a new lot that does not comply with the minimum standards of the Mound Zoning Code. Therefore, staff cannot support the minor subdivision and recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial. Koegler noted that when the application for this case was submitted, it did not include the required variance application and fee. The applicant stated that the variance applications were submitted and the fees were paid. The Planner confirmed that this was true. Mueller questioned if the proposed house meets the minimum height restrictions. Suthedand commented that it is difficult to determine with the plan that was submitted, and that he would need more information. It was noted that Moriarity's property received a variance in 1994 for construction of the decks. Mueller clarified with staff that since the lot line is being changed, these lots will loose their lot-of-record status, therefor, e, the required side yard setbacks will be 10 feet and the maximum amount of hardcover allowed will be 30 percent. Mr. Jack Cook, representative for the applicant, questioned why when his property was recently divided it was permitted to retain the lot-of-record status. He would like the lot-of-record status also retained for this property. The Planner stated that this subdivision will be creating a totally new lot, whereas Mr. Cooks subdivision did not. Koegler offered to ask the attorney, John Dehn, to render an opinion before it goes to the council. Mr. Cook stated that Lot 6 was a separate lot before, but then a previous owner combined them. Mr. Cook emphasized that most all of the homes along this road are built into the same bluff. He feels it would be beneficial to this property to be developed as retaining wails will become part of the construction. He stated that the hillside is starting to erode. He would like to improve and clean-up the neighborhood. Voss moved to deny the applicant's request based on staff's analysis and recommendation. Motion seconded by Burma. MueIler commented that it is admirable to want to clean-up the neighborhood, but this may not be the best way to do it. He commented that Denbigh Road is narrow, and this would allow another house too close to the road. He is strictly opposed to the subdivision as it would be allowing construction in a bluff. Mueller recalled that only one other time was any construction allowed in a bluff and it was part of a PUD and the type of construction was limited. He also feels this lot is too narrow. Hanus does not believe construction in The bluff is a major issue since this whole area is in a bluff. Hanus referenced a recent case were the Planning Commission a~lowed a porch to be constructed in a bluff. Hanus feels that denial is too harsh and suggested a tabling action. Mueller commented that the side yard setbacks are also a problem in his opinion. Motion to deny carried 8 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Voss, Burma, Michael, Glister, Reifschneider, Weiland, and Mueller. Hanus was opposed. Hanus commented he would have liked to have given the applicant more time to work with staff. The Building Official noted that the applicant could submit a written request to pull this request from the Council agenda in order to allow him time to revise their plan which could then come back to the Planning Commission for review. Clapsaddle commented that he would like to see a better cross section drawing. Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: June 5, 1996 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision with Variances APPLICANT: Randall Mofiarty CASE NUMBER: 96-31 I-IKG FILE NUMBER: 96-51 LOCATION: 4536 Denbigh Lane EXISTING ZONING: Two Family Residential (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing lot into two parcels. Tract A is proposed to have a lot area of 5,720 square feet. Tract B which contains an existing nonconforming home will have an area of 8,700 square feet. In order for the subdivision to be approved, a number of variances are being requested. They include: 1. A lot area variance of 280 square feet for Tract A. 2. Recognition of an existing front yard setback variance of 15.28 feet for the existing home on Tract B. 3. Creation of a new .5 foot side yard variance for the existing home and deck on Tract B. 4. Approval of a variance from the bluff restrictions contained in the Shoreland Management Ordinance. COMMENT: Mound's Zoning Code is focused on bringing as many properties as poss~le into compliance with stated requkements. As the Planning Commission and City Council know, this is 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Moriarty Planning Report June 5, 1996 Page 2 difficult but not ~mpossible when the subject request involves one existing lot. proposed, subdivision, the applicant is seeking approval to create a new lot which In the case of the due to see and slope Tract A does not meet the 6,000 square foot minimum is nonconforming size requkement. Additionally, most of the lot lies within a bhffthat according to the survey, has a slope of 49%. The Shoreland Management Ordinance limits construction in the bluff to only stairs and walkways necessary to provide access· It further prohibits buildings from being located any closer than 10 feet from the top of the bluff. According to the applicant's survey, only a small portion of a proposed garage on Tract A actually lies outside of either the bluff or the required bluff setback· RECOMMENDATION: The proposed subdivision creates a new lot that does not comply with the nnnm~um standards of the Mound Zoning Code. Therefore, staff can not support the minor subdivision and recommends that the Planning Commission recommend its denial. Note: When the minor subdivision application for this case was submitted, it did not include the required variance application and fee. Therefore, the minor subdivision application is incomplete at this time and it shall not be considered complete until the application for the variances as noted herein, as well as the corresponding fee are submitted. The statutory 60 day time limit for action on this item is suspended and this case will not be scheduled for City Council action until such time as all application materials are submitted. Upon submission of required materials, the 60 day time limit will resume. FO~ BUILDING PERMI'T SURVEY RECEIVED JUN 1 0 1,991 MOUND PLANNING ,,\ El = WOOD STAKE PLACED BEARINGS .ON O · IRON MON. SET PROPOSED INFORMATION · = IRON MON. INPLACE _ GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. ASSUMED DATUM .1st FLOOR ELEV. - - TOP BLOCK ELEV. _ _BASiMENT ELEV. -- E &P EXIST & PROP ELEV. I ---)-= DRAINAGE 000.0 = EXIST. ELEV. (000.0-' PROPOSED ELEV. 000.0= ' ~ ~ I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was. prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that lam ,~-~'~y _ L~SCHOBORG ND SURVEYING_ INC. ~ (:~/. PIcL 13 SE a duty Registered Land Su~e¥or under the laws of the State ol M~ Date: ~ Registration No. 14700 ~Book - page Scale I I[ OCT 12 T/:::i ANS~'ER ENTERED '""L',',iTY TA×~,yER SE~,/'iCES Augllst 23, 1994 1Sg4 RESOLLqqON//94-]..1.6 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A a~"';"'"¢~'"~,.~ VARIANCE FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF A PORTION OF TI~/'~E DWELLING AND A DECK 4536 DENBIGH ROAD, LOTS $, 6 A~ND SOUTEBV~~y 1/2 OF 4, BLOCK 2, AVALON, PID #1%117-23 24 0008 P&Z CASE WHEREAS, the owner, Randall Morairty, has applied for a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming front yard setback of 4.72 feet, resulting in a variance of 15.28 feet, to re-construct a 10' x 20' two story portion of the dwelling, and to construct two new decks within the bluff impact zone, an upper deck 6' x 20' and a lower deck 15' x 20', and; WH~AS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water level, and; WHEREAs, the subject property conta/ns a bluff. A 10 foot setback from the top of the bluff is required for ail structures, and; WHEREAS, the 10' x 20' portion of the dwelling was removed and refrained without the proper permits, and new roof trusses have been installed over 31 feet of the rear portion of the home. Prior to the variance application, building permits were issued.for interior remodeling, but not for reconstruction of the exterior walls or the roof u-uss modincarion, and; W~ER. EAS, the contractor has stated that during the remodeling process, after the removal of the interior wall surface, they discovered the extremely poor construction and condition of the exterior walls, and; WHEREAS, the portion of the dwelling which was reconstructed is set at the top of the bluff, and the proposed decks would encroach into the bluff, and; WHEREAS, the footprint has not changed, and during construction, vegetation on the steep slope has not been disturbed. The buildable footprint of this property is limited by the bluff and the required setbacks, and; WHEREAS, when the upper level was reconstracted, joists were cantilevered out 4 feet to allow for a future deck. Originally, there was no door on the upper level. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined to afford the owner reasonable use of the property, a minimum deck is rational, and; 242 August 23, 1994 WHEREAS, dense vegetation on the lot helps screen the view of the house from the lake, and the setback to the ordinary high water is approximately g0 fcc:, and; WHEREAS, the planning Commi~ion has reviewed the rextuest and unanimously recommended approval of the variance for the reconstruction and two decks, as modified, with conditions. Findings of Fact are: . The appearance from the lake will be enhanced by the decks. - The buildable footprint betw~n the road and the top of the bluff is very. shallow. . Dense vegetation to the east of the house discourages construction of an addition or a deck in that location. _ Reasonable use of the property will be maintained by allowing the minimally sized decks. NOW, THEREFOr, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the existing nonconforming 4.72 foot front yard setback and ~"ant variances to the required setback from the top of a bluff to allow reconstruction of a 10' x 20' two story portion of the dwelling, with new roof trusses, and allow the construction of two new decks, as follows: Lower Deck: maximum 10' x 20' deck with not more than 3 piers. . Upper Deck: with a projection of 4 fe~t maximum from the house, with the comers cut off ~.t 45 degr~, m'~glcs. 2. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision $ of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains ~ a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. 3. It is determined that the livabilky of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of these alterations to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 6, 5, and Southwesterly 1/2 of Lot 4, Block 2, Avalon. 243 August 23, 1994 This variance shall be recorded with ~e Count, Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (I). 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 ail costs for such recording. A building permit for the subj~t construction shall not be issued tm~ proof of recording has b~n filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution waz moved by Councilmember Smith and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, ~Iensen, lessen, ~ohnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. 244 --) CITY 01' MOUHD p.~t BUII.DING pE.~MI'~ SURVF. Y O = II~,ON MON- SET · = IRON MON- INP/.AOE [] = w~OD STAKE pLACED EEARINGS .ON. -- ASSUMED DATUM -- -.-~= DRAINAGE 000.0-- EXIST. ELEV. (00~.0:.), pROPOSED ELEV. I hereby GertiI¥ ~&t Wis I=lan, sut'vey or report pROPOSED INFORMATION _ 1st FLOOR ELEV. · . BASEMENT ELEV. 4 $CHOBORG EYING_ __ GAP. AGE FLOOR EI. EV, -TOP BLOCK ELEV. E & P= EXIST. & PROP. ELEV. 1300.0 prepared t~y ma ar under my direct supervision and that I am I duly Registered L;nd Suwe7or under ~e la~ of ~e State of Minn~ot~. ~ 3/-,4 Pl~anin~ Commission Da~e: '{~Y Council Da~e: Oistrfbution: City of ' ~'wooa ltoad, Mound, MN Phone: 472-0~00, Fax: 472-0620 Cfr7 Planner b-~- ~ (~ DNR PubLic Works City Engineer -- _ Other flease ~ or prat the follow -.-----._.___._._._ PROP~ INFORMA~ON ~GAL DESCRIP~ON ZONING DISTRICT APPUCANT OWNER (if other than applicant} Circle: R-1 R-1A~ R-3 B-1 B-2 The applicant is: /~owner other: Name (M} Address SURVEYOR/ ENGINEER Name eM) Address Phone (H) (W) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? I ) yes, o. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s} and provide copies of resolutions. ~n O-~-n e r's Signature subject property, or an explanation given why this/$ not the case. Date ~ECE/VED Datet4fiV 2 3 1996 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. RECEIVED MAY 3 0 1996 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. (:~oR OFF[C"F~ USE ON"C~g Planning Commission Date: VARIANCE AppI,ICATION - CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, NIN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Application Case No.' SUBfECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. City Council Date: -- "~ City Engin~r - Public Works Plat PROPERTY OWNER ZONING DISTRICT R-1 Address_ R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) · vet been made for zoning, vm-mnce, cond.~tion,.al U.se pe__r~'J~ or other zoning on e ' . ..... ,~ cauon, ~uu. taken, resolution Has an applicau ...... ~..,, w ,,es list dateLs) o~ ..~,~,n procedure for this property'! ~. } yea, .t~ ""' '~ J ' number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): I [ l J,, 3. Do the existing structures comply with a11 area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~9: If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): REQUESTED V~CE (or exis~g) ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) _ ft. ft. o~ ~uJ'FF': ( N S E W ) I© ' _ , ft. S-~eet Fron~ge: - ft. - 0 ft. ; 0 ' ft. Lot Size: ft' - ft. - ft. _sq ft sq ft _sq ft Hardcover: _sq ft ~ _sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: the zoning district in which it is Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage O0 existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Application, P. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No t~). H yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? No 00. If yes, explain: Yes (), Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes Od, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments:. I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. 'I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the-City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as inky be required by law. Owner's Signature~ Applicant's Signature~ FO~ BUIIDING PERMIT SURVEY 7-F MAY 3~I 1.9.q~ MOU O PLA IIVG & IIVSR t ~1%1,'7' TRACT A Lot 6, Block 2, Avalon. TRACT B Lot 5 and the northeasterl~f half of Lot 4, Block 2, Avalon. E3 = W(~OD STAKE PLACED B.M;- ~,~,~-~.,: BEARINGS .ON. ASSUMED DATUM O -- IRON MON. SET PROPOSED INFORMATION - _ 1st FLOOR ELEV. - - BASEMENT ELEV. 1000.0~-' PRO POSED ELEV. · = IRON MON. INPLACE - -GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. ~ = DRAINAGE 000.0 = EXIST. ELEV, _ TOP BLOCK ELEV. E&P_ ~ 000.0 - EXIST. & PROP. ELEV. I hereby certify that this plan. survey or report was. jQ~ · prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that lam ~,~.u :~URVEYING a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. INC. CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHE~____~.__ ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZF_.~VIDTH: ~2-;~"~'"~'--,~,000/40 ~3 ~0,000/60 v R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. Z! 30,000/100 LOT OF RECORD? y~ I --'-'-----' EXISTING LOT S17-.~: } 000 LOF D~-P'rH: t., VARIANCE HOUSE ......... ;ROHT E W N S E W SIDE IDE S E REAR E W LAKE E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 30' GARAGE, SHED ..... OR OTHER DETACHED FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W ~ H S E W LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' HARDCOVER 40% CONFORMIHO? YES This Zoning Information Sheet only mmmm'~zes n portion of the PInnnlng Oepnnm=nt at 472-0600. _ . ~ (47) ~ :g in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound ?, ~ A* 27. ? ------------. CITY OF MOu";D ZO ........... II I1[ iii __ ,.11 ~R~y~ F~ YES'/~~sz ~,soo/o ~ SURVEYONFiL ~ ~ 6,000/40 B2 20~000/80 ' "~ ~W~/ ~ , {a3 S¢¢ oRD. Zl 30 OOO 1OO '~ FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF ELUFF (47) N S E W OR OTHER DETACHED N 3 E W N $ E W N S E W N S E W N $ E W NS E W 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' $0' .PDmnmg Depn~rnent at 472-0~00 . f the requir~me ts outlined in the City of Mound tung Ordmnn¢o For ~trther reformation contact the City of Mound ./ J C.(~JT i(hTq ~ R ~, 5 o RESOLUTION //96- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE AT 6545 BARTLEIT BLVD., LOT 18, HALSTEAD HEIGHTS PID 22-117-24 44 0033 P&Z CASE/]96-66 WHEREAS, Mitch Knutson has applied for variance to allow construction of a 24' x 32' detached garage that will exceed the height of the principal dwelling on the same lot, and; WHEREAS, Zoning Ordinance Section 350:435, Subd. 2, states "No accessory building shall exceed the height of the principal building in the R District," and; WHEREAS, In 1995 Resolution//95-122 approved a similar variance for a 24' x 26 two stall garage in the same location. Other than the additional stall, this proposal is essentially the same as the previous one. The current owners have obtained a building permit for the original garage, however it has not been constructed and they are intending to sell the property to the applicant, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot from yard setback, side yard setbacks of 6 feet and 10 feet, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, and impervious lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the plans for the garage match the architecture of the dwelling on the southerly parcel, and this could be considered a positive step towards the eventual combination of these parcels and the elimination of the rental unit, and; WHEREAS, there does not appear to be a reasonable location for a garage on the southerly parcel, and; WHEREAS, this proposal encourages the combination of the two parcels to return the property to one parcel which could then easily accommodate all desired accessory structures, and; WHEREAS, if the height of the garage was reduced, no variance would be required since the position of the garage is in a conforming location on the northerly parcel, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant a building height variance to allow construction of a 24' x 32' detached garage which exceeds the height of the principal building on the same lot, subject to the following conditions: a. The drainage plan be revised by the applicant to include the additional garage area and incorporating the techniques listed in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.A.3. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to building permit issuance. b. The deck and encroaching shed located on Parcel B shall be removed within one year of building permit issuance, consistent with the 1995 resolution. Proposed Resolution Knutson p. 2 o o The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of these nonconforming alterations to afford the owners reasonable use of their land. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: That part of Lot 18 lying north of a line running west at right angles from a point on the east line thereof distant 225 feet south of the northeast corner thereof, Halstead Heights, Hennepin County, Minnesota. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. Date: 11-5-96 To: Ed Shulde Title: City Manager This letter is in regards to Variance Kequest Case 96-66. Iarn requesting a height variance and a building peri, nit for a garage I wish to build. My proposal is scheduled for final consideration on November 26, 1996. Due to the likely complications that would be caused by laying a cement foundation late in winter, I wouldlike to request that my proposal be heard on November 12. If this is possible it will allow my builder to complete consm~ction before winter. Thank you Mitch Knutson ocnn~ n~ ~qg ~6 E~9~£3 HD~i O~3NWAOW DHB M~ 6~:~ 96, S0 AON M~NUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4~ 1996 CASE 96-66: VARIANCE fOR O~O~ H~iOHT MITCH KNUTSON 6545 BARTLETT BLVD. LOT K0 HALSTEAD HEIGHTS 22-117-24 44 0033 Building Official, Jon Sutherland, briefly reviewed th - The ~pPlicant is seeking a buil~ ...... e Staff that exceeds the height of the -ri o~. ~nree stall detached gara e In 1995 Resolution ~o .... P nclpal dwellina on ~ ...... ~ r~-~zz approved a ~-:~- ~ ~,,= ~me ±O~. o~mxaar variance for a 24, x 26 two stall garage in the same location. Other than the additional stall, this proposal is essentially the same as the previous one. The current owners have obtained a building permit for the original garage, however it has not been constructed and they are intending to sell the property to the applicant. ~nrc~C~e~%~%d ~%~~ %~his~s.iOn taco.re?end approval of the remaining conditions of Resolut.n =n.? condition that all of the completed to- . lO~ ~95-122 that have date are incorporated within this approval as 7o~1~? 1. The drainage plan be revised by the applicant to include the 9dditional garage area and incorporating the techniques listed in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.A.3. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to building permit issuance. 2. The deck and encroaching shed located on Parcel B shall be removed within one year o ' · consIstent with the ~= ~- .f..building permit issuance, Reifschneider asked for clarification on the zoning issues and setbacks for this property. Motion made by Michael to recommend approval of the variance, as reconunended by Staff. motion. Voss seconded the Hanus asked staff to include a copy of the Planning and C minu~es, of last year's meet' . ' CO~L~iSSlOn discuss :_ lngs in the Coun ' _ ouncll ed the hxstorv o~ ~_ cll packet. Th~ = ~ =nas case and the options fo~ subdividing the parcel. Clapsaddle stated that there little reason not to approve the request, even though he is very like it. ross agreed, may not The Commission asked staff why they feel it is bad planning to move the property line. Koegler responded that to see the two parcels combine it is a long-term goal wished to grant a .... d, and noted that ~ ~ .... properties c vurlance allowing two ~ une uommlssion conse .... ~_= ~oul~ be combined, n ..... h~uses on one lot. th~ .... ==u hopefully Drom~+~- ~=- ~z .~xzowlng the oara~e $~ =i future when the cabin '- .... une combination of the~e l~s ~ t~ deteriorates. Parcel B could have a new home built on it, but the garage perpetuates this not happening. Motion carried 6 to ~. Clapsaddle, Burma, Michael, Voss, Menus and ~lister vote4 in favor. opposed. Reifschneider was This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on November 26, 1996. The applicant, Mitch Knutson, requested to be heard on the November 12, meeting. Sutherland informed the applicant that he needed to request this of the City Manager. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of November 4, 1996 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official Variance Request Mitchell Kent Knutson 96-66 6545 Bartlett Blvd., Lot 18, Halstead Heights, PID 22-117-24 44 0033 R-1 Single Family Residential B~ACKGROUND-: The applicant is seeking a building height variance to allow the construction of a 24' x 32' three stall detached garage that exceeds the height of the principal dwelling on the same lot. In 1995 Resolution #95-122 approved a similar variance for a 24' x 26 two , · same location. Other than the additional stall, this proposal is essentially stall garage in the . - --- .... rrent owners have obtained a building permit for the the same as the previous one. original garage, however it has not been constructed and they are intending to sell the property to the applicant. Please refer to the attached resolution and previous staff report for additional background information. The new plans for the larger garage match the architecture of the dwelling on Parcel A and this could be considered a positive step towards the eventual combination of these parcels and the elimination of the rental unit. The larger garage also provides for additional storage for the property. : mmends the Planning Commission recommend _STAFF RECOMMEN. DATl_O_N_~._~t~a,ff/r~)Cn~sed, with the condlt,on that all of the remaining approval of the variance requ~o~ oo conditions of Resolution #95-122 that have not been completed to-date are incorporated within this approval as follows: printed on recycled paper $~aff Report Knu~son/Palen The drainage plan be revised by the applicant to include the additional garage area and incorporating the techniques listed in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.A.3. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to building permit issuance. The deck and encroaching shed located on Parcel B shall be removed within one year of building permit issuance, consistent with the 1995 resolution. JS:pj Note: The abutting neighbors have been noEfied of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the ~t¥ Council on November 26, 1996/ VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, ~ 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0~20 ~OR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: )istribufion:. City Planner City Engineer Public Works DNR SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESCo PROPERTY OWNER (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Address Lot / Block Plat # R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 ZONING DIS~~ R-lA R-2 N~e ~A~ D ~- ~L~' Name /v'l I't-'cj~ e l{ ,/C~,v':--. J~'~ ~ ,~ ~, .',,J -Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? {x)' yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): ~t9%Rev. 1218195) Variance Application, p. 2 J J~ Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No {k)'. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) ' (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: (or ex/sting) VARIANCE ft. /~ ' ft. d" 7. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft' ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft' ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft _sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for located.'? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: the zoning district in which it is Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too nan'ow ( ) topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape Please describe:~c~ ( ) soil ¢ff)"existing situation ( ) other: specify (Rev. 12/8/95) Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes ~, No (). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? No ~. If yes, explain: Yes (), Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? YesXpO, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are tree and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature~~ Applicant's Signature~''z'a'~ Date Date (Rev. 1218195) October 23, 1996 Mitchell Kent Knutson 10220 32nd Avenue North Plymouth, MN 55441 This variance application is for building a garage. There is a height restriction. The present Lot 18 had been subdivided in 1971 to accommodate two dwellings on the property. I am currently in the process of purchasing both parcels from Gerald and Catherine Palen. The main dwelling, on the south lot A is the residence, facing Lake Minnetonka. The secondary dwelling on the north lot B is a rental cottage, that is rented out on a yearly basis, facing Bartlett Blvd. We need to locate the garage on parcel B where the rental cottage is located because of variance requirements. Number 9 of the Garage Setbacks/Zoning states that "no accessory building shall exceed the height of the principal building." The height of the rental cottage is 11 '4" Our proposed garage height is 18'. · I am building the garage for our use to park our cars and for needed storage. Our goal is have the height and architectural design of the garage to match the house. We are asking for a Variance because to raise the roof of the "principal building," the rental cottage, would be cost prohibitive. Estimates to raise the roof are $8,000-$10,000. Once the garage is built, the storage shed would no longer be needed and would be removed. December 19, 1995 RESOLUTION #95-122 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A GARAGE HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR 6545 BARTLETT BLVD. THAT PART OF LOT 18 LYING NORTH OF A LINE · . · , HALSTEAD HEIGHTS, PID 22-117-24 44 0033 P&Z CASE #95-49 WHEREAS, the owners, Gerald and Catherine Palen have applied for a variance to allow construction of a detached garage that will exceed the height of the principal dwelling on the same lot, and; WHEREAS, Zoning Ordinance Section 350:435, Subd. 2, states "No accessory building shall exceed the height of the principal building in the 'R' District", and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, side yard setbacks of 10 feet and 6 feet for lots of record, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, all setbacks and impervious lot coverage will be conforming, and; WHEREAS, the new garage is intended to serve the dwelling located on the sourtherly portion of lot 18, PID 22-117-24 44 0034, both parcels are owned by the Palen's, and; WHEREAS, the plans for the garage match the architecture of the dwelling on the southerly parcel, and this could be considered a positive step towards the eventual combination of these parcels and the elimination of the rental unit, and; WHEREAS, if the height of the garage was reduced, no variance would be 'required since the position of the garage is in a conforming location on the northerly parcel, and; WHEREAS, there does not appear to be a reasonable location for a garage on the southerly parcel, and; WHEREAS, staff investigated the possibility of moving the lot line separating the two parcels on Lot 18, and did not support a subdivision when the result would be the creation of a nonconforming parcel, and; WHEREAS, this proposal encourages the combination of the two parcels to return the property to one parcel which could then easily accommodate all desired accessory structures, and; Resolution #95-122 Page 2 December 19, 1995 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended denial with the suggestion that a subdivision may be a feasible alternative. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a building height variance for the construction of a 22' x 24' detached garage which will exceed the height of the principal building on the same lot, as shown on'the survey dated September 21 1995, subject to the following conditions: ' An easement be drafted by the applicant to provide for a minimum driveway/access width of 10 feet for Parcel A. The easement must be written to accommodate for a driveway and utilities. City staff shall review and approve the easement prior to release of this resolution for filing. The proposed garage must not be placed over any utility services. All utilities must be identified on the survey and located within a proper easement. Ce A drainage plan needs to be prepared by the applicant that incorporates the techniques listed in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.A.3. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to building permit issuance. e d. The deck and encroaching shed located on Parcel B shall be removed within one year of building permit issuance. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the iivability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 22' x 24' detached garage. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Resolution #95-122 Page 3 December 19, 1995 That part of Lot 18 lying north of a line running west at right angles from a point on the east line thereof distant 225 feet south of the northeast corner thereof, Halstead Heights, Hennepin County, Minnesota. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subiect construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jessen and seconded by Councilmember Jensen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Jensen, Jessen and Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Ahrens. Councilmember Hanus was absent and excused. Mayor Attest: City Manager Resolution Adopted: December 19, 1995 MINUTES . MOUND CITY COUNCIL . DECEMBER 19, 1995 ~.~ ~.~s_.o._~!o_. ^,,,ov,.~ ^ ~^,^~,~r v^,~^,c~ ~o, ~.^,~ CATHERINE PALEN 6545 BARTLETT BLVD. City Manager Ed Shukle updated the Council stating the resolution in their packets had been revised. Item la had been changed and the applicant was in agreement with this change. Councilmember Jessen moved and Councilmember Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #95-122 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A GARAGE HEI VARIANCE FOR ~=,~= ,-, ..... GHT ..... "'"'"~ r:)~I'I/LE[TT BLVD T ~'A~T OF ., HAT LOT 18 LYING NORT LINE...HALSTEAD HEi~u.r~ ,., ...... H OF A · -,,,-~,, ~u ~r~2-117-24 44 0033, P&Z CASE ~95-49. The vote carried 3-1 with Ahrens voting nay. l~fin~ - ~ound Ci~ Council 12, 1995 1.3 CASE ~f95-49: GERALD AND CATHERINE PALEN, 6545 BARTLETT BLVD., [.OT 18, HAL§TEAD HEIGHTS, PID ff22-117-24 44 0033. VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE. Building Official Jon Sutherland reviewed this issue with the Cour~cik The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a detached garage that exceeds the height of the principal dwelling on the same lot. The Zoning Ordinance does not allow this. The applicants own two parcels referred to as parcel A on the iakeshore and parcsl B between parcel A and Bartlett Blvd. The garage is planned to go on parcel B to serve the main dwelling on Parcel A. A suggestion was to lower the roof tine on the garage, the applicants did not approve of this. The proposed garage is conforming to all nded a royal. The Planning Commission recommended s acks. Staff recomme . p.p..r~ ._ -,..---, ,,-,, o,~ e Citv Planner discussed dee~tbial. Staff was directed to won( wIth the app,~u ~. ,~,.,,, ~,, .d th ,' er Hanus and Ahrens supported the re-subdividing of the two in depth. Councflmemb. ..... ,_ .... ,,, ~,,' orooosed garage. Ahrens and parcels so parcel A woul(l have enoug[i Hanus were not in favor of building a garage on parcel B to serve parcel A. The subdivision of the the properties was not supported by staff. The original request for garage height variance is back before the Council. The Council discussed resubdividing, combining the two parcels and the eventual removal of the dwelling on parcel B. Councilmembers Jenson and Jessen agreed to the approval of a garage height variance thus keeping the two parcels tied together. b Jensen, seconded by Jessen to approve the garage height MOTION r;~uest. The vote carried 3 - 2, with Hanus and Ahrens voting nay. variance A resolution will be in the Council packet at the December 19, 1995 council meeting. I IL MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 24, 1995 1.8 Case 95-49: Gerald & Catherine Palen, 6345 Bartlett Blvd., Lot 18, Haistead Heights, PID 22-117-24 44 0033 Variance for Garage. Building Official Jon Sutherland stated the applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a detached garage that exceeds the height of the principal dwelling on the same lot. The new garage is intended to serve the dwelling on the lakeside lot, Parcel A. The applicant owns both lots as noted on the survey as A & B, and considered placing a garage on Parcel B to serve Parcel A. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the variance. The applicant was present and provided a new survey with updated water and sewer information. Through discussion with the Council and the Building Official and the applicant, it was determined that staff will work with the applicant to evaluate the options, to reasonably obtain a garage to serve the dwelling on parcel A. The Building Official will do a preliminary review of the lots for the applicant and this item will return to the Council. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously to direct staff to work with the applicant to see if it is feasible to rearrange lot lines to accommodate a garage on Parcel A. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 9, 1995 , ,, ERALD & CATHERINE PALEN- 6545 BARTLETT BLVD. LOT 18 CASE 95-49: G ....... AA n~FOR GARA E. HALSTEAD HEIGHTS PID ;ZZ'~1 l/-~"* '*'* v · The applicant, Catherine Palen, distributed copies of a modified survey to the Commission showing the sewer line location and a drainage plan. This information was requested within the staff report. The Building Official reviewed the report. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a detached garage that exceeds the height of the principal dwelling on the same lot. Zoning Ordinance Section 350:435, Subd. 2 states, "No accessory building shall exceed the height of the principal building in the 'R' District." The proposed garage is conforming to all setbacks. Impervious surface coverage is over 30 percent, but will be conforming at less than 40 percent for lots of record, with an approved drainage plan. The new garage is intended to serve the dwelling shown on the lakeside lot, Parcel A. The applicant was originally contemplating a minor subdivision that would allow Parcel A to accommodate the garage. Both parcels are currently under the same ownership. This property was subdivided in 1971 as approved by Resolution//71-77, and since that time, there have been substantial changes in the City's ordinances and in the subdivision process. The addition of the garage on the street side parcel raises concerns that could negatively effect the lakeside parcel if precautions are not taken. The Building Official commented that a building permit could be issued without a variance if the applicant simply reduced the height of the proposed garage. The plans for the garage match the architecture of the dwelling on Parcel A and this could be considered a positive step towards the eventual combination of these parcels and the elimination of the rental unit. Currently, there does not appear to be a reasonable location for a garage on Parcel A. The applicant has proposed to remove a small deck and the encroaching shed on the east side. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request for a 22' x 24' detached garage as shown on the survey dated September 21, 1995, subiecl to the following conditions: 1. A minimum driveway/access width of 10 feet must be maintained for Parcel A. This can be accomplished by an easement for the driveway that can also · ' vices. An easement should be written to accommodate include the utd~ty ser ..... ~ ...;I;+;~e nr thev could be relocated the existing situation for tl3e onveway anu uu,,,,= .... to be within the easement. Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 1995 Palen, p. £ 2. The proposed garage must not be placed over any utility services. The sewer service is not shown on the survey. All utilities must be identified on the survey an located within a proper easement. 3. A drainage plan needs to be prepared by the applicant that incorporates the techniques listed in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.A.3. This plan could be reviewed and approved by staff prior to building permit issuance. 4. The deck and encroaching shed located on Parcel B shall be removed. Weiland questioned if there are separate services for each dwelling for sewer and water, including water meters. It was determined that staff should answer this question prior to the case being heard by the City Council. Weiland noted that the street side dwelling is undersized and does not meet the minimum dwelling size requirement of 840 square feet. Mueller noted that the rental dwelling is only about 315 square feet. Mueller commented that if the street side parcel (Parcel B) is ever sold, the lakeside parcel (Parcel A) will still need a garage. Mueller noted that the proposed garage would be twice the size of the rental dwelling. He is totally opposed to the proposal as submitted and would ultimately like to see the parcels combined and the rental unit removed. Voss and Weiland agreed. Clapsaddle questioned why the garage was so high. Catherine Palen explained that the garage is proposed to have a french mansard roof to match the house on the lakeside parcel. Voss noted that the Subdivision Resolution from 1971 is conflicting as it states the subdivision "will constitute a desirable and stable community development and is in harmony with adjacent properties." Mueller stated that he would rather see a garage constructed on the lakeside parcel, even if it is setback only a couple feet from the property lines, because Parcel A needs a garage. Mueller is not in favor of relocating the lot line through a subdivision. Hanus would also like to see the garage on Parcel A, he would rather see the garage attached to the house, and the dividing lot line could be moved up a little, but each lot should retain 10,000 square feet. MOTION made by Surko, seconded by Mueller, to recommend denial of the variance as requested. The Commission further reviewed the option of constructing the garage on Parcel A. It was noted that the applicant could pull their request from the Council agenda if they wished to revise their plans. MOTION to deny carried unanimously. ~'his case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on October 24, 1995. LOT 1~ 990, 1000, ~otq )~O.r ea. s J JL CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONE (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. J~.. ~_5'~ _-j SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I~ ~_~L_~/ _-I SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .. I I *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. I (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. ' LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE ~-(. I X~ /~, ~ = _L~/ ~ X X DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open ~ecks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL HOUSE TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS X X X TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC X X X TOTAL DECK X ~-.5' = X TOTAL OTHER /_¢? TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate dif~ DATE /o/2 ~esc ,NCRET£ -'{rios ~atios )OD )S Walls over p~'.stic Rock 0Y.e_r pl_as.!!C Ock over pl..ast, i.c over pta?tic 'oral area o! p.r.0perty to OHW Iowable Hardcover Area i0.279 30% !' 12.174 683 146 40 45 '126 '62 ~12 51 84 64 3652 dios eck ~eck ..... dfiv..e_W..ay rock driveway '-r°c-~ 'at, ye. way area ~){ p-~:operty' tO 6hW -H~:~jC-over-Area. . ..... 9:51. 4' i fi-~.. 15.: .1 4...5 ~ 2: 2.5; . ~o.i_. .7. ,~.. 40 ! 29.i . 1'4.81 3~ 11~ 3~! .... 10.5: 3 ..... iO'~.~i<~ ~c~es' . .. - ~ ~ "10852! .. 30'/0; ....... , 312 81 48 ~6 36 i0 30 1520 1586 638 II IL LPI JOISTS LP120 SERIES Flange width: 2-1/2" Depths: 9-1/2", 11-7/8" LP132 SERIES Flange width:- 2-1/2" Depths: 9-1/2", 11-7/8" 14", 16" FLOOR PERFORMANCE Many factors can affect floor performance. How a floor "feels" can vary greatly from one person to another based on their expectation and their experience with other floor systems. The recommendations listed below will help in the design of a floor system which should provide acceptable satisfaction to the end user. · For satisfactory performance LPI Joists must be used under dry, Well ventilated conditions. · Using a live load deflection limit of L/480, instead of the code minimum L/360, should result in a stiffer floor. Note: Some building codes require joist spans greater than 20'-0" to be designed for L/480 live load deflection. · Floors supporting loads such as lightweight concrete and ceramic tile may require special code and design consideration. Contact your Louisiana-Pacific engineered products distributor. · Gluing the floor deck to the joists in addition to the required nails or screws provides additional stiffness and helps prevent squeaks. · Thicker floor deck material, such as DP's 7/8" OSB deck, will improve floor performance.. · Lateral restraint for the bottom flange in the form of bridging, bracing, blocking or direct applied ceilings will improve floor performance. · Using deeper joists than required will result in a stiffer floor. · Proper installation is essential to floor performance. Adequate bearing lengths, level supports, proper fastening of the sheathing to the joists, and careful onsite storage are all important factors which lead to predictable floor performance. ADDRESS: .... J ZONE': REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/WIDTH: EXISTING LOT WIDTH: REQUIRED SETBACKS ~P_R I_N. CI P BUILDING/HOUSE FRONT:(' N~B FRONT: S~DE: N S (E)~ - ~, Z--. SIDE: N REAR: LAKESHORE: ~50' (measured from O.H.W.} TOP OF BLUFF: EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: PRINCIPAL BUILDING HOUSE FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W -- S,DE: ~L~ N ~~ '*/- ~.: N(S)E W LAKESHOR~ - ~ACCESSOJ]y BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT: N~S E W _:~ ! - FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W ~4'or 6' SIDE: NN(~ E W _4' or 6' REAR: E W 4' LAKESHORE: 50' {measured from O.H,W,) TOP OF BLUFF: '(28) R-II0.48 8 (18) 8 01JlL01' m ". 't f7 2 ' ~ (1.~) ..... .z (g) ~ ( TOP OF BLUFF: ~ J TOP OF BLUFF: HARDCOVER CONFORMING7 YES [NO~ ?~TY CONFORMING? YES ~ Ordinance, For further inform contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S,F,,,W SIDE: N S (,..~.,~ ~ SIDE: N ..~. E (...~ REAR: N(S) E W LAKESHOR .E'~ RESOLUTION #96-__ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT SIZE AND SETBACK VARIANCES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION AT 2155 CARDINAL LANE, LOT 23, BLOCK 8 ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK PID 13-117-24 31 0065, P&Z CASE//96-61 WHEREAS, the owners, Karen and Steve Frazier have applied for the following variances to allow construction of a 16' x 23' garage addition and a 6' x 18' entry/closet addition over an existing slab: ___----- Required Existing/ Variance Lot Size 6,000 sf 6' Side 20' Front to deck 10' Front to deck (Alley) 15' Rear Proposed 4,250 sf 1,750 sf .95' 5.05' 18.9 1.1 8.9' 1.1' and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 One and Two Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for single family dwellings a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback to Cardinal, a 10 foot setback to the alley, a 6 foot side yard setback and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, over the years, the Planning Commission and City Council have determined that garages are necessary and desirable accessory structures for single family homes in order to provide enclosed storage space for vehicles and personal belongings, and; WHEREAS, a 16 foot wide garage seems to be the minimum improvement necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty of not having enclosed storage space on the property, and; · ommission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended WHEREAS, thePla~.ln.gC ___ · ~.;,;,, e nractical difficulty and one which is ith the finding that the lack of a garag~ IS a ,~ ...... at ~ ~ appro.v, al..w ............. *,~, tion the variance should be approvext. remeaiea oy the mlmmum gatas~ ....... c NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: grant the variances as listed below, to allow construction of a 16' x 23' 1. The City does herebY6, garage addition and a x 18' entry/closet addition over an existing slab, subject to the condition that the gravel parking area on the alley side of the property be converted to green space, and that the property meet the maximum 40 percent hardcover requirement. Proposed Resolution Frazier p. 2 J J~ Required Existing/ Variance Proposed Lot Size 6,000 sf 4,250 sf 1,750 sf Side 6' .95' 5.05' Front to deck (carolina) 20' 18.9 1.1 Front to deck (ancy) 10' 8.9' Rear 15' 1.1' o ° The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livabilityof the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the approved alterations to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 23, Block 8, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTF~ OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 1996 CASE 96-61:. V~RI~NCE FOR GARAGE ~DDITION, FR~ZIER/H~RTER~ 2155 CARDINAL Li~NE~ LOT 23r BLOCK 8~ A.L. ADDN TO LAKESIDE PARK~ 13-117 24 31 0065 city Planner, Mark Koegler explained that at the October 28, 1996 Planning commission meeting this case was tabled until the applicant could come in and discuss their request. Koegler explained that the applicant is seeking variance approval to construct an attached garage 16' x 23' and an entry closet over an existing 6' x 18' slab. The variances involved are: Required Existing/ Variance Proposed Lot Size 6,000 sf 4,250 sf 1,750 sf side 6' .95' 5.05' Front to deck 20' 18.9 1.1 (Cardinal} Front to deck 10' 8.9' 1.1' (Alley) Rear 15' 7' 8' Over the years, the Planning Commission and city Council have determined that garages are necessary and desirable accessory structures for single family homes in order to provide enclosed storage space for vehicles and personal belongings. In this particular case, a 16 foot wide garage seems to be the minimum improvement necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty of not having enclosed storage space on the property. Staff recommended that if the Planning Commission finds that the lack of a garage is a legitimate practical difficulty and one which is remedied by the minimum garage construction the variance should be approved. Reifschneider noted that at the last meeting there was a question relating to hardcover because there are existing gravel areas that were not included in the calculations. The city Planner stated that they could limit the amount of hardcover to no more than 40% as an additional condition. Applicant, Leigh Hartert, informed the commission that they recalculated the hardcover to include the existing gravel areas, and if they remove the graveled parking area on the alley side of the property they are 57 square feet over the 40%. He confirmed that they will convert the graveled parking area into green space. The applicant confirmed that the Oak tree will be removed, but the Basswood will stay. The applicant clarified that the garage addition should measure 16' x 24', and confirmed that the existing slab area shown on the survey does have a full basement underneath with frost footings. MOTION made by Voss to reoommend approval of the varianoe as recommended by staff, including the condition that the property must meet the 40% hardoover requirements. Reifsohneider seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on November 12, 1996. M~KYrES OF A ~IEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 28, 1996 117-24 31 0~ n o a.L. ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK 13- Building. Official, J~n Sutherland. revi The applicant is seekln- .... ~--- ' ~wed the Planning Report. ~ v=~=nce approval to construct an attached garage 16' x 23' and an entry closet over an existing 6' x 18' slab. The variances involved are: Required Lot Size 6,000 sf S Side Yard 6' E Front Yard to deck 20' W Rear Yard 15' Existing/ Variance Proposed 4,250 sf 1,750 sf .95' 5.05, 18.9' 1.1' 7' 8' The slab area will continue the front wall of the existing home which is 18.9 feet from the north property line. The proposed garage is setback 20 feet from the north property line and it observes the required side yard setback. The garage, as proposed will encroach into the required 15 foot rear yard setback. October 28, 1996 Planning commission MinUteS Garages are necessary and desirable accessory structures for single family homes in order to provide enclosed storage space for vehicles and personal belongings. The proposed garage has a width of 16 feet which is certainly a minimum width for a garage and minimum improvement necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty of not having enclosed storage space on the property. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission find that the lack of a garage is a legitimate practical difficulty and one which is remedied by the minimum garage construction shown, therefore, the variance should be approved. weiland expressed a concern about approving the .95 foot side yard setback and stated they should have a reason why they are allowing it. He feels the lot is over-built for its size. frost footings. The Weila~d questioned if the existing slab ~as be dealt with at time Building official stated that this issue will of building permit review. Weiland questioned the amount of hardcover. Sutherland noted that there is still a couple hundred of square feet available. Relfschneider noted there is an existing gravel driveway which is not included in the calculations. Sutherland suggested that if the hardcover is in excess of 40%, a condition could be added that the driveway be removed and converted to green space. In addition, the site should be limited to a maximum of 40% as a condition of approval. The size of the proposed garage was questioned, is it 24 feet deep or 23 feet deep? Both dimensions are shown in the application materials. The chair recognized that the applicant was not present. Clapsaddle stated that it is difficult to deal with a case when the applicant is not present. Weiland suggested they could use the existing slab area as part of the garage to help alleviate the encroachment into the rear yard setback. MOTION by weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend denial. It was suggested that design changes should be discussed with applicant present and that the case should be tabled until the applicant can be present. Weiland and Clapsaddle withdrew their motion to deny. MOTION by Neiland to table this variance request until the applicant can come in and discuss their request. clapsaddle seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously- Reifschneider suggested that the applicants supply them with a better drawing showing existing hardcover. Michael Mueller, who was unable to be present at the meeting, had submitted comments in writing. . C Michael requested the secretary incorporate these comments in the minutes, as follows: ,,Everyone needs a garage - this one is a small onel" I I[ Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. gill TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: October 22, 1996 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Leigh and Tiffany Hartert (Owner - Karen and Steve Frazier) CASE NUMBER: 96-61 HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5dd LOCATION: 2155 Cardinal Lane EXISTING ZONING: Two-family Residential (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking variance approval to construct an attached garage measuring 16' x 23'. In addition to the garage, they are also seeking approval to construct an entry and closet over an existing 6'x 18' slab. The following variances are involved: Require_d Existing/Proposed ~ Lot Size 6,000 sq. ft. 4,250 sq. ft. Side Yard 6' 1,750 sq. ft .95' 5.05' Front Yard (deck) 20' Rear Yard 7' 18.9' 1.1' 15' 8' Enclosure of the slab area will continue the front wall of the existing home which is 18.9 feet from the property line. The proposed garage is set back 20 feet from the property line and it observes the required side yard setback. The garage, as proposed, will encroach 8 feet into the required 15 foot rear yard setback. COMMENT: Over the years, the Planning Commission and City Council have determined that garages are necessary and desirable accessory structures for single family homes in order to provide 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Hartert/Frazier Variance Staff Report October 22, 1996 Page 2 enclosed storage space for vehicles and personal belongings. The proposed garage has a width of feet which is certainly a minimum width for a garage. Variances are typically granted for the lm~6'nimum encroachment necessary to alleviate the hardship or practical diff'lculty. In this particular case, a 16 foot wide garage seems to be the minimum improvement necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty of not having enclosed storage space on the property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the lack of a garage is a legitimate practical difficulty and one which is remedied by the minimum garage construction shown, therefore, the variances as noted above should be approved. ~OR~ICE USE ONLY) I IL VARIANCE APPLICATION CiTY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 OCT II, i.F Application Fee:~ Planning Commission Date: CaseNo._(~(~--~. [ APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Distribution: _1 0-i4 City Planner _!~-14 DNR I~ City Engineer Other ~ Public Works LEGAL [ Subdivision ~ . ~ DF, SC. PID# _ ~~[~[~Zl~a~~Plat # ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA ~ B-1 B-2 B-3 PROPERTY Name~~~~jj~.7_ OWNER Address(H) /4"/q- ~ ¢5' _(W) (M). Phone Phone (H) Has an application ever been made. for zoning, variance, condit' procedure for this propertv'~ ( ) yes ~,^ _A , ...... . lonal use permit, or other zoning ......... -. _~ , ~ ,o. ~ yes, nst aate(s) of application, action taken, resolution numoerts) ana provme copies of resolufions. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): (Rev. 12/8/95) Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. e Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: Front Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) ~ ft. tgK.. _ft. ft. . qS~_.~(...~ ft. iq, _ ft.' ' ft. D - ~ - ft. °' . a ff. (N S~)W) oK .ft. Street Frontage: fO' _ ft. ~C>t _ ft. ]__L_~.~_~sq ft Lot Size: ~t)D() sq ft ~sq ft Hardcover: __~l~..~sq ft _l_~z~2~sq ft ~sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~q,), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? too narrow ( ) topography too small ( ) drainage too shallow ( ) shape soil existing situation other: specify Please describe: '.' t~O~O (Rev. 12/8/95) Variance Application, p. 3 11, Case No. J Was he hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~I~. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Applicant's Signature~~~- (Rev. 12/8/95) Date_/~)//~/~ Date /('~/~/~ / '/ L. AND SURVEYORS B713 DUPONT AVENUE 8OUTH BLOOMINGTON, MINN. 55420 ·. 888.2084 I~. ~.~ Survey for:. TRENT FRAZER DESCRIPTION: ..Scale: 1"=16 We hereby certify that this Is a true and correct represenl~ati°n of a survey of the boundaries of the land above described and of the location of all buildings, if any, encroachments, if .any, fr/~f~/)r on said lan~.) thereon and all visible . /, ___- Dated this 21st day of October ,lg9~l. a ~icense No.' 901'8 co O'OL r ~L'~L %~ ~ O0'~Z CITY OF MOUND _HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS. (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA ~)~O ..SQ. FT. ~ (for Lots of Record*) ....... LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) . · I I *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques .are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SO. FT HOUSE %O.~' X "~-ci~'' = _ ~8~,, L~ X = DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED~_..~O~ DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. x :_ X = X TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X -- TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X = lBO TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... PREPARED BY . _?_ ADDRESS: SURVEy ON FILE? LOT OF RECORD? YARD HOUSE ......... NO NO J CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET. ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: {~ B1 7,500/0 B2 20,000/80 ~ B$ 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 DIRECTION EXISTING LOT SIZE: ~OT~DT(~: ,OT ~,T · -- VARIANCE SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF N S E W N S E W W N S N S E W 50' 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SIIED ..... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE OR OTHER DETACHED N S E W N $ E W N S E W N S E W N S E W 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' N S E W _H_A~. __DCOVER 30,0 40% .Planning Department at 472-0600. Lr~ ~- CL ~ON u~ O CITY OF MOUND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MI]~2qESOTA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A MODIFICATION TO THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTIES FROM R-1 TO R-lA 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 CASE #96-68 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, NOVEMBER 26~ 1996 to consider a Modification to the Zoning Map from R-1 Single Family Residential (10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) to R-lA Single Family Residential (6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size), for the property as shown on the attached map and legally described as follows 5490 Three Points Blvd. (vacant land): That part of the West 100 feet of Lot 25, "Lafayette Park Lake Minnetonka" lying north of the South 345 feet of said Lot 25; Also that part of the East 50 feet of the West 150 feet of said LOt 25 lying northerly of the northerly right-of-way line of Three Points Boulevard; Also that part of the East 100 feet of the West 250 feet of said LOt 25 which lies north of a line drawn east at right angles to the west line of said LOt 25 from a point on said west line distant 318.29 feet north, as measured along said west line, from the southwest'comer of said LOt 25. PID 13- 117-24 22 0249. 5510 Three Points Blvd.: That part of the West 100 feet of the South 250 feet of said Lot 25 and of the East 50 feet of the South 250 feet of Lot 26 lying North of Three Points Blvd. PID 13-117-24 22 0246. 5470 Three Points Blvd.: That part of the East 100 feet of the West 250 feet of said LOt 25 lying South of a line run East at a right angle with the West line of said Lot 25 from a point thereon 318.29 feet North from the SW comer of said LOt 25 and lying N of Three Points Blvd. PID 13-117-24 22 0250. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Published in "The Laker" on November 9, 1996. Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property by November 15, 1996. I DOC NO ,,-, 1428537 123 ~ (264) _ _t _ ~,~o .......... ~, (265) , ()?) DOC NO 4qJ"/OO31 ~ F~ (271}-, .. ALEXA~DEJ~ ~ARK DOC NO 46>4316'~ ?PT OF LOT 27 (22) (249) (25O) 729 APT OWN NO 8 SEAHORSE CONDi PART OF LOT 25 ~,,~,~, ~ (Z7) LOT ~8 ~ (~8) (~5) 4 ~6 IM , (58-245) g (47) (4) NOTE, DETAIL OF [~ FIARRI SON SH, ' Y"{~",// SEE RECORDi ~ McCombs Frank Roos Associates, inc. NOV ? Igg 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 Telephone Engineers 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Planners Surveyors November 4, 1996 Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound 1996 Seal Coat Program Final Payment Request MFRA #6173 Dear Ed: Enclosed is Caldwell Asphalt's Final Payment Request in the amount of $1,371.67 for the 1996 Seal Coat Program. The final cost of this project is $27,433.42, whereas the contract price was $26,321.25. Because this work is fully completed, we do not recommend that any amount be retained. We have reviewed this project with Crreg Skinner, your Street Superintendent and find that the work was completed in general accordance with the plans and specifications. It is our recommendation that the Contractor be paid in full for this project. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:pry Enclosures eAmain:\6173Xshukl 1-4 ~/'1/'~"' An Equal Opportunity Employer 0 2: I IL 0 0 o CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-o62o November 7, 1996 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL LINDA STRONG, ACTING CITY CLERK FIRE DEPARTMENT AUXILIARY BINGO PERMIT The Fire Department Auxiliary is applying for a Bingo Permit for November 19, 1996. needs Council approval through a motion. This 15 printed on recycled paper I JL CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 November 7, 1996 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL LINDA STRONG, ACTING CITY CLERK TREE LICENSE FOR WRAMCO, INC. Wr. amco, Inc., of Clear Lake, MN has applied for a Tree Removal License. ana they do work with Randy's Tree Service, who is contracted by the City I spoke with them of Mound for tree removal services. License time is not until April, 97. However, they need to be licensed now as they do work with Randy's Tree Service. Application forms and insurance are in order. The license needs approval through Council motion. Is printed on recycled paper BILLS. ........ November 12, 1996 BATCH BATCH 6103 $114,247.85 6104 211,357.07 Total Bills $325,604.92 Ls.l 2: UU¸ Z Z CC) ~J Z 0 Z RF~OLUTION #96.-~ RESOLIYYION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR 4739 & 4755 BEDFORD ROAD LOTS 7, 8, 24, 25, 26 & 1/2 OF 6 & 27, BLOCK 13, WYCHWOOD, P1D'S 19-117-23 32 0214 & 0205 P&Z CASE//96-63 WHEREAS, the following owners of have submitted a request for a Minor Subdivision to relocate a lot line in the manner required by Mound City Code Section 320 and Minnesota State Statute Chapter 462, and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder: 4739 Bedford Road: Roberta lean Nelson 4755 Bedford Road: Lawrence & Patricia Hagglund and; WHEREAS, the Nelson home at 4739 Bedford Road has an attached garage which encroaches into Lot 9 which is owned by Lawrence and Patricia Hagglund, 4755 Bedford. In 1974 the two property owners agreed to exchange the westerly 30 feet of Lot 24 for an easement for the garage encroachment and its associated driveway on Lot 9. There is no record of filing the easement, and all of Lot 24 is currently on Hagglund's deed, but Nelson has been paying the property taxes, and; WHEREAS, the Nelson home was recently sold and title problems emerged prior to closing resulting in this request, and; WHEREAS, setback variances are included with this request, as follows: WHEREAS, in 1992 the Nelson property was involved in a minor subdivision involving Lots 6 and 27 which was approved, however, City records do not indicate that the subdivision was filed with Hennepin County. The legal descriptions that were prepared at that time show Lot 24 still in the ownership of Ms. Nelson, and; An additional condition may also require the filing of the minor subdivision resolution for the lot line adjustment that was approved in 1992. WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of both the Nelsons and the Hagglunds to subdivide the rather than establish an ......... , T ~'t 9 and 10' + of lot 24 and attach property in order to place the garage and driveway on the Nelson property easement for that purpose. A subdivision Mat woula tare p~ut ~,, ~ it to the Nelson property with the remainder of Lot 9 and most of Lot 24 being attached to the Hagglund property would accomplish this purpose, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot from yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, after subdivision, both parcels will still meet the minimum lot size requirement. The Nelson property will have ~ square feet of lot area, and the Hagglund property will have ic~ [~.x, _ square feet of lot area, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval of the minor subdivision and related variances subject to the submittal of all information required to process a subdivision (i.e. complete subdivision application, fee, survey, etc.). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve the minor subdivision relocating the lot line between the following described properties: _4739 Bedford Road: Lots 7, 8, 25, and 26, Block 13, a/so the West Half of Lots 6 and 27, Block 13, also the ~orth Half of vacated Brunswick Road lying between the Southerly projection of the Westerly line of said Lot 24 and Southerly projection of the Easterly line of the West Half of said Lot 27, all in Block 13, Wychwood. PID 19-117-23 32 0214 4~755 B~Iford Road: Lots 9 - 24, Block 13, Wychwood. PID 19-117-23 32 0205 The minor subdivision is approved according to the following proposed legal descriptions, and according to the attached "Exhibit A." o _4739 Bedford Road: 4~755 Bedford Road: 3. Approval of the minor subdivision is subject to the following conditions: ~~~'is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community d~evelopment and it is in harmony with adjacent properties. fi 5. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified eo of this / c,.o, mph.a~, ce with all conditions contained herei,, '~-P-Y- ..... r.eso?!lon to the applicant upon · ' ' -...ut applicant snan nave the responsibility of / ming this resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hermepin / ~unty to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of [ ~'~ve the responsibility to na,~ ,,,,o. ...... .. ........ the. C~ty The applicant shall also ~: ~, -~ r ~ all ,~,,o~ ,~o~satea wlm SUCh recoraing. I 6. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 re~olut~on, days of the adoption date of this OF A MEETIN OF MOUND ADVISORY FLANNIN COMMISSION OCTOB R BEDFORD ROAD LOTS 7 8 24 25 a~ · ~ - - WYch~OODr 19-117-23 32 0214/205 ' ed the Planning Report. The Nelson.home at Jon Sutherland, ~vlew .... ~-~ -=ra-e which encroaches ln~? L~t ~j~ch is owne~ Dy L&wrenu= =- ...... ~ ~he westerly ~u 74 the two property owners agreed uo =~=.-~ .... feet of Lot 24 for an easement for the garage encroachment and its associated driveway on Lot 9. There is no record of filing the easement, and all of Lot 24 is currently on Hagglund's deed, but Nelson has been paying the property taxes. ---. The Nelson home was recently sold and title problems emerged prior to closing resulting in this request to transfer ownership of Lot 24 to the owner of 4755 Bedford. It is the intent of the applicant to no include the easterly 10 feet of Lot 24 in the transfer of ownership. This application also includes a request for a variance since the existing garage on the Nelson home does not observe any side yard setback since it encroaches into the neighboring property. A rear yard setback variance would also be needed. - - =- ~ minor subdivision In 1992 the Nelson property was involvea ~n =. 'ch was a proved, however, C~ty records · olvin Lots 6 and 27.~h~ ~ 'P' s filed with Henna, in do not lna~c~u= ~"~---~¥~ons that were prepare= =~ ~..a county. The legal u==u~ . show Lot 24 still in the ownership of Ms. Nelson. .? Planning Commission HinuCes OcCober 28, 1996 COMMENT/RECOMMENDATiON: Determining the appropriate action for this case is difficult because the application course of don't specifically describe all as ects materials seems that two course ~ ~__ P of the subject re Co~__~ .... s ~ action are ~ossi~ .... quest. It ~pprove the waiver of nl ~' n by..the applicant cou = a-,lng and a ' . , Id t 24 to be transferred to the ppllcanle variances to allow action is followed, it would b .... ~%u~.ds. .If_ this course of = =PP~uprla=e to include a condition that an easement for the garage and driveway on Lot 9 be drafted, executed and filed. An additional condition may also require the filing of the minor subdivision resolution for the lot line adjustment that was approved in 1992. The other option in considering this case would be to either act on an alternative subdivision re est submittal of -~--:-- qu or table the item pending ~=~==mams supporting resolving this issue. This issue has an alternative method of been unresolved for 22 years! It would seem to be in the best interest of both the Nelsons and the Hagglunds to create a subdivision that would place the garage and driveway on the Nelson property rather than establish an easement for that purpose. A subdivision that would take part of Lot 9 and 10'+ of lot 24 and attach it to the Nelson property with the remainder of Lot 9 and most of Lot 24 being attached to the Hagglund property would accomplish this purpose. Exhibit B to the Planning Report illustrates this alternative. Hrs. Hagglund and Ms. Nelson both stated that they are in favor of Exhibit B. Hanus feels it would be cleaner to divide the property than to have easements. He questioned if there would need to be setback variances if the property were divided. Clapsaddle stated that the setback variances are not an important issue and agreed they should approve the subdivision and the technicalities can be dealt with. The secretary confirmed that a minor subdivision does not require a public hearing. MOTION ma~e by Clapsa~le, seconded b ' recommen4 aDDrova~ ~- - -. _. . . ~ Wemlan4 to ......... ~ _ ~ ~ 4 minor sUb~lVlSiOnl according to ~xn%mlc B =o tn? staff report, alon w' variances, subject to ~ ...... g .~th the necessar~ necessary surve- --~ ---~" _?pp~%can: submittin the ..... -~_ .~ ~u~ ~PP~lcaclon £orm and fee prior to =ne clc~ council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. ! !11 pLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: October 22, 1996 SUBJECT: Waiver of Platting and Variance APPLICANT: Diane Rosencrantz (Owner - Roberta Jean Nelson) CASE NUMBER: 96-63 HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5ee LOCATION: 4739 Bedford Road EXISTING ZONING: Single-family Residential (R-I) COMPREHENSIVE'PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The origins of this case date back to 1974. This report attempts to summarize actions that have occurred since that time but due to the complexity of the issues involved, the staff accounting of this matter may need to be supplemented by the applicant at the Planning Commission meeting. Sometime prior to 1974, the owner of a home at 4739 Bedford constructed an attached garage that encroached substantially into a neighboring property. The garage encroached into Lot 9 which was owned by Frank Blumberg at the time (see Staff Exhibit A). Lot 9 and property lying west of Lot 9 is currently owned by Lawrence and Patficia Hagglund. The terms of the 1974 agreement between Mr. Blumberg and Ms. Nelson called for the exchange of the westerly 30 feet of Lot 24 for an easement on Lot 9 that would accommodate the existing garage and its associated driveway. Apparently, the intended transfer involved all of LOt 24 since there is a Quit Claim Deed included in the application packet that is dated June 14, 1977. Despite the Quit Claim Deed, apparently the taxes on Lot 24 have been paid by Ms. Nelson, the owner of the property at 4739 Bedford instead of the intended owner who resides at 4655 Bedford. There is no record of the filing of any easements for the encroaching garage or driveway. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Rosencrantz Planning Report October 22, 1996 Page 2 In 1992, the property that was owned by Ms. Nelson was the subject of another minor subdivision action. Lot 6 which was under the ownership of Ms. Nelson and Lot 27 which was under the ownership of Mr. Ron Neraasen were split and ½ of each lot was to be conveyed to and/or retained by each of the owners. This split was very simple and straightforward, however, City records do not indicate that the subdivision was filed with Hennepin County. The legal descriptions that were prepared at the time show Lot 24 still in the ownership of Ms. Nelson. Recently, the home owned by Ms. Nelson was sold and title problems emerged prior to the closing. In order to clarify the situation, Diane Rosencrantz who is a representing Ms. Nelson is seeking a Waiver of Platting and variances necessary to transfer ownership of Lot 24 to the owner of 4755 Bedford. In discussing this case with Ms. Rosencrantz, apparently it is intended that the transfer of ownership of LOt 24 not include the easterly 10 feet of the lot. The 10 foot strip of the lot would remain part of the Nelson property that is the subject of the pending sale. The application also includes a request for a variance since the existing garage on the Nelson home does not observe any side yard setback since it encroaches into the neighboring property. If the 10 foot strip on the eastern portion of Lot 24 is not retained by the Nelson property, a rear yard variance for the existing garage would also be needed. COMMENT/RECOMMENDATiON: Determining the appropriate course of action for this case is difficult because the application materials don't specifically describe all aspects of the subject request. It seems that two courses of action are possible. First, the Planning Commission, after a full explanation by the applicant, could approve the waiver of platting and applicable variances to allow Lot 24 to be transfered to the Hagglunds. If this course of action is followed, it would be appropriate to include a condition that an easement for the garage and driveway on Lot 9 be drafted, execucted and filed. An additional condition may also require the filing of the m/nor subdivision resolution for the lot line adjustment that was approved in 1992. The other option in considering this case would be to either act on an alternative subdivision request or table the item pending submittal of materials supporting an alternative method of resolving this issue. This issue has been unresolved for 22 years ! It would seem to be in the best interest of both the Nelsons and the Hagglunds to create a subdivison that would place the garage and driveway on the Nelson property rather than establish an easement for that purpose. A subdivision that would take part of Lot 9 and 10'+ of LOt 24 and attach it to the Nelson property with the remainder of Lot 9 and most of Lot 24 being attached to the Hagglund property would accomplish this purpose. Exhibit B which was prepared by staff illustrates this alternative. qa'7! I IL draft printed 9/20/96 ¢ D istr ibut ion: Application for WAIVER OF PLATTING City of Mound, 5341 'Maywood Road, Mound, MN Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 55364 DNR Application Fee: Escrow Deposit:_ f~ Deficient Unit Charges? Public works ~, city Engineer ' ~ ~ ~'~ ~V' Delinquent Taxes? Subject Address ~ ......... ~L PID~ D~CRIP~ON i . ~ Block~ LEGAL, -.%~ -O~O~ Block. DESCRIPTION B. Lot(s} O ~% ' ' ~ '~ ZONING DISTRICT PROPERTY Circle: (~ R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 Are there existing structures on the no Do the existing structures comply with the zoning ordinance for setbacks, hardcover, etc.? APPLICANT The applicant is: '~owner .other: Name~~~~~ar~~ ' Phone (H) (W} (M) {if other than applicant} Address. Phone (H)~~~-~ SURVEYOR/ ENGINEER Address__ Phone (H)~ (W) t. MI___.__ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ~1~ yes, ( } no. If yes, list data(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s} and provide copies of resolutions. Thin, etlon m~ecl by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. Date Date Owner's* Signature CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Dennis Departmer of Property Tax A-6 Gover Center 300 South Street Minneapolis 55487 Dear Sir: I hereby request described land ( )arate ment on the following ion and P.I.D. numbers): D Nam, of Taxp~ .~r Lyer' s AddrE For ~ Tax Ye ~/~ ~~ ~_ ~//,~ **************** ********************************************* '~' Separatio approved by City of Mound, p Department. ~ing & Inspections By: Jon Suther Date: Title: prlnted oil recycled paper I IL APPLICANT'S PROPERTY: 4739 BEDFORD ROAD 19-117-23 32 0214 NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY: 4755 BEDFORD ROAD 19-117-23 32 0205 LOT 24 4739 BEDFORD HAS BEEN PAYING TAXES HOWEVER IS ON FOR 4755 BEDFORD. ' DEED/TITLE If r rd0 40 40 '40 40 40 J(~ 4J).. 4~; 40 [40' 176 '-'-- -J:: -- I~' ~]' :~) x .-y l'" ~' -- 40 40 dOl 40 40 ~0 1~ ~0 40 49 40 (VAC ~C 1410~3 ~UNSW ' 4o I I I ,,, , ~)-. ,:... ~ ~ ' 4~ 40 4~ ~ 40 40 I0 ~0 40 40 RID. ~ 40 40 49 40 40 ~0 40 4~ ~ 40; X R BEDFORD s s RD :' CERTIFICATE OF FOR:~ SURVEY ~.oo I I _~SCHOBORG ND SURVEYING. INC. 'RECEIVED ~7~ OCT 2 9 1992 I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and ~hat I am s duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Date: Reots.tration No.'I~?O0 OOB ~ 8ook - r Scale / :;'...' Certif'irate at' . I hereby eer%ify that th.ls in a ~" ~n?~ ..effect repr,,~entaf, l~m a s~ey of the b~dar~es of ~ts n ~ .0, Block , not ' . ~Jroort to sho-~ Jmorov~nts o~ ~ · 1'~, l~yehwo~,d. It doe.. In~ garage c~ the sc,~thea,~t ~--. ' ~,,~foac,h~nt:;, ,,,.cept far ~n oncrr .: '.. · ..................... Scale: 1" = /.0' I~te : 1---1~-73 o : Iron ma rker ~-u .,ur~,,~yfm ~,~d Planner Long Leke, ~".inno~ota Z73 PARCEL A PROPOSEO LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 5 and 28, Block 13 also the East Half of Lots 6 and 27, Block 13 also the North Half of vacated Brunswick Road lying between the Southerly projection of the East line of said Lot 28 and Southerly projection of the Westerly line of the said East Half of Lot 27, all in Block 13, Wychwood, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Containing 10,438 square feet. PARCEL B PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 7, 8, 25, and 26, Block 13, also the West Half of Lots 6 and 27, Block 13, also the North H vacated Brunswick Road lying between the Southerly projection of the Westerly llne of sa' ot 24 and Southerly projection of the Easterly line of the West Half of said Lot 27, ?RON NERAASON EXISTING.LEGAL DESCRIPTION ~ots 5, 28 and 27, Block 13, Wychwood, Hennep~n County, Minnesota. ROBERTA NELSON EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION ts 6, 7, 8, 24, 25, and 26, Block 13, Wychwood, Hennepin County, MinnesotI. Sheet 2 of 2 · O~ICE USE ONLY) VARIANCE APPI,ICATION CITY OF MOUND - 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 ;APPlication Fee:~ Planning Commission Date: I0 ' ~ -q (0 Case CiW Council Date: / I - ]~ --q ~ Distribution: }()- [ ~ City Pl~ner D~ ~ Ci~ Eng~r ~ ~ ~ , . la Public Works - ~ _ r~ -P~P~;tY, ~;dres LEG~ Subdivision~~~ moc~ APPLICANT (IF OTHER OWNER) 1. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? (V)~es, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution ~,//q// number(s)andprovide._copies ofresolu__~fions. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): ,,4,, ,, ._L_ ,.. .... Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. 3. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): ox~ x ~at-x,.~ .... - (or existing) ,~ ~ (~d(O0.c~.~(~ Front Yard: (~S E? ) ~ ff. + ff. oK ft. Side Yard: ( N s~E~w~.) ft. C)' ~(,-ft. 10' ft. Side Yard: ( N ~E~W~) l(')' ft. Z~ ft. - ~ ft. RearYard:(NTS3W) /3 ' -ft. O'X ft. /%' ft. Lakeside:( WS* E W ) ft. ft. - ft. · (NSEW) ft. -ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover: _sq ft sq ft sq ft 4. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~j' No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: e Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) soil ( ) too narrow ( ) topography {~existing situation ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: (Rev. 1218/95) Variance Application, p. 3 11. Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the la.nd after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: Was the, g hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road'~ Yes (), No 6,95. If yes, explain: . o Are the conditions of har/dship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (rS, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are tree and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. wn r's Applicant's Signature Date CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT X 0% LOT AREA SQ. FT, X 40% LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% (for all lots) .............. = (for Lots of Record*) = (for detached buildings only) . · *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques ,are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH W~,~H SQ /~ x /~ = ~/~ (GARAGE/SHED) X = ~O~A. O~AC~ .~S ................. DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/~," min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER X ~ TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC /~ x x X TOTAL DECK TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OVER ' (indicate difference) .............................. DATE PREPARED BY ~0:~7 Quit C aim Deed Indl¥1dl~a to Individual/. ~'or~l ~o. 27. .... . Walter S. Booth & Son, M}nneapolis " Minnesote Uniform Conveyancing ~v. 1974) betwr~n .RQb.~X.~...J.,. NelsOn, a ~'~';~'~ ....... i'e ' e~'~'Sh ............. ....................................................... p ........... ]~...7.~ .... o/ thc ('ounf/ ,,£ Hennepin _ ·' .................................................................. and yf,, ' part....Y.. .......... o1' the first ra.t' ~..~ ~-4 1 ~ ' . ~te, o)~ ...... Mlnneso.ta .... ~ u~_~,~~ -. .............. ~r....,......c~.t.~,:...~d....z,.~,n~,.~...C~'~"; ........................... ......................................................................... .- ............................... par/ ,,t lite s ..... ~ ............................................ ovtate of......M....i..~..n...e...~.ota ..................................... ~it~g~g~J, Tha~ thc said part.....y ........ o;' the first part i~ cor~Ld~ratio~ o~ t'ke · .One..dollar'..an~ other valuable consideration ($1' 00) ........ to ................ ~..e..~. ......................... in hand paid .........................................................'" ....................................... ..-...-..-DOLL,~RS by thc said part..i~.S.....o£ the second part, tt~ receipt Wher~o£ hereb,~/ acl,*~owh, d.~ed, do. ~.~ hereby Grant, Bar~ain, ~uitclaint, and Convey unfo the said part~..e..~. ....... o£ the second part ..... .t..~.~.~,V ........ heirs and assigns, Forever, all the tra~t ......... or parcel ......... o£ l~nd lyin~ and bein~ in the County o/ Hennepin - and to~wit., ................................................................... State of ~[innesot~, described az follows, That part of Government lot 4 corresponding to lot 24, Wychwood, now vacated Sections 19, Township 117, Range 23 ' ~0 ~abt a~b tO ~0~ ~t ~amt, To~ether with all the ~redita,nents and app~rtena~es there- belon~in~ or in anyw~e appertaining, ~ t~ s~id part..i~.~.......of the second part, .their heirs ~si~m% Forever .................... ......... the ~y a~ year first a~ ~itten. /.) Roberta J. ~;on, ' ................. ........ ~....:..r ............ ~......z .................... ~ ........ · ~ A'""~'~'K~T¥"~'&¥'~ ~'A ..................................................................... 'The [oregoiag i,zstrumeat was acknowledged be[ore me 14t~a o¢ June . 19....~ ........ this ........... Y .. ......................................... / ~ ~ ~.:r,T~ · MYRA BERGE · ~ ~:~;~,~ NOTARY PUBLIC. MINNESOTA by ......................... ~'l~;;;"~*~'~ernon A ck,,nowledled ) .......... {Title or R4mnk) rills INSTRUMENT WAS STATE DEED TAX DUE DRAFTED DY: $. Edward Ga lbraith _ 900 Builder's Exch.__ ___~pls.. MN 55402 -- BLUMBERe HOMES ....... .... '"' ....... "'" ' ' - . ' ' - ...... ' --"'" :'" "':' "?~ 6 E INE DRIVE PHONE 471-8418 NAVARRE MINN. 55392 September 17, 1974 Mr. & Mrs. Jarl. Nelson Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Nelson: We agree to grant a permanent easement to you to allow your garage to remain in its present location and said easement shall run on a line from the northwest corner of your garage to your front northwest lot corner. You will also be allowed a three foot maintenance easement on the west side of your garage. In re- turn for said easement we will accept a deed free and clear of all encumbrances with 1974 taxes paid for Lot 24, except that part of said lot which lies east of said garage, approximately 10 feet, Block 13, Wychwood. Sincerely, BLUMBERG HOMES, INC. Frank B. Blumberg President , FB/lc Bepte...ber 17, 1974 t4oun~ village council Moun$., Mn- 55364 Mr. Blumber~ ~n~ I have agree~ on a settlemen~ ~o our lot line problems, in tha~ he will ~ran~ me a permanen~ easemen~ ~o ~he proper~y my ~arage im on, ang he will mtay ~he r~ cessary ~hree an~ a half feet from my garage when he finishem ~he lan~s¢apin~ on lo~ #9. I have no objection to ~he house on log #9 being ~uil~ wi~h a ~l foo~ 8e~-back. 'Thank you for your ~ime an~ effor~ regar~in~ ~he problem. 8incerely~' l~r~. Jarl F. Nelson,.. I ,IL CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINr,;ESOTA 55364-1687 ~6!2) 472.0600 FAX ~6~2 ':72-0620 December 10, 1992 Mr. Ronald Neraasen 4725 Bedford Road Mound, MN 55364 SUBJECT: REQUIREMENTS TO FILE RESOLUTION #92-152 Dear Mr. Neraasen: On November 24, 1992, the Mound City Council approved a minor subdivision application for your property. Please find enclosed two copies of the resolution approving your request. Both you and your neighbor, Roberta Nelson, are required to sign each of these copies and return them to me so that the City Clerk can certify one of the signed copies for you to file at the county. This resolution must be filed at Hennepin County within 180 days of November 24, 1992. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call me at 472-0607. Planning Secretary DJ enclosures printed on recycled paper CERTIFICATE City of Mound RONALD NERAASEN PICKED-UP ORIGINAL STATE OF MINNESOTA) FOR FILING ON 12-14-92. PJ ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPINI I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby attest and certify that: 1. As such officer, I have the legal custody of the original record from which the attached and foregoing extract was transcribed. 2. I have carefully compared said extract with said original record. 3. I find said extract to be a true, correct and complete transcript from the original minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City held on the date indicated in said extract, including any resolutions adopted at such meeting, insofar as they relate to: RESOLUTION #92-152 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR LOTS 5, 28 AND 27, BLOCK 13 WYCHWOOD, AND LOTS 6, 7, 8, 24, 25, AND 26, BLOCK 13, WYCHWOOD, PID'S 19-117-23 32 0143 & 0144, 4725 AND 4739 BEDFORD ROAD, P&Z CASE #92-067 Said meeting was duly held, pursuant to call and notice thereof as required by law on: NOV~V[BER 24, 1992 WITNESS my hand officially as such Clerk, and the sale of said City, this 14TH day of _ DECEMBER ,19 92 · CITY CLERK seal November 24, 1992 RESOLUTION J92-152 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR LOTS 5, 28 AND 27, BLOCK 13 WYCHWOODt AND LOTS 6t 7~ 8, 24~ 25~ AND 26~ BLOCK 13, WYCHWOOD, PID'S 19-117-23 32 0143 & 0144, 4725 AND 4739 BEDFORD ROADt P&Z CASE #92-067 WHEREAS, Ronald Neraasen has submitted an application for a minor subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under City of Mound Code of Ordinances, Section 330 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statute, and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder, and; WHEREAS, an application to waive the subdivision requirements contained in Section 330 of the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound, and; WHEREAS, the request is to modify a lot line to remove an existing jog that occurs between the two properties. The lot line modification as proposed is not in conflict with any of the provisions of the Mound Zoning Code, and; WHEREAS, the existing house on Parcel B substantially encroaches onto Lot 9 which is not part of Parcel B. There is an easement for the encroachment, however, according to the survey the extreme northwest corner of the house is located outside t~e existing easement. This encroachment is a private matter that 2s not directly connected to the relocation of the lot line. It will be necessary for the owner to eventually resolve this issue since it creates a major title problem. It is not necessary that it be resolved as part of the requested minor subdivision, and; WHEREAS., the subject property is locat · · Single Famil Zon2n ' · . . ed w~th~n the R- e minimum Y g Dlstr~ct which according to City Code require~ lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, both parcels are proposed to exceed the minimum lot area required, as follows: Parcel 'A' = 10,438 square feet, and Parcel 'B' = 17,717 square feet, and; WHEREAS, it. has been determin circumstances affectln ' -_ .~d thgt there are sec' application of the o-~?- said propezty such that the ~~ reasonable use of h{~U~e wguld deprive the apDlican~ ~~ ~o ~nu, and . . .... ~ ~-~ the preservation and en4 ..... ~ _, ~hat the waiver is necessar · . ~z,,=uu or a substan ' . Y for that granting the waiver would not ~- ~_~_:~a} ~r~pert%~lght; and ~= u=uz~men~a~ ~o public welfare or injurious to the other property owners, and; 269 269 ..0.7O November 24, 1992 WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed this request and unanimously recommended approval with the condition that disclaimer language be drafted by the City Attorney relating to the encroachment problem on Parcel B. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The property in which the applicant has requested a waiver from the provisions of Section 330 of the City Code, which is less. than five acres in area, is currently described as follows: Lots 5, 28 and 27, Block 13, Wychwood, Hennepin County, Minnesota. And, Lots 6, 7, 8, 24, 25, and 26, Block 13, Wychwood, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 2. It is hereby granted to permit the subdivision as per the following descriptions: Parcel A: Lots 5 and 28, Block 13 also the East Half of Lots 6 and 27, Block 13 also the North Half of vacated Brunswick Road lying between the Southerly projection of the East line of said LOt 28 and Southerly projection of the Westerly line of the said East Half of Lot 27, all in Block 13, Wychwood, Hennepin County, Minnesota. ~ Lots 7, 8, 24, 25, and 26, Block 13, also the West Half of Lots 6 and 27, Block 13, also the North Half of vacated Brunswick Road lying between the Southerly projection of the Westerly line of said Lot 24 and Southerly projection of the Easterly line of the West Half of said Lot 27, all in Block 13, Wychwood, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 3. Approval of this subdivision is subject to the following understanding and agreement by the parties. The city Attorney advises all owners or parties with any interest in Parcel A and Parcel B that these properties may have a major title defect which will affect future sales or transfers. Each party is advised to obtain legal advice to determine their rights on how this lot line adjustment may affect the marketability of their titles. The city has become aware that a structure on Parcel B encroaches on property not in this subdivision and that future surveys and/or title examinations will undoubtedly catch this problem. The City disclaims any and all liability or responsibility for this encroachment or any title defects created by the encroachment or by this subdivision. The City Attorney wishes to make it clear that the city has pointed out this problem to the property owners and reluctantly approves this subdivision with the full and free understanding and agreement by the parties releasing the City of any liability or any claims resulting from the 270 271 November 24, 1992 encroachment or the subdivision. Parcel B is a non-conforming parcel, and the City does not authorize or approve Construction over lot lines with or without easements. The owners of Parcel A and Parcel B shall sign a copy of this resolution acknowledging they have been informed by the City of Mound of this serious problem and releasing the City of any liability or responsibility for the problem. Acknowledgment: R6nald D. Neraasen ~/' 4725 Bedford Road ~ a Jea.~/Nelson - Parcel A 4739 Bedfo/~d Road Parcel B 4. It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will 2 nstitute a desirable and stable community development and it in harmony with adjacent properties. 5. The City Cle.rk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolu.t.l.o.n, to the applicant. The applicant shall have the responsibility for filing this resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of the City. The applicant shall also have the responsibility of paying all costs for such recording. 6. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Smith and seconded by Councilmember Jessen. The following voted in the affirmative: Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following voted in the negative: none. Attest: - City Clerk Councilmember Ahrens was absent and excused. Mayor ~~ 271 CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET._T__~ LOT OF RECORD? YES I NO ~ HOUSE ......... FRONT LAKE =~OPOF BLUFF GARAGE, SI1ED ..... :RONT N S E W NS E W :RONT HDE OR OTIIER DETACHED NS E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W ~IDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF -~ONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R1 ~0.000/60 Bi 7,500/0 ~ 6,00~/40-") B2 20,000/80 ~2 6,OOO/4u ~ B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SBE ORD. I! 30,000/100 RF,~UIRED-'--~ E~oS:rlNG/PROPOSED 50' 30' LOT WIDTH: ' LOT DEPTH: . ~.. 1'35 ' -'- VARIANCE 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' 50' 10' OR 30' Planning Department at 472-0600. ~ 0 m 0 0 ~ SURVEY ON FILE? NO ~ LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO YARD HOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF I IL CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,O00/80 R3 SEE ORD. ~1 30,000/100 E W N S E W ~s ~w O/ N S W · N S E W $0' EX,~.~.~LOT sizE: .. ~OT WIDTH: - LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE GARAGE, SIIED ..... OR OTItER DETACHED FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE NS E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF BUILDINGS 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' 50' 30' HARDCOVER 30% .,~ NO / ? ~ I This Znning Information Sheet ~ a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Plunning Depm'tment nt 472-0600. '"' 0 ...,~ ,., -- , , - , ~C I~ "~ ~ ~ 0 -'-v- !i£.~ ~'1 ,,,'r Ii] ~( ~ =' ", ,: .o/ o ,o 2 ~ O_oo~ ? s s RD FEDERAL T~TIGFf~AY ADMINISTRATION STATE OF MINNESOTA Department of Transportation CITY OF MOUND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSlVIENT for the Lost Lake Canal RehabLlttafion Project - S.P. 14S-080-01, TEA 2797 (028) and the Lost Lake Greenway Project - S.P. 145-090-01 From: Cooks Bay on l_m.ke Minnetonka To: Downtown Mound. MN 0.8 krn (1/2 mile) Work Description: The Lost Lake canal project is primarily a dredging project to rehabilitate an historic boat canal. In addition to dredging, the project includes constructing docks and a fishing pier, restoring previously filled wetland areas and improving wetland edges. The Lost Lake greenway project includes construction of landscaping, trail, transit park & ride lot, and a - transit boat boarding pier - all around the north perimeter of Lost Lake. · . i Manager- Edward J Shulde Jr, ry Recommended Date Division State Aid Engineer Reviewed and Recommended Date Director, Division of State Aid for Local Transportation Approved Date Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Date M:x3,,I O UNDX94-40~F.A. CVR ~0UND QUADRANGLE klOUN0, kliNNE$OTA NW/4, LAKE MINNETONKA 15' QUACRANG'L~ PROJECT AREA .I. I i , .Point . i .;:. .. \ Isled. SIT~_ LOCATION MAP LCST LAKE CANAL C~ ~'Pt' OF' MCUND MOUND. MINNESOTA Hennepin County Environmental Assessment - Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 1 June 14,1996 I. Report Purpose This Environmental Assessment CEA) provides back~ound information about the Lost Lake Canal project in downtown Mound, Minnesota including: 1. The need for the proposed project 2. Reasonable alternatives considered 3. Environmental impacts 4. Agencies and persons involved This document has been prepared as part of the federal NEPA process and state environmental process to fulfill requirements of both 42 USC 4321 et. seq. and MN Rules Chapter 4410. At the federal level, it is used to provide sufficient environmental documentation tO determine the need for an EIS or that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. At the state level, it is used to provide sufficient environmental documentation to determine the need for a State EIS or that a Negative Declaration is appropriate. This document is made available for public review and comment prior to the above decision on significance of environmental impacts. II. Project Description In 1906, during the peak of Lake Minnetonka's resort era, a boat canal was excavated from Cooks Bay to downtown Mound through a wetland now called Lost Lake. The 0.$ km (1/: mile) long canal was ofi~nally about 15 m (50 ft.) wide and terminated close to the center of downtown with a large cul-de-sac where the passenger steamboats would board and drop off their guests. The historic canal, and associated transportation facilities are the focus of Mound's current downtown revitalization efforts and the focus of this Environmental Assessment. The project site is located in the SW1/4, Section 24 and SE1/4, Section 23, Township 117 North, Range 23 West, Mound, Minnesota. The existing Lost Lake canal bisects approximately 22 ha (55 acres) of contiguous wetland. The National Wetland Inventory map for the area indicates the complex to be comprised predominantly of seasonally to semi-permanently flooded palustrine emergent wetland (PEMC and PEMiF; Circular 39 types 3 mad 4 shallow and deep marsh) with one area of excavated semi-permanentlY flooded palustrine unconsolidated bottom wetland (PUBx; Circular 39 type 5 open water). Lost Lake is connected to Cooks Bay of Lake Minnetonka via the Lost Lake boat canal. The canal runs south beneath Bartlett Boulevard Environmental Assessment. Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & I45-090-01 Page 2 June 14, 1996 (County Road 125) which bridges the canal, providing sufficient clearance for recreational boat traffic. As the resort era faded on Lake Minnetonka around 1925, the Lost Lake canal and wetland fell into neglect. The canal has narrowed to about 20 feet as siltation has occurred and aquatic plants have recolonized historically dredged areas. Until recent wetland laws, land in downtown slowly crept further into the wetland without regard for the wetland edge. In the 1960's, a large portion of the wetland and canal were filled to erect a new Post Office and street. Another comer of Lost Lake was filled by a garbage dump and the land mass later became the City's public works storage site for road sand, salt and snow. There is little or no buffer between paved surfaces and the wetland. Stormwater mn-off from nearly all of downtown is piped or runs overland directly into Lost Lake without treatment or detention. See Exkibit 1 showing an aerial view of the area. Even though Lost Lake plays little importance in the community today, the City hopes to transform it into the center of community life and vastly improve its environmental integrity in the process. In 1991 the City of Mound began planning for major downtown revitalization. The City enlisted extensive public involvement to create what came to be called "Mound Visions". The Mound Visions team of community volunteers developed a number of strategies for revitalization, including a redevelopment concept plan focusing on the rehabilitation of the Lost Lake wetland and canal. In 1994 Mound was selected for IS'lEA funds to rehabilitate the Lost Lake canal. This selection prompted the City to undertake an adjacent street realignment and reconstruction project at the same time. Both projects are scheduled for construction in 1997. 'Recently the City was selected for additional ISTEA funds to construct the "Lost Lake Greenway to be constructed in 1999 which includes a linear park, trail, transit boat pier and park & ride facility adjacent to Lost Lake. A federal Environmental Assessment and state Environmental Assessment Worksheet are being completed for the Lost Lake canal project because federal dollars are involved and because the project meets the Minnesota mandatory EAW threshold described in Section 4410.4300 subp. 25 regarding expansion of a marina or harbor project and subp. 27 regarding work in wetlands and protected waters. The Lost Lake greenway project is being incorporated into this EA to expedite future project administration. Defining the Lost Lake projects and all related projects is somewhat cumbersome because of the complexity and breadth of changes expected in downtown Mound. The Lost Lake projects represent the first step to redevelopment of nearly the entire downtown. Two categories of activity are defined in this document. 1. Direct project activities: This category describes all connected and phased actions of the Lost Lake canal and greenway projects. Construction timing is noted for each activity. These activities are the subject of this Environmental Assessment. Environmental Assessment - Lost Lake Canal June 14, 1996 Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 3 2. Belated activities: This category describes projects anticipated to occur in the future which are related but unconnected to the Lost Lake canal and greenway projects. Direct Pr~ect Activities · ~!_d~].~: This activity includes re-dredging the canal from Cooks Bay on Lake Minnetonka to downtown Mound. This component of the project includes only the dredging needed to restore the canal to a historic and minimally safe width of 15 m (50 feet) plus three boat pull-outs for boater safety (see Exhibit 2). The canal will be constructed according to the cross sections shown in Exhibit 3. The water surface area of this component of the dredge is 12,918 sq. m. (139,000 sq. ft.). A majority of the proposed surface area is currently open water, the remainder being cattails. This activity will occur entirely below OHW. To be constructed in 1997) · Transient dock and boat maneuvering area dredge: This activity includes dredging the transient dock area west of the canal and the boat maneuvering areas outside of the historic dredge limits (see Exhibit 2). The water surface area of this component of the dredge is 4,833 sq. m. (52,000 sq. ft.). This activity will occur entirely below OHW. To be constructed in 1997. · Permanent docking facility, dredge: This activity includes dredging a small portion of wetland needed to gain access t~the permanent docking facility (see Exhibit 2). The water surface area of this component of the dredge is 372 sq. m. (4,000 sq. ft.). This activity will occur entirely below OHW. This aspect of work is an unscheduled future activity. · Restoration of t~reviouslv filled wetland: This activity includes excavation of historic wetland areas ~hich base been filled over the years for development including the post office site and the future boat docking facility (see Exhibit 2). Restoration of the docldng area is unscheduled but the post office site is a 1997 project. Thc total area of wetland restoration is 2,881 sq. m. (31,000 sq. ft). (14,000 sq. ft. - post office site, 17,000 sq. ft. - dock site). Roughly ¥3 of the restoration areas will be open water and 1/3 will be restored wetland vegetation. · W~fland vegetation restoration: This 1997 activity includes revegetating some of the ~kedged areas with native, low growing emergent vegetation (see Exhibit 4). Low vegetation is proposed to allow adequate sight-lines for boater safety in the center of the boat maneuvering area and to create a native wetland edge in other areas. The City proposes to conduct on-going management of these areas to prevent the reestablishment of an exotic cattail monoculture. The area of restoration is 2,695 sq. m. (29,000 sq. ft.). · p. estoration and stabilization of the north wetland edge: Four types of edge treatment are q I IL Environmental Assessment. Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-0t & 145-090-01 Page 4 June 14,1996 proposed: 1) rip-rap edges in the boat docking areas, 2) vegetative edges in the wetland restoration areas, 3) rehabilitated edges where previous fi/ling has degraded the natural edge and 4) wall edges under the risking pier and around the transit boat landing (see Exhibit 4). This is a 1997 activity. Rip-rap edges will be granite boulders at a 2:1 slope. Rip-rap will be extended only 0.6m (2 ft.) above the OHW to minimize visual impact. Vegetative edges will be planted with native emergent and transitional wet/and plant species. The City proposes to conduct on- going management of these areas to prevent the reestablishment of an exotic cattail monoculture. The rehabilitated edges are all filled edges and very steep, the City proposes to pul/the slope back (at the discretion of the DNR) to create a higher quality edge. Wall edges are proposed only at the piers for structural and boat docking purposes. See Exhibit 5 for cross sections of edge treatments. · t t' aw at ut ed . ~~. The sou,hem 60m,(2C~, ft.)of d. ~-uge to me mouth) narrows to 9,,~ f~n ~ through a residential area. There are existing sheet pile sea walls along the edges of the '*~ k.ou ti.) an(1 runs canal which will be replaced in their current Iocation. A portion of this area has a rip-rap edge which the City proposes to replace with sea walls to al/ow adequate width for boats and to protect the adjacent residences (see Exhibit 6). To be constructed in ~997. little : When the Bartlett Boulevard bridge was constructed, attention was paid to cleaning up concrete over-runs at the abutments and temporary wood pilings were never removed from the bottom of the canal. These two items will be removed from the canal bed to allow dredging to the designed depth. There are also utilities under the canal which will likely need to be lowered to accommodate dredging. These activities do not impact the structure of the bridge itself. To be completed in 1997. · ~: This activity includes constructing 12 ~mng p~er in the transient dock area. The docks are proposed to be the floating type. Each dock will be attached to shore individually which helps minimize the dredge area and allows for native plantings along the top edge of the r/p-rap shore. The pier is proposed to be a permanent structure with an arched-opening concrete Perimeter and wood decking spanning the water below. The shoreline under the pier wi// be sheet pile with a concrete cap. The surface area of the pier is 112 sq. m. (1,200 sq. ft.) in an oval form. The pier extends roughly 1gm (60 ft.) along the shore and extends up to 8.5m (28 ft.) into the wetland. See Exhibits 7 & 8 for plan and details of docks and risking pier. To be constructed in 1997. an~~'~~l~l~ll~: TNs activity includes constructing a pier for docking boarding an historic transit boat and providing the dock-to-land connection for the permanent docking facility. The pier will be constructed outside of the current wetland Environmental Assessment ' Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 5 June 14,1996 boundary and then the wetland will be restored around its edges (see Exhibit 7). The pier will be a permanent structure constructed of concrete· The pier is a 1999 activity. ~~~i~~1~~~: This activity includes constructing up to 22 boat slips. Docks are proposed to be the floating type using a marginal dock connected to the transit boat pier and each of the finger docks will then connect to the marginal dock. There will ~ be a fueling station or boat lift as part of this facility. This aspect of work is an unscheduled future activity. Nearly all of the docking facility will be constructed within a previously filled wetland area. '. w ' w : Approximately 200 feet of floating boardwalk is proposed across the north end of the wetland as a 1999 activity (see Exhibit 7). The boardwalk is intended as a wetland interpretation experience and to provide access from downtown to the transit center/farmers market site. · · · t' * : As part of the 1997 project, nesting structures · · w' ' t'* of the wetland and shoreline to accommodate will be installed in appropriate areas waterfowl, song birds, bats, butterflies, etc. · t ' t : The greenway includes · w t a trail, landscaping, bike facilities and park amenities. The greenway will act as a vegetative buffer and linear park between the built environment of downtown and Lost Lake. The ~eenway will also allow the planting of overstory trees to shade the shoreline and reduce heat gain from paved surfaces. Along with areas of turf, the greenway will have significant areas of native and low maintenance plants including wildflowers, native grasses and perennials. The greenway land will be set aside as part of the 1997 project but enhancements and landscaping will not be implemented until 1999 (see Exhibit 7). · C~~f~ll~k~~: A 50+ stall park & ride lot will be constructed in 1999 on the former public works storage site to accommodate commuter bus users· The lot will be buffered from the wetland by the Lost Lake greenway (see Exhibit 7). Related Activitie~ · _Construction of Auditors Road: Auditors Road is currently a back alley in downtown. Reconstruction of the street scheduled for 1997 will transform it into the new main street of Mound· Eventually new retail structures will be developed along the street to face Lost Lake (see Exhibit 7). · w. w t w t w ~' : The City of Mound is working with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to create the stormwater plan. As redevelopment occurs, stormwater will be detained and treated according to the plan Environmental Assessment - Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 6 1une 14,1996 using NURP standards. Lost Lake currently receives nearly all downtown runoff, none of which is treated. Redevelopment of the public works storage site,: For many years the City has stored their public works material including road sand, salt and snow on a site adjacent to Lost Lake. Runoff from the site into the wetland has been an environmental concern for some time. In preparation of the Lost Lake canal project, the City has built a new storage facility in a suitable location with proper containment. The old site will be redeveloped as a result of the Lost Lake canal project and the greenway will buffer any development on the site from Lost Lake (see Exhibit 7). Relocation of Coun~ Road 15: County Road 15 is scheduled for relocation in the year 2000. This activity will have the greatest impact on the quality of stormwater runoff entering Lost Lake. Stormwater Ponds built to NURP standards will be constructed as part of the roadway project to accommodate downtown runoff (see Exhibit 7). The project will also .enable much of the commercial redevelopment in downtown. Redevelopment of downtown structures and site,~: The majority of downtown will be redeveloped especially in the Lost Lake area. Lost Lake will become the focus of the community with a complete integration and co-existence of residence, commerce, recreation, transit and the natural environment. Ill. Cost and Funding Source Defined below are anticipated costs for the Lost Lake Canal project scheduled for 1997 and the Lost Lake Greenway project scheduled for I999. Note that future activities are not included. For both projects, the federal share is roughly 80% of construction costs. The City of Mound accepts responsibility for the remainder of construction costs plus project administration costs. Project costs for the Lost Lake canal project are: · d°.' O. Dre ~zn ................... · Shoreline stabil. & bridge mod. at mouth ........... · Dock facilities & pier ........................................ · Historical story board and marker ........................ · Shoreline stabil, at north end .............................. Subtotal ................................ · Design, engineering, permitting & admin ............ Total .................................... Funding Sources: $255,000 $225,0O0 $124,0O0 $5 $141 $750,000 $134.000 $884,000 Federal ISTEA funds City of Mound funds $500,O00 $384,0O0 q l ~9'b Environmental Assessment - Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 7 Project costs for the Lost Lake greenway project are: Transit boat boarding pier ............................... l_mndscaping .................................................. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities ........................ County Road 15 streetscape ............................. Park & ride lot .............................................. Subtotal ................ Design, engineering & administration ............... Total ..................................... .. $90,000 $72,000 $131,000 $184,000 $94,000 $67.000 $638,000 $140.000 $778,000 June 14,1996 Funding Sources: Federal IS'lEA funds City of Mound funds $498,000 $280,000 IV. Project Schedule (Note the EA and EAW are on concurrent tracks.) June 14, 1996 June 21 July 3 July 5 July 12 July 23 August 27 October 8 October 9 October 14 December December 2 December 9 January 6, 1997 Submit EA to MN/DOT Metro and Central State Aid offices for review and comment Submit permits to necessary regulatory agencies End of 30 day EAW comment period Revise EA as per MN/DOT comments Submit EA to MN/DOT Metro and Central State Aid offices and the FHWA for review and approval RGU review of EAW comments and determination of need for project modifications andfor EIS Oppormnky for public hearing CEA process) Public Hearing for EA process (if necessary) Revise EA as per comments Submit final EA to MIN/DOT State Aid offices and FHWA for sio~nature and FONSI (finding of no significant impact) Completion of Auditors Road right-of-way acquisition and canal easement acquisition Anticipated FONSI finding Submit Study Report to NLN/DOT for review Revise Study Report as needed Environmental Assessment. Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 8 J'une 14, 1996 .lanuary 13 December - January 1997 3anuary 1997 February - March May May September October - November December April 1998 or 99 May June June September Submit Study Report to MN/DOT for final review and approval Preparation of final plans and specifications for canal project Submit canal project plans to MN/DOT State Aid office for review and approval Advertise for bids for canal project Open bids Award contract Begin construction Complete construction Preparation of final plans and specifications for greenway project Submit greenway project plans to MN/DOT State Aid office for review and approval Advertise for bids for greenway project Open bids Award contract Begin construction Complete construction Please note that R/W acquisition is being conducted for the Auditors Road relocation project. Portions of properties being acquired are within the project limits of the Lost Lake canal/ greenway project but the acquisition is required for and being conducted through the street project. V. Need for the Project The Lost Lake canal/greenway project is the foundation for Mound's downtown revitalization efforts and is the basis for a broad intermodal transportation system. It is important to note that without the amenities that the Lost Lake canal project brings to the community, it may be very difficult or impossible to encourage other economic and environmental investments in downtown Mound. THE HEART OF THE COMMUNrry: Rehabilitation of the Lost Lake canal/greenway is the key element of the first phase of redevelopment in downtown Mound. Through extensive public involvement over a period of five years, the Mound Visions downtown revitalization program has identified and tested, through public forums and a community volunteer process, the goals of the community in regard to their downtown. The process found that reestablishing the historic relationship and transportation link to Lake Minnetonka is the foundation of redevelopment. TRANSPORTATION NEED: The Lost Lake canal is needed to provide access for recreational Environmental Assessment - Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 9 /une 14, 1996 and transit boats from Lake Minnetonka to downtown Mound. The greenway is needed to provide convenient facilities for non-motorized transportation and mass transit. Five modes of transportation; boats, pedestrians, bikes, cars and buses come together and are accommodated at Lost Lake. The project will rebuild the historic link between downtown Mound and the transit boat system on Lake Minnetonka. It will extend a trail network in several directions from the transit hub, build a park & ride lot for an Mcro transit stop and provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities. ENVIRONMENTAL NEED: State and local environmental agencies have identified numerous environmental problems in Lost Lake due to neglect and lack of investment (e.g. untreated stormwater runoff, highly disturbed wetland edges, encroaching development, large amount of impervious surface, etc.). Lost Lake rehabilitation will provide an opportunity to clean up these problems in a highly visible way which in mm creates an opportunity for environmental education. ECONOMIC NEED: Rehabilitation of the Lost Lake area is the essential first step to the downtown revitalization efforts of Mound. A market projection conducted for the City determined that "within two years of a substantial redevelopment project including targeted retail additions of 25,000+ S.F., the City of Mound could see an overall increase in retail sales of 68% or roughly $24 million from the 1990 level." The City believes that rehabilitation of the Lost Lake canal and creation of the greenway will be the catalyst for this level of private investment in downtown Mound. VI. Alternatives The purpose of this project is to provide recreational and transit boat access from Lake Minnetonka to downtown Mound and to provide the facilities for non-motorized transportation and mass transit. The project will transform Lost Lake into a community amenity and destination. Do nothin_* alternatives: If nothing is done, the canal will continue to be unnavigable and the impetus to make substantial related investments in transportation, the environment, recreation and redevelopment would not exist, ff the canal and ~eenway projects are not completed, private investment will be very difficult to secure and the enthusiasm of the community will fade away. As a result, downtown Mound would continue to be economically marshal. The preferred alternative is to construct the project according to the description in Section 1I above and the exhibits enclosed. This alternative is preferred based on practicality, historical precedence, environmental impact and community input. The alignment of the canal is the historical alignment and since there is only one riparian outlet from Lost Lake to Lake Minnetonka, there is only one place to begin the canal. The transient dock area is located to have the ~eatest user relationship to downtown. The docking facility is located to have the greatest Environmental Assessment. Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minnesota. State Project # $.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page I0 /une 14,1996 relationship to adjacent development and to have the least impact on the wetland by restoring previously f'flled wetland rather than excavating existing wetland. The greenway is located to have the dual benefit of providing environmental improvements and providing a circulation and recreation corridor which interconnects many uses in downtown. Reasonable options have been considered through the concept development process and incorporated into the plan to create more positive impact on the wetland in the following ways. The docking facility has been reduced in size from about 35 slips originally to a proposed 22 maximum. The docking facility has been moved from with. in the existing wetland to a previously filled wetland location to have less impact. The center of the boat maneuvering area was originally intended to be open water but the vegetation restoration option is proposed to still provide boater safety but diversify and improve the wetland habitat. Ori~nally a wall was proposed for the shoreline in both docking areas but rip-rap is now proposed at DNR request. VII. Social, Economic and Environmental Impacts (SEE) To gain a full understanding of the Lost Lake canal project's environmental impacts, two studies have been conducted: 1) a biological survey of the Lost Lake wetland and 2) soil and sediment sampling and analysis of the proposed dredge areas. Discussion of the findings is as follows. Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. has completed a biological survey for the Lost Lake canal project. Their study includes 1) classification of predominant vascular plant communities, 2) an assessment of the potential for the site to harbor any threatened and/or endangered species, 3) a qualitative evaluation of available fish and wildlife habitat and 4) an analysis of anticipated impacts associated with the restoration of the canal and construction of docking areas. The full report is enclosed as Exhibit 9. Portions of the report which pertains to SEE impacts are copied below. (The following is copied from Biological Survey Report, Lost Lake Boat Channel Restoration - Mound, MN, May 19, 1995; P eterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.) The restoration of the original boat channel and construction of transient and marina slips is not expected to meaningfully reduce the availability of habitat necessary to maintain viable populations of the plant, wildlife or fish species mentioned above. The proposed channel restoration will essentially re-establish conditions as they existed at the turn of the century and will increase wetland acreage by removing fill deposited during the construction of Auditors Road. While the boat channel bisects Lost Lake, it only affects a small proportion of a large monotypic marsh dominated by cattails. Based on our field observations, the channel and its associated boat docking areas actually lend some diversity to an otherwise uniform wetland system. The boat channel has provided muskrats with direct access to the center of Lost Lake, as indicated by a substantial number of muskrat houses on either side of the channel. The muskrats have created more open water through their feeding and house building activities, which in turn has Environmental Assessment - Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minneso~ State Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 11 June 14, 1996 increased the value of this area for nesting and feeding waterfowl as well as for herons and other wading birds. The wildlife that we observed during our field review were concentrated in and around the channel, due apparently to the feeding opportunities provided by the interspersion of vegetation and open water. Because of Lost Lake's relatively large size in proportion to the channel area and proposed marina, marsh fragmentation does not appear to represent a significant problem. Lost Lake has experienced some encroachment by purple loosestrife; however, this encroachment appears to be relatively minor in the channel area. The proposed project should not result in any expansion or acceleration'of purple loosestrife infestation, since this plant colonizes heavily vegetated areas rather than open water. The existing channel is already infested with Eurasian watermilfoil; the proposed channel restoration should not result in any exacerbation of the existing problem. However, care should be exercised in the cleaning of dredging machinery and the disposal of dredge spoil to ensure that no severed plant parts reach other uninfested waters. Based on a study completed by the MDNR in 1994, measuring the average boat traffic generated at marinas and transient docks on Lake Minnetonka (Tim Kelly, MDNR per. comm. with Bruce Chamberlain, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc.), the projected boat traffic in the restored channel would total twenty six trips per weekend day and nine trips per weekday. The south end of the existing channel already receives a substantial amount of boat use from the approximately nine water craft that are currently moored there. However, the central and northern part of the channel are relatively unaffected due to the channel's narrow width and the presence of only one dock. The wildlife species observed in the channel are relatively tolerant of human activity; however, the increased boat traffic may impact species whose nesting and feeding behavior occur in the channel and adjacent vegetation. In particular, waterfowl, wading birds (that are generally secretive), tuffies and fish may limit their movements and breeding activities within and adjacent the channel corridor and proposed marina, however, given the relatively large amount of marsh habitat available it is doubtful that the project will adversely impact wildlife populations. In a response to a threatened and endangered species inquiry the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Natural Heritage Pro,am listed the red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) and the ram's head lady's slipper (Cypripedium arietinum) as historically recorded element occurrences within one mile of the project area. These species are listed as state special concern and endangered species respectively. Prior to receiving the MDNR response letter PEC conducted a review of the MDNR state threatened, endangered and special concern range maps provided in Minnesota's Endangered Flora and Fauna (Coffin, 1988) to evaluate the potential presence of species which have an affinity for occurring in marsh systems. Based on this review we Environmental Assessment. Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minnesota. Stare Project # S.P. 145-086-01 & 145-090-01 Page 12 Sune 14,1996 determined that the project area provides potentially suitable habitat for three special concern species; (1) king rail (Rallus ¢legans), (2) common moorhen (Gallinula chloropsus) and (3) snapping turtle (Chel?rdra s£rpentina). The proposed project is not anticipated to have any adverse effect upon threatened, endangered or special concern species. While it is possible that common moorhens and king rails exist in the Lost Lake area, we believe it is very unlikely. Further, the proposed project does not entail any substantial loss of wetland habitat which is the most likely reason for the decline of each of these species. Snapping turtles should also be unaffected by the project, since they are rather cosmopolitan and inhabit a wide variety of wetland habitat types. The proposed project does not involve any reduction in wetland acreage nor should it result in any direct snapping turtle mortality. (End of copy) Braun Intertec Corporation conducted soil and sediment sampling and analysis of the dredge area to determine the presence of pollutants in the dredge material and, based on their findings, appropriate mitigation and disposal methods. A full copy of their report is enclosed as Exhibit 10. Letters in response to the report from the MPCA is also enclosed as Exhibit 11. The section of the report which pertains to SEE impacts is copied verbatim below. (The following is copied from Soil and Sediment Samoline and Analysis Revort. Lost Lake Canal - Mound, MN; May 23, 1995; Braun Intertec Corporation) - The depth of water at sample locations #4 and #6 in the channel area is approximately 3 feet and in the vicinity of location #5, approximately 2 feet. Based on the samples collected at those locations, the material which will be dredged at a depth of 6 feet in the remnant channel and in the maneuvering area is a high/y decomposed organic muck with a low (17% to 20%) solids content. In addition to the muck, the surficiai dredged material will contain cattails. There are no sediment standards but MPCA compares the results to class 2b water standards. The concentrations of potential contaminants of concern at locations g4, #5, and #6 are below chronic standards except for lead and mercury. Concentrations of those compounds exceed chronic standards but are below maximum standards. Based on the boring at location #3, the material which will be excavated in the previously filled area near the post office is a silty clay fill underlain by peat. Concentrations of contarrdnants of concern in the peat are below chronic standards except for mercury which is above the chronic standard but below the maximum standard. MPCA has verbally indicated that the toxics concentrations do not appear to be a problem. The exceedances do not appear to be limiting in either the excavation or reuse of the material, although MPCA is still evaluating the phosphorus concentrations to determine if any restrictions or conditions would be necessary in the dredge permit to control algal blooms. (End of copy), (see Exhibit 11) Environmental Assessment - Lost Lake Canal 1une 14, 1996 Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 13 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ISSUE QUESTION RESPa NSE W111 the Prolect ... Access change access to prop- This project will not change access to Control erttes (close, change any properties in any way. locations, make one-way, etc.) Asthetics affect visual qualities? The project will greatly improve the asthefics of the Lost Lake (view to or from facility) area. It will improve the view of the wetland from downtown and the view of downtown from the wetland. Views from residential areas will not be significantly effected. Air affect air quality? The project will increase boat traffic in Lost Lake but will Quality produce negligible impact on air quality. The greenway project will encourage the use of mass transit and non-motorized trans~)ortation. Bicycles & affect bicycle and/or The project greatly enhances bicycle and pedestrian Pedestrians gedestrian movement?, movement. Construction Cause construction impacts? The 6 month canal project construction period will cause noise :impacts (erosion, noise, air, and in some cases vibration. Sheet piles will be pile driven into vibration, eta.) place causing vibration. All possible measures will be taken =to ensure minimal disruption to adjacent residences during ~ile driving. There will be 1TuCk activity in downtown and on local county roads during construction. An erosion control ;lan will be created to minimize erosion. MPCA Best Management Practices will be followed. Critical be in the Mississippi River No work will be conducted in the Areas critical area? Mississippi River. Economics affect business activity or 'The project will greatly enhance the opportunity for have other economic economic activity in Mound. Other projects in downtown ~mpacts? will displace businesses during redevelopment but every effort will be made to fairly compensate and relocate business and property owners as necessary. Endangered affect any endangered The proposed project is not anticipated to have any adverse Species species due to project Jeffects upon threatened, endangered or special concern 'location or design? species. The MDNR Natural Hedtage Program has been consulted. (See discussion at the beginning of this section.) Energy have major energy The project will have negligible effects on Impacts implications? energy use. Overall downtown improvements will enhance energy conservation. Erosion involve major soil distur- 'The project will disturb the wetland bottom during ~bance (depth or volume) or construction causing suspended sediments. Mechanical have erosion potential due dredging rather than hydraulic will be used to minimize this. to landforms, wind patterns An erosion control plan will be created and followed or water volume? to minimize erosion and sediment loading. t~ltO Environmental Assessment - Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 14 lunc 14, 1996 Excess involve disposal of excess The City is currently working with a composting Matedal materials outside planned company to have the dredge spoils mixed with yard waste construction limits? fo produce composted soil amendment. A composting site :has not yet been selected but one is anticipated to be Ifound within a few miles of the project site. Farmlands require any Right-of-Way? :The project does not effect any farmland. Floodplains cross or lie adjacent to ;The project is within the floodplain. It any floodplain area? :slightly increases the buffering capacity of ,the floodplain but does not significantly alter the cross-section of lie. GroundwQte affect groundwater, geolog~ Construction of the project will produce a limited amount of Geology, or cause earthborne earthborne vibration from driving sheet pile sea walls. The Earthbome vibrations? project will not affect groundwater or geology. Handicappe affect sidewalk or curb and The project does not effect existing handicapped access. gutter (Design Fo0? Boat docks, piers, trail, boardwalk and parking will accommodate handicapped access. Hazardous involve a bridge replacemer The project does not involve the use, transport or disposal Wastes over water, former of hazardous waste. Minor amounts of lead and mercury disposal/storage sites, or ore present in the dredge spoils but af levels below maximum hazardous materials route? standards. (see Exhibit 11) Historical, affect any historical The Minnesota Historical Society has Archaeologi( archaeological or conducted a Section 106 review of the Cultural cultural site? project area and declared no imoact. Land be consistent with local and The project is consistent will local and I Use regional land use plans? /regional land use plans. Noise affect noise sensitive 'Construction activity will produce typical construction noise. receptors? Boat traffic noise in Lost Lake will increase but will be minor due to the canal's designation as a "no wake zone". Parks, use any significant public The project does not affect the use of any public park or Recreation parks, recreational or wildlife refuge. The project does not affect any histodc site. The 4(0 Recrn or waterfowl refuges, or any project does not affect any LAWCON land. 6(0 LAWCOh histodc site. Will the project affect any LAWCON land? Right of way require any right of way (or Some land on which the canal project is proposed to easement)? be constructed is currently being purchased through an adjacent state-aid street project. 100% of the affected properties ore being purchased for the street project regardless of the eventual design of the canal project. Access easements are being purchased using Ci17 funds from two property owners where the canal meets Lake Minnefonka. This area is the histodc canal location and it is the only riparian link between Lost Lake and Lake Mtka. Environmental Assessment - Lost Lake Canal 3une 14, 1996 Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 15 Relocation require any relocations of The Lost Lcke canal project itself does not require homes or businesses? relccation of homes or businesses. The adjacent state-aid street project does require business and home acquisition and relocation. Minnesota state-aid guidelines are being followed in the acquisition and relocation process. Stream change the course, current c No impact. modification cross section of any stream? Social affect public safety (i.e. ~The project does not adversely affect public safety. Boater police or fire protection, safety will be maximized by creating a no-wake zone in Lost accidents)? Lake, constructing boat pull-outs along the canal and establishing Iow growing wetland vegetation in some areas to maximize sight distance. Impact sensitive groups The project does not adversely impact any sensitive group. (children, handicapped, The project creates public amenities and access to 'ninodties, poor, etc.)? Lake Minnetonka. affect accessibility to school.~ The project does not adversely affect accessibility. The churches, rec facility, etc.? p}oject creates access to recrecrfional facilities. Affect community cohesion? The project does not adversely affect cohesion. The project and related projects will create a central focus and gathering place for the community. Controversy is the project controversial or Extensive public involvement has been incorporated into the ;likely to cause controversy? Lost Lake canal project since its inception 5 years ago. No s~gnificant controversy has surfaced in that time and concerns raised have been resolved through changes in design or programming. There is broad community support for this project. Future controversy is not expected. ~Traffic correct capacity deficiencie iThe canal project does not affect traffic in any way. Is there a detour or major Related projects will decrease daily trips by encouraging traffic delay? mass and non-motorized transit. Transit affect transit routes? The canal project does not affect transit routes. Related projects will increase transit use. Vegetation ~'affect vegetation, fish or The project does affect the wetland habitat of Lost Lake. wildlife wildlife? See the discussion at the beginning of this section. Water qualil~ affect water quality of lakes, Suspended sediments will be increased during construction. streams, wetlands, etc.? An erosion control plan will be created to minimize this. Quality of stormwater runoff entedng Lost Lake will greatly ~mprove due to related projects. Increased boating in Lost Lake will have negligible impacts on water quality. Wetlands are wetlands present within The majodty of the project is located within the Lost Lake construction limits? wetland. will project destroy or improv, The project includes restoration of previously filled wetland create wetland habitat?, areas. The project will diversify the wetland habitat (see discussion at the beginning of this section). _ Wild & affect a wild & scenic dyer o~ The project does not affect any dyer. Scenic rivers canoe and boating dyer? ([IIZ,.- Environmental Assessment - Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 16 June 14, 1996 VIII. Mitigation A number of plan modifications have occurred to minimize environmental impact. The docking facility has been reduced in size from about 35 slips originally to a proposed 22 maximum. The docking facility has been moved from within the existing wetland to a previously filled wetland location to have less impact. The center of the boat maneuvering area was originally intended to be open water but the vegetation restoration option is proposed to still provide boater safety but diversify and improve the wetland habitat. Originally a wall was proposed for the shoreline in both docking areas but rip-rap is now proposed at MDNR request. (The following is copied from Biological Survey Report, Lost Lake Boat Channel Restoration - Mound, MN, May 19, 1995; Peterson Environmental Consulting, [nc.) With the proposed marina development the project represents a net increase in wetland acreage, thus no further wetland replacement appears to be warranted by the project. The additional open water to result from the project may potentially increase the habitat' value for some wildlife and fish species currently using the area. The only potential adverse impact that might result from the project is wildlife disturbance associated with boat traffic. Should this occur, the most appropriate mitigation measures would be to increase the diversity of other areas within Lost Lake to replace in-kind the diversity currently offered by the boat channel. Additional diversity could be established by excavating pockets of open water in other relatively undisturbed areas within Lost Lake. These pockets could be connected to the boat channel by narrow, non-navigable channels to foster fish and wildlife movement into these areas. Additional habitat enhancements could be accomplished by improving the interface between Lost Lake and adjacent uplands, particularly where past filling has degraded the habitat value of those uplands. An example exists where the slope from County Road 15 adjoins Lost Lake. The upland-wetland fringe in such areas could be improved by; (I) grading them to be broad and flat, (2) removing debris, (3) coveting any exposed fill with suitable topsoil, and (4) planting groundcover and woody plants that both improve nesting habitat and also provide some visual screening between the wetland and the highway. (The following is copied from an office memo dated May 24, 1995fr°m Richard Wedlund to Judy Mader, both with the MN Pollution Control Agency. See Exhibit ll for a full copy of the memo.) "I recommend that at least two canal water column samples for total phosphorus be taken about 1 month prior to dredging so that the laboratory has sufficient time to return the baseline data before the dredging impacts begin... If the current velocity in the canal is very Iow, it is likely that much of the sediment phosphorus will resettle before being discharged into Lake Minnetonka... It is recommended that the contractor monitor for total phosphorus r-/liB Environmental Assessment - Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 17 Sune 14,1996 twice per week at site 4 during dredging. It would be helpful to conduct flow gauging at the culvert downstream of sample site 4 sknce flow data and phosphorus concentration data are needed to estimate phosphorus loadings to the lake... In general, I believe that prudent control measures should be taken to reduce the loads to the lake, and that this project does not appear to have the potential for significant impact on the lake if these measures are taken. I recommend that the project proposer prepare a total phosphorus and flow gauging plan prior to dredging." The preceding information indicates that substantial mitigation measures for this project are not necessary. The recommendations suggested for construction and monitoring will be incorporated into the project plans and specifications with the exception of dredging additional pockets of open water for wildlife habitat. This measure is not currently supported by the DNR. ff their position changes, the measure can be incorporated into the project. IX. Public and Agency Involvement Public involvement in the Lost Lake canal project began with the concept's inception in 1991. Since that time numerous articles have been written about the project in the local newspaper and city newsletter. There have also been many public meetings and open houses to receive input from the community. Community support for the project has been very strong. In May 1995 a public open house was held to present the Lost Lake canal project once again to the community. Turn-out was strong and comments were very supportive. Consultation has occurred with the Minnesota DNR since 199 i. When the ISTEA application was written in 1994 the Corps of Engineers, DNR, conservation district and watershed district were consulted regarding the viability of the project with positive response. Since the project was selected for ISTEA funding in I994, agency involvement has become more intensive. An informational meeting for all involved permitting agencies was held in March 1995. Representatives from the Army Corps of Engineers, DNR, Fish & Wildlife, PCA, local conservation district and local watershed district attended the meeting. The project was presented and input was taken regarding various aspects of the work. Some project modifications resulted from the meeting. More intensive public and agency input will result from the EA and EAW processes undenvay. There are numerous permits required for the project as follows: ^) B) C) D) E) U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Section 404 permit DNR Protected Waters permit Minnehaha Watershed District Grading permit Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Section 106 review (COMPLETED, See Exhibit 12) LMCD grading and dredging permits Environmental Assessment - Lost Lake Canal Mound, Miaaesota. Stat~ Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 18 June 14, I996 G) I) PCA Water Quality Certi~cation LMCD dock permit DNR dock perrait MPCA Iadividual Dredge Disposal Perm.it DNR Aquatic Management Permit Permits A, B and F are being submitted concurrently with the EA and EAW. Other permits are more construction related and will be submitted just prior to beginning construction. The Project Manager for the Lost Lake caaal/greenway project is: Bruce L. Chamberlain, RLA Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. 7300 Metro Blvd., #525 Minneapolis, MN 55439 Ph. # (612) 835-9960 fax # (612) 835-3160 M :h~4 O UND~4-4~ D O C t/liS Environmental Assessment - Lost Lake Canal Mound, Mirmcsota. State Project # $.P. I45-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 19 June 14,1996 List of Exhibits: (1) Aerial view of Lost Lake. (2) Plan showing dredge categories and area calculations. (3) Canal cross sections. (4) Plan showing wetland edge treatments and vegetation restoration areas. (5) Cross sections of wetland edge treatments. (6) (7) (9) (i1) Plan of south end of canal. Downtown Mound Concept Plan. Details of pier and transient docks. Biological Survey Report - Lost Lake. Sediment Sample Report - Lost Lake. Correspondent from MPCA. Section 106 clearance from SHPO. EXHIBIT ',4erial photo of Lost Lake taken i~ May 1989. LosL Lake Wetland Legend Trensient Dock/ ~ Boat Maneuvering Aree Dredge (52,000 el) ~////~ Pe~ent Doc~g F~c~[y Dredge (4,000) ',~¥~: Res~or~on of Pre~o~ly See We~and Ve~e~on exhibit Eestora~on ~ens (29.000 st) See 'OLre~ PTa jeer ~c~l~tJes" ~ aceomp&u3~nC t~ for desc~p~lon of 8rets de~3~ed ~ ~ exhLbiL. ~ph~d EXHIBIT 2 .© Lost Lake Canal Wetland Dredge/Restoration Areas Project EXHIBIT 3 Typical Exlsflng Coffoils Ave. bottom elev. Canal L/,,,..,,~ Dredge Limit Typical Plan View Three pull-outs are proposed along the length of the canal for boater safety. 75' of Pull-out 100' Navigation Canal Existing bottom elev. : 928.0 0HW=929.4 ~om £1ev.=g23.8 Ig. Canal Cross-section of Pull-out areas (~) Lost Lake Canal Proposed Canal Details Rehabilitation Project no scale J De~elapme~L · EXHIBIT·4 rehabilitated edge ;enter ~ock3 12 Slips Dredge Limit -~ sea wall Par MCT~ 53 rlp-rc Wetland Vegeta ~ora~ion Ar. future phaee) 100' restored Lost Wetland Lake Canal Edge Treatments Rehabilitation and Restoration Areas Project no scale ,~ ., ,m, ,,a~, i il, Ii, , 11 EXHIBIT.; tExis~.inc] Edge Lost Lake Canal Rehabilitation Projecf Proposed Shoreline Treafmenf Derails no scale EXHIBIT 6 _J EXHIBIT 7 e e EXHIBIT t=ishinc::j F:'i~r t=ishincj t=i~r t=~rsp~c.~,iv~ OLost Lake Canal Rehabilitation Project Pier and Dock Details no scale ,,d/,). 6 EXHIBIT 10 :-~ :_-..~ ....... ~ ...... ~ ...... · ~ .~ · .~ ....... .~ · . : : : 1~ : : : : : · ·ct -:~ · .'~': ...... o ...... -~ ..... .o .~ .... ~ ...... u~ '~ ' ' ' ~ = '~ '~ .... ~ ' '~ ~ , u~ .~ . · .Eu ~ ~-- =~ ~ .' '~ ' *;; ;~ ~ := E~ ~ 0 Appendix /I.'0 ~go'o L 7'0'0 oct. Og£ OL (P)YN (1~) YN (l~) YN 0~ 095 g6 00/. lqDIoM/up ~ sn~d$c~d (f) YN (t) YN (I,) YN O~g 0~, 0Z.5 O/. Iq~eM/L~) D'4/~ (~uo(uwy} ueBo~N App~dlx C vvvYv vvvv¥ vYvv¥ vvvvv vvvv 66 o · '-- · -- , i ooooo vvvvv vYvYv v¥¥¥¥ ................... ~SS~S ooooo ooooo oooo ........... ~= Append~c D AppeadL~ E IJ IJ~ EXHIBIT 11 ~LSN~"E$O'llk lqISTORICAL SOCIETY EXHIBIT 1 April 24, 1995 Mr. Bruce L. Chamberlain Hoisington Koeg!er Group Inc. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 Dear Mr. Chamberlain: Re: Lost Lake canal rehabilitation, dredging, shoreline stabilization, docks, $13/24, Tl17, R24, Mound, Hennepin County SHPO Number: 95-1523 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above project. It has been reviewed pursuant to the responsibilities given the State Historic Preservation Officer by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36CFR800), and to the responsibilities given the Minnesota Histo'rica! Society by the Minnesota Historic Sites Act and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act. Based on available information, we conclude that no properties eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places are within the project's area of effect. Please contact Dennis Gimmestad at 612-296-5462 if you have any questions regarding our review of this project. puty State Historic Preservation Off_~r BLB:dmb 345 KELLOGG BOULEVARD WEST .' fAINT RXUL..'%IIN.'~'ESOTA 5510"-1906 ! TELEPHONE: 6t'-'--296-61"6 L//~ tt CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF MOUND Notice is hereby given that the City council of Mound will meet in the council chambers of the city hall at 7:30 pm, on Tuesday, November 26, 1996 to consider the making of improvements on Shorewood Drive pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 429.011 to 429.111. the area proposed to be assessed is Sherwood Drive. The estimated cost of such improvement is $61,800. such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvement will be heard at this meeting. Linda Strong, CMC, Acting City Clerk Publish in The Laker November 16, 1996. printed on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 CITY OF MOUND NOTICE OF PUBLIC INCREASE OF LIQUOR FEFS Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Mound will hold a public hearing regarding the proposed increase in various licenses i.e., Liquor, Beer, Wine. The public hearing will be held during the November 12, 1996 City Council meeting, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN., at 7:30 pm. All persons wishing to speak regarding the proposed license increase will be heard. Publish in The Laker, October 11, 1996. Notices will be sent to affected businesses Linda Strong, CMC, Acting City Clerk October 10, 1996 (Stat. 340A.409, Subd. 4.). printed on recycled paper ti/sS City of Mound Fees, Charges and Rates Proposed 1997 Changes 09~04~96 Gino-fee97 Ty0e of License Amusement Centers (Arcades) Cigarette Sales Cigarette Sales Cigarette Sales - Vending Tree Surgeon 'Amusement Devices Billiard and Bowling Dog Ddg Duplicate Tag Late applications · Restaurants, Cafes Conditions and Terms Annual/Proposed is per machine Annual Monthly Annual Annual Annual, per machine Annual, per alley/table Two years, neutered/spayed-with proof Two years, unneutered/unspayed On or before May 10 add Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual On-Sale Annual Off-Sale Temporary Daily Permit plus per day after third day Returned Check Charge Search/Special Assessments · On-Sale Liquor (Class A) · On-Sale Wine · Club · Special Sunday (Class B) · Beer · Beer , Beer Fencing Retaining Wall Permit Per Application See 1994 Uniform Building Code See separate sheet for price range changes Zoning Variance Conditional Use permit/Vacations Zoning Amendment Platting Variance Plats & Subdivision ( * ) See note Heating, Air, Vent Plumbing Permit Fees Per Application Per Application Per Application Per plat/plus per lot Per Application Preliminary Plat Final Plat Minor Subdivision (Lot Split) plus per lot over two lots Minimum, First $5,000 Price Fee base Outside Sewer/Water Private Water Well Sewer 10% increase - Metro Charges Water/Sewer 5% increase per G.O. Bonds Agreement Building Fees See 1994 Uniform Building Code See separate sheet for price range changes ( * ) Note: Escrow fees will be assessed to cover all extra expenses to City. -SB- Current Proposed Amount $100.00 $100.00 12.00 24.00 1.00 2.00 50.00 25.00 30.00 25.00 35.00 10.00 20.00 8.00 15.00 14.00 20.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 10.00 20.00 4,000.00 4,500.00 200.00 500.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 300.00 200~.00 300.00 25.00 50.00 10.00 15.00 2.00 3.00 15.00 25.00 15.00 21.00 50.00 200.00 200.00 150.0015.00 50.00 150.00 100.00 50.00 7.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 % Incre~_e N/A N/A 100.00 250.00 250.00 Delete/Duplication Delete/Duplication 200.00 150.00 75.00 10.00 1% of contract price 20.00 20.00 20.00 100.00% 100.00% 20.00% 40.00% 100.00% 87.50% 42.86% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 33.33% 100.00% 12.50% 150.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 100.00% 50.00% 50.00% 66.67% 4O.OO% 100.00% 25.00% 25.00% 33.33% 50.00% 50.00% 42.86% 21.00 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 10.00% 5.00% 40.00% AMENDED JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT I. PARTIES The parties to this agreement are governmental units of the State of Minnesota. This agreement is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59, as amended. II. GENERAL PURPOSE The general purpose of this agreement is to establish and continue an organization to monitor the operation and activities of public utilities in the metropolitan area; to conduct research and investigation of the activities of such utilities; and to conduct such other activities authorized herein as may be necessary to insure equitable and reasonable public utility rates and service levels for the citizens of the members of the organization and for the members themselves. III. NAME The name of the organization is the SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY. changed in accordance with Article XII. The name may be IV. DEFINITIONS Section 1. For purposes of this agreement, the terms defined in this article have the meaning given them. Section 2. "Authority" means the joint and cooperative organization created by this agreement. Section 3. "Board" or "Board of Directors" means the Board of Directors of the Authority established by Article VI. Section 4. "Council" means the governing body of a governmental unit. Section 5. "Governmental unit" means a city or town in the metropolitan area. DJK109900 ~qtll 60-3 1 //s7 Section 6. "Metropolitan area" means the metropolitan area defined and described by Minnesota Statutes, chapter 473, as amended. Section 7. "Member' means a governmental unit which has entered into and become a party to this agreement. Section 8. "Public utility" or"utility" means an investor-owned utility supplying telecommunication services to member residents or gas or electricity under franchise within one or more governmental units; the term may include other utilities as provided in Article XII. The term does not include municipally owned utilities; the term does include a governmental agency supplying sanitary sewer or other utility services to governmental units in the metropolitan area. Section 9. "Statutory cities" means cities organized under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 412. V. MEMBERSHIP Section 1. Any governmental unit in the metropolitan area is eligible to be a member of the Authority. Section 2. A governmental unit desiring to become a member must execute a copy of this agreement and conform to the membership provisions of this Article V. Section 3. A governmental unit wishing to become a member after the effective date of this agreement may be admitted only upon the favorable vote of two-thirds of the votes of the members of the Board of Directors present and voting at any regular or special meeting. The Board may, in its by-laws, impose conditions upon the admission of additional members. Section 4. 'The Board may, in its by-laws, establish procedures for temporary membership for governmental units for specified periods of time not exceeding one year with or without the payment of contributions or with the payment of reduced contributions as determined under Article X. If such memberships are authorized, the cumulative votes of all temporary members may not exceed 25% of the total votes of the directors of permanent members. DJK109900 2 Section 5. A change in the governmental boundaries, structure, classification or organization of a governmental unit does not affect the eligibility of a unit to become or remain a member of the Authority. VI. GOVERNING BODY: BOARD OF DIRECTORS Section 1. The governing body of the Authority is its Board of Directors. Each member is entitled to one director on the Board. Each director is entitled to one vote for each 5,000 of population or fraction thereof, as determined by the official U.S. Census each decade, of the governmental unit represented by the director; provided, however, that each director must have at least one vote and no director may have more than 20 votes. Prior to December 31 of each year following the decennial census, the Secretary-Treasurer of the Authority must determine the population of each member in accordance with this section and certify the results to the chairman. Section 2. A director is appointed by resolution of the council of the members for a term of one calendar year. A director serves until a successor is appointed and qualifies. Directors serve without compensation from the Authority, but nothing in this section is to be construed to prevent a governmental unit from compensating its director for service on the Board if such compensation is otherwise authorized by law. Section 3. The Board, in its by-laws, may provide for the appointment of alternate directors and prescribe the extent of their powers and duties. Section 4. Vacancies in the office of director will exist for any of the reasons set forth in Minnesota Statutes, section 351.02, or upon a revocation of a director's appointment by a member duly filed with the Authority. Vacancies are filled by appointment for the unexpired portion of the term of director by the council of the member whose position on the Board is vacant. Section 5. A majority of the votes of the Board of Directors constitutes a quorum, but a smaller number may adjourn from time to time. The votes of temporary members authorized by DJK109900 SU160-3 3 Article IV, Section 4 are not to be considered in determining the presence or absence of a quorum of the Board. VII. MEETINGS: ELECTION OF OFFICERS Section 1. A governmental unit may enter into this agreement by resolution of its council and the duly authorized execution of a copy of this agreement by its proper officers. Thereupon, the clerk or other appropriate officer of the governmental unit must file an executed copy of the agreement and a certified copy of the authorizing resolution with the finance director of the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota. The resolution authorizing the execution of the agreement must also designate the first director for the governmental unit on the Board. Section 2. This agreement is effective on the date when executed agreements and authorizing resolutions of the governmental units presently members of the existing Suburban Rate Authority have been filed as provided in Section 1 of this Article. Section 3. Within 30 days after the effective date of this agreement, the mayor of the member having the largest population must call the first meeting of the Board of Directors which must be held no later than the date of the next regularly scheduled quarterly meeting of the Authority. Section 4. The first meeting of the Board will be the organizational meeting of the Authority. At the organizational meeting, and at each annual meeting thereafter, the Board must select from among the directors a chairman, a vice-chairman, and a secretary-treasurer. Section 5. 'At the organizational meeting, or as soon thereafter as it may reasonably be done, the Board must adopt by-laws governing its procedures, including the time, place, notice for and frequency of its regular meetings, procedure for calling special meetings, and such other matters as are required by this agreement. The Board may amend the by-laws from time to time. The Board must meet at least once each year and on such other dates as may be provided in its DJK109900 4 $U160- 3 by-laws. by-laws. The annual meeting is held in the month of January unless otherwise provided in the VIII. Section 1. in this article. POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS The powers and duties of the Board of Directors of the Authority are set forth Section 2. The Board may make such contracts and enter into such agreements as it deems necessary to make effective any power granted to the Authority by this agreement. It may contract with any of its member governmental units or others to provide space, services or materials on behalf of the Authority. Section 3. The Board may provide for the prosecution, defense, or other participation in actions or proceedings at law in which it may have an interest, and may employ counsel for that purpose. It may employ such other persons as it deems necessary to accomplish its powers and duties. Such employees may be on a full-time or part-time, or consulting basis as the Board determines, and the Board may make any required employer contributions that local government units are authorized or required to make by law. Section 4. The Board may conduct such research and investigation and take such action as it deems necessary, including participation and appearance in proceedings of state and federal regulatory, legislative or administrative bodies, on any matter related to or affecting utility costs, levels of service, rates or franchises, and advise members concerning such matters with a view toward obtaining compliance with franchises granted to utilities and insuring reasonable rates and service levels for the members and their residents. The Board may conduct the activities authorized by this section on behalf of any governmental unit located outside the metropolitan area at the request of such a unit, embodied in a resolution of its governing body; provided however, that the conduct of such activities on behalf of any such governmental unit must be DJK109900 ~'" ~0-3 5 specifically authorized by the Board and shall be subject to such reasonable conditions as to cost of service and other matters as may be imposed by the Board. Section 5. 'The Board may obtain from any mility and from any other source such information relating to utility rates, costs and service levels as any of its members is entitled to obtain from such utilities. Section 6. The Board may receive and hold moneys from any mility to the extent and in the manner as may be provided by this agreement or any franchise granted to a utility by a member; and it may accept voluntary contributions from its members or other sources as provided in Article X. The Authority has no taxing power. It may accumulate reserve funds and may invest and re-invest its funds not needed for current expenses in the manner and subject to the limitations applicable by law to statutory cities. The Board may not incur obligations in excess of funds then available to the Authority. Section 7. The Board must make a financial accounting and report to the members at least once each year. The books and records of the Authority will be open and available for inspection by members at all reasonable times. Section 8. The Board may accept gifts, apply for and use grams of money or other property from members or other governmental units or organizations, and may enter into agreements required in connection therewith, and may hold, use, and dispose of such moneys or property in accordance with the terms of the grant, gift or agreement relating thereto. Section 9. The Board must establish the annual budget for the Authority as provided in Article X. Section 10. The Board .may, in its by-laws, establish an executive committee and may delegate duties and authority to the executive committee between Board meetings. DJK109900 6 · SU160-3 Section 11. The Board may purchase public liability insurance and such other security bonds and insurance as it may deem necessary. Section 12. The Board may, on behalf of the Authority or on behalf of a number of member governmental units or nonmember governmental units, or both, enter into contracts, at the request of such units, with public utilities within or without the state for the purchase and delivery of utility products and services for those governmental units. Section 13. The Board may exercise any other power necessary and convenient to the implementation of the powers and duties given to it by this agreement. IX. OFFICERS Section 1. The officers of the Board are a chair, a vice-chair, and a secretary-treasurer elected by the Board for a term of one year and until their respective successors are elected and qualify, at the annual meeting. New officers take office at the adjournment of the annual meeting at which they were elected. An officer must be a duly qualified and appointed director. A director from a temporary member may not be an officer. Section 2. A vacancy in the office of chair, vice-chair, or secretary-treasurer occurs for any of the reasons for which a vacancy in the office of director occurs. Vacancies in these offices and filled by the Board for the unexpired portion of the term. Section 3. The chair presides at meetings of the Board. The vice-chair acts as chairman in the absence, disqualification or disability of the chairman. Section 4. The secretary-treasurer is responsible for keeping a record of the proceedings of the Board, for custody of funds, for keeping of financial records of the Authority and for such other duties as may be assigned to the Secretary-Treasurer by the Board. Persons may be employed to perform such services under the supervision and direction of the secretary-treasurer as may be authorized by the Board. The secretary-treasurer must post a fidelity bond or other DJK109900 SU160-3 7 insurance against loss of Authority funds in the account specified by the Board. The cost of such bond or insurance to be paid by the Board. The Board may provide for compensation of the secretary-treasurer for services to the Board. X. FINANCIAL MATTERS Section 1. The fiscal year of the Authority is the calendar year. Section 2. Authority funds may be expended in accordance with the procedures established by law for statutory cities. Orders, checks and drafts must be signed by the chairman and countersigned by the secretary-treasurer or such other person as may be designated by the Board in its by-laws. Other legal instruments must be executed on behalf of the Authority by the chairman and the secretary-treasurer. Contracts must be let and purchases made in accordance with the procedures established by law for statutory cities. Section 3. The activities of the Authority may be financed by funds available to it under Article VIII, from voluntary contributions from its members or from other sources, and by contributions from members of the Authority if it is determined by the Board by a two-thirds vote, by written action or at a regular or special meeting, of all votes of then existing members, that such contributions are necessary. This determination must be made by the Board not later than August 1 of each year in order to obligate members to make contributions during the ensuing calendar year. The total annual contribution by members for the ensuing year is established by the Board on the basis of anticipated expenditures and only if the anticipated expenditures are in excess of the anticipated funds otherwise available to the Authority. The contribution in any year by a member must be in direct proportion to the number of votes to which the director representing the member on the Board is entitled. Contributions must be made by the member to the Authority as follows: one-half on or before April 1 of each year and one-half on or before September 1 of each year. DJK109900 8 SU160-3 Section 4. An annual budget must be adopted by the Board at the regular meeting in July of each year. If a quorum is not present at the regular meeting in July, the budget may be adopted by unanimous vote of the executive committee. Copies of the budget must be mailed promptly to the chief administrative office of each member. The budget is deemed approved by the members except one who, at any time prior to the annual meeting gives notice in writing to the secretary-treasurer that it is withdrawing from the Authority. XI. DURATION AND DISSOLUTION Section 1. The Authority will exist, and this agreement is in effect, for an indefinite term until dissolved in accordance with Section 3 of this article. Section 2. A member may withdraw from the Authority by filing a written notice with the secretary-treasurer by June 15 of any year giving notice of withdrawal at the end of-that calendar year; and membership shall continue until the effective date of the withdrawal. A notice of withdrawal may be rescinded at any time by a member. If a member withdraws before dissolution of the Authority, the member will have no claim on the assets of the Authority. Section 3. The Authority mu'st be dissolved whenever the withdrawal of a member reduces total membership in the Authority to less than seven. The Authority may be dissolved at any time by unanimous vote of all the members of the Board of Directors. Section 4. In the event of dissolution, the Board must determine the measures necessary to effect the dissolution and provide for the taking of such measures as promptly as circumstances permit, subject to the provisions of this agreement. Upon dissolution of the Authority all remaining assets of the Authority, after payment of obligations, must be distributed among the then existing members in proportion to the number of their votes on the Board and in accordance with procedures established by the Board. The Authority will continue to exist after dissolution DJK109900 SU160-3 for the period, no longer than six months, necessary to wind up its affairs but for no other purpose. XII. TRANSITIONAL AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS Section 1. The activities of the Authority are to be confined to telecommunications, sewage disposal, gas and electric utilities, provided however, that the Authority may extend and broaden its activities to any other public utility as defined in this agreement by a 75% majority vote of all the votes of the Board of Directors, taken at a regular meeting of the Board. In the event the activities of the Authority are so extended and broadened, the Authority and its Board of Directors have all of the powers and duties with reference to any other public utility that they have with reference to gas, telecommunications, sewage disposal and electric utilities under this agreement. Section 2. The name of the organization created by this agreement may be changed when deemed appropriate by the Board, but only upon a 75% majority vote of all the votes of the Board of Directors taken at a regular meeting of the Board or by written action. If the name of the organization is so changed, the Board must provide in its by-laws for necessary measures to effect the change in official and unofficial documents, papers, and other essential respects. Section 3. It is the intention of the parties to this agreement that the organization created hereby is the successor to the Suburban Rate Authority in existence on the day prior to the effective date of this agreement. It is further the intention of the parties that any funds made available to the organization created by this agreement from assets of the prior Suburban Rate Authority must be used exclusively for the purposes of this agreement. The adopted budget of the prior Suburban Rate Authority remains in effect until revised and until the new annual budget is adopted. The adoption of this agreement does not affect or modify the obligation of members **~o~oo 10 SU160-3 of the prior Suburban Rate Authority to make contributions authorized by the prior Suburban Rate Authority. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned governmental unit has caused this agreement to be executed by its duly authorized officers and delivered on its behalf. (Governmental unit) ,Minnesota By Its Mayor By Its Manager Dated: ,199 of Filed in the office of the finance director of the City of Columbia Heights this , 199 _ day DJK109900 SU160-3 11 BY-LAWS OF SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY ARTICLE I. MEMBERSHIP Section 1. The initial members of this Authority are the cities listed below: Permanent Members: Bloomington Minnetrista Brooklyn Park New Brighton Burnsville North St. Paul Circle Pines Orono Columbia Heights Osseo Deephaven Plymouth Eden Prairie Robbinsdale Edina Roseville Fridley St. Louis Park Greenwood Savage Hastings Shakopee Hopkins Shoreview Lauderdale Spring Park Long Lake Wayzata Maple Plain West St. Paul Maplewood Woodbury Minnetonka Temporary Members: Apple Valley Lake Elmo Birchwood Village Lakeland Blaine Maple Grove Champlin Mound Golden Valley Rosemount Hilltop Spring Lake Park Jordan DJKI!0121 SU160-3 Section 1.2. Additional members of the Authority may be added pursuant to the terms of an amended "Joint and Cooperative Agreement", creating and continuing the Authority, to which the members listed above are parties. ARTICLE II. DEFINITIONS Section 2.1. For the purposes of these by-laws, the terms defined in this article have the meanings given them. Section 2.2. "Agreement" means the joint and cooperative agreement creating the Authority. Section 2.3. "Authority" means the Suburban Rate Authority created by the agreement. Section 2.4. "Board" means the Board of Directors of the Authority consisting ot~ one director from each city that is a member of the Authority. Section 2.5. "Member" means a city which is a member of the Authority in accordance with the terms of the agreement. "Temporary member" means a member that has joined the Authority pursuant to Article X, section 4. Section 2.6. "Council" means the governing body of a member. Section 2.7. The definitions in Article IV of the agreement are incorporated herein. ARTICLE III. THE BOARD Section 3.1. The governing body of the Authority is its board of directors. Each member is entitled to one director. Each director is entitled to one vote for each 5,000 population or fraction thereof, of the member as provided in the agreement. DJKll0121 SU160-3 2 Section 3.2. As provided in the agreement, a director must, and a alternate director may, be appointed by the Council of each member, for a term of one calendar year and until their respective successors are selected and qualified. Section 3.3. BOard members and alternate members serve without compensation from the authority, but this does not prevent a city from providing compensation to its board member or alternate for serving on the board if such compensation is authorized by the city and by law. Section 3.4. A majority of the votes of the members of the board constitutes a quorum. The votes of temporary members are not to be considered in determining the presence or absence of a quorum of the Board. Section 3.5. A vacancy on the board is filled by the governing body of the member whose position on the board is vacant. Section 3.6. A director is not be eligible to vote on behalf of the director's city during the time that the city is in default on any contribution to the authority payable under the provisions of the agreement. During the existence of a default, the vote or votes of the member may not be counted as eligible for the purposes of these by-laws or the agreement. Section 3.7. An alternate director from a member may serve in lieu of a director representing that member at any meeting of the board if the director is not present at the meeting. If a director is also an officer of the authority, the alternate to that director may not serve as such officer in the absence of the officer. ARTICLE IV. POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BOARD Section 4.1. The powers and duties of the board are those set forth in the agreement. DJKll0121 3 SU160-3 ARTICLE V. FINANCIAL MATTERS Section 5.1. Authority funds may be expended by the board in accordance with the procedures established by law for the expenditure of funds for statutory cities. Orders, checks and drafts must be signed by the chair or vice-chair and the secretary-treasurer or assistant secretary-treasurer. Other legal instruments must be executed on behalf of the authority by authority of its board by the chair and secretary-treasurer. Section 5.2. Directors and alternate directors may inspect the financial records of the authority at all reasonable times. Section 5.3. The fiscal year of the authority is the calendar year. Section 5.4. A depository for authority funds must be designated by the board at its annual meeting each year. Prior to such designation the secretary-treasurer may recommend a depository to the board. Section 5.5. At the end of each year the secretary-treasurer must make an annual financial report and submit the report in writing to the board at its next annual meeting. ARTICLE VI. OFFICERS Section 6.1. The officers of the authority are the chair, vice-chair and secretary-treasurer. Section 6.2. The chair is presiding officer of the authority. The chair presides at meetings of the board and has responsibility for seeing that all orders and resolutions of the board are carried into effect. The chair is an ex-officio member of all standing committees and has the general powers and duties of supervision and management usually vested in the office of president of a corporation. DJKll0121 SU160-3 4 1~/ 71 Section 6.3. The vice-chair, in the absence or disability of the chair, performs the duties and exercise the powers of the chair and performs such other duties as the board prescribes. Section 6.4. The secretary-treasurer must attend meetings of the board and record votes and the minutes of board proceedings in a minute book kept for that purpose. The secretary- treasurer performs like duties for the committees of the board when so directed by the board. The secretary-treasurer gives, or causes to be given, notice of all meetings of the board and of committees, and performs such other duties as may be prescribed by the board. Section 6.5. The secretary-treasurer has the custody of the funds and securities of the authority and must keep full and accurate accounts of receipts and disbursements in books belonging to the authority and shall deposit all moneys and other valuable effects in the name and to the credit of the authority in a depository designated by the board. The secretary-treasurer disburses the funds of the authority as ordered by the board, taking the proper vouchers for such disbursements, and renders to the board, at regular meetings of the board, or whenever it may require it, an account of all transactions as secretary-treasurer and of the financial condition of the authority. Section 6.6. The Board may designate an assistant secretary-treasurer who, in the absence or disability of the secretary-treasurer, performs the duties and exercise the powers of the secretary-treasurer and performs such other duties as the board directs. Section 6.7. The officers of the authority must give bond as required by the board, at authority expense, with corporate sureties satisfactory to the board, for the faithful performance of their duties and for the restoration to the authority, in case of death, resignation, retirement or removal from office, of all books, papers, vouchers, money and property of whatever kind in their possession or under their control belonging to the authority. DJKll0121 5 SU160-3 Section 6.8. The Board may at the annual meeting provide for the appointment of a finance committee. The finance committee must carry out the duties assigned to it by the Board and the Executive Committee. Reports of the finance committee must be made to the Executive COmmittee which must submit such reports to the Board with its comments and recommendations for Board action. ARTICLE VII. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Section 7.1. The executive committee consists of the officers of the authority and four directors selected by the authority at its annual meeting in accordance with this section. The four additional members of the executive committee must reflect as nearly as practicable the geographic area of the authority and the range of population of its members. Section 7.2. A majority of the members of the executive committee constitute a quorum. Section 7.3. Each member of the executive committee has one vote at a meeting of the executive committee. Section 7.4. The executive committee meets at the call of the chair or two members of the committee. Notice of an executive committee meeting must be in writing given at least three days prior to the date of the meeting. Waiver of written notice may be given by either (a) attending such meeting or (b) waiving notice in writing. Meetings may be held by electronic conference. Section 7.5. The executive committee acts in the interval between meetings of the board and only on such administrative matters as authorized by the board or by the agreement. Section 7.6. Copies of minutes of the executive committee meetings must be sent to all directors and alternate directors. DJKl10121 SU160-3 6 ARTICLE VIII. BOARD MEETINGS Section 8.1 .' Regular meetings of the board are held quarterly on the third Wednesday in January, April, July and October. The regular January meeting of the board is the annual meeting of the authority at which the officers are elected. Section 8.2. Written notice of meetings of the board must be sent to all directors, alternate directors and the clerks of members, as the same may appear on the records of the secretary- treasurer. Section 8.3. Special meetings of the board may be called by the executive committee or any three directors or any number of directors having at least 25% of the total votes. The purpose of any special meeting must be stated in the notice of the meeting. Business transacted at any special meeting is confined to the purposes stated in the notice. Section 8.4. Written notice of a regular meeting must be mailed a least ten days prior to the meeting and written notice of special meetings must be mailed at least three days prior to each such meeting. Section 8.5. Notices of meetings must specify the time and place of the meetings. The time and place of regular meetings and of meetings called by the executive committee are to be determined by the chair. The time and place of special meetings called by others will be as determined by the persons calling the meetings. Section 8.(5. At a meeting of the board, a majority of the total authorized votes of all directors constitutes a quorum. If a quorum is not present at a meeting, those present may adjourn the meeting from time to time without notice other than announcement at the meeting, until the requisite number of votes are present to constitute a quorum. At an adjourned meeting DJKll0121 7 SU160-3 at which a quorum is present, any business may be transacted that might have been transacted at the meeting as originally called. Section 8.7. meeting. A copy of the agenda for a meeting must accompany the notice of the Section 8.8. Copies of the minutes of a meeting of the board must be promptly distributed to each person to whom notice of the meeting is required to be sent under the provisions of these by-laws. Section 8.9. Unless otherwise specified in the agreement or in these by-laws, all meetings of the board and all meetings of the executive committee and other committees of the authority are to be conducted in accordance with Roberts' Rules of Order, Revised. Section 8.10. The board may from time to time determine the order of business for board meetings. The usual order of business at such meetings shall be as follows: B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. Call to Order. Roll Call. Minutes of Previous Meeting. Report of officers. Report of Committees. Consideration of Communications. Unfinished Business. New Business. Adjournment. ARTICLE IX. COMMITTEES Section 9.1. The board may appoint such committees in addition to those required by these by-laws and the agreement as the board deems necessary. Committees are to be selected in the manner determined by the Board. DJKll0121 SU160-3 ARTICLE X. TEMPORARY MEMBERS Section 10.1. This article is adopted pursuant to Article V, section 4 of the agreement. Section 10.2. A governmental unit eligible to become a member of the authority may become a temporary member subject to the provisions of this article. Section 10.3. A governmental unit wishing to become a temporary member must execute a copy of the agreement and file it as provided in Article VII of the agreement. Section 10.4. A governmental unit that is a temporary member may continue such membership until a date fixed by the board of directors. Except for matters relating to the terms and conditions of temporary membership, a temporary member has the same voting rights and membership rights as a permanent member, provided, however, that the cumulative votes of all temporary members may not exceed 25% of the total votes of permanent members. The board of directors must, if necessary, reduce the votes allocated to temporary members to carry out the intent of this section and the agreement. The votes of temporary members are not to be considered in determining the presence or absence of a quorum of the board of directors. Section 10.5. A temporary member may become a permanent member at any time by making the contributions that would be required if it were a permanent member. Section 10.6. A director from a temporary member is not eligible for election to the executive committee. Section 10.7. The secretary-treasurer must keep an accurate record of the number and votes of temporary members and must notify the temporary members of the termination of membership. A temporary member that does not elect to become a permanent member before the date temporary membership ends is deemed to have withdrawn from the authority effective on the date so fixed. DJKll0121 9 SU160-3 ARTICLE XI. AMENDMENTS TO BY-LAWS Section 11.1. These by-laws may be amended at any regular or special meeting of the board provided that a ten day prior notice of the proposed amendment has been furnished to each person to whom notice of board meetings must be sent pursuant to these by-laws. An amendment may be proposed in writing filed with the chair by any member, a director, by the Executive Committee or by the Board on its own motion. Section 11.2. A majority vote of a quorum present is necessary to adopt an amendment to these by-laws. Section 11.3. In any instance where these by-laws are in conflict with the agreement, the agreement controls. Section 11.4. These by-laws are effective upon their adoption by the Board of Directors. Adopted by the board of directors of the Suburban Rate Authority this ~ day of , 199 ATTEST: gecretary-Treasurer DJKllO121 SU160-3 10 ~1 'J~ U/77 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Manager FROM: RE: DATE: Jim Fackler, Parks Director October Monthly Report November 7, 1996 GENERAL COMMENT;. Because the six month full time maintenance worker started late this year, May rather than April, we are doing a lot of minor repair through out the parks that was not done prior to summer. There has been more Agriline placed on the ball fields at Three Points, Swenson and Philbrook parks. A fence has been installed at the Depot building to deter snowmobilers from crossing over the sidewalks. Additional electric has been installed into Mound Bay Park, which was donated by the Lions. It will be used for special events. All the trucks have been serviced for the winter months. The Parks shop has been cleaned and all summer equipment has been stored. The tractors have been serviced and the snow removal equipment has been attached to them. TREES: Only one large tree limb was removed. winds. This was due to storm damage from high The leaf pick up has been completed and winter markings have been placed for burials. ///7oo- printed on recycled paper TO: FROM: RE: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR OCTOBER FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT Investment Activity Bought: Money Market 4M Money Market Smith Barney Money Market First Bank CP Dain Bosworth 5.38% CP Smith Barney 5.349% Matured: Money Market First Bank CP Smith Barney 5.389% CP FBS Investment 5.39% 131,487 406 412,503 231,956 271,646 (285,000) (271,199) (299,348) GFOA Annual State Conference- - The 1996 Minnesota Government Finance Officers Annual Conference was held in Alexandria, MN on October 2-4, 1996. The conference was well prepared and allowed me to attend highly informative presentations. In addition to the excellent presentations relating to financial matters, I had the opportunity to attend a number of sessions covering professional and managerial subjects and to interact with many city finance officers. Other October Events - On October 24th we had some members of the Westonka Chamber at City hall. Greg Skinner, Joyce Nelson and I made a short presentation on the new Water Meter System. Greg demonstrated how the new equipment works. Joyce and I covered the computerized part of the process. - The same day in the afternoon Mark Wagner, a Loss Control Consultant with Berkley Risk Services, our insurance underwriter, spent some time with us to discuss the lift station system in the city. The main issue that we are faced with is the predicament that we have when we have loss of power. Mark will follow up with a written report to the city. - The leaves' drop off days in October went very well. Many people in Mound took advantage and were very appreciative of the opportunity offered by the city. LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ed Shukle Chief Len Harrell Monthly Report for October 1996 The police department responded to 904 'calls for service during the month of October. There were 16 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included 1 criminal sexual conduct, 4 burglaries, 9 larcenies, 1 vehicle theft and 1 arson. There were 95 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 1 child abuse/neglect, 1 forgery/NSF check, 2 weapons, 6 narcotics, 10 damage to property, 12 liquor law violations, 14 DUI's, 4 simple assaults, 7 domestics (2 with assaults), 10 harassment's, 7 juvenile status offenses, and 21 other offenses. The patrol division issued 209 adult citations and 16 juvenile citations. Parking violations accounted for an additional 16 tickets. Warnings were issued to 126 individuals for a variety of violations. There was 1 adult and 13 juveniles arrested for felonies. adults and 34 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. additional 9 warrant arrests. There were 39 There were an The department assisted in 12 vehicle accidents, 6 with injuries. There were 25 medical emergencies and 79 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 16 occasions in October and requested assistance 8 times. Property valued at $10,877 was stolen and $4,107 was recovered in October. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - OCTOBER ! 996 II. INVESTIGATIONS The investigators worked on 3 child protection issues and an assault/terroristic threat case that accounted for over 20 hours of investigative time. Other cases involved robbery, burglary, a fatal pedestrian accident, assault, damage to property, reckless driving, forgery, larceny, harassing communication, thef~ by check, hazardous materials, and absenting. Formal complaints were issued for disorderly conduct, assault, forgery, careless driving, and minor consumption. III. Personnel/Staffing The department used approximately 62 hours of overtime during the month of October. Officers used 46 hours of comp-time, 88 hours of vacation, 48 hours of sick time, and 12 holidays. Officers earned 49 hours of comp- time. IV. Sgt. Truax continues at the Southern Police Institute and will graduate next week. Investigator Denneson attended 80 hours of training to become a firearms and defensive tactics instructor. Other officers attended mandatory yearly training along with Community Oriented Policing issues, emergency driving, field sobriety, and legal updates. I attended the International Association of Chiefs of Police Conference in Phoenix last week. The key note speaker was Janet Reno, Attorney General. Seminars that I attended included "Survival Skills for Policing in the Future", "Creating a Positive Police Image", "Principle Based Leadership", "Ethics in Law Enforcement", "Evaluate Processes for Community Policing", "Reducing School Violence", and "Extremists Groups and Small Agencies". MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - OCTOBER 1996 COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICERS Officers Packard and Clark addressed 66 animal complaints, 101 ordinance violations, and 144 miscellaneous calls for services. 2 citations were issued in October. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT OCTOBER 1996 OFFENSES CLEARED EXCEPT- ~ BY ARRESTED REPORTED UNFOUNDED ~ ARREST ADULT JUV PART I CRIMES Homicide Criminal Sexual Conduct Robbery Aggravated Assault Burglary Larceny Vehicle Theft Arson TOTAL PART II CRIMES Child Abuse/Neglect Forgery/NSF Checks 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 6 9 0 0 5 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 16 1 1 6 1 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 12 8 17 0 0 14 12 2 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 7 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 14 11 5 Criminal Damage to Property Weapons Narcotic Laws Liquor Laws DWI Simple A-gsault Domestic Assault Domestic (No A~sault) Harassment Juvenile Status Offenses Public Peace Trespassing All Other Offenses 10 2 6 12 14 4 2 5 10 7 3 0 18 TOTAL 95 2 9 53 39 34 PART II & PART IV Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Medicals Animal Complaints Mutual Aid Other General Investigations 6 5 1 25 79 16 611 TOTAL 743 HCCP Inspections 3 47 TOTAL 904 10 59 40 47 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT OCTOBER 1996 GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY Hazardous Citations Non-Hazardous Citations Hazardous Warnings Non-Hazardous Warnings Verbal Warnings Parking Citations DWI Over .10 Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Adult Felony Arrests Adult Misdemeanor Arrests Juvenile Felony Arrests Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests Part I Offenses Part II Offenses Medicals Animal Complaints Ordinance Violations Other Public Contacts THIS YEAR TO LAST YEA/~ MONTH DATE TO DATE 138 831 727 63 474 585 40 263 155 109 653 604 98 902 588 16 466 283 14 67 42 10 5O 35 6 56 78 5 20 28 1 1 0 2 34 21 46 353 306 14 65 44 34 182 138 16 258 220 95 710 637 25 298 281 79 533 549 47 252 448 611 7,040 5,911 TOTAL Assists Follow-Ups HCCP Mutual Aid Given Mutal Aid Requested 1,469 73 13,508 11,680 702 759 40 335 306 3 46 28 16 157 163 8 86 128 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT OCTOBER 1996 CITATIONS DWI More Than .10% BAC Careless/Reckless Driving Driving After Susp. or Rev. Open Bottle Speeding No DL or Expired DL Restriction on DL Improper, Expired or No Plates Stop Arm Violations Stop Sign Violations Failure to Yield Equipment Violations H&R Leaving the Scene No Insurance Illegal or Unsafe Turn Over the Centerline Parking Violations Crosswalk Dog Ordinances Code Enforcement Seat Belt MV/ATV Miscellaneous Tags TOTAL 12 10 0 5 0 105 2 0 16 1 12 0 4 0 12 0 0 16 2 0 8 7 0 13 225 1 7 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 MOUND POLICE DEPAi~TMENT OCTOBER 1996 WARNINGS Insurance Traffic Equipment Crosswalk Animals Trash/Derelict Autos Seat Belt Trespassing Window Tint Miscellaneous TOTAL WARRANT ARRESTS Felony Misdemeanor Adult 43 35 18 0 0 3 1 0 0 13 113 6 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 Run: 29-0ct-96 16:16 PRO03 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 09/26/96 - 10/25/96 '~ 'tivity codes: All .perty Status: All Property Types: Property Descs: All Brands: All Mode[s: Officers/Badges: All Prop Prop Inc no ISN Pr Tp Desc SN MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Property Report STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED Prop Date Rptd Stolen Date Recov'd Stat Stolen Value Recov'd Value Page Quantity Act Brand Mode[ Off-1 Off-2 Code AssndAssnd A Prop type Totals: B Prop type Totals: E Prop type Totals: J Prop type Totals: 0 Prop type Totals: R Prop type Totals: X .. Prop type Totals: Y Prop type Totals: **** Report Totals: 4,000 4,000 1.000 100 100 1.000 ? 7 1.000 775 0 1.000 1,150 0 1.000 1,670 0 3.000 3,175 0 7.000 0 0 1.000 10,877 4,107 16.000 Run: 31-0ct-96 10:28 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 09/26/96 - 10/25/96 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: All Activity ResuLted: AlL Dispositions: AIL Officers/Badges: Grids: Patrol Areas: Ali Days of the week: At[ ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION 9000 SPEEDING 9001 J'SPEEDING 9002 NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L 9005 J-RESTRICTED D/L 9013 J'OPEN BOTTLE 9014 STOP SIGN 9018 EQUIPMENT VIOLATION 9019 J-EQIPMENT VIOLATION 9030 CROSSgALK VIOLATION 9034 STOP ARM VIOLATION 9036 OBSTRUCTED VISION 9038 ALL OTHER TRAFFIC 9040 NO SEATBELT 9100 PARKING/ALL OTHER 9200 DAS/DAR/DAC 9210 PLATES/NO'IMPROPER'EXPIRED 9211 J-PLATES/NO-EXPIRED-IMPROPER 9220 NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF 9240 CHANGE OF DOMICILE 9241 J-CHANGE OF DOMICILE 9301 LOST PERSONS 9309 FOUND/RUNAgAY MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors CaLLs For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 105 7 2 2 1 12 3 1 2 1 1 1 7 16 6 16 2 12 10 1 Page Run: 31-0ct-96 10:28 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Dart_Reported range: 09/26/96 - 10/25/96 Ti age each day: 00:00 - 23:59 HOW Received: ALL Activity Resulted: ALt Dispositions: ALL Officers/Badges: All Grids: ALL Patrol Areas: Alt Days of the week: ALL ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION 9312 FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS 9313 FOUND PROPERTY 9314 FOUND VEHICLES/IMPOUNDED 9315 UNCLAIME DESTROYED ANIMALS 9410 FATAL ACCIDENTS 9420 DERELICT AUTO 9~~ PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS 9450 PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS 9451 H/R PROPERTY DAMAGE ACC. 9561 DOG BITE 9563 DOG AT LARGE 9567 DANGEROUS DOG 9720 MEDICAL/DOA 9730 MEDICALS 9731 MEDICALS/DX 9800 ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED 9801 DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT 9900 ALL HCCP CASES 9904 OPEN DOOR/ALARMS ~ 4ISC. SERVICES BY OFFICERS 9920 INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 9930 HANDGUN APPLICATION MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 6 7 1 5 1 1 5 4 2 1 1 1 1 22 2 8 5 3 2 1 9 5 Page Run: 31-0ct-96 10:28 CFS08 Primary ISN's on[y: No Date Reported range: 09/26/96 - 10/25/96 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: Activity Resulted: Dispositions: At[ Officers/Badges: AIl Grids: Att Patrol Areas: Days of the week: AIl ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION 9931 9945 9980 9990 9991 9992 9993 9994 A2333 A5351 A5353 A5354 A5355 B3364 B3794 B4730 B4990 C0112 DA540 DA548 DCSO0 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Ca[Is For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS HANDGUN DENIALS 2 SUSPICIOUS PERSON 1 WARRANTS 9 MISC. VIOLATIONS 3 J-MISC. VIOLATIONS 1 MUTUAL AID/8100 10 MUTUAL AID/6500 4 MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER 2 ASLT 2-BD HRM-KNIFE-AD-S 1 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAM 2 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-ADULT-STR 2 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-CHLD-FAM 1 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-CHLD-ACQ 2 BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 2 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 BURG 4-UNOCC NRES FRC-D-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT 1 BURG 4-AT FRC RES-U-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT 1 FORGERY-UNK LVL-MAK ALTER-CHECK-BUSINESS 1 DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UNK 2 DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-NOT APP 2 DRUGS-DRUG PARAPH-POSSESS-UNK-UNK 2 F4005 'ARSON'3-MS-UNK COND-OT PROP-S299 LESS 1 Page Run: 31-0ct-96 10:28 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Dat~-,~eported range: 09/26/96 - 10/25/96 T( nge each day: 00:00 - 23:59 NOW Received: ALl Activity ResuLted: ALI Dispositions: ALL Officers/Badges: ALt Grids: ALl Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION J2500 TRAFFIC-GM-DUI LIQUOR-UNK INJURY-UNK VEN J2E00 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH J3500 TRAF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR J3501 TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE J3EO0 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH J3E01 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV J3' TRAFFIC-MS-FAIL TO SUBMIT TO TEST-UNK INJ-MV J3T01 UNDERAGE DRINKING AND DRIVING K5551 FALSE IMPRISON-INTENT CONFIN-HANDS-ADLT-FAM L7021 CSC 4-UNK ACT-PARENT-UNDER 13-F. M3001 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER M3005 JUVENILE'USE OF TOBACCO M4106 LIQUOR-PROCURING LIQUOR FOR A MINOR M4140 LIQUOR-UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION 18-21 M5350 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY M7401 SALE OF TOBACCO TO CNILDREN N3030 DISTURB PEACE-MS-DISORDERLY CONDUCT N3070 N3190 P. P3120 P3600 DISTURB PEACE-MS-PUBLIC NUISANCE DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT PROP DAMAGE-MS-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT LITTER'-UNLANFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-MS MOUND POLICE DEPARTMEN~ Enfors CaLts For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 1 1 4 9 4 6 2 1 1 1 7 3 1 3 6 1 2 1 11 11 1 1 Page ,-//4~/ Run: 31-0ct-96 10:28 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 09/26/96 - 10/25/96 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: AIl Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS TB159 THEFT-MORE 2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP 1 TC159 THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP 1 TG059 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-YARDS-OTHR PROP 1 TG061 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MAILS-MONEY 1 TG159 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-OTHER 2 U1633 TELECOMMUNICATIONS-FRAUD-FE-501-2500 2 U3288 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS 3 U3498 THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS 1 VA021 THEFT-FE-AUTO-MORE THAN 2500 1 W3527 WEAPONS-MS-CARRY-PISTOL-LIC VIOLATION 1 W3999 WEAPONS-MS-OTHER ACT-OTHER TYPE-UNLA~ PURPOS 1 X2200 CRIM AGNST ADM JUST-GM-GIVE FLSE NAM-POL 2 **** Report Totats: 453 Page Run: 31-0ct-96 10:32 OFF01 Primary ISN's on[y: No De~"'~eported range: 09/26/96 - 10/25/96 T~ 'ange each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: A[[ Activity codes: AL[ Officers/Badges: ALL Grids: ALL ACT ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION A2333 ASLT 2-BD HRM-KNIFE-AD-S A5351 A5353 A5354 A5355 B3364 B3794 B~ 84990 C0112 DA540 DA548 DCSO0 F4005 J2500 J2EO0 J3500 J3501 J3EO0 J3E01 J3, J3T01 K5551 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAM ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-ADULT-STR ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-CHLD-FAM ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-CHLD-ACQ BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT BURG 3-UNOCC NRES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT BURG 4-UNOCC NRES FRC-D-UNK ~EAP-UNK ACT BURG 4-AT FRC RES-U-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT FORGERY-UNK LVL-MAK ALTER-CHECK-BUSINESS DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UNK DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-NOT APP DRUGS-DRUG PARAPH-POSSESS-UNK-UNK ARSON 3-MS-UNK COND-OT PROP-S299 LESS TRAFFIC-GM-DU! LIQUOR-UNK INJURY-UNK VEH TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH TRAF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV TRAFFIC-MS-FAIL TO SUBMIT TO TEST-UNK INJ-MV UNDERAGE DRINKING AND DRIVING FALSE -IMPRISON-INTENT CONFIN-HANDS-ADLT'FAM MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page I ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Run: 31-0ct-96 10:32 OFF01 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 09/26/96 - 10/25/96 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: All Activity codes: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All ACT ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION L7021 CSC 4-UNK ACT-PARENT-UNDER 13-F M3001 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER M3005 JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO M4106 LIQUOR-PROCURING LIQUOR FOR A MINOR M4140 LIQUOR-UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION 18-21 M5350 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY M7401 SALE OF TOBACCO TO CHILDREN N3030 DISTURB PEACE-MS-DISORDERLY CONDUCT N3070 DISTURB PEACE-MS-PUBLIC NUISANCE N3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS P3110 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT P3600 LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-MS TB159 THEFT-MORE 2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP TC159 THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP TG059 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-YARDS-OTHR PROP TG061 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MAILS-MONEY TG159 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-OTNER U1633 TELECOMMUNICATIONS-FRAUD-FE-501-2500 U3288 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS U3498 THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS VA021 THEFT-FE-AUTO-MORE THAN 2500 W3999 WEAPONS-MS-OTHER ACT-OT~ER TYPE-UNLAW PURPOS MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page 2 ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 7 0 7 0 0 7 0 7 100.0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 100.0 1 0 1 0 I 0 0 1 100.0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 100.0 8 0 8 1 0 7 0 7' 87,5 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 2 100. 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0 10 0 10 9 0 0 I 1 10.0 11 0 11 10 0 0 1 1 9.0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 50.0 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 3 100.0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 JIl It ,ti I, ,It, ~ JL Ii ld~, ~un: 31-0ct-96 10:32 OFF01 Primary ISN's on[y: No gate oorted range: 09/26/96 - 10/25/96 TimL ~ge each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: Activity codes: ALL Officers/Badges: Grids: ALL ~CT ACTIVITY ~ODE DESCRIPTION K2200 CRIM AGNST ADM JUST-GM-GIVE FLSE NAM-POL MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page 3 ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 ~*** Report Totals: 113 3 110 36 35 29 10 74 67.2 City of Mound Monthly Report Utilities Month of: October 1996 11/05/96 Utility-96 Residential Commercial Total No. of Customers: Water 1,109 124 1,233 Sewer 1,111 124 1,235 Water Used: (in 1,000 gallons) 29,658 4,601 34,259 Billing: Water Sewer Recycle Total $41,664 $6,686 $48,350 $52,252 $15,875 $68,127 $5,173 $106 $5,279 $99,089 $22,667 $121,756 Payments: Water $38,622 $5,283 $43,905 Sewer $57,309 $13,343 $70,652 Recycle $5,660 $89 $5,749 Total $101,591 $18,715 $120,306 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: November 5, 1996 TO: FROM: City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official SUBJECT: OCTOBER 1996 MONTHLY REPORT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY There were 38 building permits issued in October for a construction value of $582,172, and this brings year-to-date construction value to $9,632,989. This is almost $2 million ahead of last year's record pace. We issued 46 plumbing, mechanical, and miscellanous permits for a total of 84 permits this month, and 705 year-to-date. These record setting numbers for construction activity will keep us busy during the upcoming winter months. PLANNING & ZONING The Planning Commission was busy processing nine variance cases, one minor subdivision, and a sketch plan review for the proposed Maple Manors this last month. Staff is tracking the number of cases that are impacted or that do not require a variance since the ordinance for the streamlining of variances has been adopted; three properties have taken advantage of the new ordinance in the month of October bringing the year-to- date total to seven. In addition to the zoning cases the City Council processed several public land cases and set a public hearing to consider various fee changes. The Building permit fees have not been increased for some time and if adopted will provide for additional revenue and be more consistent with the surrounding communities. JS:pj printed on recycled paper City of Mound BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT Month: OCTOBER Year: 199fi THIS MONTH SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 2 2 241,890 28 3, 132,376 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (CONDOS) 10 2, 780,454 TWO FAMILY / DUPLEX MULTIPLE FAMILY (3 OR MORE UNITS) TRANSIENT HSG. (HOTELS / MOTELS) SUBTOTAL 2 2 241,890 38 5,912,830 NON-RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) 1 110,000 OFFICE /PROFESSIONAL .'' : : i 200,000 INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC I SCHOOLS SUBTOTAL 2 310, 0 0 0 ADDITIONS TO PRINCIPAL BUILDING 5 124,823 27 681,747 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS 3 36, 124 21 229,836 DECKS 4 9,110 58 159,766 S~VIMMING POOLS 1 4 0 0 REMODEL- MISC RESIDENTIAL 20 70,676 191 761,597 REMODEL. MULTIPLE DWELLINGS i 32,863 3 114,503 SUBTOTAL 33 273,596 301 1,94 7,849 ADDITIONS/ALTERATION8 COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) I 3,300 3 33,300 OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL i 63,386 6 228,510 INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC / SCHOOLS / CHURCH 2 1,200,500 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS SUBTOTAL 2 66,686 11 1,462,310 RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS 8 NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS I 6 TOTAL DEMOLITIONS ]- 14- # PERMITS # UNITS VALUATION # UNITS VALUATION # PERMITS TOTAL 38 2 582,172 38 9,632,989 *366 PERMIT COUNT ~ THIS MONTH I YEAR-TO-DATE · BUILDING 3 8 3 6 6 FENCES & RETAINING WALLS 2 27 SIGNS 0 9 PLUMBING 22 131 MECHANICAL 18 105 GRADING 0 2 S&W, STREET EXCAV., FIRE, ETC. ~ 6 5 TOTAL I 84 I 705 MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT MON~ MON~ TO DATE TO DAlE DNTH OF OCTOBER 1996 ~0. OF CALLS 64 62 658 62~ FIRE 16 13 160 14) 4OUND E~591GENgY 19 26 224 203 ~INNETONKA BEACH FIRE 1 1 7 17 EM~RG~ o 2 11 ~ 4INNETRISTA FIRE ~ ~ 46 44 ]P~GfING'Y 2 4 3] 32 )BONO FIRE 7 Z 51 47 fiMERGENGY ~ 3 32 24 ~HOREWOOD FIRE O Q Q 7 mC~GENCY 0 0 3 2 SPRING PARK FIRE 2 4 24 37 F~.~RGENCY 6 ~ ~ ~7 ~IUTUAL AID-' ,FIRE 0 0 · ~ 3 mCE~GEN~ 0 0 2 3 tOTAL FIRE CALLS 2~ 22 293 300 TOTAL EMERGENCY CALLS 35 40 365 326 COMMERCIAL % 1 3 4 RESIDENTIAL 4 ~ ~ 63 nCXJSTR~'AL O O ~ 0 GRASS & M~SCELLANEOUS 13 10 ]20 105 ALrfO 1. Q ] q 19 FALSE ALARM / FIRE ALARMS 10 8 106 107 NO. OF HOURS FIRE 297 247 361g 320) - MOUND '.K~GENCY 304 504 4489 39t4 T6TAL 60] 751 8108 7119 FIRE ]4 g 102 323 - MTKA BEACH E~fF~RGENCy 0 31 233 91 TOTAL 14 40 335 414 FIRE 60 96 980 951 - H' IRISTA fI4ERGENCY 4~ 70 605 577 TOTAL 105 166 1~8~ 1528 .F.IRE 147 48 1119 1163 ORONO EMERGENCY 140 69 634 .~45 .. TO~3kL 287 117 1753 1708 FIRE 0 0 . 0 192 - SHOREWOOD 2]4]~IGENCY 0 0 68 44 TOTAL 0 0 68 236 FIRE 15 78 401 792 - SP. PARK .fI, IERGENCY 108 77 1185 1117 TOTAL 123 155 1586 1909 FIRE 0 0 141 131 - MLrfUAL AID EMERGENCY O 0 51 74 TOTAL 0 0 192 205 TOTAL DRILL HOURS 177.5 182.5 1750 1577.5 TOTAL FIRE HOURS 533 478 6362 6751 TOTAL EMERGENCY HOURS 597 251 .7265 ,~6368 /Ur. AL FIRE & KMERGENCY HOURS 1130 1229 1¥627 13,119 MUTUAL AID RECEIVED 0 0 0 1 MUTUAL AID ~VEN Q Q 8 6 , cllqq MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT MOUND, MINNESOTA FOR MONTH OF October 1996 FIRE FIGHTERS DRILLS & MAINTENANCE FIRE & RESCUE 1 JEFF Ai',DF~,~EN X X 2 19.00 2 42 6.50 273.00 2' GRMq ANDnq.~O~.! X ~'~2 1 9.50 2.5 39 6.50 253.50 3 PAI~, BAB~ X X 2 19.00 2 46 6.50 299.00 4 DAVID PDYD X X 2 19.00 ' 2.5 25 6.50 162.50 5 SCOT? BRYCE X X 2 19.00 0 23 6.50 149.50 6 JIM CASEY X X 2 19.00 1.5 24 6.50 156.00 ..7. STEVE COLLINS O X 1 9.50 2.5 24 6.50 156.00 8 .BOB CRAWFORD X X 2 19.00 2.5 26 6.50 169. O0 9 RA~\~DY 5NGFiJ{AR, T X X 2 19.00 2 22 6.50 143.00 10 STEVE ERICKSON X X 2 19.00 0 41 7.00 287.00 11 DAN GRADY X X 2 19.00 2 37 6.50 240.50 12 KEVIN GRADY X X 2 19.OO 2.5 30 195.OO 6.50 13 ~pnC~ GUSTA~KON X X 2 19.00 2 42 6.50 273.00 14 C?AIG -F31~ DEP,$0N X X 2 19.00 0 33 §,75 222.75 15 PA3 n., ~ _w>i~.y X X 2 19.00 1 23 6.50 149.50 16 t[ATT HENTGEg X X 2 19.00 3.5 36 6.50 234.00 17~ ROGER KRYCK X X 2 19.00 2 24 6.50 156.00 18 JOHN LARSON E X 1 9.50 0 28 ~.50 182.00 19 JASON }.LA. AS X X 2 19.00 2 30 ~, ~O 195.00 20 J0~iN NAFUS . X X 2 19.00 2 50 6.~O 325.00 21 JAMES NELSON X X 2 19.00 3 42 6. ~0 273.00 22 BRET NICCU~.! X ~) 1 9.50 0 24 6.50 156.00 23 GREG PAI2! X X 2 19.00 2 30 6.50 195.00 24 HIKE PALM X X 2 1~.00 0 32 6.50 208.00 25 T1].I PALM X X 2 19.00 2 i{ 32 6.50 208.00 26 GREG PEDERSON X X 2 19.00 ~ 23 6.50 149.50 27 CHRIS POUNDER X X 2 19.00 2 35 6.50 227,50 28 TONY RAS~fOSSEN X X 2 ~9.00 2 2~0 6.50 130.00 29 RICHARD ROGERS X X 2 [9.00 2,5 36 6.50 234.00 30 HIKE SAVAGE X X 2 [9.00 6 26 6.50 169.00 31 ~,'VlN SIPPRELL X X 2 L9.00 2.5 22 6.50 143.00 ~2 RON STALLMAN X X 2 L9.00 O 19 6.50 123.50 33 BRUCE SVOBODA X X 2 L9.00 0 44 6.50 286.00 34 ED VANECEK X X 2 Lg.00 1 22 6.50 143.00 3~ RICK WILLIA~.~ X X 2 L9.00 23 27 6.50 175.50 36 ~I~! WILLIAMS X X 2 [9.00 3 25 6.50 162.50 37 DENNIS WOYTCKE X X 2 Lg.O0 1.5 26 6.50 169.00 36 35 71 "IOZ~_~ 90 87.5 177.5 674.50 88 1130 W~ 7,373.75 177.5 I~rr ~,~ 674.50 88 FAINt 1,167.00 'II.gu 9.215.25 DRILL REPORT MOUNDIFIRE DEPARTMENT Discipline and Teamwork Critique of ~ires Pre-plan and Inspections Tools and Apparatus Identi~y Hand Extinguisher Operation Wearing Protective Clothing Films First Aid and Rescue Operation Use of Self-Contained Masks Hours Training Paid : ~Excused Pumper Operations Fire Streams & Friction Loss House Burnings Natural/Propane Gas Demos. Ladder Evolutions Salvage Operations Radio Operations House'Evolutions Nozzles & Hose Appliances X Une'kecused O Present / Not Paid PERSONNEL · \1~-~. Andersen ~I~.C. Henderson ~%.C. Pounder A ~--~_G. Anderson L~P. Henry ~. Rasmussen z.~-'~_P. Babb %~k/~. Hentges ~.~..R. Rogers ~_~___~. Boyd ~. Kryck ~-.M. Savage ~xt%_S. Bryce ~. Larson ~_~K. Sipprell · : Casey. ]' con. i~' ~am., ] svob~ Crawford [ Nelson . Vanecek Engelhar t ~ Z~: Erickson ~ NiccUmpalm i WilliamsWilliams ~KD. Grady I~. Palm ~-I~, ( Woytcke Z ~-~--~.B. Gus~fson Pederson MOUND FI~ DEPARTMENT DRILL REPORT Discipline and Teamwork Critique of fires Pre-plan and Inspections Tools and Apparatus Identify Hand Extinguisher Operation Wearing Protective Clothing Films First Aid and Rescue Operation ~ Use of Self-Contained Masks Hours Training Paid : ~Excused X Unexecused Pumper Operations Fire Streams & Friction Loss House Burnings Natural/Propane Gas Demos. Ladder Evolutions Salvage Operations Radio Operations House Evolutions Nozzles & Hose Appliances O Present / Not Paid RSONNEL 'Z\J'.J. Andersen ?-\~-C. Henderson $~.C. Pounder ~. Anderson Z.~i Henry ~I~T. Rasmussen · Babb ' Hantges ~i Rogers Savage Sipprell I~ S. Bryce .L.'a.J ·: Casey. ,l_.~. Co~.l~-~s. ~z_B. Crawford Iz-R. Engelhar t D' Erickson · Grady H~_K. Grady 4 z_B. Gustafson Kryck Larson Nafus Nelson Nicctm~ Palm Palm Palm Pederson _. Stallman · Svoboda ~E. Vanecek .~.R. Williams Z%~_. Williams 2.t_~ Woytcke Training Officer DATE MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT TOTAL MAINTENANCE FOR MONTH OF MEN ON DUTY ~- J. ANDERSEN /~'~ G. ANDERSON '=~ P. BABB · o. BOYD ~ $. BRYCE //~ J. CASEY ~/3 S. COLLINS ~?~ B. CRAWFORD ~<~ R, ENGELHART 0 S. ERICKSON ~ D. GRADY ~/~ K. eRADY ~ B. GUSTAFSON O C. HENDERSON / P, HENRY R. KRYCK J. LARSON J. MAAS J. NAFUS J. NELSON B. NICCUM G. PALM M. PALM T. PALM G. PEDERSON C. POUNDER T. RASMUSSEN ~/~ R. ROGERS ~ M, SAVAGE ~7~ K. S,PPRELL ~ R. STALLMAN ~:) B. SVOBODA / E. VANECEK ~ R. WILLIAMS ~ T. WILLIAMS /?z D..OYTOKE TOTAL HOURS CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Mayor, City Council and City Manager Greg Skinner, Public Works Superintendent October 1996 Monthly Report November 5, 1996 We finished stringing the Christmas lights on the Christmas tree and the other trees down town. All we have left to do now is hang the ornaments and the banners, which we will be doing the 12th of November. We have completed our black topping for the season. This included repairs of watermain, gatevalves, and manhole blacktopping. We put the wings and sanders on the trucks, and brought all the plows down for the 4 wheelers from upstairs so everything is all set to go. We mixed some salt with the sand we had left over from last year, so we should be already for the snow. We received two (2) bids for CBD Snow plowing, Widmers and Clean Sweep out of Eden Prairie. Widmer Brothers gave us the lowest bid for the job so they'll be taking care of downtown again this year. The Water Department had 2 watermain breaks causing the repalcement of some printed on recycled paper curbing. We've been working with the meters again, changing out some of the old heads and replacing them with new heads. Again Schlumberger will be paying us for them. Hopefully we'll get this down to an acceptable limit but over all it seems to be working pretty well. We had Bob take out Frank Heitz and trained him in reading and programming the meters, so he'll be doing some of that this winter also. There were a lot of locates this month again. It should be dieing down once the weather starts turning a little colder. The Sewer Department is now flushing and cleaning wet wells. This is done twice a year. Misc. We had the leaf drop off extended for one more weekend. We received alot of leaves, it worked out pretty well for the most part. The weather wasn't the greatest with the rain and cold, but we still received quite few leaves. The bucket truck that we use to put up the ornaments and the Christmas decorations was inspected and we found there was some work needed to be done on it. There were some brake problems and axel problems. When we took it apart we noticed it was really in bad shape. We had to put in a used rear end. We just got that back together. The truck is inspected every year to make sure it's road worthy. It just didn't make it this year. 2 il/0~/i996 i3:0i 6i2--4724435 TO~ REESE PAGE Bi LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT gO0 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 180 · WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 5S3~1 · TELEPHONE 612/473-7033 Q. Alan Willcutt, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD MEMBERS Douglas E. Bab:ock Chair. Tonka Bay Tom Rea-~a Vice Chair. Mound Joseph Zwak Secretary, Greenwood Rotan Razc, op Treasurer. Shorewood Kent Dahlen Minnatonka Beach Bert Foster DeeohaYan Gretchen Id=gllch Mlnnetonka Duane Merkur Wayzata Cr'~g Moiler Victoria Craig Nelson Sl~lr~ Pa~k Eugene Pe~yka Minnetrista Paul Stark Excelsior Herb J. Suerth Woodlar~l ~ono TO: MOUND CITY COUNCIL DATE: NOVEMBER6, 1996 FROM: TOM REESE, LMCD REFRESENTATIVE SUBJECT: OCTOBER REPORT- LMCD 1.0 General Items. I. 1 The LMCD will bc moving to the Freshwater Foundation Building around December I st. Buildout of the office space is currently underway. The Foundation offered the most advantageous rent arrangements of numerous potential space providers. In addition it was felt that there would be a benefit in being at the same location as the Minnehaha Water Shed District. 1.2 The District is on e-mail at LMCD@wintemet.com. The District also has a website at www.wintemet.com/~lmcd/ This really is a neat site wherein we not only publish meeting minutes and news about current items affecting the lake, but also provide information on what the LMCD does, and what the agency might do to provide assistance to other entities who might be involved in the regulation of recreational lakes, and control of exotics. ! recommend you visit the site. Maple Plain has a site that they advertise on the sign as you enter their town. If Mound does not have one as yet, you might want to consider it. It is an up coming way to communicate. i.3 The remaining 1996 Board meetings will be held on Novcmber 13th and December 1 lth. 2.0 Exotic Species Task Force. 2. l An RFP for a new harvester has been prepared and sent out to three potential providers. Whether or not we actually acquire a new harvester will be studied further. The RFP is to address the cost for a unit that will incorporate those features that we have found from experience would be beneficial for increasing the operational efficiency. We want to also investigate further a more efficient way of transporting harvested weeds to the shore pick up location. 2.2 The District is in the process of drafting a much more strict ordinance providing for ways to control of exotics that could arrive on trailered watercraft coming here to participate in permitted events and contests. ~ p~et ~ Wam 3.0 Water Structures 3.1 Minnetrista has declined to prosecute Bil Hawks at this time, feeling that the LMCD case is much stronger than theirs. The District is proceeding with a criminal prosecution for violation of the ordinance which provides for the size of boats that can be carried by other boats on the lake. The District is still seeking some accommodation with Mr Hawks. To date I1, I ti t ,It, his position has been unyielding and one sided, Perhaps some middle ground can yet be found. 3.2 The District is approving a series of variances that will allow a 34Oft dock to be built across wetlands to afford lake access to three lots in Phelps bay. Since the 929.4 elevation is on the parcel, and precedent exists for a similar structure there was no choice at this time but to grant the requested variances. This could have a large potential impact on some of the lots on Emerald l.,ake in Mound. The District is seeking to amend present ordinances to control the number of docks constructed across wetlands, where some environmental and visual impacts are anticipated. 4.0 Lake Use. 4.1 A new agreement has been drafted with the Hennepin County Sheriff, that provides for the continued policing of the lake by the Water Patrol. g.O Mound Specific Items 5.1 I have not received any feedback from my letter of September 25th, wherein I responded to Council questions regarding the Commons areas. Arc there any further questions? ~nd Representative- LMCD lc. Al Willcutt, Doug Babcock, MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 28, 1996 Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Frank Weiland, Jerry Clapsaddle, and Gerald Reifschneider; City Council Representative Mark Hanus; City Planner Mark Koegler; Building Official Jon Sutherland; and Secretary Peggy James. Absent and excused were Commissioners Michael Mueller, Orv Burma, Bill Voss, and Becky Glister. The following people were also in attendance: Diane Rosencrantz, Robert Nelson, Patricia Hagglund, Scott Mack, Gina Anderson and Joyce Agnew. ' ~INUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of October 14, 1996 were presented for approval. Hanus stated he should be listed as being present, Reifschneider stated he should not be listed as present. and MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve the Plannlng ~ommission Minu~es of October 14, 1996 as amended. Motion carried unanlmously. ~ASE 96-61: VARIANCE FOR ~RAGE ADDITION, FRAIZER/HARTER, 2155 CARDINAL L;%NE, LOT 23t BLOCK 8, A.L. ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, 13 A17-24 31 0065 Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Planning Report. The applicant is seeking variance approval to construct an attached garage 16' x 23' and an entry closet over an existing 6' x 18' slab. The variances involved are: Required Lot Size 6,000 sf S Side Yard 6' E Front Yard to deck 20' W Rear Yard 15' Existing/ Variance Proposed 4,250 sf 1,750 sf .95' 5.05' 18.9' 1.1' 7' 8' The slab area will continue the front wall of the existing home which is 18.9 feet from the north property line. The proposed garage is setback 20 feet from the north property line and it observes the required side yard setback. The garage, as proposed will encroach into the required 15 foot rear yard setback. Planning Commission Hinutes October 28, 1996 Garages are necessary and desirable accessory structures for single family homes in order to provide enclosed storage space for vehicles and personal belongings. The proposed garage has a width of 16 feet which is certainly a minimum width for a garage and minimum improvement necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty of not having enclosed storage space on the property. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission find that the lack of a garage is a legitimate practical difficulty and one which is remedied by the minimum garage construction shown, therefore, the variance should be approved. Weiland expressed a concern about approving the .95 foot side yard setback and stated they should have a reason why they are allowing it. He feels the lot is over-built for its size. Weiland questioned if the existing slab has frost footings. The Building Official stated that this issue will be dealt with at time of building permit review. Weilandquestioned the amount of hardcover. Sutherland noted that there is still a couple hundred of square feet available. Reifschneider noted there is an existing gravel driveway which is not included in the calculations. Sutherland suggested that if the hardcover is in excess of 40%, a condition could be added that the driveway be removed and converted to green space. In addition, the Site should be limited to a maximum of 40% as a condition of approval. The size of the proposed garage was questioned, is it 24 feet deep or 23 feet deep? Both dimensions are shown in the application materials. The Chair recognized that the applicant was not present. Clapsaddle stated that it is difficult to deal with a case when the applicant is not present. Weiland suggested they could use the existing slab area as part of the garage to help alleviate the encroachment into the rear yard setback. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend denial. It was suggested that design changes should be discussed with applicant present and that the case should be tabled until the applicant can be present. Weiland and Clapsaddle withdrew their motion to deny. MOTION by Weiland to table this variance request until the applicant can come in and discuss their request. Clapsaddle seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 2 Planning Commission Minutes October 28, I996 Reifschneider suggested that the applicants supply them with a better drawing showing existing hardcover. Michael Mueller, who was unable to be present at the meeting, had submitted comments in writing. Chair Michael requested the secretary incorporate these comments into the minutes, as follows: "Everyone needs a garage - this one is a small one!" CASE 96-6Z= F~RIANCE FOR DETACHED GARAGE, SCOTT & LINDAMACK, 465~ ISLAND VIEW DRI¥~, LOT 15, BLOCK 1, DEVON, 30-117-23 22 008~ Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. This property is located in the R-lA zoning district which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet, 6 foot side yard setbacks, a 15 foot rear yard setback to the commons, and a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a conforming 22' x 24' detached garage as shown on the survey. This property is conforming with the exception of the deck on the lakeside of the dwelling that was apparently constructed without a permit. The deck is setback about 45 feet to the ordinary high water resulting in a variance request of 5 feet. The proposed garage is a reasonable use of the property, is fully conforming, and the site is limited by the utility easements on the lakeside. A portion of the deck however is located over the utility easement and this would hinder vehicle access that is needed to maintain the lift station on the southwest corner of the property. The City Engineer has requested a copy of easement documents for this property. Sutherland, reviewed the easements surrounding the subject property and adjacent properties. The Engineer wants to verify if the easements are also for drainage purposes. Sutherland confirmed that a double fee for the building permit for the existing deck will apply. Sutherland reviewed a letter received from the applicant's neighbor, Mark Smith, and how each concern can be addressed as follows: ' "Drainage. We moved into our house June of 1995; in August of · 95 Mound experienced a substantial storm. The storm drain on Island View Drive could not handle rain run-off as it should have, which caused a river of water to flow between our house and the Mack's house. During that episode we took photos to document this drainage flow problem. This situation causes me some concern if left as is. Moreover, when a new structure is proposed to be built in that natural run-off area, it causes me some very real concern. I see the run-off being redirected toward my house.,, Planning Commission M/nutes October 28, 1996 Sutherland commented, the city will need a grading and drainage plan in order to address the drainage concerns. 2. ,,Culvert. Looking lakeside, I can see a Culvert coming out from the rip-rapped shoreline. Where is the origin of that culvert? Is this culvert coming from the storm drain on Island View Drive if so how could this proposed structure impact that? Is there an easement to facilitate the maintenance of this culvert?" Sutherland, commented there are easements to facilitate the maintenance of the culvert. The proposed garage has a conforming setback and should not affect the operation or maintenance of the culvert. 3. ,Power/Telephone Lines. In front of my house there is a sewer lift station. This equipment requires both power and telephone line connections. Where is that in reference to this structure? Is there an easement to facilitate the maintenance of this equipment?" Sutherland commented there is an easement to facilitate the maintenance of this equipment. City staff is working to maintain the easements and remove encroachments. 4. ,,Survey. Are you looking at a current survey of the property as it is today or a proposed survey for a house to be built?" Sutherland confirmed the survey submitted is not a current survey and he has discussed this with the applicant who is getting a revised survey that will show the existing structures and setbacks and a grading and drainage plan with elevations. 5. "Commons Area. How does the City plan to access on a timely manner the commons area in front of our home with heavy equipment to maintain the sewer station, trees or shoreline?" Sutherland noted the options in the staff report which suggests that it is possible the easement could be expanded to the south around the deck in order to accommodate access to the sewer station, or the encroachments into the easement could be removed. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request as it enhances the use and function of the property with the condition that the encroachment of the deck into the easement be resolved, this encroachment could be resolved by one of the following options. 1) The encroaching portion of the deck could be removed prior to the issuance of the building permit for the garage. Planning Commission Hinutes October 28, I996 2) The easement could be expanded to the south to allow for vehicle access, as approved by the City Attorney and the City Engineer. If approval is recommended, it is recommended by staff that the survey be revised to show all utility easements and all existing structures. Weiland stated that the decks are not shown properly on the survey and asked who drew them on the survey. The secretary indicated that the applicant,s contractor, Tom from Durabilt drew the decks on the survey. ' Gina Anderson, neighbor at 4665 Island View, handed out copies of photographs taken of their property during the storm of 1995 and stated they moved in their house in June and have drainage concerns. She stated she is submitting the photos to document how substantial the run-off is between their two property lines when the storm drain backs-up. She indicated you can see from the photos that the garage will redirect the run-off towards their basement and there are two windows in that location. Hanus commented he would like to specifically see the following items addressed if this request is tabled. - Ail easements be shown on the survey. Ail buildings/structures be shown, including the deck to the north of the house. Elevations need to be corrected and clarified. He is concerned about the slope of the driveway as it comes into the proposed garage. - Hanus highlighted a concern of Commissioner Mueller,s which was received in writing (he was not present) regarding the turning radius and if they will have to cross onto the neighbors property in order to exit from the garage. - Hanus noted there are fences located in the easements and asked if there were permits issued. Joyce Agnew neighbor at 4649 Island View Drive stated that they share their driveway with the Macks in that the pavement meets at the property line, and she does have concern with how he will be able to turn out of the driveway without continually crossing over the line. Mr. Mack stated that the Agnew's use his driveway when they exit their property. Sutherland stated that the fence along the east side does have a permit. The applicant confirmed that the fence on the west side does belong to him. Sutherland stated that staff will verify if a permit was obtained for the fence on the west line. Ill Planning Commission Minutes October 28, I996 Clapsaddle suggested that the two neighbors cooperate and work together and do some grading to solve the drainage issue. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Clapsa~dle to t~ble the request pending the receipt of further xnformatxon from the applicant, including: ,,-+edsurvey including: all existing and 0~ struct~i~es including decks, the joint ~ri~eway shall be delineated, existing and proposed elevations, and a drainage and grading plan. The floor elevation of the proposed garage in relation to the driveway shall be clarified. Location of off-site easements on adjacent properties shall be clarified. MOTION carried unanimously. chair Michael requested the secretary include Commissioner Mueller's comments which were received in writing, as follows: "The applicant already has a garage. Drainage from Island View Drive is terrible and therefore how will this property contain and divert water so as not to affect the adjacent property owners with snow melt run-off and heavy rains. Putting a building up definitely changes current water flow. Huge need for a drainage plan which shows there is no detrimental affect on the adjacent neighbors. If there is no agreement with the property owner to the east, it is nearly impossible to access this garage without infringing on the neighbors rights of quiet enjoyment of their property. I also understand the applicant has a concern with snow plowing the driveway to the east. Get an agreement or show its possible to put the garage in and turning an 18' vehicle into the garage without encroaching on the neighbor." CASE 96-63: VARI]tNCE FOR~AIVER OF PL~TTING, ROBERT NELSON, 4739 BEDFORD RO~D, LOTS 7. 8, 24. 25, 26 & 1/2 OF 6 & 27, BLOCK 13, NYC_~WOOD, 19-117-23 32 0214/20~ Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Planning Report. The Nelson home at 4739 Bedford Road has an attached garage which encroaches into Lot 9 which is owned by Lawrence and Patricia Hagglund, 4655 Bedford. In 1974 the two property owners agreed to exchange the westerly 30 feet of Lot 24 for an easement for the garage encroachment and its associated driveway on Lot 9. There is no record of filing the easement, and all of Lot 24 is currently on Hagglund's deed, but Nelson has been paying the property taxes. 6 Planning Commission Hinutes October 28, 1996 The Nelson home was recently sold and title problems emerged prior to closing resulting in this request to transfer ownership of Lot 24 to the owner of 4755 Bedford. It is the intent of the applicant to no include the easterly 10 feet of Lot 24 in the transfer of ownership. This application also includes a request for a variance since the existing garage on the Nelson home does not observe any side yard setback since it encroaches into the neighboring property. A rear yard setback variance would also be needed. In 1992 the Nelson property was involved in a minor subdivision involving Lots 6 and 27 which was approved, however, City records do not indicate that the subdivision was filed with Hennepin County. The legal descriptions that were prepared at that time show Lot 24 still in the ownership of Ms. Nelson. COMMENT/RECOMMENDATiON: Determining the appropriate course of action for this case is difficult because the application materials don't specifically describe all aspects of the subject request. It seems that two courses of action are possible. First, the Planning Commission, after a full explanation by the applicant, could approve the waiver of platting and applicable variances to allow Lot 24 to be transferred to the Hagglunds. If this course of action is followed, it would be appropriate to include a condition that an easement for the garage and driveway on Lot 9 be drafted, executed and filed. An additional condition may also require the filing of the minor subdivision resolution for the lot line adjustment that was approved in 1992. The other option in considering this case would be to either act on an alternative subdivision request or table the item pending submittal of materials supporting an alternative method of resolving this issue. This issue has been unresolved for 22 years! It would seem to be in the best interest of both the Nelsons and the Hagglunds to create a subdivision that would place the garage and driveway on the Nelson property rather than establish an easement for that purpose. A subdivision that would take part of Lot 9 and 10'+ of lot 24 and attach it to the Nelson property with the remainder of Lot 9 and most of Lot 24 being attached to the Hagglund property would accomplish this purpose. Exhibit B to the Planning Report illustrates this alternative. Mrs. Hagglund and Ms. Nelson both stated that they are in favor of Exhibit B. Hanus feels it would be cleaner to divide the property than to have easements. He questioned if there would need to be setback variances if the property were divided. Clapsaddle stated that the setback variances are not an important issue and agreed they should approve the subdivision and the technicalities can be dealt with. L/~{'~ 7 Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 1996 The secretary confirmed that a minor subdivision does not require a public hearing. MOTION made by Clapsad~le, seconded, by Weila~d to recommend approval of a m~nor subdivision, according to Exhibit B to the staff report, along with the necessary ..... =--' to the annlicant submitting the warxances, sumj,u~ .== · - necessary survey and application form.a~d fee .pr~o~ :o the City council meeting. Motion carrxea unan=mously. DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT_ Weiland announced that he had to be dismissed. The chair announced that there would not be a quorum if Weiland leaves and the meeting will need to be adjourned. Weiland stated that he would stay for five more minutes. Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development commission (EDC) Coordinator, reviewed with the commission that at the last meeting they talked about the districts in the downtown, their boundaries and uses, and the intent of those districts. Chamberlain had hoped to talk about, and determine within the destination district and pedestrian district, the types of uses which should be ,,permitted," ,,conditional," and "allowed." He had also hoped to discuss the vision for the linear district which is currently part of the B-1 zone. Chamberlain stated that he is open to receive comments, but if the Commission does not have any comments to offer, he has an idea of the direction of the linear district, if the Commission would like his input, then staff could take it to the next level and look at uses, regulations and the performance standards. The Commission asked chamberlain to summarize his ideas for the linear district. Chamberlain commented, based on whats currently being used in the linear district, such as residential uses, it seems strange to have an area where residential uses seem to want to occur and then they are not being permitted. So it seems like that area could be some type of cottage industry, that would allow residential uses and would also allow incubator type uses to utilize the existing homes and some of the existing structures in that area. There also seems to be an opportunity, if downtown develops as planned, for higher density residential to continue to expand in the linear district. So what this concept looks at doing is not really guiding it in any particular direction, but allowing to happen what the market is driving to happen. So there may be opportunities for uses like antique shops or coffee shops. The market may shed light in the future as downtown becomes more focused and intense. They would not exclude apartment buildings, even though it may be difficult to get too large of structures in some areas due to the shallowness of the lots. 8 October 28, 1996 Clapsaddle noted that there are some pretty dilapidated houses along that stretch of road, and recalled a variance request to repair one of those dwellings, which they denied because residential is not allowed in the B-1 zone. Chamberlain stated that the Commission needs to decide if it makes sense to continue to deny those applications or to allow them as a permitted use and allow people to fix them up. Hanus agrees that some kind of residential use will probably remain in this area. Relating to the pedestrian district, Chamberlain handed out information for the Commission to review and bring back for discussion at the next meeting. Chamberlain highlighted sections of the handout which the Commission should pay particular attention to= Area and Bulk Requirements E.(3), F., and G., and also Parking. This issue will be discussed again at the November 25th workshop meeting. MOTION.m?de by Hanus, seconded by Clapsaddle to ad4ourn the meeting at 8=48 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. ~hair, Geoff Michael Attest: 9 MINIYrEs OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COM1VII qSION NOVEMBER 1996 'Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Gerald Reifschneider, and Orv Burma; city Council Representative Mark Hanus; city Planner Mark Koegler; Building Official Jon Sutherland; and Secretary Peggy James. Absent and excused were: Commissioners Michael Muller and Frank Weiland. The following people were also in attendance: Nancy Gramenz, Ron Gramenz, shirley Lund, Lila Friedrichs, Arthur Freidrichs, Anita Watson, Jeff Skelton, George Fougeron, Larry Overstreet, Thomas K. Price, Lee & Sharon Descher, Susan Johnson, Gary Johnson, Gary C. Landsman, Bert Landsman, Tim Becker, R.G. Andersen, Jay Gerling, Gordy Farmer, Tony Shelffo, John Keller, Alvin W. Donahoo, J. Hessburg, Jr., Roger C. Henderson, Mary McCurdy, Ralph McCurdy, John W. Montgomery, Selena Montgomery, Richard Spellman, Carl E. Johnson, Mitch Knutson, Dave Mueller, Joe Zylman, Edythe Koenig, and Maryan Monteith. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1996 were presented for approval. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Reifschneider to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 1996 as written. Motion carried unanimously. CASE 96-61: V~RI~NCE FOR G~P~GE ADDITION, FRAZIER/HARTER, 2155 C~RDINAL LA~, LOT 23, BLOCK 8, A.L. ADDN TO LAKESIDE PARK, 13-117~ 24 31 0065. City Planner, Mark Koegler explained that at the October 28, 1996 Planning Commission meeting this case was tabled until the applicant could come in and discuss their request. Koegler explained that the applicant is seeking variance approval to construct an attached garage 16' x 23' and an entry closet over an existing 6' x 18' slab. The variances involved are: Required Lot Size 6,000 sf Side 6 ' Front to deck 20' (Cardinal) Front to deck 10' (Alley) Rear 15 ' Existing/ Variance Proposed 4,250 sf 1,750 sf .95' 5.05' 18.9 1.1 8.9' 1.1' 7t 8t Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 Over the years, the Planning Commission and City Council have determined that garages are necessary and desirable accessory structures for single family homes in order to provide enclosed storage space for vehicles and personal belongings. In this particular case, a 16 foot wide garage seems to be the minimum improvement necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty of not having enclosed storage space on the property. Staff recommended that if the Planning Commission finds that the lack of a garage is a legitimate practical difficulty and one which is remedied by the minimum garage construction the variance should be approved. Reifschneider noted that at the last meeting there was a question relating to hardcover because there are existing gravel areas that were not included in the calculations. The City Planner stated that they could limit the amount of hardcover to no more than 40% as an additional condition. Applicant, Leigh Hartert, informed the Commission that they recalculated the hardcover to include the existing gravel areas, and if they remove the graveled parking area on the alley side of the property they are 57 square feet over the 40%. He confirmed that they will convert the graveled parking area into green space. The applicant confirmed that the Oak tree will be removed, but the Basswood will stay. The applicant clarified that the garage addition should measure 16' x 24' and confirmed that the existing slab area shown on the , survey does have a full basement underneath with frost footings. MOTION made by Voss to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff, including the condition that the property must meet the 40% hardcover requirements. Reifschneider seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on November 12, 1996. ..CASE 96-65.'_ V~E .FOI~__WAIVEI~ OF PLATTING GREG & ~T~ COTE City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report. The applicants are seeking a waiver of platting and variances in order to correct a combination of property that occurred in error. City records indicate that Lots 1,2,3 and 4 were one parcel in 1963. In 1984, Lots 1 and 2 were separated from Lots 3 and 4. In 1986, the four lots were combined once again by Hennepin County. The combination in 1986 should not have occurred since Lots 1 and 2 and Lots 3 and 4 were not totally in common ownership. Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 In order to rectify the situation, a waiver of platting is being requested to separate the parcels along the lot line that is common to Lots 2 and 3. The waiver of platting includes a variance request due to existing nonconforming setbacks. Approval of the subject request is the easiest way to rectify the existing problem. Both of the resulting parcels meet the minimum lot area requirements and the variance situation that has been present since at least 1984 remains unchanged. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested Waiver of Platting including the following variances for Lots 1 and 2: - the principal structure is setback 16.5 feet from the front lot line resulting in a 3.5 foot variance - the detached garage is setback 3.9 feet from the rear lot line resulting in a .1 foot setback variance - the detached garage is setback 3 feet +/- from the side lot line resulting in a 1 foot setback variance If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, a motion should include the finding that the requested variances are consistent with the criteria for granting variances found in Section 330:170 of the Mound city Code. In addition, Koegler reviewed the Sewer and Water Superintendent's memorandum. The sewer for the existing house located on Lots 1 and 2 is connected to the main in front of Lot 3. Staff recommended the existing sewer service be disconnected and reconnected to the main in front of Lots 1 and 2. There is no existing sewer stub-in for Lots 1 and 2. Prior to release of the resolution approving the Waiver, the sewer locations must be corrected, or some type of financial guarantee be established to insure that it is completed. Applicant, Martha Cote, explained that Lots 3 and 4 were bought on a contract for deed and is now owned by four people, one of which is deceased. Cote asked why the sewer needs to be changed. She stated that the sewer works, and asked who decided on that location to begin with? The city Planner stated that in 1963 this property was all one piece so whoever owned the property had free reign to put the sewer wherever in front of this property. Sutherland stated, in the past when this property was separated and combined, the city may not have been aware of the sewer location. Sutherland noted that the recommendation to relocate the sewer comes from the City Engineer, Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 and it is City policy to always try to get utility services located on the same parcel. Cote stated that this condition adds an additional financial burden on them and asked how much this change will cost. Staff informed the applicant that they could get bids from local contractors. Cote stated that they are trying to sell their house and this causes extra problems. MOTION made by Burma, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the waiver and variances as recommended by staff. Hanus commented that he would like staff to include in the resolution a finding that this situation would not exist today if it were not an error made by Hennepin County who allowed the property to be recombined in 1986. Koegler suggested that the Commission may want to add to t recommendation that if it is ~ .......... he ~uunu ~nat the location of th encroachment onto Lot 3 is minor th .... ~ ...... e sewer , --= a~can~ coul~ also a utility easement acceptable ~ ~ ~ ....... create = ~ ~-= ~uy au=orney an~ Engineer. Burma and Clapsaddle accepted an amendment to.the motion to include the suggestion of the Planner. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on November 26, 1996. ¢~SE 96-66~ Y~O_~_(~%GE ~'EI(3HT MITCH ]~TSO BARTLETT BLVD. LOT ~ .......... N 6545 -- n~uu'~'..'AD HEIGHTS ~2-117-24 44 0033 Building Official, Jon Sutherland, briefly reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant is seeking a building height variance to allow the construction of a 24' x 32' three stall detached garage that exceeds the height of the principal dwelling on the same lot. In 1995 Resolution #95-122 approved a similar variance for a 24' x 26 two stall garage in the same location. Other than the additional stall, this proposal is essentially the same as the previous one. The current owners have obtained a building permit for the original garage, however it has not been constructed and they are intending to sell the property to the a~plicant. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request as proposed, with the condition that all of the remaining conditions of Resolution #95-122 that have not been completed to-date are incorporated within this approval as follows: 1. The drainage plan be revised by the applicant to include the additional garage area and incorporating the techniques listed in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.A.3. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to building permit issuance. Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 2. The deck and encroaching shed located on Parcel B shall be removed within one year of building permit issuance, consistent with the 1995 resolution. Reifschneider asked for clarification on the zoning issues and setbacks for this property. Motion made by Michael to recommend approval of the variance, as recommended by Staff. Voss seconded the motion. Hanus asked staff to include a copy of the Planning and Council minutes of last year's meetings in the Council packet. The Commission discussed the history of this case and the options for subdividing the parcel. Clapsaddle stated that there is very little reason not to approve the request, even though he may not like it. Voss agreed. The Commission asked staff why they feel it is bad planning to move the property line. Koegler responded that it is a long-term goal to see the two parcels combined, and noted that if the Commission wished to grant a variance allowing two houses on one lot, the properties could be combined. By allowing the garage to be constructed hopefully promotes the combination of these lots in the future when the cabin deteriorates. Parcel B could have a new home built on it, but the garage perpetuates this not happening. Motion carried 6 to 1. Clapsaddle, Burma, Michael, Voss, Hanus and Glister voted in favor. Reifschneider was opposed. This case is scheduled to be heard by the city Council on November 26, 1996. The applicant, Mitch Knutson, requested to be heard on the November 12, meeting. Sutherland informed the applicant that he needed to request this of the city Manager. CASE 96-67: V~RI~NCE FOR NEW DWELLING TOM, TAMALA PRICE 5~ ThBEE POINTS BLVD., LOT 8, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF ~RRISON SHORES, 117-24 22 0046 Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant is seeking variances of 10 feet to the front yard and 10 feet to the lakeside in order to allow construction of a new single family dwelling. In 1986 this property received a 10 foot front yard setback variance for a new dwelling due to the shallowness of the lot, the dwelling was not constructed at that time. This property is located in the R-1 zoning district which requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, and a setback of 50 feet to the ordinary high water (OHW). There are several pro's and con's that the Planning Commission may wish to discuss when considering this proposal. 5 Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 1) The properties buildable footprint is limited by its shallow depth and this condition was recognized by the 1986 resolution. 2) The buildable lot area is also limited by the floodplain. Approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is required in order to build/fill within the floodplain and mitigation is generally required. There is adjacent undeveloped land that could possibly be purchased to provide for on-site mitigation. Note the floodplain elevation/contour of 931.5 on the survey, the area of displacement and a compensatory plan must be calculated by the surveyor. If approval is gained, the surveyor must verify compliance with the approved plan at the end of the project. 3) There is approximately a 17 foot wide boulevard that slightly reduces the impact to the front yard setback. 4) The main structure is conforming to the required 50 foot lake setback. The deck encroaches 10 feet into this setback and a slight deck encroachment is not uncommon for lakeshore properties, and there are similar situations in the area. 5) The proposed house, despite the variances, is compatible with the surrounding development. In the alternative, It is possible to build a house with conforming setbacks, however this may be less compatible. Staff recommended the Planning Commission has the following options to consider. 1) Recommend approval of the variance request based on the previous approval and the other positive aspects as discussed by the Planning Commission, subject to approval by the MCWD. 2) Recommend denial as it is possible to construct a conforming dwelling on the property, and there are other alternatives available with minimal encroachment. Hanus questioned if this is a lot of record? Sutherland confirmed that it is. Hanus asked if the Watershed is strict about mitigation. Sutherland confirmed they are. Hanus asked about the vacant land next to this property. Sutherland referred to the zoning sheet on page 66 of the packet and indicated that lots 5 through 7 are undeveloped and that the floodplain slices approximately through the middle of all the lots. H~nus expressed a concern if the adjacent vacant lots are used for mitigation, how it might affect the remaining land for setbacks and building. Sutherland noted that there is no mitigation plan shown for this property, and depending on the plan the adjacent property could be unbuildable. ' Planning commission Minutes November 4, 1996 Applicant, Tom Price informed the Commission that the surveyor has determined that 800 square feet is what would be affected by the mitigation, and he has received the instructions from the Watershed on how to apply for a variance for that. Clapsaddle questioned the City's regulations for building in a floodplain. Sutherland clarified that the City would have to issue a variance to allow building in a floodplain. Clapsaddle asked if the house could be built on stilts. Sutherland confirmed that it is a possibility. Reifschneider stated that since there is a 17 foot boulevard in the front, he feels the house could be moved closer to the road to reduce or eliminate the lake side setback variance as requested. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Burma to recommend denial as it is possible to construct a conforming dwelling on the property, and there are other alternatives available with minimal encroachment. Tim Becker, son of the seller of this property, stated that his father is in Arizona. Becker explained, when they purchased these lots in 1986, the seller at that time had to verify that the lots were buildable, and they got a 10 foot front yard setback variance approved at that time. Becker emphasized that a neighbor, the Fougeron's have a 20 foot front setback and also received a lake side setback variance for their deck. Becker stated, to build this house they will need to fill only about 44 cubic yards, or 3 dump truck loads. He would like to see their variance granted. Sutherland explained that he discussed this case with Mr. Becker, and feels that staff may have a more favorable recommendation with a mitigation plan abd MCWD approval. Michael asked Becker if he would like to see the case tabled, rather than denied, pending receipt of a mitigation plan. Becker stated that the variance is for setbacks and does not feel the mitigation plan should not hinder approval of the variance. Sutherland clarified, if fill is placed in the floodplain, a variance for filling in the floodplain is required by the city, however, if a mitigation plan is submitted and approved, a variance for filling will not be required. Clapsaddle finds it hard to approve the variance until a mitigation plan is received. Hanus agreed. Becker confirmed that they own all four of the vacant lots (5 - 8). Becker feels the Commission should approve the variance pending receipt of a mitigation plan. Hanus feels it may be beneficial for them to see the mitigation plan to see how it could affect the building on this lot and the other lots. The Commission agreed it is valid to see the mitigation plan before the variance is approved. Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 Becker emphasized that similar setback variances were allowed on adjacent properties and he would like to receive the same. Sutherland agreed that it makes sense to look at a comprehensive plan for all the four vacant lots and deal with the mitigation issue all at the same time. Clapsaddle feels there is a better chance for this case to get approved if it is tabled. Applicant, Tom Price, stated that he would rather see the variance tabled than denied. Voss and Burma withdrew their motion. MOTION made by ross, seconded by Clapsaddle to ~able the var%ante re.quest pending receipt of a mitigation plan. Motion carried unanimously. ~ASE 96-68~ ~ONINGFROM R-1TOR-1A. WATERS & 025_____~0 ~ u~ ~ux &~ hAFAYETTE PARK 13-117-24 22 0246 0249 Chair Michael reviewed the public hearing procedures. City Planner, Mark Koegler reviewed the Planning Report. The applicant is seeking approval of a rezoning of the subject property from R-1 to R-IA, both of which are single family zones. The R-1 zone has a minimum lot size requirement of 10,000 square feet and the R-iA zone has a lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet. The site lies with in the shoreland area and is therefore, subject to the additional shoreland restrictions that are contained in the Zoning Code. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow consideration of a twin home development on the site that will be processed as a Planned Development Area (PDA). The smaller lot size is being requested to meet an acceptable overall density and setback requirements for the project. The subject site and two adjacent parcels constitute an existing strip of R-1 zoning that lies north of Three Points Blvd. The property to the west is zoned B-i, General Business and the site to the east is zoned R-3, Multiple Family Residential. Parcels 246 and 250 are not included in the applicant's request for rezoning. The public hearing notice for this case was expanded to include these two properties in case the Planning Commission determines that their rezoning is appropriate. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission defer action on the rezoning request until testimony has been taken from the owners of Parcels 246 and 250 and after the proposed development plan has been reviewed. After that has occurred, the action on the rezoning should be handled as a separate motion from any other approvals for the project. A separate action will need to be made for the 8 Planning commission Minutes November 4, 1996 rezoning from the PDA. The commission decided to proceed with the staff presentation for the PDA and discuss them simultaneously. CAS~ ~-"~ NVESTMENTCO- ~um -~'=~- MAPLE MANORS WATERS EDGE I LOT 25 LAFAYETTE P]%RK 13-117-24 22 0249 city Planner, Mark Koegler reviewed the Planning Report. This case involves a request for approval of a.conditional use permit to establish the Planned Development Area (PDA), a number of variances as part of the PDA and a preliminary plat by Waters Edge Investment Area on a 2.8 acre site off of Three Points Blvd. Koegler reviewed the location of the site and its topographical characteristics- The development plan calls for a cul-de-sac that originates off of Three Points Blvd. and extends approximately 500 feet into the site. The proposed street right-of-way is 40 feet wide with a 28 foot wide street which is consistent with Mound's historic street standards. The proposed cul-de-sac has a paved diameter of 70 feet. The plan calls for 12 housing units that are twin homes. One of the features of the development will be minimal owner maintenance since most of the property will be owned and maintained by a common homeowner's association. Approval of the project will require approval of the following: Planned Development Area (PDAI: In order for twin homes to be built on the site which is currently zoned R-I, a conditional use permit needs to be approved to establish the PDA. · . . isions of the Mound zoning Code require that VarianceS. ~: prov,.,~ DA be listed and approved as part of variances associated ..... the P the plan. If the underlying land is rezoned to R-lA the site plan results in the following variances: front yard setback, unit 4 20' 18' 2' front yard setback, unit 6 20' 19' 1' front yard setback, unit 9 10' 16' 4' front yard setback, unit 10 10' 18' 2' right-of-way width 50' 40' 10' cul-de-sac right-of-way (radius) 50' 40' 10' cul-de-sac paved street (radius) 40' 35' 5' lot size (all lots except 7) 6,000 sf 3,440 sf 2,560 sf lot size, lot 7 6,000 sf 3,380 sf 2,620 sf It appears that with minor shifts in the existing site plan, setback variances for Lots 4, 6 and 10 can be eliminated. Unless the location of the cul-de-sac is modified, the setback variance for Lot 9 is unavoidable- Three variances pertain to the public street that will serve the 9 Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 property. Because of the low volume of traffic that will be carried by Maple Manors Court, staff feels that the proposed right- of-way and cul-de-sac configuration will be adequate. The lot size variances that are required relate to the type of development proposed. Lot size variances of similar magnitude have been approved in other Planned Development Areas. ~reliminar¥ Plat: The preliminary plat shows a 40 foot right-of- way for Maple Manors Court that originates at Three Points Blvd. and terminates in a cul-de-sac. Where the proposed right-of-way abuts the two existing single family residential properties, the 40 foot right-of-way establishes a five foot strip on each side that will be owned by the homeowner,s association. This private strip of land would preclude possible future access by either of the existing single family homes. Expansion of the right-of-way to 50 feet within this area would alleviate this situation. The Maple Manors plan presents a number of issues that need to be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in reviewing and acting on this request. Koegler highlighted some of these briefly: DENSITY. Density in a PDA is established by the underlying lot size for the applicable residential district. The PDA provisions specifically delete land used for streets and utilities from the gross density calculation. In the case of Maple Manors, since the site is in the Shoreland District, shoreland PDA standards also apply. Shoreland standards establish a series of tier within which units are allowed based on a lot size standard of 10,000 square feet. The tiers are established based on the location of the 929.4 contour. The site plan information submitted does not locate any contours below the 930 elevation, therefore it is impossible to accurately determine the tier locations. Depending on the location of the 929.4 contour and the characteristics of the project, allowable density and bonuses may accommodate the proposed 12 units but will need to be verified. , If the PDA standards found in Section 350:460 of the code are applied, the site zoned as R-1 may support a total of 10 units and the site zoned as R-iA may allow up to 16 units. There are two aspects to the consideration of density that need to be examined. The first is the simple calculation of maximum allowable density as per the Code standards and the second is the capacity of the site to handle the proposed density. In the case of the proposed plan, staff has a concern that the site plan identifies too many units on the property. This concern is based on the location of units i through 8 which are so close together that the front of unit 7 looks into the side of unit 6. This type of view arrangement is generally avoided in the design of townhouse developments. Ideally, more land should be available on the Maple Manors site between unit 12 and the adjacent single family lot to 10 Planning commission Minutes November 4, 1996 provide an effective landscape buffer between the two uses. The identified 10 foot side ard setback is not enough land to . -~ Y --A~er ~otential indicator .of accommodate such a Du~er. ~u~, ~ excessive density on the site in the fact that the grading plan calls for disturbance of most of the property including the removal of significant amounts of vegetation. One off-site factor will also impact the ,,feel of the project. The horse condominiums on the east side of the site have a garage ~~-~ eh~t is 234 feet long, located six.~t from the property ~u~,,~ ~--- . ~-~ ~=~a~e will be readl±y_visible from the · e The exls=ln9 ~ ~ . - ~n ~ ..... ~ e ~ara e building defines a nard edge along almost ~eve~opm=~ · Th = g 50% of the eastern property line contributing to a tighter, more congested appearance in the cul-de-sac area. It should be pointed out that the existing garage building is nonconforming since the code requires a 20 foot setback and it maintains only a 6 foot setback. TREE PRESERVATION- The Mound Zoning code contains standards · servation. In 1978, a tree inventory was re ardin~ tree pre ._ ~ ~,~e~ v identified completed ~or un= ~-~ ...... the ~operty an~ .an. ar=~ individual trees ~h£uu~hou~ %%~.~o~ The ventory whlc~ is now ~=~o~a as ,,edae oI woo~s and miu=~,.. .......... ~in~ from 5" to ~=~ .... - -~ .... :-~ ~4 trees with ca±lp=£~ ~=*.~ ~ a 18 years o1~ 1Qen=l=l=u ~ 36", most of which were maples with some ash, oak and elm Many of the trees that were identified had calipers which ranged from 20" to 30". Based on the developer's grading plan, most of the individual trees that were identified (approx. 80%) will be removed from the site. Those that remain are predominately around the periphery of the property. Modification of the current grading plan may retain more of the existing tree cover and be more consistent with the tree preservation policy. As this report was being prepared, Mr. Zylman called to inform me that they were taking another look at their grading plan and with modifications, he felt that approximately 50% of the existing trees could be retained. He will provide additional information regarding grading modifications at this Planning commission meeting. ound Wetlands Ordinance identifies the wetland WETLANDS. The M _ A ' 29 5 A survey done by contour in the area of th= project as 9 · · _ .... ~ ~ ~he s Assoc. of the area in 1981 as w~ ~= ~-- McCombs Frank Roo ....... ~ --adin- nlan identify wetland applicants submitted s~e p±an ~nu ~ ~ = · site. Because of changes in the wetland laws vegetation on the ..... ~eation should be done on the over the past 5 years, a=~±~ ~ct does not have any wet%an? site in order to ensure un=u ~ w ~ · · ' conflicts, such a survey would need to be done by an ~nd~v~uai qualified in wetland delineation. CREATION OF NONCONFORMING LOTS. The proposed construction of Maple Manors Court will create two non-conforming situations on adjacent properties that are not part of the subject development. The construction of Maple Manors Court will create a new street frontage for the two residential lots that lie along Three Points 11 Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 Blvd. to the south of the site. The lot on the east is defined as Parcel 250 and the lot on the west is defined as Parcel 246. Parcel 250 haw a garage that is located approximately 5 feet from the property line and the home is located approximately 15 feet from the new right-of-way line. This creates variances of 15 feet and 5 feet respectively. Parcel 246 has a detached garage that is 16 feet from the new right-of-way. This situation results in a 4 foot variance from the 20 foot setback requirement. In the case of both of these homes, future improvements may require approval of a variance. The construction of the new street is certainly grounds for approving (recognizing) variances for the existing conditions should such be necessary in the future. RECOMMENDATION. The twin home use that is proposed is an appropriate land use for the existing site that lies between the condominium complex to the east and the business zoned property to the west. As was mentioned earlier in this report, staff has some reservations about the density of the project after reviewing the spatial arrangement of the units. It is suggested that the Planning Commission conduct a discussion on the appropriate density of the project. If it is felt that the proposed density is appropriate (12 units), the Planning Commission should formulate a motion of approval with appropriate conditions. If the proposed density is viewed as being too high, the case should be either denied or tabled pending a modification of the plan by the applicant. If the Planning Commission supports the project in its present form and moves to approve the conditional use permit, variances and preliminary plat, there are 14 conditions that are a compilation of conditions from both the Planner and Engineer. In the interest of time, Koegler did not review the conditions, but stated he could do so if action appears to be immanent on this request. Koegler reviewed the comments received by the DNR. They did a "quick and dirty,, estimate of the of suitable area, and found the property could accommodate 6 units rather than 12 based on shoreland standards. Koegler stated he is not sure if the DNR was using State standards or the City's standards when reviewing this. Koegler feels that 6 units is too low under the existing City shoreland ordinance, in fact the City's ordinance would allow higher than that, but they need to definitively know where the 929.5 contour is in order to answer that conclusively. Also, the City has been advised by the DNR that the MCWD requires a buffer of 35 feet adjacent to wetlands greater than 5 acres in size, and they indicated it does not appear that units 3, 4, 5, or 6 would meet the District,s buffer requirement. From a staff perspective, we need a wetland delineation to find out where that line is, and as the survey shows staff would concur with the DNR's comments. If the wetland line is out in the marsh somewhere as the applicant attests, then this perhaps may not be an issue, so this 12 Planning commission Minutes November 4, 1996 would need to be clarified. Hanus clarified that the DNR states in their letter that they did reference the city's SMO. Koegler stated that he is still leery of that because Mound has a different lot size standard than most communities, 10,000 vs. 15,000, and that may attribute to the difference. Koegler added that the code does allow a 50 percent bonus in density within the first tier, if certain setback provisions are adhered to, and we need to review it more closely to see if that applies. Voss confirmed with the planner that no matter what type of development is proposed here, due to the street, will create nonconforming situations. Reifschneider asked if the lot area on the hardcover calculations includes the low land area. Koegler stated that the survey indicates the low land area is above the 929.5, and yes it has been included in the calculations. Koegler confirmed that the street was not included in the total land area. chair Michael opened the public hearing. Alvin Donahoo, President of the Seahorse Condominium Assoc., indicated that a petition has been signed by members of the Seahorse Condominium expressing reservations or objections to the development. Seahorse has 108 units, all are privately owned and 85% are owner occupied. They want to go on record as asking the Planning Commission not to approve the PDA for Maple Manors and that the property not be rezoned. Twelve units are too many for this area which would give this area a congested appearance which is in direct contract of neighboring properties. They are concerned about the loss of green space which is also in contract with neighboring property. Green space is needed. They are concerned about the loss of trees and feel this is in conflict with the Mound Code which states that it is the intent of the city of Mound to preserve wooded areas throughout the city, and with respect to future site developments to retain as far as practical, substantial existing tree cover. They believe the trees should be preserved. The development abuts some of the Seahorse garages which will create a jammed-up appearance, and are concerned about drainage between the garages and the proposed twin homes. They project that 24 automobiles will be added to the area with this development, and no provisions have been made for owner or guest parking. They are concerned about their view which would detract from the value of Seahorse. Clapsaddle asked the applicant the value of the proposed units. Zylman stated he projects the units to sell for $150,000 per unit. Richard Spellman, 5400 Three Points Blvd., is a retired Licensed Engineer, stated he submitted a petition with signatures from owners on Jones Lane and Lafayette Lane who are opposed to the rezoning and the development. He feels the number of lots should be reduced and single family dwellings should be constructed. 13 Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 Spellman emphasized that the Mound Code states, "It is the intent of the City of Mound to preserve wooded areas throughout the City and with respect to future site development, to retain, as far as practicable, substantial existina tree c '., ' Planner,s report indicates that %~ -~ ~ve~. He noted that the vv~ u~ ~ne trees will be removed and feels this conflicts with the ordinance. It is his opinion that the whole northwest corner of the property is in the floodplain. He suggested the development be made the same as that to the south of Three Points, and that more trees should be saved. He feels the property should remain in the R-1 zone. koegler stated that it is customary to.have developer speak, and he had indicated in his report that they intend to do some fine tuning of the grading plan which may help save more trees. Joe Zylman stated that they are going to try to save as many trees as possible, there are now 34 trees of size, and they plan to keep 17 of them. They will work hard to do fine tuning to the plan to remove as many variances as they can. Zylman emphasized that another of his development is called Sugar Bush in Watertown, and stated it was once a corn field, and it is now on it's way to become a wooded area. Zylman explained the types of units proposed to be constructed. They will be one level living with association maintained grounds, drives and walks, and no maintenance exteriors. Zylman explained the landscaping. There will be a swale between the garage and the units and there will be a holding pond to the north so drainage will not affect Seahorse. He plans to keep the big maples between Seahorse and the development. He stated that the buildings will be of quality from bottom to top, and feels they will be an improvement to area, not a detraction. Each unit will have a double garage and a driveway that will accommodate parking of two additional vehicles. Zylman stated that trees, wildlife and conservation are important to him. He also feels that additional taxes will help everyone. Zylman commented that the density is barely higher than the R-1 zoning, he is asking for only two more units than what is allows. Carl Johnson, resident at Seahorse, believes that in process of grading the property they will have to lose too many trees. Zylman commented that they will try not to change the elevations, they will work with the existing grade as much as possible. Tony Shelffo, resident at Seahorse, questioned the square footage of the units. Zylman stated that each unit will have 1500 square feet. Mary McCurdy of 5420 Three Points Blvd. stated she is opposed to changing the zoning to R-lA, and questioned if an Environmental Assessment Worksheet has been done. Koegler stated that this property does not meet the mandatory threshold for an EAW, however 14 Planning Commission ~/nutes November 4, I996 and EAW can be requested by petition. Tony shelffo asked how many units could be constructed if you stuck to the 10,000 square foot lot size. zylman stated that ten units could be constructed. R. Anderson, resident at seahorse, stated he is concerned about runoff, and asked how a holding pond can be constructed in a swamp. Koegler stated that the Engineer as preliminarily reviewed the drainage plan, but more a detailed review will be needed and the watershed District will also be reviewing the plan. Jeff Skelton stated that everyone on Three Points should be notified of this request as they all driveway past this property everyday; Three Points is its own little community, and this development is at the entrance of it. Richard Spellman stated that no one on Jones Lane received a notice. Gordy Farmer, resident at Seahorse stated that he will lose his view as his unit overlooks this property. Gary Landsman, owner of parcel 250, 5470 Three Points Blvd., stated that this property is beautiful, however, someday it will eventually get developed trees will go, but trees will be planted too. It is his opinion t~at Seahorse is already too dense and does not feel the development would be an eye sore. He has no objection to the rezoning. Susan Johnson, resident of Minnetrista, she lives to the north, stated she would hate to see the trees go. She is opposed to rezoning. chair Michael closed the public hearing. Voss asked if the owners of parcel 246 were present. They were not · Burma commented that he is concerned about density, but considering the adjacent use does not feel the concern carries much weight. He likes trees and green space. Burma lived in unit #6 at Seahorse for a while, and he would rather look at this development than the back side of a Seahorse garage. Reifschneider commented that Three Points is already crowded, and thinks the difference in lot size is significant. Traffic is already horrendous on Three Points, and he thinks to bring in more cars is a mistake. . e was built in the early 1960's and Voss confirmed that Seahors ....... ~ and nolicies at that . It had dlfferen~ commented that the_C'_Y. .... ~n~ Codes should be used £1gntly ana time. He does not feel the ~on~ that the concerns today are reflective of the changes in goals and policies so he does not feel they should compound it by adding so 15 Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 1996 many units. He is opposed to the rezoning and foresees the other two adjacent parcels being redeveloped in a similar fashion. Staff confirmed if the property remained in the R-1 zone, a PDA could still be applied for, or a proposal for ten detached single family dwellings could be applied for. Clapsaddle commented that the nature of the neighborhood does not warrant down zoning and he is not prepared to accept a rezoning at this time. He feels it is important to know the elevations of the adjacent wetland. Hanus agreed that they need the elevations delineated. Glister commented that she likes open spaces and that there are not that many developable areas left in Mound so this property is eventually going to get developed. She is in favor of leaving the property zoned R-1 as there is not reason to reduce it at this point. Hanus stated that he is not opposed to developing the property and understands that it is private property and people have a right to develop their property, but he would like to see it remain R-1 and see the project downsized. Chair Michael opened the public hearing as it relates to the zoning code amendment. There being no comments from the public, Chair Michael closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Clapsaddle to recommend denial of the request to rezone the property from R-1 to R-lA. Vows seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 favor were: ClaDsaddle ._: ..... to 1. Those an - , ~=~zscnnelaer, Michael, Voss, Hanus, and Glister. Burma was opposed. Burma commented that he does not see that twenty cars will make an impact on what is there now. Burma further commented that during the sketch plan review by the Planning Commission they denied the sale of the adjacent tax forfeited property which would have allowed him to meet the minimum lot size requirements for the R-1 zone, so the Commission should have known what was coming. Mr. Zylman emphasized to the Commission that there is 8,400 square feet of area per unit which exceeds the 6.000 square foot minimum. He explained the reason he asked for the mainly ~ roperty to be rezoned isbecause of the front yard setback requirement of 20 feet versus 30 feet. Due to the shape of this parcel, no matter what is proposed to be constructed, if a road is installed there will be a problem with the front yard setbacks. If the property is to remain in the R-1 zone he will need setback variances. Zylman stressed the fact that he needs 12 units in order to make this development work so the residents can afford the maintenance costs that will be part of the association. 16 .... ~ if the v°¢~_~=e when yop ~4neSS area,~ M~chae .... ~te ~n fay _~_.~ you m~'~ ~at is side Rz.3~ensitY, to ~" -~ street is a separate area- ~oT~ON ma~e bY rosS, seconded by Clapsadale' to table the PDA re'est because the co~ission re°°~en~e~ ~enxal of . orion oarrle~ unanimouSlY' cil on November ~ rezonlng' M _~ ~ he clty.C°~~ ussed bY the ~e .-~ be hear~ ~= t__~ to De evieW the rezoning' 26,--~1 when they r -~ ~o redesign ~projeCt and come noted that Mr. counu~ '~e =~nlican~ ~ ,,-~er ai=~ ouncil agenda if __ confi~eu ~-~:~ Co~i~=~ .... = ~nm the C . ~ planning .... could pu~_~j- his propOS=~ ~ he decl~e~ ~ . ion · No discussion' .... addle to adjourn seconded by clap= = .~n{mouslY' MOTION m~de bY Bur~_~'p.m. Motion carr~eu ~' .... the meet=ng at 10:1~ Attest: Associarion of uerr. o.poliran mc palities Thursday, Nov. 14, 1996 Ramada Hotel 1870 Old Hudson Road St. Paul, Minnesota $$1 '19-4377 $25 BUffet Dinner (Ramsey Room) ............. (Roast Top Sirloin of Beef,, TUrkey & Dress/njT) Business/Fleeting .......... SOcial F/Our (Ramsey (Cash Bar) Room) ................ ..... 5:30-6. 30 p .............. 6:30- 7:30 p.m. .... 7.'30p. m. Curt Johnson, chair of the Metropolitan Council, Will be the Speaker at the meeting. He will discuss the Council's Growth Options plan. AMM policy adoption is the keystone for Our 1997 legislative program, so we encourage cities to send more titan One representative to contr/bute to the discussion. Spouses and guests are We/come! Place dinner reservations With Laurie Jennings ' Friday, Nov. 8. Please channel all mac~n~a?~e-r/a.dministrat°r. Your-,~,,. r..e.s, ervations ('215-4000) no later than through Your off/ce of city '"'"'~, Checks may b" ,,,--~.'~Y Will be billed. If you choose to pay in the 7:30 P.m. business meeting Only do not need reservations. - '-,,,aae payable to AMM. City officials attending Map and Agenda 'On reverse. Guests are We/come. I ii[ 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. 8. Business Agenda Call to order. Welcome. Speaker. (Curt Johnson, Metropolitan Council) Adoption of 1997 Legislative Policy Program. (Copies were mailed to your city manager/administrator on Oct. 14) Discuss/Establish 1997 Legislative Priorities. Other Business. Announcements. Adjournment. Directions ~694 Hwy. 36 ~ Old Hudson Rd. 1-94 ~ [] Ramada Hotel (NE corner of 1-94 and White Bear Avenue Interchange.) 1870 Old Hudson Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55119-4377 (612) 735-2333 1. Exit 1-94 at White Bear Avenue. 2. Go one block north to Old Hudson Rd. 3. Turn east to reach hotel. ThiE'.notice was'mailed to afl AMM member mayors, manager/administrators and councilmembers. ~40A.40~ LIQUOR 610 sold at any auction. The licenses are subject to the terms, including license fee, imposed by the issuing city or county. Licenses issued under this subdivision are subject to all laws and ordinances governing the sale of intoxicating liquor except section 340A.409. and those laws and ordinances which by their nature are not applicable. (b) As used in the subdivision, "vintage wine" means bottled wine which is at least five years old. ~ Subd. 5. [Repealed, 1990 c 554 s 22] Subd. 6. Airports commission. The metropolitan airports commission may with the approval of the commissioner issue licenses for the off-sale of wine at the Minneapo_ lis-St. Paul International Airport. History: 1985 c 263 s 1,2; 1985 c 305 art 6 s 5; 1Sp1985 c 16 art 2 s 3 subd 1; 1987 c 152 art 1 s 1; 1987 c $10 s 9,10; 1987 c 328 s 3; 1987 c 381 s 3; 1987 c 402 s 1; 1989 c 49 s 2; 1990 c 545 s 1; 1990 c 554 s 11,12; 1991 c 249 s 8,9; 1994 c 611 s 18-20 340A.4055 LICENSES IN INDIAN COUNTRY. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, on-sale or off-sale licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor issued by the governing body of an Indian tribe in accordance with United States Code, title 18, section 1161, to an Indian tribal member or Indian tribal entity for an establishment located within Indian country as defined under United States Code, title 18, section 1154, are valid. When a license is issued under this section, the issuing authority shall notify the commissioner of public s.afety of the name and address of the licensee. Upon receipt of the notice, the commis- s~oner shall issue a retailer's identification card to the licensee to permit the licensee to purchase distilled spirits, wine, or malt beverages. An establishment issued a license under this section is not required to obtain a license from any municipality, county, or town. History: 1985 c 308 s 2; 1Sp1985 c 16 art 2 s $ subd 1; 1987 c 152 art 1 s 1; 1991 c 249 s 10,31; 1992 c 464 art 1 s 37 340A.406 INTOXICATING LIQUOR; COMBINATION LICENSES. A city of the fourth class or a statutory city of 10,000 or fewer population may issue an off-sale and on-sale intoxicating liquor license to the same licensee or, in lieu of issu- ing on-sale and off-sale licenses separately to a licensee, may issue a combination on- sale and off-sale license. A city may continue to issue licenses under this subdivision when the population of the city exceeds 10,000 population. History: 1985 c $05 art 6 ~ 6; 1987 c 152 art 1 s 1 340A.407 COMMON CARRIERS. The commissioner may issue an on-sale license to a person certificated by either the state or the United States of America, or an agency thereof, as a common carrier engaged in the business of transporting persons for hire in interstate or intrastate com- merce to sell intoxicating or 3.2 percent malt liquor in a place where meals are sold. A license issued under this subdivision only authorizes the sale of intoxicating or 3.2 percent malt liquor to a bona fide passenger who is actually being transported in inter- state or intrastate commerce. History: 1985 c 305 art 6 s 7; 1987 c 152 art 1 s 1; 1991 c 249 s 31 340A.408 RETAIL LICENSE FEES. Subdivision 1.3.2 laercent malt liquor. (a) The license fee for an on-sale and off-sale~ 3.2 percent malt liquor license is the fee set by the county or city issuing the license. (b) One-half of the license fee received by a county for a retail license to sell 3.2 percent malt liquor within any town in the county shall be paid to the town board where the business is located. Subd. 2. Intoxicating liquor; on-sale. (a) The license fee for a retail on-sale intoxi- 611 LIQUOR 340A.409 caring liquor license is the fee set by the city or county issuing the license subject to the limitations imposed under this subdivision. The license fee is intended to cover the costs of issuing and inspecting and other directly related costs of enforcement. (b) The annual license fee for an on-sale intoxicating liquor license issued by a inunicipality to a club must be no greater than: (1) $300 for a club with under 200 members; : '." (2) $500 for a club with between 201 and 500 members; ~.,' .(3) $650 for a club with between 501 and 1,000 members; : (4) $800 for a club with between 1,001 and 2,000 members; :. (5) $1,000 for a club with between 2,001 and 4,000 members; ~! (6) $2,000 for a club with between 4,001 and 6,000 members; or (7) $3,000 for a club with over 6,000 members. (c) The license fee for the issuance of a wine license may not exceed one-half of the license fee charged for an on-sale intoxicating liquor license, or $2,000, whichever is less. (d) The town board of a town in which an on-sale establishment has been licensed by a county may impose an additional license fee on each such establishment in an amount not to exceed 20 percent of the county license fee. Subd. 3. Intoxicating liquor;, off-sale. (a) The annual license fee for an off-sale intoxicating liquor license issued by a city, when combined with any occupation tax imposed by the city, may not exceed the following limits: : (1) $1,000 for cities of the first class; (2) $200 for cities over 10,000 other than cities of the first class; (3) $150 for cities of between 5,000and 10,000 population; and " (4) $ 100 for cities with less than 5,000 population. (b) The annual license fee for an off-sale intoxicating liquor license issued by a county or town shall not exceed $500. Subd. 3a. Fee increases; notice, hearing. No city, town, or county shall increase the fee for a liquor license governed by subdivision 1, 2, or 3, except after notice and hear- ing on the proposed increase. Notice of the proposed increase must be mailed to all ,affected licensees at least 30 days before the date set for the hearing. This subdivision supersedes any inconsistent provision of law or charter. Subd. 4. Lake Superior tour boats; common carriers. (a) The annual license fee for licensing of Lake Superior tour boats under section 340A.404, subdivision 8, shall be $1,000. is: (b) The annual license fee for common carriers licensed under section 340A.407 (1) $50 for 3.2 percent malt liquor, and $20 for a duplicate license; and (2) $200 for intoxicating liquor, and $20 for a duplicate license. ~ Subd. 5. Refunds. A pro rata share of an annual license fee for a retail license to sell intoxicating or 3.2 percent malt liquor, either on-sale or off-sale, may be refunded ~t? the licensee or to the licensee's estate if: (1) the business ceases to operate because of destruction or damage; (2) the licensee dies; or (3) the business ceases to be lawful for a reason other than a license revocation; ·. (4) the licensee ceases to carry on the licensed business under the license. History: 1985 c 305 art 6 s 8; 1987 c 152 art 1 s 1; 1989 c 104 s 1; 1991 c 249 s 11,31; 1992 c 486 s 8; 1992 c 513 art 3 s 59 340A.409 LIABILITY INSURANCE. Subdivision 1. Insurance required. No retail license may be issued, maintained or RECEIVED NO~ 1 2 tgg8 ' I I RECEIVE i iOV l 2. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, October 23, 1996 Tonka Bay City Hall -RAFT CALL TO ORDER Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Bob Rascop, Shorewood; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Gretchen Maglich, Minnetonka; Tom Reese, Mound; Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Paul Stark, Excelsior; Joe Zwak, Greenwood; Craig Mollet, Victoria; Herb Suerth, Woodland. Also present: G. /klan Willcutt, Exceutive Director; Greg Nybeck, Administrative Technician; Charlie LeFevere, LMCD Counsel. Members absent: Duane Markus, Wayzata; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Bert Foster, Deephaven. Orono does not have an appointed member. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no chair announcements. READING OF MINUTES - 10/9/96 Regular Board Meeting Maglich moved, Zwak seconded to approve the minutes of the Regular Board meeting of 10/9/96 as amended. Babcock noted on page eight, change "Hennepin County" to "Hennepin County Sheriff". Ayes (9), Abstained (1, Rascop); Motion carried. PUBLIC COMNENTS Herb Suerth, a resident of the Groveland Methodist Lakeside Assembly, spoke on concerns of the development. He stated the development was established in 1902 consisting of 41 houses. He noted over the years, the development has been a strong environmental advocate of Lake Minnetonka including the new sewer to be installed in the near future. He stated the vast majority of the residents living there are long-time residents and did not have a major concern with the number of slips associated with their properties. He noted a problem started when LMCD Ordinances were adopted that regulated boat density at multiple docks and the residents did not advocate their right to dockage rights because of simple ignorance. He noted over the years, more residents are asking for access to the lake; however, there are not enough slips for all residents. He stated Board members and staff have suggested pursuing a special density license; however, the development is concerned with providing public amenities for the increased density. He recommended the Board consider allowing 1 BSU for all 41 households in the development. Babcock tabled further discussion on this to additional business under Water Structures. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting October 23, 1996 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA Nelson moved, Partyka seconded to approve the consent agenda items identified by an ~*" on the agenda. Motion carried unanimously (Approved consent agenda items include: Item 2A, Minutes of the 10/11/96 meeting; Item 3A, Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol SignifiCant Activity Report). WATER STRUCTURES A. Robert and Susan Mellett, Disucsion on Public Hearing from I/~CD Side Setback and Dock Length Requirements, Plus an Adjusted Dock Use Area. Maglich asked where the length and side setback variances come into play and what an adjusted dock use area refers to. Babcock explained a dock length variance is required because the proposed dock length of 340' exceeds the maximum length of 100' allowed by LMCD Code. He added a side setback variance is required because the dock structure appears to not maintain a proper side setback from the lot 12 extended lot line as defined by LMCD Code. Nybeck explained lots 13, 14, and 15 are the properties involved in the proposed dock. He stated the extended lot lines of these properties from the 929.4 define the starting point of the authorized dock use area. He added because these lot lines are coverging, staff believed a side setback and an adjusted dock use area variance applied to this application. Babcock stated the side setback variance may not be required depending on how much the authorized dock use Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting October 23, 1996 Page 3 area of lot 12 is adjusted. Nelson asked if the dock will be removed seasonally or will be permanent? Babcock stated he understood the slips at the end of the dock would be removed, but the dock walkway over the wetlands would remain year around. He noted the DNR has reviewed the proposed dock and does not require a permit since-it is a seasonal dock with hand-driven poles. He stated LMCD staff recommends a permanent dock application should be required since the walkway over the wetlands will not be removed seasonally. Reese asked at what point are property owners not entitled to riparian lakeshore owner rights. Babcock stated the LMCD and DNR have generally made attempts to allow for docks over wetlands in the past. He added, however, the Board has restricted the number of boats and slip sizes at these docks when they have been approved. Reese expressed concern in that approving this application could create future problems with docks being proposed on unbuildable lots on Emerald Lake. LeFevere stated the Code does not have any restrictions on wetland docks. He noted dock length variances of over 500' have been approved in the past. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting October 23, 1996 Page 4 Rascop stated the applicants have been advised by the City of Shorewood that since the 929.4 shoreline exist on their properties, they are entitled to riparian lakeshore rights as defined by state law. He added that the Shorewood dock ordinance will not allow construction of one of the three slips on this proposed dock until a house has been built on lot 13 because Shorewood ordinance would consider this a secondary structure. The owner of lot 13 stated he would be willing to live with this condition. Zwak stated he took exception to a dock being considered a secondary structure. He stated he supports the proposed dock and believed a condition of Board approval requiring construction of the house on lot 13 for the third slip is unnecessary. He believed it is conceivable for the three property owners to place a dock that would require a length and not a side setback or an adjusted dock use area variance. Rascop stated that approval of this dock would have little impact since this area of the lake has low traffic volumes. LeFevere stated since the proposed dock structure is to be built from lot 14, all three slips could conceivably be constructed. Babcock recommended that a dock length, a side setback, and an adjusted dock are variances are appropriate for Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting October 23, 1996 Page 5 this proposed dock to avoid possible questions on it in the future. LeFevere noted the survey provided by the applicant showed the 929.4 lake elevation for lot 13, 14, and 15. Since it did not show the 929.4 for lot 12, it appears the best way to approve the proposed dock is to adjust the dock use area of lot 13, 14, and 15 and to allow the remaining dock use area to remain with lot 12. Rascop believed that adjusting the dock use area of lot 12 would not create troubles to them since the area to be adjusted is natural vegetation. Babcock suggested that the extended lot lines on the proposed site plan need to be adjusted to allow this dock to be approved. He added he is more inclined to approve an application that has minimal side setbacks with the adjusted dock use area. Staff was directed to determine the angle of adjustment of the extended lot lines. MOTION: Rascop moved, Zwak seconded to direct attorney preparation of Findings for approval of the three variances subject to following conditions: 1) a limit of 3 BSU's on the dock, 2) a maximum slip length of 25', 3) a dock to be seasonal in nature with hand-driven poleS, 4) a permanent dock permit be applied for. ~ VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting O6%ober 23, 1996 Page 6 LeFevere stated it would be advisable to inform the owner of lot 12 that some of their authorized dock use area could be reduCed. He suggested a copy of the Order, the adjusted, dock area, and a letter describing it be sent to them. Maglich asked if the owner of lot 12 has objections to the adjustment of their dock use area, will their concern be heard at the 11/13/96 meeting? LeFevere stated if there are objections of the Findings prepared from lot 12, the Board would have the opportunity to consider their concerns. Babcock stated the lots that require docks over wetlands have been debated at great lengths in the past. He believed that this will continue in the future and the Board may have to consider restricting dock lengths over wetlands from riparian lakeshore wetland property. He believed a set dock length may need to be determined in the future and approved through code amendment. Suerth stated a code amendment may not be the way to address this concern in the future. LeFevere stated from a legal framework, if a property is at or above the 924.9 lake level, they have riparian lakeshore rights. Whether it is swampland or wetlands, they have the right to place a dock out to the point of navigability with reasonable regulations. He noted a variance process is available when the strict Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting October 23, 1996 Page 7 application of the Code does not allow for approval of the project provided it is reasonable and there is a hardship. He recommended if the Board wants to set a limit on dock lengths over wetlands, the rational behind it needs to be established. Without this, he believed possible future legal°problems could exist. The Board discussed the need for possible environmental and other related studies. LeFevere stated the LMCD would be in a much better position to consider such a code amendment if the Board had the environmental related information needed prior to making a policy change. B. Additional Business Methodist Lakeside Assembly Babcock reopened discussion on Suerths concerns expressed under Public Comments. Suerth added that 24' slips were limited by the association when the multiple dock was initially approved. Additionally, he noted that personal watercraft are not allowed. He stated he is looking for Board direction other than making application for a permit. Partyka questioned if this situation could be treated differently since the applicant is a homeowners association. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting October 23, 1996 Page 8 Babcock asked LeFevere what was grandfathered when the 1:50' rule was adopted? LeFevere stated those that existed or were licensed were grandfathered in. He added some docks were backlicensed because of ignorance of the code. Babcock stated a special density license permit would need to be approved for the increased density. He added back licensing to 41BSU's does not appear feasible since it did not exist on the day the 1:50 density ordinance was adopted. LeFevere noted the association is precluded from making a special density license application because the Code establishes a special density license may not be granted for any facilities which includes watercraft storage facilities which are available only to persons having an interest in specified riparian or non-riparian real properties. He noted the Board has previously required that such facilities not give preference to the tenants. Zwak stated he believed much of this discussion is speculative. He felt Suerth should work with staff and prepare an application for Board discussion at a future meeting. Babcock suggested feedback from the Board on whether to encourage Suerth to make application. He added if Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting October 23, 1996 Page 9 the Board is not willing to change the Code, he believed Suerth should not make application. Partyka stated he believed the Board should not make a code amendment because he believed 41BSU's would be too much for this site. Bill Hawks Boath0us~ Reese asked for an update on this situation. Nybeck stated a complaint has been filed and is pending with Steve Tallen. Willcutt stated he had discussed this with Hawks and he has expressed interest in resolving this outside of litigation. He recommended Hawks discuss this with LeFevere. LeFevere noted that Mr. Hawks had not suggested a compromise but rather had asked whether something could be done to keep his boat. Nelson expressed concern that Minnetrista dropped its case against Mr. Hawks. Partyka noted Minnetista has rescinded its lawsuit against Mr. Hawks, however, it has not waived its opportunity to enforce it at a later date. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting October 23, 1996 Page 10 2. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FOB~E Be 10/11/96 Meeting Report Suerth reported on the following'. 1) The LMCD has offered help to the University of Minnesota's weevil growth program. Dr. Newman stated he would report back at a future meeting. 2) Discussion of joint ventures with the DNR with regards to the use of the harvesting equipment. 3) An ordinance will be drafted in the near future to fit in with new State laws and LMCD concerns. 4) Discussed this year's harvesting program and how to proceed on the purchase of another unit. He reported specifications are being drawn up on a new %hnit, and an RFP will be sent out tentatively in December. Board members discussed whether it is appropriate at this time to purchase a new harvester and how it would improve the efficiency of the program. Ce Additional Business There was no additional business. 3. LAKE USE AND RECREATION Additional Business Babcock stated a video on zebra mussel will be viewed at the next meeting. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting October 23, 1996 Page 11 Willcutt reported a meeting with the Sheriff's Water Patrol will be held Tuesday, October 29 at 8:00 a.m. in the Norwest Bank Community Room. SAVE THE LAKE Mollet stated contributions are down this year and he encouraged input on improving fundraising efforts in the future· 5. ADMINISTRATION ae Committee Report on ~ Office Relocation Status Willcutt reviewed quotes he had received for remodeling the new office space at the Freshwater Institute. He noted they are coming in higher than expected ranging from $19,000, excluding electrical, to $31,000. He noted he would solicit additional bids because of this. Reese stated he would like to see a timetable of when the move will take place, when the remodeling will occur, etc. Willcutt stated the lease at the Freshwater Institute does not have to start until 12/1/96 and that Norwest would allow the LMCD to remain in its current office November for around $1,400. MOTION: Nelson moved, Partyka seconded to authorize the Chairman and Executive Director to go ahead with low, reasonable construction bid under $25,000. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting October 23, 1996 Page 12 VOTE: Motion carried unanimously- MOTION: Reese-~moved, Stark seconded to lease from Norwest Banks during the month of November. Be VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Greg Nybeck, Approval of Executive Recommendation on Compensation Adjustment. MOTION: Director's Maglich moved, Reese seconded to approve a 4% wage increase, effective 11/1/96, for Greg Nybeck. Ce Motion carried unanimously. Nominating Con~ittee Recc~endations for 1997 as Follows: Doug Babcock - Chairman Tom Reese - Vice Chairman Joe Zwak - Secretary Craig Nelson - Treasurer on Board Officer MOTION: Rascop, Stark seconded to accept the nominations for 1997 Board Officers as submitted by the nominating committee. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously- MOTION: Stark moved, Mollet seconded nominations on the floor. to open up Lake M~nnetonka conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting October 23, 1996 Page 13 VOTE: MOTION: Motion carried unanimously. Rascop moved, Stark nominations' and Board acclamation. seconded to close be nominated by VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Discussion on November and December Meeting Schedule Board members reviewed staff recommendations for the meeting schedule in November and December. Staff recommended the meetings on November 13 and December 11 be held and the meetings on November 27 and December 25 be canceled. MOTION: Reese moved, Zwak seconded to approve the meeting schedule for November and December as recommended by staff. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Additional Business There was no additional business· FINANCIAL A. Audit of Vouchers for Payment Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting October 23, 1996 Page 14 Rascop reviewed the audit of vouchers, for payment. I~DTION: Maglich moved, Partyka seconded to approve the audit of vouchers of checks 10,973-10,982 and 1,569-1572. Motion carried unanimously- Be September Financial Sun~ary and Balance Sheet Rascop reviewed the financial summary and balance sheet for September. He asked Willcutt to check into why Achninistrative levy payments from the cities are below what is budgeted. MOTION: Babcock moved, Zwak seconded to approve the September financial summary and balance sheet as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously- The Board directed Willcutt to prepare a draft RFP with regards to an auditor for 1996. Ce Additional Business There was no additional business. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting October 23, 1996 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Page 15 Willcutt circulated two articles FYI. 8. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business 9. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, meeting at 9:19 p.m. Chairman adjourned the Douglas Babcock, Chair Joe Zwak, Secretary CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Mayor, City Council and City Manager Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager ~ October 96 Monthly Report November 4,1996 As I expected, October of this year far exceeded the sales of October of last year. Gross sales for the month this year were $134,172. as compared to $114,635. in October of 1995. Gross sales to date, after ten months, are $1,355,102. Last year, at the same time, sales were $1,254,420. We have also had 1,667 more customers to date then we had last year at the end of October. Cigar humidor//2 is in. It's a beauty. With our electronic humistat encased, it is far more efficient than the other humidor. I think after the first of the year I am going to refit the first humidor with an electronic humistat. That is the way to go. All our tobacco products our rung up under the same key on our registers, so it is difficult to be completely accurate when determining the sales of cigars so far this year. We began selling cigars at the end of March. That was seven months ago. In that period tobacco sales have totaled $27,726. In that same time frame last year sales were $18,413. So, that gives you some indication as to the success of cigar sales, assuming that cigarette sales are flat, which I believe they are. As I mentioned in my September report, November sales should be very good. We should see an increase over last November of about $10,000. Then December will be flat. That's my prognostication. printed on recycled paper RECEtVE 3 I 2 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday November 13, 1996 Tonka Bay City Hall 6:30 "Zebra Mussel" video to be shown to those interested. _PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 City of the Village of Minnetonka Beach, 2945 Westwood Road, Crystal Bay and Lower Lake North, Consideration of a variance application from LMCD Code for three different dock sites. First, a dock length variance is proposed at dock site #1 on the Lake Road firelane on Crystal Bay. Second, dock length and side setback variances are proposed at dock sites # 8 & 9 on the Lafayette Road firelane on Lower Lake North. Third, dock length and side setback variances, plus an adjusted dock use area, are proposed at dock site #10 on the Cross Point Road firelane on Lower Lake North. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock READING OF MINUTES- 10/23/96 Regular Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS. Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) CONSENT AGENDA- Consent Agenda items identified by "*" will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests a discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. 1. WATER STRUCTURES A. City of the Village of Minnetonka Beach, Discussion on Public Hearing for variance from LMCD Code at three different dock sites; B. Robert and Susan Mellett, Consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of dock length and side setback variances, plus an adjusted dock use area. C. Additional Business; e LAKE USE & RECREATION A. Lanie Kubes, Proposal to Board to consider amending LMCD Code Section 3.01, Subd. 18 that currently prohibits commercial sales on the lake; Update on 10/29196 meeting 1997 Joint and Cooperative Agreement with the Hennepin County Sheriffs Water Patrol; C. Additional Business; EWMIEXOTiCS TASKFORCE *A, Minutes of the 11/8196 meeting (handout); B, 1118196 meeting report; C, Additional Business; 4. SAVE THE LAKE *A. Minutes of the 11/7/96 meeting (handout); B. 11/7196 meeting report; C. Additional Business; 5. ADMINISTRATION A. Committee report on LMCD office relocation status; B. Additional Business; 6. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers for payment; B. Additional Business; 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. ADJOURNMENT