1999-01-12AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, ~IANUARY 12, 1999 '7:30 PM
MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHA~4BERSe
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and
will be enacted by a roll call vote. 7;~ere will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember
or Citizen so requests, in which eve:Pt the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in
normal sequence.
PAGE
1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
OATH OF OFFICE TO NEWLY ELECTED MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBER AND
INCUMBENT COUNCILM EMBER.
3. APPROVE AGENDA.
4. *CONSENT AGENDA
*A.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 22, 1998
REGULAR MEETING ........................................ 4-52
*B.
RESOLUTION APPOINTING GINO BUSINARO,
FINANCE DIRECTOR, ACTING CITY MANAGER FOR 1999 ............... 53
*C.
RFSOLUTION DESIGNATING THE LAKER
AS THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 1999 ........................ 54-56
*D.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF
AT LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY CLERK .................... 57
*E.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF
AT LEAST ................................................ 58
A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY TREASURER/FINANCE DIRECTOR.
*F. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES FOR 1999 ...... 59
*G. RESOLUTION APPOINTING ACTING MAYOR FOR 1999 ................. 60
*H.
RESOLUTION APPOINTING COUNCILMEMBERS AS COUNCIL
REPRESENTATIVES FOR 1999 .................................. 61
*I.
RESOLUTION APPOINTING COUNCILMEMBERS TO SERVE
AS DIRECTORS ON THE WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER BOARD
(WCCB) ................................................. ¢2
*J.
RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION; PARK AND OPEN SPACE
COMMISSION; DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION;
AND THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.
(NOTE: CITY COUNCIL IIAg HAD A POLICY FOR gEVERAL
YEARS TO REAPPOINT MEMBERS TO COMMISSIONS WHO
DESIRED TO BE REAPPOINTED. ].F A MEMBER DESIRED
NOT TO BE REAPPOINTED, THEN THE VACANCY WOULD BE
ADVERTISED IN THE LAKER NEWSPAPER AND APPLICANTS
WOULD BE INTERVIEWED BY THE RESPECTIVE COMMISSION.
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS WOULD BE INVITED TO ATTEND
THE INTERVIEWS, IF INTERESTED. THEN A RECOMMENDATION
WOULD FOLLOW FROM THE RESPECTIVE COMMISSION
TO THE CITY COUNCIL) ................................... 63-64
*K. APPROVAL OF 1999 DOCK LOCATION MAP ...................... 65-66
*L.
CASE 99-01: SET PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT
TO CONTINUE THE OPERATION OF E.C.F.E., LOCATED
WITHIN THE B-1 BUSINESS DISTRICT AT 5241 SHORELINE DRIVE,
LOTS 7-20 & 26-35 & ALL VAC. ALLEY & PARKING,
BLOCK 1, SHIRLEY HILLS "F", PIO 13-117-24 34 0072.
SUGGESTED DATE: JANUARY 26, 1999 .................... 67
*M. PAYMENT OF BILLS ....................................... 68-90
CASE 98-67: MINOR SUBDIVISION: TO INCORPORATE ADJACENT
RESIDENTIAL LOT 18 TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT AT
5700 LYNWOOD BLVD., INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 277,
5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., PID 14-117-24 44 0007 ......................... 90-120
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
RECOMMENDATION FROM PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
RE: PURCHASE OF LAND AT 2217 CHATEAU LANE
FOR PARK PURPOSES ......................................... 121-125
INFORMATION/MIS C ELLANEOUS:
A. Department Head Monthly Reports for December 1998 .................. 126-153
B. Dock and Commons Advisory Commission Minutes of December 17, 1998 ...... 154-162
C. Park and Open Space Commission Minu~es of December 10, 1998 ........... 163-166
Notice and agenda material for the Suburban Rate Authority (SPA)
Annual Meeting. Councilmember Hanus is the City's delegate to this
organization and Ed Shuk!e is the alternate delegate .................... 167-184
OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT: The City of Mound now has a Web Site. The address is
www.tranweb.com/cityofmound/ The web site was developed by Ted Leif, a Mound
resident, who works for a software company. He approached Gino one day about any
interest from the City in having a web site. We had been exploring different ways in which to
develop a site but Ted's expertise made the process much easier. The only charge we pay is
for the host server. The site will require ongoing 'maintenance" which means keeping it
updated and changing the type of information that is placed in the site. Please check it out
tell us what you think. Special thank you to Gino who coordinated the project and to Ted
who developed the material for the site.
REMINDER:
City offices will be closed Monday, January 18, 1999 in observance of
Dr. Martin Luther King's Birthday.
REMINDER: WCCB Meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 18, 1999, 7:30 p.m.,
Mound City Hall. This is the annual meeting and there will be some organizational items
on the agenda as well as other items from past meetings. Currently, Councilmember Hanus
is a voting member and Councilmember Weycker is an alternate member.
REMINDER: HRA meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 12, 1999, 7:00 p.m.,
before the regular meeting of the City Council. I have asked Fran to administer the
Oath of Office prior to the HRA meeting so that the Council is officially sworn in
as Councilmembers who then will be HRA members in order to transact HRA business.
I. January 1999 Calendar ....................................... 185
\ MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER 22, 1998
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, December 22, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood
Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz
Jensen and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr.,
City Attorney John Dean, Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, City Clerk Fran Clark,
Newsletter Editor Tim Busse, and the following interested citizens: Franz Burris, Joan Polston,
Michael Looby, Peter Meyer, Peter Goshgarian, John Plahn, Jim Regan, Cathy Bailey, Leona
Peterson, Betty Weiland, Tom Reese, Milbert Mueller, Dave Halbmaier, Catherine Fox-Tarbell,
Pam Myers, John Plahn and Bob (Waynw) Dorfner. Also present were Planning
Commissioners: Frank Weiland, Geoff Michael, Mike Mueller, Becky Glister and Cklair Hasse.
Also present were School Board Members: Bruce Charon, Ned Dow, Bob Bittle, Bill Pinegar,
Bill Hultgren, and Diane McCurry.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of
Allegiance was recited.
OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION TO MAYOR BOB POLSTON
The City Manager presented the Mayor with the following:
a gavel/plaque for the two terms
a pen and pencil set; and
a cooler.
he has served as Mayor;
The Council then moved to the lobby of City Hall where Mayor Polston unveiled the Hercules
Sword that was given to the City by Kevin Sorbo when Sorbo Park was dedicated in August of
1997. Councilmember Hanus read the plaque that will be placed by the sword which reads as
follows:
SWORD OF HERCULES
This sword was presented to Mayor Bob Polston by Kevin Sorbo, former Mound resident
and star of the television series "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys~, at the dedication
of Sorbo Park, August 25, 1997.
This sword is one of a limited number that was used on the set of Hercules and was
given to the City by Kevin Sorbo to demonstrate his appreciation to the community of
Mound, a place he truly calls "home".
This display was dedicated on December 22, 1998, to Mayor Bob Polston, prior to the
final meeting of his current term as Mayor of the City of Mound. ~
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
The Council returned to the Council Chambers.
The Mayor extended a thank you for the years he has been able to serve the community and the
recognition that was given him tonight. He wished the new City Council and the City of Mound
the best of luck in the coming years.
APPROVE AGENDA.
At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed
and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted
upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved.
Councilmember Hanus asked to have Case//98-66 removed from the Consent Agenda
for a correction.
*CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to approve the Consent Agenda, as
amended above. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
*1.0 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 7, 1998. TRUTH IN TAXATION
MEETING.
MOTION
Ahrens, Jensen, unanimously.
*1.1 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 8, 1998, REGULAR MEETING.
MOTION
Ahrens, Jensen, unanimously.
'1.2
RESOLUTION TO REDUCE LETTER OF CREDIT: SETON BLUFF.
RESOLUTION//98-135 RESOLUTION RELEASING A PORTION OF
LETTER OF CREDIT - SETON BLUFF SUBDIVISION
Ahrens, Jensen, unanimously.
· 1.3 PAYMENT OF BILLS.
MOTION
Ahrens, Jensen, unanimously.
MOUND CI~ COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
1.4
CASE98-66: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK
VARIANCES, TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING ADDITION AND
ATTACHED GARAGE. FRANZ BURRIS. 4924 GLEN ELYN ROAD,
LOTS ~ & 6. BLOCK 23. SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 11
0081.
Councilmember Hanus stated that he believes the intention of the Planning Commission was to
approve the conforming addition to the house and allow the attached garage. He felt the
proposed resolution did not clearly do this. He recommended the following changes in the
proposed resolution to read as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a variance for the garage of 16.05 feet for the front yard and
3.8 feet for the side yard and a variance for the dwelling of 4.65 feet for the side yard
as recommended by the Planning Commission in order to construct a conforming addition
and attached t, arat, e with the following conditions:
Co
do
1.35 feet side yard for the house as requested.
Construction of thc housc addition cxcluding thc attached gamgc.
The construction of a proposed attached garat, e be conforming in all respects,
to include hardcover.
The detached garage be allowed to remain for a period of two years from the
approval of this resolution. At the end of the two years, the garage shall conform
to code requirements. An easement or monies to secure its removal, if it is not
in conformance with Code shall be provided and be acceptable to and approved
by the City Attorney.
Associated grading and drainage plans shall be approved prior to building permit
issuance.
The applicant shall submit a drainage and grading plan to be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer prior to the Building permit issuance.
Hanus felt that these changes make it clear that a conforming garage is allowed.
Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution as amended above:
RESOLUTION//98-136
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD
SETBACK VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR
CONSTRUCTION A CONFORMING ADDITION, AT
4924 GLEN ELYN ROAD, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 23,
SHADYWOOD POINT, PID# 13-11%24 11 0081, P &
Z CASE//98-66
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
3
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 22, 1998
1.5
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-64: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
TO REVIEW THE USE TO ALLOW A BUILDING REMODEL PROJECT TO
THE COMMUNITY CENTER TO INCLUDE RENOVATION OF THE
GYMNASIUM AND AUDITORIUM. ADDITIONAL PARKING AND CHANGES
TO THE SITE ACCESS, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 277, 5600
LYNWOOD BLVD.. PIDS 14-117-24 41 0010, 14-117-24. 41 0011. 14-117-24 41
0052, 14-117-24 41 0058 & 14.117-24 44 0007.
Assistant City Planner, Loren Gordon, explained the background. The Planning Commission
has reviewed this at three public meetings. At each of those meetings, the item was tabled
pending additional information or clarification on issues regarding the Community Center.
There is no recommendation from the Planning Commission on the CUP.
Gordon then presented his report of findings. The project involves a number of interior
improvements and some exterior site improvements. The existing building will keep its current
form in many respects. There will be interior improvements including, renovation of the
auditorium, meetings rooms and the pod areas to better handle the users that are there. Exterior
improvements are related to circulation and parking.
Parking/Circulation:
The proposed parking plan provides for 280 parking spaces including 8
handicapped accessible spaces. These spaces are shown at a 9 feet by 18
feet stall size. As per code, a variances of 185 parking spaces and a stall
size variance would be needed to accommodate the request. A parking
demand study was prepared for the facility to understand what amount of
parking was needed based on interviews with the users. The study shows
a peak demand of 260 spaces on the weekend and 280 on weekdays with
an auditorium event. Based on these numbers, the applicant provided
spaces to meet the projected demand.
Staff feels the applicant has a practical difficulty in meeting the code
requirements of 465 parking spaces due to available site area. Because
the Pond Arena will place some additional demand on the parking lots, it
may be wise to designate additional areas for parking. In previous
discussions, staff has recommended an additional 40 parking spaces be
placed into a parking land bank for future needs. Although stormwater
management is now a requirement, there is enough area within the site for
these spaces. Hennepin County recommended approval of the access
drives to Commerce Blvd. for three lanes to include right and left turn
egress lanes, and one ingress lane. Access on Lynwood would include
one ingress and one egress lane. The Lynwood access incorporates
parking, a drop-off area and a two-way drive. This arrangement allows
cars to enter and exit the site without conflicting with drop-offs.
Convenient parking adjacent to the entrance for handicapped and elderly
is a positive as well.
Playground Area:
He reported that the playground area will be moved to the northwest
comer of the building. The new location will increase safety by
preventing the children from crossing the driveway. It will be fenced and
landscaped. The current playground area will become parking.
4
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 22, 1998
Stormwater Pond:
He explained that to control stormwater created from the new parking lot,
the site plan incorporates a p0nding facili to retain and t cat storm water
runoff. The pond would be located north of the parking lot and would
require that the hockey rink be moved a short distance to the north. The
MCWD has reviewed the facility at a staff level per the newly adopted
Rule N requirements. Based on the Planner's conversations with Jim
Hafner, MCWD staff, and the applicant, the facility will satisfy new storm
water requirements.
Staff has suggested that because of the site constraints, an underground
facility would provide additional flexibility for site needs, especially
parking. As situated, the ponding area is awkward on the site with the
baseball field, hockey rink and pond very close to one another. The
applicant has indicated that this alternative has not been explored
thoroughly enough to know if this may be an option.
Landscaping:
The proposal is to provide 91 trees which includes existing trees, new
over story trees, and conifers. This is a variance of 32 trees as required
by code. The 22 indicated in the letter is incorrect. The plan also
proposes additional shrubs, bushes, and ornamental trees located generally
at building entry points, around the playground area, and within the
courtyards. The plan reflects an updated plantings and screening along the
new access drive to Lynwood.
To better integrate the site into an overall downtown landscape concept,
those trees planted along Commerce, Lynwood and the comer plaza area
will be left out. Again, staff is suggesting that the monies that would be
spent on these trees be placed in an escrow account until a downtown
planting plan can be implemented. The trees would include: 7 Silver
Maples, 8 Red Sunset Maples, and 2 Imperial Locusts.
Lighting:
The lighting plan shows locations exterior luminary locations and
intensities. The parking areas will be illuminated with more typical Pole
mounted lighting. The Lynwood entry and pedestrian entrance from
Commerce will use pedestrian scale lighting. Additional wall mounted
sconces will be used for building lighting. Soffit lighting is used at
building entrances. The lighting plan meets code requirements for
intensity at property lines.
Minor Subdivision Boundary Adjustment
The Westonka Public Schools have submitted an application for boundary adjustment to expand
their property to include Lot 18 of Lynwood Park addresses as 5700 Lynwood Blvd. The
property is currently zoned R-2, One and Two Family Residential District and has an occupied
residence currently. The lot measures 50 feet by 230 feet encompassing approximately 11,500
sf. In the rear of the property is a public alley used for access purposes. The Westonka School
District has a signed purchase agreement for the property which is conditioned on approval of
the Community Center CUP. As per the submitted plans for the community center, the existing
house will be removed to incorporate the lot into the site.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
Section 330:20 subd. I(B) Minor Boundary Adjustments states that "The relocation of a boundary
line between two abutting, existing parcels of property; such relocation not causing the creation
of a new parcel or parcels and such relocation not violating the Zoning Ordinance."
Based on the Community Center proposal, the incorporation of lot 18 will not violate the Zoning
Ordinance. Staff has discussed the possibility of replatting the property to create one PID for
the property. This is an option to make the property "cleaner", but is not necessary for any
approval of the project as proposed. Additionally, rezoning the property to have one district
rather than 3 was discussed. This too would make the site "cleaner" from an administrative
review standpoint, but is not needed from a use standpoint.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planner reported that in Staff's review of the case, they have
gone through a number of conditions that they felt the plan could be approved contingent upon.
Both the Conditional Use Permit and with the approval of the minor subdivision/boundary
adjustment. The conditions as follow:
As per Code, the parking requirements would be 465 parking spaces which is
based on the user type and square footage of the building facility. That would
require a parking space variance of 185 spaces. Staff has been trying to work
with getting to a future demand of 320 spaces because of future needs that could
come up for the building, as well as spill over that may occur with the Pond
Arena facility. Staff suggested that we get to 320 spaces, 40 of those not be
paved at this time, but be used for future parking, if needed.
Approve a 9' x 18' parking stall size. We have a 10" x 20" size right now. The
applicant is requesting the smaller size to get more spaces in this area.
Landscaping. There is a 32 tree over story variance requested from what would
be 123 trees, required by Code. That would be on just the school portion of the
site. It would not incorporate the ball fields.
o
Stormwater Ponding. This has been reviewed. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District has given preliminary approval of the facility.
Staff has also reviewed this with Hennepin County as well as the applicant, for
access drives from Commerce Blvd. Those are consistent as shown on the plan
with their approval. They also need curb-cut variances of 14 feet along
Commerce Blvd. for that.
We also wanted to condition, the approval of the Conditional Use Permit on the
transfer of ownership of Lot 18 to the School District.
The last condition would be the approval of the minor subdivision/boundary
adjustment.
Staff recommends that the Council approve the conditional use permit and minor subdivision
minor boundary adjustment as submitted contingent on the following conditions being met:
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
Conditional Use Permit:
4
5.
Approve a variance of 185 parking spaces.
Approve a variance for a 9 feet by 18 feet parking stall size.
Designate an area on-site to land bank an additional 40 parking spaces for future use if
necessary.
Approve a landscaping variance of 32 over story trees.
Allow the 7 Silver Maples, 8 Red Sunset Maples, and 2 Imperial Locusts along the
boulevard edge of Commerce and Lynwood to be credited in the landscaping count and
plantings to occur in the future. The monies which would be spent on these trees shall
be placed in an escrow account which will be used for future streetscape work on the
property. This account could be a joint Community Center/City account.
6. The storm water ponding facility be approved by the MCWD.
Approval from Hennepin County for driveway access from the parking lot to Commerce
Boulevard.
Approval of a 14 foot driveway curbcut width variance along Commerce Blvd. to
accommodate three lanes as recommended by Hennepin County.
Approval be conditioned on ownership transfer of lot 18 to the Westonka Community
Schools.
10. Approval be conditioned on approval of the minor subdivision boundary adjustment.
Minor Subdivision Minor Boundary Adjustment:
1. Approval be conditioned on ownership transfer of lot 18 to the Westonka Community
Schools.
2. Approval be conditioned on approval of the conditional use permit and variances for the
Westonka Community Center, case g98-64.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mike Mueller, 5910 Ridgewood Road and Planning Commission Vice Chair. "I
appreciate the opportunity to speak today. The Planning Commission Chair was unable
to attend because of a previous commitment. The reason that the Planning Commission
tabled this is because of a lack of information. What must ethically preface any
consideration of the Conditional Use Permit, by the Council, before a recommendation
comes from the Planning Commission, is: Are we trying to do the best job possible? In
the Council packet, pages 4759 and 4760, there is a letter from the City Attorney, Mr.
Dean, regarding a very valid question raised by the Planning Commission, regarding the
lack of a vacation requirement for the public access alley. Without benefit of legal counsel
at the Planning Commission, it is incumbent upon Staff to anticipate as best as possible,
7
Mr.
yes.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
what the concerns of the Commission will be. At our last meeting, Mr. Gordon stated that
he had a 3 hour conversation with the City Attorney regarding this issue. Yet we had
nothing in our packet regarding his conversation and also no letter from our attorney, to
understand the grounds for not requiring a vacation. Information helps. At both the
November 23rd and December 14th meetings, the Planning Commission heard expert
testimony regarding the portion of the building referred to as the pods. Further, many of
the Commissioners, myself included, have spoken with people who worked and utilized
this portion of the building. When it was asked of the applicant, both in a letter to the
editor, and at the Planning Commission hearings, if the pods had to be a part of the
redevelopment process, no answer was forthcoming. I had a conversation with the City
Manager, this past week, where he stated that he had a conversation with the City
Attorney, who said that if the pods were not a part of the development, then the bonding
company would have to review and possibly change language or rewrite the bonds. This
is information that the Commission was not privy to and would have made the concern
over the pods a moot point and we could have moved it along quicker."
"In the packet for our last meeting, which we received from Staff, by delivery, at our
individual homes from our Police Dept. at around 9:00 P.M. on Friday evening, we had
a large survey of the property without the inclusion of Lot 18. On that survey were Parcel
A and Parcel B. They were labeled. Language in the packet led me and other members
of the Commission to believe that the square footage stated on the survey was for the
property which the CUP was to cover and that which it wasn't. Hardcover calculations
and division lines were assumed to be from that survey. Upon questioning Staff, we found
out that the survey did not apply to the Conditional Use Permit, and is only a perimeter
boundary survey. Nowhere in our packet was there information on a lot size or location
of the proposed Conditional Use Permit site. The applicant then provided a fax, which
Staff copied, and faxed out, showing a proposed boundary line that was used to calculate
the hardcover percentage, as stated in our packet. It was also stated that the property line
may change in the future and is only a possible representation of what the lot subdivision
may look like. At the very first meeting, we requested this information. We got it as a
handout, without a legal description, in the middle of our third hearing/meeting. A lot of
this issue, including the subdivision of land, has been brought before you by the City
Manager without a written report from the Planning Commission. The City Manager, a
member of the applicant's board, has taken this upon himself, to skirt the process of
checks and balances laid out in the city charter. Not only once, but twice, and spent our
city tax dollars for an attorney's opinion, to determine its legality. I consider this
spending of taxpayer dollars as having the look of impropriety. The ethics went out on
the first resolution and I would hope it also does tonight on the question of whether or not
to proceed with this permitting process without the Commission's recommendations. We
are still within the time frame, as established by the Council, at your last meeting. We
were asking legitimate questions as evidenced by the statement in the letter from the
attorney, as "very valid", not just valid, very valid on the vacation question and as
evidence by the City Manager speaking to the attorney regarding the pods issue. Let's
maintain high ethics, in the City, and continue to do what is right."
Mueller then asked if he could direct a question to the City Attorney? The Mayor stated,
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
Mueller. "With regard to the lack of the vacation of the alley, to summarize your letter,
what you are saying is that it is similar to what will happen with County Road 15 when
it is rerouted over Lynwood I~lvd. in that it was a road, it will still be a road, and
therefore, there is not reason to vacate that portion east of County Road 15 now?"
City Attorney. "I'm not familiar with legal details of that activity. What I said in my
letter was that if you vacate the right-of-way easement here, you lose the right to use that
area for public right-of-way. I was referring to the alley-way."
Mueller. "So the alley-way is being maintained as a public access and, therefore, it
continues its use and doesn't need a vacation?"
City Attorney. "If you vacate it, you lose the fight to use it for access purposes. Maybe
I should clarify just one point here. The School District is not buying Lot 18. They are
buying the south 220 feet of Lot 18. The north 30 feet of Lot 18 is the portion of Lot 18
that's covered by this alley. The fee title to the north 30 feet of Lot 18, it would be my
opinion, without going back into the ancient records on that parcel, are owned by someone
who probably last had title to that property in the 1920's. It would now be owned by the
person or their estate. My reason for suggesting that the public right-of-way not be
vacated, is that at that point in time, as I said in the letter, both the City and the School
District would lose control over the ability to utilize that particular area."
Mueller. "So the applicant is not considered a public entity?"
City Attorney. "Yes it is."
Mueller. "O.K. So the Conditional Use Permit being for the joint body of the City and
the School District, the alley is still maintaining it's public status and use?"
City Attorney. "That would be my view, yes. Much like the driveway at your house that
goes across public right-of-way and into the street. It's kind of a quasi-use by some other
entity of that right-of-way for driveway purposes. This would be pretty similar to that."
Mueller. "If that is the case, then I would like you all to turn to Page 4751 in your
packet which is the researched opinion of our attorney which supposedly gives the Council
the legal right to hear this Conditional Use Permit without a recommendation from the
Commission. The third full paragraph reads as follows: "The Act" (which is State
Statute),' also contains a number of provisions in which a planning commission
recommendation is a prerequisite to council action. For example, in a city that has
adopted a comprehensive plan, no "publicly owned interest in real property within the
municipality shall be acquired or disposed of" without the planning commission first
providing a written report on such action to the council." If the alley does not need to be
vacated because of the joint venture and the School District and City keeps it as a public
access, then the acquisition of that portion of LOt 18 falls under this statute as acquiring
public land and a written report from the planning commission is required before the
council proceeds."
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
City Attorney. "You more or less have that right. I guess what I would say would be
that the thrust of your argument doesn't relate to the alley portion of Lot 18, but relates
to the rest of the lot 18, the 220 feet, which is that part that the School District is buying
from a private party. That's where your argument, I think, has merit. But, the point is,
that the statute says that no interest shall be acquired or disposed of. That's what statute
says, so what the statute provides for there, is that they can neither buy or sell that
property until the planning commission has had a chance to take a look at that. That's a
matter somewhat different than the question that is before the City Council and that's
looking at whether or not a Conditional Use Permit should be granted. I agree it's an item
of unfinished business which may bare on the question of a Conditional Use Permit but,
I think its different than the specific provision that you just referenced in the statutes."
Mueller. "So, by granting a Conditional Use Permit over a piece of property that includes
the south 220 feet of Lot 18, you're giving the School District the right to purchase that
without having a recommendation in written form from the planning commission."
City Attorney. "No, you've already got a provision in the proposed Conditional Use
Permit that makes the Conditional Use Permit conditioned upon the approval of the minor
subdivision. O.K. So that's step number one. The minor subdivision has to do with Lot
18. Lot 18, before a final minor subdivision can be approved, my office has to look at
the legal title to that to determine whether the procedure for the School District acquiring
title to that property was regular and according to law. Until the Planning Commission
has had the opportunity to report on the question of conformity with the comprehensive
plan as required by the statute that's referenced here, we would not give an opinion that
they have met all the legal requirements of the law. It's not a direct response but, there
are checks built in to the process, that would be put in place here, that would cover that
issue and they've always been there."
Mueller. "So even if a Conditional Use Permit were passed this evening for the property,
which includes this plan which shows a two lane street over LOt 18 and that portion of
the alley, even if it were approved tonight, there would still be a delay before it could be
fully approved because of the fact that Lot 18 has not been presented to the Council or to
the Planning Commission, or the Planning Commission has not made a recommendation
to the Council."
City Attorney. "Again, I think you're pretty much there. The comment I would make
would be, again, and I'm not saying what should be done tonight, but my point is that the
City Council could approve the Conditional Use Permit but, delay the issuance of the
permit, and this happens fairly frequently, I think you've seen this before. Delay the
issuance, on the need for certain preconditions to the issuance taking place. One of them
would be, as is already indicated, in the proposed Conditional Use Permit, the subdivision
being approved and recorded."
Mueller. "As you can see, it's a difficult question, we've had to deal with and we
struggled hard and worked long hours to try and determine if this Conditional Use Permit
is the best thing for the City. I've also heard that if the decision is delayed any further,
that a reissuance or rewriting of the bonds is required, at an exceptional cost to the School
District. The School District, putting the cart before the horse and getting the bonds does
not give the Council the ethical right to bend the process that all citizens must follow in
obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. If this were any other applicant, say John's Variety
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
and Pets requesting a permit, I believe the Council would not take this issue up without
a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Thank you for your time."
Dr. Para Myers, Supt. of Westonka Schools. "Mr. Mayor, City Councilmembers, I'm
pleased to be representing the applicant tonight in our planning together between the
School District and the City Council for a community center in downtown Mound. I
would introduce to you, members of the audience who are present, representing a variety
of folk who are interested in this project, as I know you are."
Dr. Myers then introduced the Westonka School Board members, Ned Dow, Bill Hultgren,
Diane McCurry, Bruce Charon, Bob Bittle, Bill Pinegar.
Mike Looby, Chair of the Building Committee introduced the members of that committee who
were in attendance tonight. One of 4 citizens, Jim Regan, City Manager Ed Shukle, City
Councilmember Leah Weycker, School Supt. Dr. Pam Myers, School Board member Bob
Bittle, and 4 consultants, 2 from E & V Construction and 2 from TSP/EOS.
Dr. Myers. "Knowing that some of the City Councilmembers are much more familiar
with the project, than others, we've asked the architect to give some background
information to the City Council about where we've been since we went to the public for
a vote, December, a year ago and the voters voted in favor of this project." She then
introduced, Mr. Bert Haglund.
Bert Haglund. "This project began as a joint study that was done between the City and
the School District. The study was done as to the concept that's before you tonight which
is the renovation of the existing building. Some time was spent, there was a joint
committee, that many people participated in, and time was spent to look at the renovation
of this facility coming up with the concept which is embodied in the proposal tonight."
"That, then was taken before the voters in December of 1997. The voters then did pass
that referendum. After which, time was then spent ....... forming the Westonka
Community Center Board under a formal Joint Powers Agreement between the City and
the School District. That Board was in place about the middle of 1998, after which real
planning began on the design of the project. We have been involved since about mid year,
putting together the design, working with all of the different users, working with the
Community Center Board, and working with the Building Committee. We are now
bringing forward the proposal that you see tonight. We have done our best to respond to
the different requirements that the users have; that the Building Committee has put before
us; that the Community Center Board has put before us; that the Planning Staff has put
before us; and that the Planning Commission has put before us. I believe that we have
answered, in a very responsible way to, I feel, all of those concerns that have been raised.
We provided information, through the Planning Staff. At each step of the way, we've
been in touch with them closely and have provided them information at each step along
the way as we and they have understtxxi it. So, I guess, in short, that is how we got to
where we are today. I think the technical aspects of the project are pretty well answered.
Mr. Gordon did a good job of presenting that."
11
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 22, 1998
Tom Reese, 5641 Bartlett Blvd. "What, I'll have to say tonight is familiar to many of
you here. When Bert talks about how we got here, he omitted a very important part of
how we got here. What I have to say has nothing to do with the Planning Commission's
reservations on this project. It's my own reservations and those of many citizens that have
worked very hard on this and have now been ignored. I was part of a two and a half year
study that arose out of the original bond issue because part of that bond issue was to do
something with the old school. No thought had been given, at the time, it was just an
assigned amount of money without really assessing if it would be adequate or not, $1.9
million dollars. As we completed, successfully, the rest of the project, we got to the last
$1.9 million and did an assessment and found that it wouldn't begin to scratch the surface
of what needed to be done. Then a study team was commissioned and we spent more than
two years exhaustively studying what the best outcome would be for the City. The
outcome of that study was that the building should be torn down and replaced with one
about half its size for about $9.2 million dollars. The building, one half its size, would
have in it those things that people want, like a zero depth pool; like family lockers; like
a fitness room;, like a double gymnasium; like a walking area for winter walkers; like
congregate dining. The things that will bring people to town and yes, the things that will
cause people to buy memberships in it and help pay for the operation of it. That was the
recommendation of the study team. We wrote it up but, there was nobody to give it to.
Nobody wanted it. Then, Mr. Mayor, you came up with your bond issue and you said
the only option was to repair the old building and not have the community center. You
said that at meetings and I was there. I stood up in a meeting and said, Bob, that is not
correct, there's another option. The question to the voters should have been:
Do you want a community center or not? Yes. No.
Do you want to fix the old building for $9.2 or do you want to have a brand new
building, half its size for $9.2?"
"That would have been a proper question. This whole process is flawed. It's unethical
and it might even be dishonest. You're tearing this City in half with what you've done.
It's not a good way to leave office. The people should have a chance to vote on the real
option. You never gave it to us."
Mayor Polston. "Well Tom, you remember history a lot different than I remember the
history of this whole building and you're entitled to the way you remember it but, I must
tell you and I must tell you publicly, that what you're remembering is what's flawed.
Tom Reese. "I have an excellent memory, Bob."
Bob Dorfner, Upper Tonka Little League, and girls softball. "I am also a loss control
engineer for three major insurance companies. I've had the experience of visiting a lot
of the other community centers, Shoreview, Woodbury, and such. Some of the other
domed fields and stuff. I know the one offof94 they put up for $1.5 million dollars. It's
basically a football size domed stadium. They paid for it within one year just on rentals
for the off time that the college wasn't using it. They put one out at Woodbury. They
put one out on Rice Street in St. Paul. They use it a lot for wheel chair access and people
with walkers and stuff, all winter long so that gives them a facilities without having to
drive to one of the Dales or something like that. I know the public voted to redo
community center but, I think we've changed some things that were originally drafted in
that. Part of that was acquiring additional property to meet parking spaces and stuff like
12
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
that. I think some of the things that were originally sold to the public for redoing the
building was gymnasiums and stuff like that. Right now the girls are suffering drastically
for the gymnastics program. We need more additional gym space so even if we do
remodel the building I think one of the top priorities that you do there is eliminate the
rental space and provide the community with the space that they need for the programs
that are supposed to be there. This was a ..... my understanding a CUP, location that was
supposed to be used for school functions and stuff like that and then with the bending and
the building for specific, because of the classrooms and that, that we opened it up for
community rental and dental offices and such. But, if we are going to be remodeling the
building, we should be remodeling with the thought in mind, that all the space that is
available in that building should be used for community functions, not for rental space.
In that capacity, we would be competing with the private sector and that's not the job of
the City. We are supposed to be providing gym space for girls gymnastics, gym time for
basketball and volleyball and whatever else, not office space for businesses. I think even
if we scrap the building and it costs us a million dollars to tear the whole building down
and build a smaller building that's got a community kitchen and dining room, whatever,
and build a dome, we could probably still put up twice the space for 2/3 of that $9 million
dollars. The way we're going now, we're losing a gym and a ballfield for additional
parking. In my opinion, the theater was originally designed to go up to the high school.
You could build the boys wrestling room on the ground floor adjacent to the boys locker
room. You could build the district offices on the main level where you've already got the
parking. You could build the theater above that and two more floors. It's a lot cheaper
to build up than build out and you don't have to put any parking in because it's already
there."
Mayor Poiston. "We need to tell you, that one part of your presentation we absolutely
agree with and that's the part about not providing rental space for businesses that will be
competing against downtown businesses. Early on, the task force addressed that issue and
the community center is, in fact, going to be a community center that will serve only
community purposes. There will be no rental space to commercial enterprises to compete
with downtown businesses."
Councilmember Weycker stated that she had referred to the Senior Center and WECAN as
tenants and this may have confused the issue, but they are not commercial renters.
Bob Dorfner. So with all that floor space, we still can't provide gymnastics floor space
for them? From what all I see, we see one gym there and it's going to be a basketball
court and I know from past experience, the girls are going to lose out. This is not a
selfish conflict on my part. I don't have any daughters in the program.
Mayor Polston. I don't want to belabor this thing and drag it out all that long but, I just
would like to tell you, from the beginning of this process which, I think it was 3 or 4
years ago when we originally started with the planning part that Mr. Reese was referring
to. Then we got into the joint venture between the City and the School District and I have
to tell you, in all honesty, that both from the City's standpoint and from the School
Board's standpoint, we realize and know beyond any shadow of a doubt, that there is not
going be less pressure for recreational facilities; for more ballfields; for more gym space.
We know that as this community and the surrounding communities within the School
District, develops, there is going to be even more pressure for recreational activities and
space. We have had preliminary discussions and talked about what we could do, not only
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
as the City of Mound, but the City of Minnetrista and Spring Park and those other cities
that are involved within the School District to work together, collectively, with the School
District to do what we can and use all the resources that we have available to try and
respond to those recreational needs that there will be pressure for. We sat here as a
Council over the past few years and felt extreme pressure for more Babe Ruth baseball
fields and more recreational facilities. It's never going to end and we should respond to
that as a City and as a School District but, we can't solve all of the issues with a single
project."
Bob Dorfner, "Well, I think maybe we can. We've already put this big, beautiful
parking lot up there by Shirley Hills. We can build up on top of Shirley Hills and provide
some additional space there. We can build up at the high school. We can build on
additional space at Grandview without building any more parking lots and using up space
for ponds and what you end up doing is tearing down the old high school and the pods and
put a bubble in there and then you don't lose any ballfields. You don't have to waste any
money on parking lots, cause it's already there. That's where I'm at."
Jim Funk, 2949 Oaklawn Lane. "I guess I agree with you Bob that we're probably not
going to be able to solve all the needs of our community. There is going to continue to
be more pressure there and the recreational needs are going to grow. I think the
community, in general, agrees with that. I also think, that it behooves us even more to
make sure this $9.3 million dollars is spent in the most efficient way. A lot of things I
hear concern me that maybe we are heading down a path where we are not going to get
the most bang for our buck. I think it's possible but, there are a lot of unforeseen issues
hanging out there and those are the kind of things that can come and bite you later and end
up costing overruns and you end up having to compromise later on down the road. I hear
stories, I don't know if it's true or not, about insidious mold in the pods that you can
never get rid of. If that's an issue, you can end up redoing that-and then they detect mold.
We've heard of public buildings that have that problem in the past and they spent hundreds
of thousands of dollars or millions to try to correct that. I'd hate to see us facing that a
couple of years down the road, cause the mold returns. These are the kinds of things I
think should be looked at closely before going ahead with a Conditional Use Permit.
Seems like a lot of good work's been done up to this point and I don't think that has to
all be thrown out but, to evaluate some of these concerns in a little more depth to make
sure that we aren't throwing some money away and not getting the most bang for the
buck, I think is prudent and responsible, at this point."
Mayor Polston. "I appreciate that generally. I guess I just have to say, if you listen to
all the negative comments that anybody would ever make over any public project, you
would never get anything done if you didn't work diligently and hard like the members
of the School Board and the City Council have with the professionals that we've worked
with to advise us. Let me assure you that this is a good project and it will serve this
community well and I appreciate your concerns but, this is not a process that we took
lightly nor that we jumped into. There have been excruciating hours of planning and
talking and reviewing the possible problems that you bring up and we appreciate being
able to respond to you. We went for over a two year period where we conducted public
hearings and meetings and public information meetings and we tried to make all of the
information as we assimilated it, available to the public and it was certainly there for
anyone who would have wanted to attend the meetings of the task force and later the
WCCB. You raised some valid points and you should be able to be assured that this, in
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
fact, is a good project for the community and it will, in fact, serve the needs of the
community for a long time."
Jhn Funk. "The Planning Commission brings up a lot of issues that they said they didn't
have information on. I'm not sure if those have been addressed or will be or if those are
all valid concerns but, I think they are all things that need to be looked at."
Dave Halbmaier. "I own Lots 19 & 20, Lynwold development, adjacent to Lot 18. I'm
not really that familiar with this format. All I have is questions and I don't know if this
is the appropriate place for me to ask those questions."
The Mayor asked what questions.
Dave Halbmaier. "What's the status for the purchase of LOt 187 What's going to happen
to the grade there? What's the status of the alley? They said the technical information
has been presented but, I don't understand.
Dr. Myers stated that they currently have a purchase agreement with the owner of LOt 18,
contingent upon a Conditional Use Permit from the City Council. The project starting date for
the parking lot and the driveway area is about May 1, 1999.
Bert Haglund explained that the grade of Mr. Halbmaier's property should not be affected by
the project.
Mr. Halbmaier then asked about the trees that are close to the property line. Mr. Haglund
stated that he will be in contact with Mr. Halbmaier and work with him to minimize any effect
on his property.
Mayor Polston. "If you have concerns about specific trees or items that are on your
property, that would be something that you would negotiate directly with the project
engineer and as a City, we would assist you in any way we could. I think that they are
going to be very cognizant of a neighbor, if you have concerns about a tree or loss of a
tree, etc. The Conditional Use Permit is what's before the City Council tonight."
Dave Halbmaier. "So my questions are merely before, they're germane to this
conversation but they would still have a chance to be addressed even if we go forward
with the Conditional Use Permit?"
Mayor Polston. "As a property owner that's adjacent to the property, you're concerns
or any riffs that you're going to have as a result of the project is certainly a concern of
the City and of the School District. We're happy to answer your questions but, we're here
tonight to discuss whether or not to issue a Conditional Use Permit, without which, the
project does not proceed, period."
Councilmember Hanus. "I have to take issue with what was said here. I don't at all
believe that an agreement, after thc fact, with the project manager or the project people
is the appropriate place. The CUP is exactly the appropriate place to deal with it. That's
the very reason we do CUPs. That's the very reason we advertise to 350 feet."
15
Ig
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
Mayor Polston. "Mark, you can't write everything into Conditional Use Permits, that
you're going to pay for damaged trees."
Councilmember Hanus. "If you'd like me to dig the code out, I can show you where the
code specifically talks about dealing with abutting owners concerns. That is what the CUP
is for. If there's concerns here, they should be included. Now, that could be done in
perhaps some stretchy method. For instance, make that a condition of the CUP, that an
agreement is reached with the neighbor prior to the CUP becoming active. There are
different ways to do it and still pass the CUP but, that's the very reason for the CUP or
one of the primary purposes of it."
Dave Haibmaier. "I'm neutral actually, on the project. I'm not pro and I'm not against
but, I would like to have those concerns addressed and I'd like to make sure that my
property value isn't negatively affected as it relates to this project. So, I'm not being
obstinate. I just want to make sure that those things are addressed. If this is not the
appropriate time, then you as the City Council tell me that. If it is the appropriate time,
then I want those things on the record."
Councilmember Ahrens asked if she could ask the City Attorney a question.
Councilmember Ahrens. "If protecting the adjacent property owner's rights is not dealt
with as a condition of the CUP and the adjacent property owner's rights are infringed on,
his property is negatively affected, his value goes down, whatever the case, is his only
recourse then through the legal system if it's not addressed in the Conditional Use Permit?
Is a civil action the only recourse he has?"
City Attorney. "Probably so and I'm using civil action in the broadest sense there. In
other words anybody can sue somebody at that point."
Dave Halbmaier. "I would like to avoid that.
City Attorney. "So, I guess that would be recourse if it were not addressed in the
Conditional Use Permit."
Mayor Polston. "By the same token, you can take all the precautions. You can write
anything that you want to write into a Conditional Use Permit and if he still sustains
damage to his trees or to some property and the project coordinator or the owner or the
developer of a project doesn't respond and take care of the problems that they have
created, the only appropriate place that anybody has to go is, of course, to court. But, we
don't, historically, sit here on projects that we have dealt with where we issue Conditional
Use Permits and start writing into Conditional Use Permits that every tree and tree root
has to be protected. That is expected of a project that is carried out within the City of
Mound."
Councilmember Hanus. "That is correct but, as an example, Seton Bluff was a recent
project that was done. We heard a lot of testimony from folks sitting out here that were
real worried about silt and runoff and things of that sort and we changed, I can't
specifically name what the changes were, but we changed things in that plan in order to
appease the people that were concerned, the neighbors. So it is done."
16
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
The Mayor asked Mr. Halbmaier if he got the any answer to his question?
Dave Halbmaier. "I'm more concernecl now than I waa before, I have it couple other
questions.
1. I don't understand what' s going on with the alley. Is the alley changing? Is how
the alley's being used changing? How?
Mayor Polston. Maybe, you should, Bert, talk about the alley and point out what it is
because, I think he may have a misconception of what alley you're talking about."
Dave Halbmaier. "I'm talking about the alley which is in the north 30 feet of Lots 19
and 20. That's what I'm referring to. The existing alley. Is that alley's use and is it
changing?"
Bert Haglund. "No. It's changing only to the extent that Lot 18 is being acquired and
so that portion of the alley that is abutting Lot 18 will now become part of this project.
However, the alley as it extends to that point, will be unchanged."
Dave Halbmaier. "So it will terminate at the end of my lot or the 30 feet that who knows
who owns it. That's not part of the plans to make that a thru alley way, is that correct?
There's no plans for that, at this point?"
The Council stated, not at this point.
"I'm still uncertain, as to where that leaves me, related to the details. I understand the
tree roots, but it's more than that. If there's a fence, where the fence going? How's the
grade going to be? Those are some of the details I would like to have a better
understanding of.
Councilmember Hanus. "This may not help you, but if I could, I'd like to read the one
little subsection of the code and it's relative to Conditional Use Permits. It's our Code
Section 350:525, Subdivision 1. A., criteria for granting Conditional Use Permits. 'That
the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and
impair property values within the immediate vicinity.' That's the point I was addressing
earlier."
Dave Halbmaier. "So what do I do?"
Mayor Polston. "Are you more concerned about where the fence and the, I'm not sure
I understand exactly what .....
Dave Halbmaier. "No, I know where the fence is going to go. I'm talking about, is
there going to be a fence which I heard there is going to be a fence? Where does it start?
Where does it stop? There are trees planted in that area, in fact, I think the property
actually runs fight through the middle of another tree. There's another tree adjacent. I'm
concerned about those trees being lost. I'm concerned about how it affects my property.
So I see that there will be trees planted, which I'm happy about but, I guess I want details
and where to get those details?"
17
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 22, 1998
Mayor Polston. "The details would be available from the plans that the architect has
prepared, as to where the fence is going or approximately how far from your property line
that it's going to be. The detail I would have to refer to Bert, to go into with you, to
show you where the fence and answers to the questions that you have."
Bert Haglund. "I don't know that I can give you a dimension fight now. It's dose. I
think that what I should mention is, that these drawings that you're looking at are not
construction drawings. They don't give particular detail of some of the things that you're
asking about. Some of those details still need to be developed in their final form. We'd
be happy to sit with you and discuss, with you, what our intention is and to do it in a way
that we can best respond to your concerns. I guess I would ...... in working that out
because you are abutting the property and you have concerns and I think it's only fair that
we would ....... you and work through those details so that you fully understand them as
they're being developed."
Dave Halbmaier. "I want to be totally reasonable. For example, maybe the fence starts
ten feet into that 50 foot lot, I don't know. Maybe that fence starts 1 foot in, I don't
know what the plans are. On a 50 foot lot, how much do you plan to remove to make that
roadway?"
Bert Haglund. "I can answer that. We're trying to maximize the use of that 50 feet, the
width of that lot. So, we're trying to come as close as we can to that property line. So
that is our intent. We're trying to maximize the use of that. It would be fight at the
property line, as close as we can."
Dave Halbmaier. "So what do I do to make sure my concerns are a part of this and that
we will reach an agreement on that?"
The Mayor asked the City Attorney to respond.
City Attorney. "That's one of the issues that the Council looks at. The impact on
adjacent and surrounding properties by the proposed use."
Councilmember Jensen. "Would it be inconceivable for us to include as one of the
conditions or to add another condition that simply says something to the effect that the
design/construction plans for work affecting Lot 19 be reviewed and reflect the owner's
concerns as just a condition for the Conditional Use Permit?"
City Attorney. "I think that sounds like pretty good language to me. You might want
to add to that, that absent that owner consent, they cannot enter onto his property and in
anyway affect the grade or slope of his property, either. In other words, they can't do
anything on your property."
Councilmember Ahrens. "Or the growth of trees?"
City Attorney. "Well, that's an issue because if you stay on your property and grade
your land and by doing so, damage a neighbors tree roots that happens to be growing on
your property, you may by doing that, damage the neighbors tree. The question is, to
what extent does the City want to exercise some sort of restriction over the fight of the
School District to use land it's buying in order to protect a tree on a neighbor's land. I
18
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 22, 1998
don't have an answer for you but, I think that you have competing property interests there
and maybe not an easy answer as to how to balance them. I think that Councilmember
Jensen's language is an excellent solution. ~
Councilmember Hanus asked for the language to be read again.
Councilmember Jensen. "I made a few adjustments. It goes something to the effect:
(Design/construction plans for work on Lot i8 be reviewed and reflect Lot 19 owner's
concerns). WCCB cannot impact greater slope of LOt 19."
Dave Halbmaier. "I would like to have something about negatively affect my property
and I don't see anything about damaging of something else. A greater slope, I don't see
anything about damaging any trees that are on my lot. How do we address that part of
it? I believe one of the trees is on the property line, so that's going to go. I know the
other one is maybe within 10 feet of the property line. I don't think it will survive it."
Councilmember Jensen. "We've got plenty of time to continue to negotiate this. The
design/construction plans for work on LOt 18 can be reviewed and reflect Lot 19 owners
concerns regarding, grading, trees, runoff, erosion, etc. Language can be added."
Councilmember Ahrens. "My problem with the language is that reflecting your concerns
doesn't necessarily mean you have veto power or that they have to do anything that you
agree to. They can say, they considered your concerns, under that language and it's a
matter of whose got more priority. Whose rights are bigger. That's how I read that
language."
Councilmember Jensen. "Yes, do we want to give the owner of Lot 19 the ability to
veto and control the entire project?"
Councilmember Ahrens. "Or do we want to have the project control the adjacent
property owner?"
Mayor Polston. "I think that we're fighting a battle here that we want to protect the
fights of the property owner, while protecting the fights of the people who are going to
do the project and I think that's what this gentlemen is looking for."
Dave Halbmaier. "I think we can do that."
The Council all agreed that this can be accomplished.
Mayor Polston. "I don't think we need to do anything other than perhaps what
Councilmember Jensen has suggested, if, in fact, that satisfies your concern and the intent
is to protect your property fights and I'm sure that the School District and the City is just
as interested in protecting your property rights as they are in proceeding with the project."
Dave Halbmaier. "It does go to the matter of intent and I don't know. I guess if they
truly are interested in that then I think we can reach something. I'll be totally reasonable
about it.
,9 q;k
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
Mayor Polston. "I would not be in favor of writing into the Conditional Use Permit that
a lot owner has veto power over a complete project because you would be opening
yourself up to never having a project ever being completed, ever again."
Dave Halbmaier. "Can't there be something about mutual agreement as to how the
adjacent property line is addressed?"
Mayor Poiston. "I don't feel comfortable sitting here negotiating parameters for
committing the applicant to something unless they're in agreement with it also."
City Attorney. "What if the language were to say something like: "As a condition that
the City is satisfied that the applicant has taken all steps reasonably available to it to
address the concerns of the adjacent property owner regarding: grading, trees, runoff and
erosion". That way the City remains the arbitrator of whether or not all has been done."
The Mayor asked if the applicant had any objection to this?
Bill Pinegar, Westonka Community Center Board as well as the School District. "I would
like this gentleman to have reasonable assurance that we aren't going to trample on him
in any way, shape, or form. We're going to be neighbors for a long time. For as long
as you choose to live in this community. We've worked with some other adjacent
property owners and I think they would attest we've shown appropriate respect and
restraint in dealing with them in a very appropriate manner, under very difficult
circumstances. I believe it would be mutually agreed, both would be concerned about a
veto power. That can be that when you're dealing with your property. These sensitive
issues that are, perhaps, difficult to deal with. I think we've shown in the past, that we
can deal with that in a very respectful way."
Dave Halbmaier. "Then my final question is. I need to figure out how and who I make
contact with or who contacts me regarding some of those details?
Dr. Pam Myers, Supt. of Schools introduced herself and gave Mr. Halbmaier her card as a
contact.
Mayor Polston. "There is a citizens committee that is involved with the Building
Committee. You can get the dates and times that that committee is meeting and you can
certainly attend the meetings if you want to keep abreast of the project's progression. I
would encourage you to do that as a person who is in the neighborhood."
Mr. Halbmaier thanked the Council for their time.
Marshall Anderson, 5736 Lynwood Blvd. "I live a couple of houses down from Dave's
property. I just had a couple a real quick questions. I see that we're still going to have
our dead end alley. I appreciate that because our kids go down there and play. The only
concern that I see is that the parking lot is all the way down against the alley and I think
that the original plans were to have the overflow pond against the alley. Can I ask why
that was reversed?"
The Mayor asked Mr. Haglund to respond.
20
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
Bert Haglund. "You are correct that in the early concept plans that we had looked at,
we were looking at having the parking lot a little further to the north and then on the south
edge of the parking 10t, having a st0rmwater pond and we also had shown the playground
to be there as well. As we started to actually develop the project and work with the
Building Committee, we were looking at some pros and cons for that arrangement and one
of them was the playground, of course, and we moved that closer to the building for a
safety reason which was a very good move. Then when it came to the parking lot itself,
the relationship of the parking lot to the building and where people would enter the
building, there was a real concern about having parking at a distance from where you
might enter the building. One of the concerns of the Building Committee for the project
was to try to put parking as close as we could to where people would be entering the
building. There was a question at one time of whether we would need to have a pond,
perse, and ultimately we are having a pond, but there was a period of time where we were
thinking we might be able to negotiate with the watershed district."
Marshall Anderson. "Is the pond going where the outdoor ice rink is now?
Bert Haglund. "Yes."
Marshall Anderson. "O.K., here's my next question. I understand about moving the
playground. I agree that the kids should be close to the building but, to put the pond on
our side, we still have our open space that we're now losing because ..... One of the
concerns we have is that unless this is done right, we feel that our property values could
go down. So maybe the green space being on the south side of the parking lot rather than
the north, may help our property values maintain, rather then detract from them."
Bert Haglund. "I really can't respond to property values and the effect of having a
screened parking area across the alley, compared to having some additional green space.
I really don't feel qualified to know if that would have an effect or not."
Marshall Anderson. "Well, I don't know if it would have an effect either, at this point
but, depending upon what types of trees they are, in winter that parking lot may be
perfectly open and certainly detracting from the property values on that side, depending
on traffic and other situations like that. So, all I'm suggesting is that, in my mind, having
the pond on the south side of the lot is a better alternative."
Mayor Polston. "I really have to honesty tell you that having the pond closer to or
adjacent to would be more detrimental to property values than having it ........ If a
stormwater management nurp pond."
There were some comments about the pond being a mosquito breeding ground.
Mayor Polston. "You could refer to Lake Minnetonka as a mosquito breeding ground
if you don't do something to control the mosquito larva, which is done. But, I have to tell
you in all honesty that I believe that having a stormwater management pond closer to your
property would be more detrimental as far as reducing the property values than having a
parking lot there."
21
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 22, 1998
Marshall Anderson. "Perhaps that's true, I can't disagree with that. I guess what I'm
mostly concerned about is having asphalt right across the alley way without the green
space, which is what we have now and feel that we're losing that appeal."
Bert Haglund. "We're not completely insensitive to that and when we were working with
the Planning Staff on this issue, we did not put the ...... there's a certain setback that is
required off of a property line for paving. We've set this back a little further then what
we could by ordinance and we've provided some additional plantings there. Those are
conifers so that at any time of the year you are going have an effective screening. So it's
not like the leaves are going to fall and then you just simply see the asphalt."
Bob Brown, 5453 Three Points Blvd. "What you're going through tonight is what the
Planning Commission's been going through quite a bit. Dealing with a lot of different
problems. One thing Bert mentioned tonight was that these are not construction drawings.
This is one of the things the Planning Commission has been asking for is actual drawings
of where things are going to be. Lot 18, I have some concerns. They're asking for a
simple boundary movement. When I owned 5700 Bush Road, I had to acquire Judge
Wolner's property, twenty-five feet. I came before the Council and asked for a simple
boundary movement just to acquire the property and make it all one piece. At that time,
I was told that doesn't happen. We go through ..... I had to have Eagan, Field and Novak
come in, resurvey the whole property and then I had to come before the Council with a
new plan showing the new boundaries and it had to be a complete incorporation of one
property. So I have some concerns about that. It's been a new plan brought up with .....
Also in November when I was elected, I was elected as a public official, and sometimes
I think the good of the many seems to out weigh the needs of a few. Those are some
things we need to concern ourselves with."
Mayor Polston. "Just one comment to your question about preparing construction plans
and specifications. I don't know of any project that does that. Expends the money to do
absolute construction plans prior to a whether they know whether the project is going to
move forward. It's normally done when they have some assurance that they are going to
be able to do a project."
Bill Pinegar. "I have nothing new to add to the information tonight but, we've worked
together for two years now on this project and I'm pleased we're at the point where we're
maybe making a decision on being able to move forward and selling some bonds. I was
here for other questions that you may have regarding what we've worked on so far."
Dan lverson, 4640 North Arm Drive. "Throughout the whole process of the community
center, I saw this like Tom did as maybe an ill thought out project. Taking an old
building, trying to remodel it. I know you can give all the assurances you want that, take
my word for it, it's going to work, it's a good project, we won't have mold, it won't come
back on us. We won't have to put up do not touch or remove asbestos signs, you're still
going to have that, I mentioned it before, an old building with wide hallways, high
ceilings, basic square block construction of the late 30's. It's not really a functional
facility and it never will be. I have serious questions, too. In addition to the cost that
you're looking at and in regard to that cost, you say it will cost us a million dollars to
knock it down and we can't afford to do that, it sets the project back regardless if it's a
new or old one. But, if you've been watching the news in the last few years, one
22
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
community, one county, one city, one state after another is suffering huge miscalculations
or losses due to unexpected recurrences of health problems due to mold and asbestos,
asbestos abatement. Now if you think this million dollars now is exorbitant, take a look
at the most recent articles in the paper, such as LuVerne - $3 million dollars. In five
years, if a problem is discovered, and believe me the legal system will be right behind it
and will clamp you down like right now, and force you to evacuate or remedial the
situation. If you think the cost is expensive now, you wait five or ten years or less and
see what the cost is going to be as environmental issues soar and the cost of removing this
debris (hazardous material) becomes much more costly.'
"The advantages of a new building, like Tom said, are obvious. You know what you've
got. The layout can be cost effective, efficient. You can utilize planning and architectural
design that's suited to your building. Another thing, you've got WECAN, you've got the
city offices; maybe your school offices; you're targeting also some of the elderly
functions. But, you have a large, large, somewhat irresponsible, looking for something
to do segment of this community and that's your teenage, young youth. All the way from
7, 8 up to 16, 18, 20 and they have nothing to do in this town. I don't care what you're
going to say. I've got kids in that age and they're going to go to malls, to Waconia, they
go anywhere else, but Mound. There is nothing to do in Mound. Now, you're planning
to spend a huge sum of money, and I'm a little ticked with the school district for allowing
it to happen, for that large a sum of money to be tied up in a project that isn't more
targeting the very kids that they're supposed to be providing resources for, important
resources. All throughout this project, as I've been following it, following the meetings,
there's been issues, one issue after another as they try to take this square peg and put it
in a round hole and this is just the superficial concerns. Now, and I've also addressed a
little bit of my concerns about the interior of the building and what's going to happen.
Now, it's easy to say, believe me it's a good project, take my word for it but, that's a ten
million dollar word and it could be real expensive in the future. When you say it's
expensive, we can't level it now, just think about the potential costs in the future. Not just
financial. We've got a lot of young people in this community and you've got a lot of
professionals who would like to come to this community just based on the lake and the
rolling hills. It's a nice community. It deserves, we deserve, and it's been my stand from
the beginning, and it will be my stand til the day you finally complete that albatross."
Mike Mueller. "Earlier I spoke with regard to items I felt were important to whether or
not this Council should be having this meeting tonight without a written report from the
Planning Commission. But, I do have, and if you are going to proceed with it, there are
questions that need to be addressed with regard to the project itself, from a planning
standpoint. Is this plan, the one that was presented by the school district, to the public,
prior to the vote on the bond issuance with the west entrance away from downtown,
removal of the east entrance, a large pond, variances for numbers and size of parking
stalls, the acquisition of more property at inflated terms and price, and the largest
question, is there enough money to do all which was stated in the plan, if unforeseen costs
include scrubbing the pods for the proliferation of mold spores caused by the extensive
leakage of the roof?. Does this plan meet with the comprehensive plan standards set forth
by the City's Economic Development Commission, Planning Commission and Council?
Should we approve it, if the back of the building is facing the busiest comer of downtown?
If the property, as a whole, is that which receives a CUP, what is the hardship preventing
the parking stall size variance when we have reports that the largest selling vehicles in the
midwest are trucks and sports utility vehicles which need more room and therefore, in
23
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
practice and reality, will take up more space than what will be stripped? Where do buses
park on nights of football games when the lot will be utilized to its maximum capacity?
If the Conditional Use Permit covers the whole of the property, the football field is part
of the property. Football teams come on buses, fans come on buses. You need to deal
with that."
"Should cost alone be the hardship for not having investigated the possibility of
underground treatment of stormwater, as was recommended by staff and which will be a
required part of our downtown redevelopment and also was utilized by Norwest Bank
when they built their new building? We didn't even have them investigate that and yet it
was staff's recommendation. Without the pond, the need for parking stall size variances
and number of parking stall variances loses the hardship. There's plenty of property.
If we take the pond and put it underneath in a stormwater management process that utilizes
underground areas."
"One of the things that you stated Bob, was that construction drawings aren't required as
part of a Conditional Use Permit. Yet, I've been sitting 6 plus years on the Planning
Commission, maybe it's 7, and I look at the most recent one that I know of a Conditional
Use Permit, where we required construction drawings, was on the Amoco Station car wash
on the corner of Three Points and Commerce. We changed where the access drives would
be. We made sure the signage wouldn't interfere with the visual aspect of turning in and
out of the property. We've done drainage, we've looked at... In all cases, I don't know
of a single case where we haven't had at least some kind of construction drawings with
regard to entrance, exit, and how close the building sits to the property lines, where the
driveway will be located incorporated with the property lines, those kinds of things. I
don't remember one. Yet, you're going ahead tonight without that."
"The access drive, tuming radius for buses from Lynwood onto the old alley way, Lot 18,
whatever you want to call it, we normally look at that kind of stuff. We look at the radius
for fire engines to go in that area. We don't have those kind of drawings tonight. We
haven't talked about those. The school district hasn't provided them. I would hope they
would be reviewed before you go ahead and give them carte blanche to go ahead. Can
this plan include a two-way street and be constructed without regrading Lot 19, I
remember LOt 19 going up pretty quick off of the street. There might even be a retaining
wall next to the sidewalk. If that's the case, how are you going to have two-way traffic
going in and out if you can't see? We don't have grading plans that show what the
driveway will be to see whether or not this makes sense to put a driveway in there?
What is the legal description of the property which gets the CUP? We've been told by the
applicant, that there will be a subdivision in the future and that's when a Conditional Use
Permit will apply. That's not the way to give a Conditional Use Permit, carte blanche,
over a large area which we know, and the applicant has stated, and staff has stated, that
there will be a subdivision in the future but, we don't know where that is yet."
"We know the hardcover calculation if this is where the line goes. If this is not where the
line goes, we don't really know what the hardcover calculation is but, we'll give them
approval based on what they tell us. I'm a certified and real estate appraiser of residential
property and I will beg to differ with you Mr. Mayor, a parking lot versus a pond, you're
wrong."
24
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 22, 1998
Jim Regan. "Mike, you have a short memory. You were on the other side of the fence
when we built Commerce Square. All we had were conceptual plans when they were all
approved. I don't know of any large project where they have the construction plans before
the project is approved. It would be a waste of money to do all the construction plans for
this and then have it turned down. We had to go to many agencies to get permits before
this is approved. Why would you do the construction plans before you had all the
permits? Now I'm sure that in the construction of this, they're not going to break any city
codes. They would be foolish to. They will follow the codes as they are. Why are we
concerned about it? I think that the man living next door does have some concerns and
that can be put in there that they'll negotiate those concerns but, it should not stop the
project."
The Mayor closed the public heating.
Councilmember Jensen. "Several people brought up concerns regarding mold in the
building. I would like to ask someone involved in the construction, what the plans are
regarding addressing that issue?"
Cheryl Badinger, E & V, the construction and consultant management. "The school
district has hired a consultant to come in and do a survey of the mold and the asbestos in
the building at this point in time. They are conducting that survey right now. The project
has budgeted for asbestos and mold removal, if required.
Councilmember Jensen. "what would be involved, if it were required?"
Cheryl Badinger. "There are several different processes but, usually it's bleaching the
surface that has the mold in it, is what I've seen in the past."
Councilmember Ahrens. "Does that always solve the problem?"
Cheryl Badinger. "We go through air monitoring and testing after the process to see.
You have to stop the water which grows the mold, from my understanding. We would
have to bring a consultant in to access."
Councilmember Ahrens. "If the water is stopped and you use that process, it's a 100%
cure?"
Cheryl Badinger. "what I've seen in the past. I couldn't swear to that. That's why we
hire the consultants that are environmental consultants to deal with the mold and the
asbestos, to review and write up specifications to rid the mold, if necessary."
Councilmember Jensen. "With the elimination of the east entrance, how many entrances
will there be to the building and where are they?"
Loren Gordon. "There are several entrances to the building. The existing entrance on
the south will remain. The entrance on the north, which is an existing entrance will be
extended and provide on grade access into the building and access to an elevator. That
will function as a primary entrance to the building, especially off that parking lot. The
entrance to the north in the pod area will remain. The existing south entrance, in the pod
area, off of Lynwood will remain. Along the east side of the building, there are several
25
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
points where you can exit the building. In essence, ail the main entrances, that are on the
building today, will remain, with the exception of the one off of Commerce Blvd."
Bob Brown. "I owned an insulation contracting business and approximately 10 years
ago, we had a City Building Inspector, Jan Bertrand, and I owned Dependable Insulation
Contracting Services. I worked with Ms. Bertrand when she was concerned about the
asbestos and mold in the school. We did go to the building, including the boiler rooms
and I believe the company at the time was Safe Air Systems but the city should have a
report on that asbestos and mold from that company. There was quite a bit of mold and
the boiler room was completely filled with asbestos and was a real concern. ~
Counciimember Hanus. "I have three areas of concern that I would like to address.
These are more procedurai in nature than they are specific site issues. It's difficult
sometimes to separate the subdivision issues from the CUP issues. That's the next item
on the Agenda, since one is so pivotal on the other one. I will try and keep it on the CUP
issues.
The project, as described, includes, with the legai description that we have, the
entire building site that we see here including the parking lot area but, it aiso
includes the footbail field and the baseball field. It is the entire lot area, as I
understand it. The project, as described has no hardship or practical difficulty
for two of the variances, one of which is parking and the other is the planting
issues. With that huge lot, there is no hardship. There's ail kinds of land to do
what's being discussed. I strongly believe that the subdivision behind the parking
lot, in other words, what's been referred to as the future subdivision needs to take
place now. I, as a Planning Commissioner, or as a City Councilmember, feel we
cannot issue a variance for, or declare findings of fact, on conditions that don't
yet exist. We can't do it. If the land were subdivided as described, at a later
time, then in fact the conditions exist and then variances are vaiid. In this
particular case, I don't think they are. This is a future unknown. We have a site
drawing that shows roughly where it's kind of proposed to go but, nobody knows
exactly where it would go yet. In other words, that's going to place a future
Council in the position of, now you've spent $9 million dollars on this thing, now
are you going to subdivide? Well, how are you going to turn it down. You've
locked a future Council in. If you don't approve the subdivision and there will
be ail kinds of reasons not to. If the future Council does not approve it, the
school district could lose the footbail field and bas.bail fields because it has to,
by agreement, transfer this property to the WCCB ownership at the completion
of the project. If the subdivision doesn't go, either the entire property goes or
we're in a legal battle. That is something to look at in the future.
Another issue I want to talk about is I am of the belief, that it would be illegai for us to
act on this tonight. Let me explain why. This CUP, as proposed, is acquiring private
land for public use. There's a Minnesota Statute that's mentioned in the City Attorney's
letter and I dug it up. I have it right here. The Planning Commission must see that type
of land acquisition before the Council sees it with two exceptions: If it's been sitting on
it for 45 days and it is considered the time has run out, and it is considered approved.
Now, we've got in out packet, that request for that acquisition of that property and it's
dated December 10th. 45 days from December 10th is January 24th. So the 45 days has
not even come close to have expired yet. That's one condition. Once it runs out, it leaves
26
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
the Planning Commission. The other condition is one where the Council can take it from
the Planning Commission and act on it, under a couple of situations but, it can act on it
if it deems the acquisition of the property is not relative to the comprehensive plan. The
City has a comprehensive plan. I've looked back in that and I don't see how we consider
it not relative because this specific site is mentioned numerous times in that comp plan.
If the Council does deem that non-relative, it has to take it from the Planning Commission
by resolution and it must be by 2/3 (4/5) vote. Those are the two conditions under which
it can leave the Planning Commission. Otherwise, according to my interpretation, and
perhaps the City Attorney's got another read on it, that's my read on it. No such
resolution has been passed and under those conditions, I don't think it's legal for us to act
on it. The third issue, I wanted to talk about, is a little less concerning but, it is relative
to the alley way that was discussed earlier. Until today, I was not aware, that the alley
was not under City ownership. Evidently it is under private ownership and the city has
some rights to public use of that alley way. If, in fact, that's true and we're going to be
consistent with how we've dealt with these types of use on city controlled property, it
would be appropriate, I believe, to have it at least a public lands permit issued on that
alley way to allow this construction to go on. It, more or less, would convey the city's
rights for the school district to use that property for the purpose. It's public and public
and public but, if the city has rights to that land and the school district maybe does, maybe
doesn't, I don't know, but, I think we need to cover our bases and probably issue a public
lands permit for that construction."
City Attorney. "I think I already gave a partial answer to Mr. Mueller earlier who raised
that question first. Just to reiterate, my answer to him was that the statute that you're
referring to talks about the actual act of acquiring or disposing of land, rather then the
issue of granting a Conditional Use Permit. As a result, it would not be illegal, in my
judgment, or inappropriate, for the City Council, if it were to approve the Conditional Use
Permit, to put in as a condition to that approval, that the applicant comply with all of the
provisions of 471.345. It could be dealt with in that fashion."
"The only other comment I would make, and this is really picky and I don't mean to do
that but, that statute doesn't contemplate a two step process between Planning Commission
and City Council. The statute only talks about Planning Commission review of it. It
doesn't get reported from the Planning Commission to the City Council. The City
Council's role, in that statute, only is that if it doesn't want the Planning Commission to
look at it at all, it can make that determination that there is no relevance to the
comprehensive plan, in which case, the Planning Commission does not look at it at all.
The statute is honored more in the breach than is recognized, ordinarily, by cities. I bet
you can't even remember a time that we've ever used that statute here in Mound. Most
cities never use it."
Councilmember Hanus. "Yes, I can, many, many times. I can only think of one that
we didn't and that was a slip."
City Attorney. "In any event, there is no remedy for a failure to apply the statute. In
fact, there is some case law that suggests that it may not even be appropriate for a
Planning Commission to suggest to a school district, how to use its land. Be that as it
may, I guess my reaction, and bear in mind that I prefaced my comment before in saying
that the City Council, in my judgment, if it chooses to go forward with the Conditional
Use Permit, can pass this issue forward by saying that the permit is granted but issuance
27 ~0
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
is subject to compliance with this statutory requirement. The Council can, in my
judgment, do that and be fully in compliance with the provisions of that statute. But, by
the same token, it can take the position that it would really rather wait until the Planning
Commission has the full 45 days to take a look at this and then only after the full 45 days
has passed, take a look at the Conditional Use Permit. I would agree with you, that I
can't find a way to count this that suggests that 45 days has already passed."
Councilmember Hanus. "It's not my intention to enter into a legal debate with a lawyer
but, again, reading the statute, you mentioned that, you believed that the Planning
Commission as referenced in the statute probably would be the deciding authority. Is that
what you were eluding to?"
City Attorney. "Well to the extent that a determination is made as to the consistency with
the comprehensive plan unless the City Council waives it, yes, that would be my view of
the statute."
Councilmember Hanus. "The reason that I raised that is, again, they talk about the
separation between the governing body and the planning agency, which is defined as the
Planning Commission. It's recommended, clearly, by the planning agency and a copy
filed with the governing body and then go on to talk about no publicly owned interest..,
etc ...... or capital improvement ....... There is separation of those bodies. I suppose you
could interpret it more than one way but ..... I only saw it one way. I stated my opinion
and that's what it is. The subdivision does provide a way for the City Council to act on
it before the Planning Commission does. It has those provisions in there. So, why would
it do that? If, in fact, it were interpreted the way you were talking about where the
Planning Commission doesn't really need to do that. In your letter, you reference, and
it's a very good point, the theme in here that the overall idea between the statutes is that
the Council's authority is not intended to be overruled by the Planning Commission and
that they are advisory, etc. That's why I believe that the statute provides that ability to
take it away, if, in fact, the circumstances are such that it requires that. That's why I
think that the last half of that subdivision tends to provide the out for the prior portion of
it, which is, it needs to go to the Planning Commission."
City Attorney. "Well, it's not my role to engage in legal arguments with the City
Councilmember, especially one who pays my salary either. There is merit to what you
say. The only comment I would make is that the (and again, even the Attorney General,
when he's looked at this statute, has said it is not entirely clear what the point of the
statute is but, it's really clear that the Planning Commission, unless the City Council says
it can't, should be notified of something going on in town and should have 45 days to
opine as to whether that's consistent with the city's land use regulations). The typical
notion is, and the reason for the statute was, that it was viewed to be inappropriate to have
one unit of government come into town and do things which may or may not be consistent
with the land use regulations in place without, at least, letting the unit of government that
controls zoning, know that that's going on. That was really the point of the statute.
Typically, it doesn't make a great deal of sense, in situations such as this, where not only
are we being informed of what is being proposed but, in fact, we have to agree to it and
permit it for it to occur at all. So there's at least an argument that this statute be fully
important in this case, anyway. But, it still is a statute. The Planning Commission has
45 days to look at these things and they still have time left to do that. They still have time
left to opine as to whether or not they think there is consistency here. But, my only point
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
is, that, that does not necessarily preclude the City Council from acting on the Conditional
Use Permit. But, conditioning that action on the Planning Commission finishing up its
work."
Counciimember Hanus. "O.K., if I accept that, let's see what the next thing is then.
So what happens then? You're saying that you could pass a CUP subject to the review
to the Planning Commission. So you approve the CUP. Now, it goes back to the
Planning Commission at some point and the CUP is not approved until they act. Does it
then go from them back to the Council?"
City Attorney. "The typical action you would take would be to grant the Conditional Use
Permit but, delay the issuance of the permit, pending this action by the Planning
Commission. That's why it's a goofy statute. There is no provision, what if?."
Councilmember Ahrens. "So the Planning Commission just has to look at it and decide
if it's in compliance or not in compliance with the comp plan, and regardless of which one
it is, it's O.K., because they did their job, they looked at it and they made a
determination?"
City Attorney. "That's what the statute says. It is a strange statute."
Councilmember Ahrens. "That's bizarre."
City Attorney. "And again, I think that part of that is the reason that one unit of
government shouldn't be able to sashay into town and do something unknown to another
unit of government. So this is kind of a notification statute."
Councilmember Jensen. Asked if she could ask a question of a fellow Councilmember.
"I do hesitate to ask this question. However, Mark's first point, he went on at length
about a subdivision and then he went on to say there's lots of reasons not to allow this
subdivision and quite frankly, I don't know of any of them, so maybe you could shed
some light on that."
Councilmember Hanus. "I mistakenly went into that because that's part of the
subdivision discussion, not the CUP discussion. But, I will answer that. You've been on
the Planning Commission. You know this as well as anybody. Put yourself in the
position of the Planning Commission and now you've got a request to come in for a
subdivision. And, you've got all of these variances required but, only required, if you
grant the subdivision. In other words, the variances don't exist but, you're going to do
a subdivision that will create all of those nonconformities and you don't have to do that.
There's no reason for you to do that. I think, not only this Planning Commission but, the
Council would struggle deeply with that. The only reason we don't see it from that
perspective right now, is because we've been following this project from the start. We
know what the plan is and we know what the progression is but, that's where we get
tripped up because the progression right now, is wrong. We're granting variances to non-
existing conditions. They don't exist."
Councilmember Weycker. "I have a point to clarify there and maybe John Dean can help
me out. It is a legal document, the joint powers agreement, that talks about this
subdivision. So the fact that it's not taking place now, I think it's clear that it is going to
29
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
take place.
Councilmember Hanus. "Where? What are the measurements of the lines? We don't
know."
Councilmember Weycker. "Well, I think they want to be in conformance with our
hardcover calculations. So wherever that line needs to be drawn, at the point, including
the ponding. So the hardcover has never been asked for a variance."
Councilmember Hanus.
regulations?"
"What about parking regulations? What about planting
Counciimember Weycker. "Those are asked for variances. Is there any bearing on the
fact that we have agreed to a subdivision in a different legal document?"
City Attorney. "This is getting pretty complicated. I don't have a good answer for you
on that. I think, among other points that I would mention is, that I believe that that
document, and correct me if I'm wrong, is terminable by the parties but, I don't know
whether it could be terminated in advance of the need to actually finish up the subdivision
or not. Even though there may be an agreement, if the document's terminable and can be
terminated before a subdivision would take place, then I guess that the provision in the
document that there will be a subdivision would probably be kind of meaningless.
Councilmember Hanus. "This is analogous to this situation. A homeowner with a big
lot comes in and tells Jon Sutherland that he wants a building permit to build a house. Jon
says, you've already got a house on that lot. He's says, well I'm going to subdivide but,
I going to do it in a couple of years, three years, or somewhere down the road. Jon says,
well, where's the line going to be? Well, I don't know exactly, yet. I'll tell you that
later. Well, is it going to be in a conforming location? Well,' we'll figure that out later.
The point is. Would we grant, and not only that, but we're going to require variances
when we do the subdivision. I can tell you that much right now. But, I can't tell you
exactly what they are. That's very analogous to the situation we're facing right now.
Would we do that? Not in a, absolutely not."
Councilmember Jensen. "Excuse me, your analogy is close but, it's fiawed, and you
don't have a homeowner asking for a Conditional Use Permit. But you certainly are
correct. There have been times where we have hesitated to grant changes in lot lines if
they ended up creating a need for a variance. That is true. This is truly, a unique
situation that we have here and I don't know how we go about getting around that. I can
say, that quite honestly, I don't hesitate when it comes to a variance on the parking spaces,
for a couple of reasons. One, has to do with, we are re-looking at our entire parking
program for downtown Mound anyway. So, to suggest that this site has to have all its
parking spaces in one place, suggests to me, that we really do need to re-look at what we
have in place for parking. We have an entirely different development or some additional
development that's going on that is going to create some additional parking and there's no
reason why people who are attending or participating in activities at this center, can't use
this other parking that's going to be available to them. So, again, we're already aware of
the need to re-look our parking ordinance. That one doesn't concern me. To suggest that
we need to plant as many trees as has been suggested, in this development also suggests
to me that we need to re-look at that aspect of our ordinance. I'm comfortable saying that,
30
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
given that we're re-looking at ordinances for both houses, based on the fact that somebody
wants to keep one. We're re-looking at our ordinance on fences because somebody put
up a fence and we're concerned about, is it a trellis or is it a fence? We're re-looking at
ordinances all the time. This suggests to me that there might be something out of whack.
We've looked at the ordinance that we put in place for the telecommunications towers and
we're re-looking at that one because the first time we attempted to use it, we ran into a
fairly sturdy wall on that. So, it suggests to me that there is a need to re-look and I'm not
concerned about parking or a variation from some of the trees for a project of this nature."
Councilmember Hanus. "I don't disagree with what you said. I really don't. The
variances being asked for in the future, I don't have a problem with either. My big
problem is that, first of all, there are no variances required right now as the project is
described. And the second thing is, the subdivision that I'm talking about around that
parking lot, there is absolutely no reason why it can't happen right now. There is no
reason why it can't be done now. The subdivision could happen now and everything
would be fine."
Councilmember Weycker. "So, can we condition it on that then?"
Mayor Poiston. "I think the attorney has... We can argue this thing, pros and cons, back
and forth. You can find some ordinance, or some part of an ordinance, or something that
is not palatable or is subject to interpretation, and we even have some ordinances that have
been discussed that it has been pointed out, whether or not is even a legal need for. What
we have before us is, in fact, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for the Westonka
Community Center. We have, in our packet, a resolution that has been prepared, that is
subject to, some modifications. I would like to, at some point, have us either put a motion
on the table to grant the Conditional Use Permit, grant it with certain conditions, or, in
fact, deny it. The applicant has a fight to have it either voted for or against. I think all
of the applicants have made their case for what they think is fair and equitable and we've
heard the opposing views. Now, dear friends, and ladies and gentlemen of the Council,
it's time, I think, that we move toward making some decision so that the applicant can
plan what their next step may be."
Councilmember Hanus. "Loren, there are variances being asked for on this project.
What's the hardship?"
Loren Gordon. "Well, the applicant, has requested the variances that you outlined:
parking; trees; and curbcut, were the major ones. The parking, they have tried to address
with their parking demand study that was reviewed at the Planning Commission level.
They've tried to look at the building users and the amount of people who will be there at
any given time during the week day, and all hours of operation, as well as in the evenings
at an auditorium event and on the weekends with uses that are operating in the building
and auditorium type of use. Their basis for the hardship was, at any given time, with the
amount of people that will be occupying the building from ..... including the people that
work there or people that would be coming to use the services, would be 280."
Councilmember Hanus. "But, everything you're getting into here, is a reason why they
shouldn't need it. I want to know why do they have to have the variance? What's the
hardship? Not the argument for why we don't need it."
31
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
Loren Gordon. "Well, the argument that you would maybe want to uphold the 465 that
would be required is to look at future use of the building with different users there. I
can't present you hardship for why we should do that. When really, we're responding to
their application on why they.., and they've stated why they needed the hardship, so.
That's their reason. If you can find that you agree with their parking demand study, you
would have reason to approve the variance. If you don't find that's reasonable, that's
reason to deny it, as well."
"The trees, I think, you look at the landscaping plan there and if you wouldn't look at
what the code would require, I probably would say, that's a pretty decent landscaping
plan, given the number of plantings there. However, our code says we've got more
plantings that's required based on the square footage of the building. So, again, the
applicant is requesting 30 trees from the code requirement. Those are over storys. There
are other ornamental trees and shrubs that are being provided as landscaping type materials
that aren't in that count so.."
Councilmember Hanus. "Everything, so far, you're talking about is the reason why they
shouldn't have to do it. Tell me thc hardship. Tell me what about this site will not allow
them to do what the code says."
Mayor Polston. "Mark, I'm going to jump in and stop you there because the outline
that's been placed in the packet, I think, spells out what the practical difficulty is and if
you remember, Mark, over a year ago, when we were talking about downtown
redevelopment, and you were one of the people that agreed with many of us, who, I
asked the Planning Commission to address the parking issue because we realized that with
our downtown redevelopment project, that's going to take place, the parking requirements
are overly stringent and need to be addressed. We have asked the Planning Commission
to address that issue. The Planning Commission has a work schedule and a time schedule.
They can't do everything, immediately. As the liaison to the Planning Commission, I
think that you took that to the Planning Commission, that we were going to be in deep
trouble with our overall downtown development plan if we didn't look at reducing the
parking requirements. I heard you say that you were in agreement with that."
Councilmember Hanus. "Yes."
Mayor Polston. "O.K. We can sit here and we can banter back and forth but, every
applicant that's come before us, who has asked for a Conditional Use Permit when there
were things that we could do to assist them and help them, whether it was the Planning
Commission or the City Council, we have tried to do that. Particularly with individual
homeowners, where we have tried to help homeowners and help applicants, particularly
for the overall public good. We are making an attempt, and God help us, as Bill Pinegar
and I said at a public meeting one time, 'It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a
perfect plan.' "There are many things that we wish we could have. Twenty five million
dollars to build a Shakopee type community center. We wish that Mound had...we had
bigger space to build it on, so that there were no variances required. We wish that we
could do our downtown redevelopment with no variances or no stormwater ponding, or
no problems would exist. With all the battles that we fought, over the downtown
redevelopment, and the dredge of the channel, we are sitting here tonight debating
semantics over a project that is for the public good. We can sit here and we can nit pick
it to death and we can look for little ways to try and stop it, or hang it up, or put it off,
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINU'IE$- DECEMBER 22, 1998
or kill it, and that's what I think is trying to be done. I think this project is trying to be
killed. I won't permit it, as 10ng as I'm Mayor, and I draw a breath, I'm going to to
protect the public good, and the people who voted for this project and to see it go forward.
So let's, please, stop debating semantics and either vote for issuing this Conditional Use
Permit, or vote against it and be fair to the people who are here, who have expended time,
money and effort and are expecting a decision from this City Council."
Councilmember Hanus. "I have to state that I am not trying to delay the project and I
not trying to stop the project.
Mayor Polston. "Well, then vote against it."
Councilmember Hanus. "I am trying to do things lawfully. If we approve this thing,
we are doing it without hardship. We are doing it without practical difficulty and the law
does not allow us to do that."
Mayor Polston. "That's your opinion."
Councilmember Hanus. "Yes it is, absolutely."
Mayor Polston. "And your certainly entitled to vote against the project. So can we put
some kind of motion on the floor. Either to approve the Conditional Use Permit or deny
the Conditional Use Permit."
Councilmember Weycker. "I would move to approve, with conditions."
Weycker then withdrew her motion.
Councilmember Jensen. "I would like to move the resolution approving a Conditional
Use Permit and associated variances for the Westonka Community Center. I would like
to refer the Council to page 4748 where I would suggest the following changes on item
8 to read as follows:
8. Approval of a 14 foot driveway curbcut width variance along Commerce Blvd.
to accommodate three lanes as recommended by Hennepin County."
"Add Item 11. to read as follows: The City is satisfied that the applicant has taken all
steps reasonably available to it to address the concerns of the adjacent property owner of
Lot 19, regarding: grading, trees, runoff and erosion. The applicant will consult with the
owner of Lot 19, as the applicant formulates its plans for construction of improvements
adjacent to LOt 19."
"Add Item 12. to read as follows: Comply with state statutes regarding acquisition of land
and Planning Commission recommendation consistent with land use regulations."
"Add Item 13. to read as follows: If needed, a public lands permit be applied for
regarding work in the alley way."
Councilmember Weycker. "I will second."
33 3~
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
RESOLUTION//98-137
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND ASSOCIATED VARIANCES FOR THE
WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER AS APPLIED FR BY
THE WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT //277, 5600
LYNWOOD BLVD., PID'S //14-117-24 41 0010,//14-117-24 41
0011,//14-117-24 41 0052,//14-117-24 41 0058, &//14-1177-24
44 0007, P & Z CASE ~1~98-64.
Councilmember Hanus asked the following questions:
1. "All the areas, in all the 'Whereas' that refer to this site, as described in the legal
description as being 'limited green space', 'limited site area', all of those
references are to remain. Is that correct?
Councilmember Jensen. "I'm not removing them from my motion."
Councilmember Hanus. "O.K. So those are going to stand in this resolution."
"Also the statement or Whereas at the bottom of page 4747 which reads as follows:
'WHEREAS, the following are findings for granting a conditional use permit:
1. The use will improve the property and not be of any detriment to the adjacent
uses.'" "Now, that's, of course, to protect the third parties. Is that also going
to stand? Is that making a statement or is it not?"
Councilmember Jensen. "I'm not suggesting it be removed."
Counciimember Hanus. "O.K. So you're declaring that that's not a problem with the
neighbor then."
Councilmember Jensen. 'I've put a condition in place that addressed that."
Councilmember Hanus. "I talked to John Dean earlier. Last night we had a WCCB
Meeting and we approved the sale of Lot 18 with three conditions:
1. The CUP be approved;
2. The subdivision be approved; and
3. There is a hold harmless agreement that the City Attorney drafted today."
"I just have a draft copy. None of the Council has seen it. None of the applicants have
seen it but, it is to protect the City and WCCB from some of the conditions in the
purchase agreement. If you want me to go into that, I'm willing to go into that.
Otherwise, I would like to have this, also, as a condition of the CUP."
Councilmember Weycker. "Actually, in the CUP, number 9. approval be conditioned
on ownership ......... and I believe we conditioned that earlier on the ownership. So
doesn't that just tag along?"
Councilmember Jensen. "I'm trying to understand why, the resolution for a Conditional
Use Permit from the City, and associated variances needs have that document as part of
it?"
Mayor Poiston. "I object to it because I don't consider Hold Harmless Clauses worth the
paper they're written on. If there's a lawsuit, there's going to be a lawsuit."
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
City Attorney. "In response to your question, I think, that at least paragraph number 9
on page 4746, deals with the question of transfer of ownership to the Westonka
Community Schools and I think the notion there was that in that process there might be
some thought about having the Hold Harmless Agreement that would ultimately protect
the City. Mark's concern, when he discussed it with me today, was that the City may
well want such an agreement when it ultimately or when the Joint Powers Entity ultimately
receives ownership of the property, once the improvements are constructed. But, there
is no obligation, on the part of the school district, at that point in time, in any existing
document to provide the City with such a Hold Harmless Agreement. It seemed that this
was maybe not the only opportunity but, at least, an appropriate opportunity for providing
for such a document."
Councilmember Hanus. "The reason I wanted something now, rather than later is, there
are some conditions in the addendum of the purchase agreement that have terrible liability
issues tied to them. Because there is a Joint Powers Agreement and because the City is
a partner in the project, although it is a limited partner, at this stage of the game, none the
less, there is a link. I'm just trying to put some other stop gap in here, in the event that
there's a claim and the school district's insurance company comes chasing our insurance
company. Like you said, they're probably going to come chasing us anyway but, it's just
one more stop gap. If you don't want to do it, you don't do it."
Councilmember Weycker. "I find it already contingent on number nine. I feel like it
does come along with that. I don't think it's a concern for this document to have it."
Councilmember Jensen. "Loren, in some recent discussion, you mentioned that the
numbers of trees was based on square footage of the building. So when we're calculating
the numbers of trees that we have to put on a site, we are counting the square footage on
the second and third floor?
Loren Gordon. "Yes. It's the 120 some odd thousand square feet, I believe is the total
square footage. That includes both the floors in the old school as well as the pod area.
There's two ways to compute it, one on the square footage of the floor area of the
building; the other's on the perimeter of the site and the greater of those two needs to be
used to get trees. So you're going to get the most trees out of looking at it either way."
Councilmember Jensen. "So the bottom line is, our calculation for this site includes
square footage on various storys within the structure?"
Loren Gordon. "Yes. That's correct."
Councilmember Weycker. "I would like to add something about the trees, as well. I
find a definite hardship in having the amount of trees that were required. There were
issues brought up at the Building Committee of safety, in creating a forest. It's just really
inappropriate to put that many trees. We are trying to put as many trees as we could in
every little square inch and I don't think that is what the ordinance is meant to say. I
think the ordinance is meant to say, we want it aesthetically pleasing, tree scaped. In
order to fit as many over story trees as the code would require, they would be, literally,
hanging over the roofs all around the building because that's how crammed in we would
have to put them. It's really a hardship."
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
Councilmember Jensen. "I don't want to argue Mark's position on this because I tend
to disagree with it but, his position would be, until you subdivide it, you've got plenty
of room for trees."
Councilmember Hanus. "Exactly."
Councilmember Jensen. "But, I'm going to suggest that part of the practical difficulty
of this site has to do with the complexities that are associated with it. We know that
there's going to be a change in lot lines and that the requirement for the trees is going to
have to be somehow accommodated on, as near as we can determine, what those lines
are. For purposes of moving forward on a project that the community has approved, there
is a practical difficulty that will ultimately arise and we have an ordinance in place that
appears to place an inordinate number of trees on that site. Trees based on second and
third story square footage, seems ridiculous."
Councilmember Hanus. "Do you have an opinion as to why the subdivision can't happen
now?"
Councilmember Jensen. "No."
Counciimember Weycker. "I just have something to add to that. I feel like it was part
of the Joint Powers Agreement. I think we knew that from day one and had that been an
issue, we should have addressed that then."
Councilmember Hanus. "I don't understand."
Councilmember Weycker. "In the Joint Powers Agreement, we talk about subdividing
the property after the project is completed."
Councilmember Hanus. "No, no, no, no. Transfer of ownership after the project has
been completed. I'm not suggesting that the property change ownership. Just subdivide
it. So it's a clean, clear project."
Councilmember Weycker. "I don't see it as an issue, I really don't."
Councilmember Ahrens asked to make some comments before the vote.
Councilmember Ahrens. "I think I should preface my comments by saying, to this
point, I have never been on record as for this project. Right now, before me I have a
Conditional Use Permit request and I understand that what I'm voting on is the merits of
the Conditional Use Permit request and I'm grateful that there are no hardships or practical
difficulties and so I have no problem voting against the Conditional Use Permit and I
intend to. What I want to say is. I only wish I could say that:
13% of the electorate in this district voted for this project. That of those 13%, 7% voted
yes and 6% voted no.
I wish I could say that I sat in on the meeting where the recommendation from the experts
was, if you have trouble passing referendums in your district, run them in the middle of
the holiday season.
I wish I could say that the flaws of the existing building don't have a high likelihood that
they won't be solved by this project.
36
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINU'I~$- DECEMBER 22, 19~8
I wish I could say that I was not voting for this project because it's not a mistake that's
going to be perpetuated.
I wish I could say that I was not voting for this project because Mound taxpayers are going
to pay twice. Once to the school district and once to the city.
The fact that the operational costs attributed to the City of Mound, at this point, are about
25 % of our current levy, which sickens me.
I wish I could say that: no this project isn't being rammed through. We are having a
meeting on the 22nd of December, which we never have."
City Attorney. "There was reference to a public lands permit and I just would suggest
that that language be amended to say, 'or other license or permit'. The reason I'm saying
that is that typically public lands permits have been for lakeshore type activities."
The Mayor asked if there was any objection to the City Attorney's suggestion. There was none.
The Mayor asked if there was any more discussion.
Councilmember Jensen. "Yes, I've got all kinds of things that I want to say about it but,
I don't have a well thought out or prepared speech on it. I've certainly been watching this
thing for a long time. And granted we're looking at the Conditional Use Permit and not
the project, perse. I think that the people who have been involved in this project, as we
see it right now, worked fairly hard to get information out to the public so that people
would know what was being proposed; what the costs would be; when the election would
be. We put together brochures. We had information in the local newspaper. We had
public hearings on the topic. The majority of the voters voted in a certain fashion and the
way our country seems to operate, is that the majority who vote, win or how the majority
vote comes out are the people who win. So, even when only 25 % of the population
votes, the person that's elected still gets elected. There may have been some jesting as
to when one would hold the referendum but, there was also some very sincere and
concerned discussion regarding the need for a referendum. That's a concern that the
people who were involved with the project had, was one of not ramming something
through to the public. Really exercising due diligence and making sure that people were
well informed. We were advised that we could not promote the project and so we didn't
promote the project. We simply put the facts out there as to what the project was going
to entail and we had to let the electorate make their decision. Absentee voting has been
available to us for a long time. So, if you were out of town because of the holidays in
early December, you had alternatives for voting. So the public spoke on this. The history
of the project suggests to me that we looked at a number of alternatives. We did surveys.
I remember a survey where, in fact I got involved in the project, because there was a
proposal that came to the City Council that we want to do a whole bunch of stuff (and I
forget what the number was - 17 million dollars or something like that), and I said, Well
if you're going to conduct a survey about this, I want to make sure that you don't just
find out what people want. Because they're going to want lots. I want to know what their
willingness to pay is and I got put on the task force and that's how I got involved in this
thing. Because I wanted to make sure that survey identified what would people pay for
this thing and what we found out was, they wanted a lot of stuff and didn't want to pay
for any of it. And that went by the wayside. And we looked at a number of other ways
of providing something to the community. We looked for public/private partnership and
we had a fellow that we thought was fairly knowledgeable in this area of fitness centers.
He came out and looked at what we had out here and he said, rule of thumb, you need to
37
The
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
have so many people within a certain radius of you fitness center and you don't have it.
That's what the guy told us. He said, even if we did have it, he wouldn't work with
another city because he was having such a wonderful time with the City of Plymouth in
the project that he had gone into with them. So finally, the school district decided to take
some action and they got a long ways down that road before we decided that we needed
to take another look at that. Take another look, we did and we were advised, by our
Mayor, that people were calling him saying you've got to save that old high school and
I've got to tell you, I've got no emotional attachment to the building at all. I said to the
Mayor, just because people are calling you, telling you that we should keep this thing,
doesn't convince me that, that's what the people in this community really want. I want
a survey. So we went around about that one for a couple of meetings and we did a survey
and you know what? I was wrong. The survey suggested that, that's what the people
wanted. I didn't agree with it, but that's what the survey suggested. In that survey, I
think we also looked at what were people willing to pay for that thing. Actually, I've
forgotten that now. But, if I recall correctly, there is a tendency for people to express
desires for stuff that far exceeds their willingness to pay for that stuff. It is my opinion,
that we are doing the best we can to meet the wishes of the people who voted in the
election."
Councilmember Ahrens. "I would like to make two quick points. Two things that I
forgot to say and that was. I hope that you've sufficiently satisfied your conscience cause
that's what I heard as to why you're going to vote for this. But, we did have, many,
many, I'm talking numerous requests, from Mayor Elect Meisel and Councilmember Elect
Brown to delay the final approval because their terms fall into the majority of this project,
and I think is it incredibly unfair that we're not going to give them the opportunity to have
any part of this project."
"The second thing was, you're right, people didn't want to pay. They wanted everything
and they didn't want to pay anything and instead they're getting nothing and they're paying
a pile of money. This facility has nothing in it for most of the taxpayers in this city."
Councilmember Weycker. "I have a few things. I agree Pat and Bob have to come on
board and deal with this. By no means is this project over. It's not done till 2000."
Mayor Elect Meisel. "No, but you just opened a big can of worms for us to settle over
the next two years."
Councilmember Weycker. "I disagree. My concern is, if we continue to look at every
two years having a new council which is possible. But, when does it stop? The voters
did ...... "
Mayor gaveled for silence and pronounced someone out of order.
Councilmember Weycker. "The voters voted for this. My ultimate bottom line is to
do what the voters told me that they wanted me to do on December 4th. Whoever didn't
show up to vote or if you didn't get your vote in, or if it was just voted the opposite way,
that's just the way our democracy goes. I feel strongly. This, by no means, is the
ultimate project, or the big Taj Mahall but I don't think our voters would pay for it and
I think this is the best project we could possibly get."
Mayor Polston. 'I certainly hope that the incoming Mayor, Pat, and Councilmember Bob
38
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1~8
Brown don't consider this a personal affront to them. But, this project, and the public
good is not about Bob Polston or Pat Meisel or Liz Jensen, or Mark Hanus. It's about the
overall good of this community. We have a legitimate election, that took place, whether
you agree with the number of people that voted in it or whether it should have been
conducted at another time, or whatever our hangups are, or whether we think that we
should be getting another building or some other type of facility. We have to work with
what we have to work with. When Bill Pineger and I were asked at the last public
meeting, before the referendum took place, "What happens, if this fails? and we said, we
start over tomorrow from square one to move forward to try to bring to the community
what they want. This whole process has been an open, above the board, directly trying
to solicit public input and a legitimate election occurred and we're, I hope, voting on
issuing this Conditional Use Permit tonight to go ahead and start this project and take care
of the community needs. That's all I have to say."
Bob Dorfner. "Everybody keeps mentioning the election. This is what the people
wanted. The diagrams that are up there is not what I voted on. We weren't addressing
any purchase of property, destroying a ball field, or open space for the youth and that.
So as far as getting what the people voted on, we're not getting what we voted on, we're
getting additional stuff that we didn't have an opportunity to vote on. I think it's in the
best interest to this community, to put it back before the people and vote on what you're
presenting to us tonight".
The vote on Resolution//98-137 was 3 in favor with Ahrens and Hanus voting nay. Motion
carried.
1.6 CASE 98-67:
MINOR SUBDIVISION: TO INCORPORATE ADJACENT
RESIDENTIAL LOT 18 TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT
AT 5700 LYNWOOD BLVD., INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
277, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., PID 14-117-24 44 0007.
Loren Gordon explained that this is the minor subdivision/minor boundary adjustment to address
Lot 18, which is going to be incorporated within the Community Center site. The lot is
currently has a residential property on it. The proposal would incorporate this into the school
site. The lot is approximately 11,500 square feet. It is approximately 50 x 230 feet, and is
zoned R-2. In the subdivision ordinance, a minor boundary adjustment requires that whenever
any property is going to be incorporated within a site, that this is one way to handle that
boundary adjustment. He reported that staff has gone through some of the issues with the
boundary adjustment, in terms of looking at the zoning ordinance and would a driveway type
use and plantings be consistent with the R-2 Zoning Code. Staff finds, it is consistent.
Staff also looked at rezoning and concluded there would not need to be a rezoning.
Staff also talked about the alley on the back side of the property and because of the use of the
alley and the underlying ownership, it was concluded to leave it as it is.
Staff recommended approval with two conditions. 1. Upon ownership transfer of the lot to the Westonka School District.
2. Upon approval of the Conditional Use Permit and variances, along with the site
plan for the Westonka School District.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
Counciimember Hanus made the following comments. "I stated earlier the scenario for
the School District that I haven't heard any comments about it so evidently they're O.K.
with accepting the risk of the potential loss of that property from the school districts
hands. Again, I'll state, relative to the subdivision, that we have to have this site
subdivided and we have to have it now."
"Some specifics about this particular subdivision. There are utilities that run
approximately along the property line between Lot 18 and the community center project.
There is a couple of power poles and those actually are sited on the survey. There is also
some buried telephone cable that runs along the property line. That's going to be
approximately down the center of the new road that's running through there. Those will
have to be removed. I don't know what other utilities are running through there. I don't
know if there are city utilities. I don't know what might be in there or gas lines. I'm
assuming there is a current utility easement running through there for those power poles
and telephone lines to be in. I question where is the request for vacation of that easement
and I also am asking for the drawing of the easement for the new parcel. The drafting of
the documents for the new easement where those power lines and telephone lines are going
to have to go. Those are requirements of a subdivision. They have not been yet
submitted. I'm still waiting to see those. New drainage easements, which are required.
Those are required in a subdivision, to be drawn. They have not yet been drawn. Are
there any unknown utilities under there? I want to argue that this is not a minor
realignment. I did this at the Planning Commission Meeting. Staff has argued that their
position is that this is a minor realignment and those of us that were here, not very long
ago, two years, maybe three years ago, that provision for a minor realignment is a new
provision in our code. And if you recall, that provision was put in for the purpose of
minor shifting of lot lines in the event .... we've used it a couple of times .... In the event
the neighbor has a retaining wall that encroaches on your property or a house that
encroaches on your property, or some other structure. It gives you the ability, without
going through a full blown subdivision to shift that line just a little bit to alleviate the
encroachments. In this particular case, we're removing a lot line, we are eliminating an
entire parcel from existence, and combining it with another one. It adds a third zone to
this site. We are now going to have R-2, B-1 and R-l, I think, all on this community
center site. It's not illegal. It's not very clean. It probably should be rezoned. That
doesn't have to be done now. It can be done in the future but, it's not a real clean deal.
The subdivision requires new easements, like I just stated. Does that make it a minor
subdivision, or a major subdivision, or a minor realignment? Really that's the issue at
hand here. We're changing the use of this parcel from residential to public. Is this still
just a minor realignment of a lot line? The use is changing on this property. It just does
not follow to me at all, that this is a minor realignment. It's either a minor subdivision ....
actually there's only two provisions under minor subdivisions.., one is for residential,
which this isn't ....... and the other is for a minor realignment. The only thing left is a
major subdivision and there's all kinds of requirements with that. Again, both major and
minor subdivisions, require easements to be drawn, both utility and drainage easements
to be drawn on the survey for approval. Again, the future possible, and I say possible,
position for the new subdivision on the northwest side, actually I think it's roughly where
the dotted line is on this particular drawing is referred to but, we don't know where it is
exactly, we don't have the dimensions, we don't have all of the calculations that the City
Council just granted variances for. We don't know what they are because we don't know
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
where that line is going to be. There is no City Engineer's report on this parcel. His
report was dated, I think, November 2nd, and it was on the site before this was part of
the plan. There is no reference at all to this. Is there storm sewer in Lynwood? If there
are, are there any catch basins in front of Lot 187 If there is, that's storm sewer work
that's got to be done. There is no engineer's report on it. Are there any City utilities in
that lot? Are there any other fights-of-way? None of this stuff, to my knowledge, has
been looked at. This is all missing information, we would never, I can't imagine we
would grant, a subdivision with all of these unanswered...answers and all of there missing
reports. It boggles my mind but, I suspect, we're probably going to pass this one, too."
Mayor Polston. Well Mark, I agree with you to the extent that the utilities should be on
... The intent of having the utilities written and described on a right-of-way is for, I
think, new construction. I do agree with you, that the utilities should be an intregal part
of the subdivision. They should be plotted on the plot and whether or not there are any
existing other utilities, such as, water, sewer, and storm sewer, which I'm almost certain
that they aren't there but, we should have it delineated on the documents so if this passes,
I would like to see us require that the utility alignment plan be given before the permit ...
or before the final subdivision is granted."
Councilmember Hanus. "Just delineated or reviewed?
Mayor Polston. "Well, delineated and reviewed. I mean you have to review it to
delineate it. I mean you can't say.., you have to verify whether there are, in fact, storm
sewer, water, sanitary sewer, which there isn't. Which is just a matter of looking, really,
at the plans to verify whether or not they're there. There are, as you indicated, phone
lines and gas and those normally ..... those normally are not always required to be moved."
Councilmember Hanus. "In this case, it runs fight down the middle of the driveway."
Mayor Polston. "Well, if they're underground, it doesn't make any difference, if it's on
the fight-of-way. Power poles would have to be moved."
Councilmember Jensen. "What is the advantage here of doing this as a minor boundary
adjustment versus some other method? Why are we doing it this way?"
Loren Gordon. "There's two ways that land can be subdivided. One with a minor
subdivision and one with a major subdivision. Usually, the difference between the two
being the major subdivision has public infrastructure improvements planned within it
(streets, utility lines, water, sewer, that types of things). This project does not have public
street, does not have new public infrastructure, water, sewer plans, with it and so our
recommendation was to use the minor boundary adjustment portion of the subdivision code
to handle incorporation of this new land, because there are no utility issues involved."
Councilmember Ahrens. "Except for all the ones that he just mentioned."
Mayor Poiston. "Well, the only utility issue is moving the phone poles really and
verifying that there, are, really no, water and storm sewer and sanitary sewer there and
then delineating where the underground gas and electric, or gas and telephone lines are and
if they are, in fact, on right-of-way. That's really all there is to it."
41
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
Loren Gordon. "The existing utilities are services to that property, Lot 18,. the current
residence. Those aren't public improvements as would be like a public watermain, to
serve within a right-of-way. So, you don't want to confuse those."
Councilmember Jensen. "It would just seem to me that before approving, there ought
to be some additional conditions then, relative to addressing utilities to some extent."
Mayor Polston. "What I suggested, Liz, was some verbiage to say that a utility site plan
verifying the public water, sewer, sanitary and storm, and whether or not there are
existing gas and phone lines there, in fact, on the public right-of-way and that the phone
poles be moved to public right-of-way, if they are not on public right-of-way."
Councilmember Hanus. "It was suggested earlier, that there are some people that may
be trying to delay this project. There are people, I believe, that are trying to ram this
thing through before the end of the year. Before the next Council gets seated. I'm trying
to be somewhat neutral in this thing. But, after some of the documents have been
presented. Some of the letters that have been written, have been presented, it has become
evident to me that there are people that are trying to ram this thing through before the end
of the year. Now, it's beyond belief, what is being suggested to be approved, with almost
no information, subject to some review down the road, after the fact. After the approval.
This is, absolutely, contrary to everything we have been trying to uphold. It is gutting our
ordinances. It's gutting our codes and it means now that people are going to be coming
in and asking to be treated the same. And they are going to be asking for subdivisions
without surveys. They're going to be asking for subdivisions, without easements. They're
going to be asking for all kinds of things, of the very things that I just listed, with missing
information and I for one, after this kind of activity, am going to have a hard time denying
them."
Counciimember Weycker. "I have a question of Staff.' I was at the Planning
Commission Meeting when there was a lengthy discussion on whether this should be a
minor subdivision, minor boundary adjustment and you said you had already talked to John
Dean about the issue and it was Staff's determination that it be treated as such. Do we
require anything different from anyone else coming in for this?
Loren Gordon. "Well, we've got the necessary information to handle this request.
We've got the property legal description and it's included within the boundary for the
community center property. So, in terms of that, that's been provided. We've gone
through, we think, the issues with the boundary adjustment and we feel there is nothing
that would hold it up, that's different then how we may treat somebody else. We're trying
to apply the same rules."
Councilmember Hanus. "Loren, how may times have we gone back and required
applicants to go back and get easements, to have the engineer, look at, review these
things? We don't act on them until we have that information."
Mayor Poiston. "Put it in context of, not just saying how many times that we've required
it. Under what specific conditions, are you talking about? I'm sure we've .... I know we
have but, if your talking about ...... I know we've required developers to go back when
they are going to put in significant public infrastructure, such as, water sewer and streets.
Under what other conditions, have we ...... "
42
The
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
Councilmember Hanus. "Mr. Mayor. I know you don't sit at the Planning Commission
and I've been there for about 7 or 8 years. I can't remember a time, that we didn't insist
that the documents required in our code, exist and are presented to the City. I don't
remember that happening. I don't even know how to answer that. Everybody is required
to provide that information, except this applicant."
Mayor Polston. "I don't agree with that."
Councilmember Ahrens. "Can I ask a question of Staff?. Loren, did you say that the
reason that this isn't a major subdivision is because it doesn't have any utility
infrastructure on it?"
Loren Gordon. "There are no planned utilities."
Councilmember Ahrens. "Oh, now it's planned. It has to be planned utilities."
Loren Gordon. "There's no public watermains or sewer lines.
Councilmember Ahrens. "Well, what about the power poles?
Councilmember Hanus. "They're existing and they will be moved.
Loren Gordon. "They're existing and they will be moved so the driveway can go in, in
some fashion."
Counciimember Hanus. "Where are they going to go?"
Loren Gordon. "We can require those easements be looked at."
Counciimember Hanus. "Let's vote. It's not going to change. I don't think we're
changing anybody's mind."
Councilmember Jensen. "Well, unfortunately, my mind's not made up on this. I'm real
uncomfortable with this part of it. Only because, it's missing some information."
Mayor Polston. "Is it the prerogative of the Council to table it; send it back to the
Planning Commission; request additional information; or make a motion to approve it; or
deny it?"
Counciimember Ahrens. "I'll make a motion to deny it."
Councilmember Hanus. "I'll second.
Mayor asked if there was further discussion.
Councilmember Hanus. "Yes. I just want to explain my position, again. I'm not
opposed to the subdivision, perse. I want more information and I also am... absolutely,
wholeheartedly of the opinion that the other subdivision, as well, has to take place as part
of this. So, I'll just leave it at that."
43
'/6
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
Councilmember Jensen. "I'm a little concerned about voting to deny this. What are the
implications of that, in terms of its ability to come back? We've got certain things that
can't come back for a year and I don't know if this is one of them."
City Attorney. "I don't think it is."
Councilmember Jensen. "Since he's looking that one up, I would be far more interested
in tabling it and letting this additional information be gathered."
Councilmember Hanus. "And I could live with that, as well."
Councilmember Ahrens withdrew her motion. Councilmember Hanus withdrew his second.
Mayor Polston. "Are you talking about tabling it or are you talking about sending it for
... to a specific review and specific information because, if we're going to just table it, I
think we need to give the Staff and the applicant some indication of what we're looking
for or where it's going so they have ..... in fairness, that they have, the Staff and the
applicant know what it is that they're going to be requested to provide."
Councilmember Hanus. "And I stated the issues that I happen to think of. There could,
very well, be more. Really, the point is, that all the information that we require of all the
other applicants. I want no more, no less."
Councilmember Weycker. "I think Staff just said, they thought they did have all that and
that this would be what was required. Am I correct, in assuming, that this is another,
somewhat new code, in the way we're applying this?
Loren Gordon. "Mark indicated at the Planning Commission, to me, that this was
adopted in 1995 or 6 or 7. It's a fairly new provision."
Councilmember Hanus. "Two or three years old. But, my point on that, is that the
intention of that provision, was nothing like what we're using it for here and I think most
of the Council would remember when we did that. Remember what the intention was.
Leah, I'm not sure if you were here yet or not. It was two to three years. I'm not sure."
Councilmember Jensen. "I'm just sufficiently uncomfortable with the data that I have
to more forward with this and that's not to say that I'm opposed to it. This one is too
light for me."
Mayor Poiston. "Is there a motion to direct it back to Staff with specific requirements?"
Counciimember Jensen moved that we take this thing and send it back to Staff to gather
additional data and document that data. Councilmember Hanus seconded. The vote was
4 in favor with Mayor Polston voting nay. Motion carried.
44
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
Mike Mueiler, 5910 Ridgewood Road. "I'm appalled with your vote tonight and the lack of
concern you have for the Planning Commission members who have worked. I've been on the
commission a long time. Frank's been on the commission longer. Almost as long as I've been
in the City of Mound. We were diligently working. I have no problems with the project. I just
wanted all the stuff there that we would require of any other applicant. You under handed us.
You told us we don't matter and you sat on that committee. I'm appalled. I don't know where
your ethics went.'
Geoff Michael, 1713 Avocet. "It's easy to see why countries go to war. My God, I have in
my hands, a letter from a person by the name of Dan Cunningham. I don't ever- know who in
the hell he is. He lives at Eden Prairie. The letter refers to some serious sitm· ons here. He
didn't contact me ...................................................... What in God's na ~e happened?"
Frank Weiland. "Are you going to comment to Geoff, or not? Or are you just going to sit
there and just go right on with your meeting? Why aren't you going to answer, or at least make
a statement. For the last month, we have not heard one word from any one on that there thing,
except that one guy, and that's all. We had forces here tonight like you've never seen before.
We had only seen one or two of them and when do they come? Just when the meetings going
on. Do they bring us stuff?. No, they don't. I think you've got to definitely look at some of
this stuff and make answers, not just let a guy up here making a statement. If you don't like
his statement, tell him about it. But, just don't sit there and don't do nothing till the time comes
where we vote and say, the voters voted for this here. They did but, have they voted in the last
two or three months when we find out what is going on. That's the whole ....... look you get.
I'll bet you've got more percentage of voters out here now than you had when we first started.
That's wrong, too. But don't go and sit there, not hearing what's going on and don't have them
come in at the last minute and oh, we've got this here. We got introduced to this one here.
That's wrong guys, wrong. Let's get with the program."
Councilmember Jensen. "There was a reference to a Dan Cunningham, and I don't think this
is a privileged communication so it can be talked about. I didn't receive it until this evening.
It appears as though there's a question as to what happened at the Planning Commission
Meeting, December 14th, relative to action that was or was not taken at that meeting and the
challenge is one of whether there was a violation of the Open Meeting Law. The facts that are
in the letter suggest that something occurred which leaves a whole lot of question as to, why
didn't we get a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Supposedly, the meeting was
adjourned on a vote of something like, six to two and then after sufficient time had passed for
people to depart, the meeting was readjourned and an action was taken to table the item before
the Planning Commission. The meeting was adjourned and the action that was taken was such
that the City Council could then take action on the item that was before the Planning
Commission and that's what the City Council did. My worst fear, in dealing with this
community center, has been that we're going to have a boarded up building in the middle of our
downtown and we have spent an awful lot of time with the school district, dealing with this
particular issue. A tremendous amount of effort has gone into it and if I were the school
district, after the numbers of meetings that they have had, I would present the City with a bill
for the amount of money that has been spent on this project and then go somewhere else. And
then my worst fear is realized because we have a boarded up building in town and I think that
would be a real travesty to this particular community. So, in terms of, I'm sorry I forgot what
your challenge was, and maybe it was something like, Where did you ethic go?
45
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
Geoff Michael." ........ for sanction as the gentleman says. He's not sure what happened. I'm
not sure that Mr. Cunningham was there. I'm asking, is the City Council going to stand up and
put on some round things and say Geoff and Planning Commission members, you are
sanctioned? You are censured. You have done wrong ...... "
The Mayor asked the City Attorney to respond.
City Attorney. "The answer is no, we are not going to do that. The City Council will
not do that. Again, I'm not even dealing with the merits. That's not for us. As you
might expect, the Legislature didn't entrust the City Council with the right to determine
how it's committees are performing. They have left other forums to do that but, it would
not be appropriate for the City Council to wade in and to try to make a determination as
to the accuracy or inaccuracy of the comments made in that letter."
Geoff Michael. "If it were addressed to me, I would call the gentleman and ask him what
his problem is? It's not addressed to me. What is the City Council going to do just leave
this thing hanging and ignore it?"
City Attorney. "First of all. I can't speak for the City Council."
Geoff Michael. "Then have someone from the City speak."
City Attorney. "I am someone from the City and I can speak for the City. My response
to the individual would be that if he wishes to pursue his concern here, that the Open
Meeting Law Statute very clearly spells out the procedure and the remedies for trying to
redress a claim of a violation of the Open Meeting Law. They have nothing to do with
the City Council and it would not be appropriate for the City Council to be involved in
trying to resolve that issue. My comment would be, to tell him that he should read the
statute.
Geoff Michael. "This will be ignored."
City Attorney. "I can certainly. Again, we can talk to the City Council about that. If
they want me to provide a response of that sort, it may well be provided."
Mayor Polston. "If you want a member of the City Council to respond, I will, as the
Mayor in saying that we don't respond to, particularly if someone is accusing somebody,
which, it sounds to me, that there's an accusatory tone to this, especially of something that
is in violation of the law. We don't respond to it, as a City Council, either defending or
censuring or trying to censure a public body. We, of course, would let the law take its
course. If there is some type of a litigation, they, the City, would be involved in
defending, to the extent they are required to, although, I do understand, and it is my
personal understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that violations of the Open Meeting
Law are independent. That those members of a public body, who stand accused of
violation of the Open Meeting Law, must defend, or must pay for their own defense."
City Attorney. "No, that's not correct. The only thing the City can't do, is there is a
civil fine if there is a willful violation of $300.00 per violation, which the City cannot, by
Statute pay, but we can defend. Again, it's silly to be talking about penalties when there
hasn't even been any review of whether there was a violation."
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
Geoff Michael.
no one had the
Your the Chair.
"I am truly disheartened that after 16 years of service to this City, that
courtesy to call me and say: What in the world was going on, Geof
That doesn't speak to well for how we're getting along here."
Councilmember Hanus. "Geoff, the date of this letter is the 21st. I suspect the City just
got it today. I know I saw it for the first time when I sat down here tonight. So, as far
as I'm concerned, there was no opportunity to call you."
Counciimember Ahrens. "Can I just ask a question? I read the last sentence of Mr.
Cunningham's letter and as a Councilmember, I will respond to you. I have no intention
of sanctioning the Planning Commission. I do have two questions. He asked at the very
end of his letter, to be notified of our actions, to sanction the Planning Commission, Are
we going to tell him to go fly a kite?
Second of all, the paragraph right above that. Was Mr. Cunningham in attendance at this
meeting because it appears to me that he got information from the Superintendent with
respect to the meeting which is what initiated the letter? If we do intend to respond, I
want to go on record, that I have no intention of sanctioning the Planning Commission."
Councilmember Weycker. "I would think this should be taken up by Staff, with the
Planning Commission and at least discussed. I know at the Park Commission, I'm the
Council Liaison and we do talk about open meeting laws and how we have to comply to
them."
Geoff Michael. "Leah, you're assuming something, ......... in which case, please get your
facts straight, before you require us or direct us to talk to Staff to clear up an issue that
may or may not have happened."
Counciimember Weycker. "I didn't mean to clear up an issue. No. I mean to discuss
the letter. You asked if anyone was going to talk to you about it or anything. I would
think that it should be."
Geoff Michael. "You referred to open meeting laws. I quite specifically heard you say
that. And I'm only asking that you be very specific what you ask us to discuss with Staff.
I would discuss the letter with them, by all means.
Councilmember Weycker. "I think it's Staffs duty and I think we all received letters,
like I said at the Park Commission, that I sit on, we received a letter from John Dean
explaining the open meeting law, just not too long ago. I don't know if your commission
got that information."
City Attorney. "I received one of these letters today, too, addressed to me, so if the
Council has no objection, I can provide a response along the lines I just indicated and
certainly copy anyone who might be interested in that response, if the Council wishes me
to do that."
Councilmember Ahrens. "It is unfortunate. I personally had this exact situation occur,
where this City Council got a letter based on someone else's recollection of the facts and
! asked the City to respond to this person and the City Manager did not think it was
appropriate for us to respond and say you didn't have all of your facts right. So, I can
understand exactly where the Planning Commission is coming from. If Mr. Cunningham
47 ~"O
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
doesn't have the facts right, because they were reported to him in a careless fashion, and
I understand how hurtful it is to get this letter and say, City Council sanction the Planning
Commission. We murdered somebody. That's about how silly this is."
Mayor Polston. "Without objection, the City Attorney will respond in a fashion that he
described."
Councilmember Ahrens then moved to adjourn. The motion died for lack of a second.
The City Manager pointed out
here and another person who
Council for 12 years. Mayor
that we should acknowledge that there are two Councilmembers
are leaving the City of Mound. Liz Jensen has been on the
Polston has served 2 terms as Mayor, this time.
Sally Koenecke has been with Triax, working with public television who is leaving the City
after 15 years. She is moving on to the Lake Minnetonka Cable T.V. Commission.
Also, Joel Knudson, who normally does our meetings, is quitting at the end of January. He
acknowledged all the above for all their hard work.
Councilmember Jensen stated it has been an interesting 12 years. "There have been some great
times, when we all agree on a topic or item. Those are just wonderful fun times. Then there
have been some truly difficult times when we have not agreed on something that has come
before us. Life would certainly be more pleasant if we could agree on everything, but that
would be kind of dull. I really believe that when we disagree with a position that someone has
taken, that disagreement, for the most part, if not all the time, is based on an individual's
perception of what is best for their community. There may be a rare few exceptions to that.
But, I don't think there has been, that I've experienced, self-serving people, in our commissions
or on the City Council and to know that we can have healthy debate and disagree and move on,
is probably a good sign. I wish the incoming Mayor and Councilmember a wonderful time.
I hope they are always guided by what they perceive is best for the community and it's not
something that's done for serving their ego. Thirteen years ago when I ran for City Council,
when Fran cornered me at the polls, at the church, and she said come on down here and sign
up to run, I didn't know if I wanted to do that or not. I didn't have an axe to grind. I didn't
have an agenda to run and when asked, several years later, why I did it, I couldn't even come
up with a good reason. I tend to say it was altruism. Somehow it was a desire to give back to
the community that I lived in and I'm sorry that I couldn't please all of the people, all of the
time. That's just an impossible thing to do. I wish that we could but, it's just not going to
happen. I do hope that the City can continue to move forward in the direction that it's headed.
There's going to be some challenges and it's not going to be cheap. It's going to take money.
It's going to take emotion. It's going to take hard work. But, it's like we're on the brink of
something great that could happen and it's been frustrating to be looking at that for 12 years,
and now to be stepping away. In many respects, it's hard to step away from that. I hope that
this Council, the incoming Council, and the commissions that will advise that Council are able
to, and I quote my friend, Tom Reese on this one, who said this a long time ago. 'That we can
disagree, without being disagreeable.' I thank my fellow Councilmembers and the community
for their confidence and trust for the last 12 years."
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 22, 1998
Mayor Polston. "I would like to say a special thank you to the City Staff who have worked
very hard over the past years. We didn't always agree and there were always times when I
might like to knuckle a head or two or scream at somebody but, they've done a good job and
they deserve all the credit really. Because we public officials figure out, very quickly I believe,
that we need them more than they need us in order to get everything put together. I'd like to
say thank you to the people that have done the cable T.V. and to my fellow members on the
Council. 14 years, whatever it is, I did it because I enjoyed it. I hope I served the people
somewhat, in between."
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
A. November 1998 Financial Report as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director.
B. Memorandum from Gino Businaro, Finance Director, regarding cash balances by fund.
C. Letter from a Mound resident regarding recycling.
REMINDER: CITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED FOR THE HOLIDAYS AS
FOLLOWS:
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 24, 1998, 12:00 NOON
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 25, 1998
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 31, 1998, 12:00 NOON
FRIDAY, JANUARY 1, 1999
MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR!
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Hanus to adjourn at 11:20 P.M. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
January 12, 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
RESOLUTION APPOINTING GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR,
ACTING CITY MANAGER FOR 1999
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
does hereby appoint Gino Businaro, Finance Director, as the Acting City Manager for the year
1999, if the City Manager is disabled, incapacitated, away on city business or away on vacation.
If both the City Manager and the Acting City Manager are disabled, incapacitated, away on city
business or away on vacation then Len Harrell, Police Chief, is hereby appointed as Acting City
Manager.
53
January 12, 1999
RF3OLUTION NO. 99-
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE LAKER
THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 1999
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
does hereby designate The Laker the official newspaper for the City of Mound for 1999.
THE
LAKER & PIONEER
2365 Commerce Blvd.. Mound, MN 55364
472- I 140 FAX: 472-0516
December 28, 1998
To' Mound City Council
Re: Appointment of Official Newspaper
Dear Councilmembers:
As you make your appointments for 1999, we ask that you consider re-appointing
The Laker as your city's official newspaper.
The Laker is published each Saturday. The deadline for legal notices is 4:30 p.m.
the preceding Tuesday. Our rate for publication of legal notices is $7.19 per column
inch for the initial insertion, and $5.14 per column inch for each additional insertion.
The column width is 2 inches (12 picas).
We have enjoyed working with you in the past and we look forward to continuing to
do so. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Bill Holm
Associate Publisher
The Laker/Pioneer
Lakeshore K · ,,-
8178 Minnetonka Boulevard
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
612-473-0890
~ax: 61 Z-473-0895
December 11, 1998
City of Mound
City Council
5341 Maywood Rd,
Mound, MN 55364
Dear City Council Members:
Thank you for the opportunity to bid 1999 legal notices for the City of Mound.
Legal Notice rates for 1999:
1.25 per line, first insertion
.70 per line on ads that require more than one insertion.
(Bid based on one column width)
Lakeshore Weekly News will publish your legal notices on Thursday the same week
as executed by the City Council if we receive your notice by Tuesday at 5 p.m.
We will automatically deduct 10 percent from your lineage cost if you fax and e-mail
the legal notices you wish to have published.
Invoices are sent on a monthly basis and two notarized affidavits of each notice of
publication will accompany your statement.
I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of our legal notice bid for 1999. Please call
with any questions.
Sincerely,
,~.
Amy C~c~hese
Assistant Editor
January 12, 19c~
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF
AT LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY CLERK
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does
hereby authorize the purchase of at least a $20,000 bond for the City Clerk, Francene C.
Clark-Leisinger.
January 12, 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A
$20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY TREASURER/FINANCE DIRECTOR
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
does hereby authorize the purchase of at least a $20,000 bond for the City Treasurer/Finance
Director, Gino Businaro.
January 12, 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE OFFICIAL
DEPOSITORIES FOR 1999
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does
hereby designate the following banks and financial institutions as official depositories for the City
of Mound in 1999:
Marquette Bank (Bank Services)
USBank
Firstar
Norwest Banks
Dain Rauscher
Salomon Smith Barney
Minnesota Municipal Money Market Funds
Crow River Bank
Prudential
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City's deposits shall be protected by
Federal Deposit Insurance and/or collateral in accordance with MSA Chapter 118.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Treasurer is hereby authorized to
open or continue an account or accounts with said institutions on such terms as required by said
institutions in the names of the City, and to deposit, or cause to be deposited in such account or
accounts, any monies, checks, drafts, orders, notes or other instruments for the payment of
money, upon compliance by said depository with this resolution and the law in such case provided.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the designation shall continue in force until
December 31, 1999 or until written notice of its revision or modification has been received by said
institution.
January 12 1999
does hereby appoint
RESOLUTION g99-
RESOLUTION APPOINTING
ACTING MAYOR FOR 1999
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
as Acting Mayor for the year 1999.
January 12, 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
RESOLUTION APPOINTING
TO THE PARK COMMISSION (POSC);
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION;
TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMI~qSION (EIK~); AND
TO THE DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
(DCAC) AS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES FOR 1999
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
does hereby appoint the following Councilmembers as Council Representatives to the following
City Commissions for 1999
to the Park Commission
to the Planning Commission
to the Economic Development Commission
to the Dock & Commons Advisory Commission
RESOLUTION 99 -
RESOLUTION APPOINTING CITY COUNCILMEMBER~ TO SERVE AS
DIRECTORS ON WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER BOARD (WCCB)
WHEREAS, the City of Mound and the Westonka School District have formed a joint
powers organization referred to as the Westonka Community Center Board (WCCB); and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the WCCB is to be responsible for owning and operating the
renovated Westonka Community Center; and
WHEREAS, the Joint Powers Agreement calls for appointment of directors to serve on the
WCCB from the City and the School District; and
WHEREAS, the Joint Powers Agreement calls for the appointment of two directors from
the City and two directors from the School District; and
WHEREAS, the terms of the directors are to be three years commencing on January 1,
except that of the directors initially appointed on January 1, one director appointed by the School
District and one director appointed by the City serve for a term of one year, and one director
appointed by the School District and one director appointed by the City, serve a term of two years;
and
WHEREAS, each governing body may appoint alternate directors in the event a director is
unable to attend a meeting or perform other duties of a director.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound
hereby appoints to serve as a director for one year with the term expiring December
31, 1999 and appoints to serve as a director for two years with the term expiring
December 31, 2000.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council appoints
alternate director.
to serve as an
Attest:
City Clerk
Mayor
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
MEMORANDUM
January 8, 1998
TO:
FROM:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER ~' ~
SUBJECT: COMMISSION REAPPOINTMENTS
The following persons have indicated that they wish to be reappointment to the corresponding
commissions:
Jim Funk, Dock and Commons Advisory Commission
Paul Meisel, Economic Development Commission
Stan Drahos, Economic Development Commission
Jerry Pietrowski, Economic Development Commission
Norman Domholt, Park and Open Space Commission
Geoff Michael, Planning Commission
Michael Mueller, Planning Commission
Frank Weiland, Planning Commission
The following are not seeking reappointment:
Dennis Hopkins, Dock and Commons Advisory Commission
Bev Botko, Park and Open Space Commission
Based upon current policy regarding appointments to advisory commissions, if a member wishes
to be reappointed, the City Council reappoints them. If they do not seek reappointment, the vacancy
is advertised in the Laker and applications are received, interviews are held and recommendations
are made for appointment to the City Council by the respective commission. Unless you wish to
change this current policy, the resolution attached should be approved with the names submitted.
Advisory commission terms are three years. Any questions, please contact me.
printed on recycled paper
January 12, 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99
RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING THE FOLLOWING PERSONS:
GEOFF MICHAEL, MICHAEL MUELLER AND FRANK WEILAND TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION;
NORMAN DORHOLT TO THE
PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION;
TO THE DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMM[qSION; AND
STAN DRAHOS, PAUL MEISEL AND JERRY PIETROWSKI
TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION -
ALL 3 YEAR TERMS - EXPIRING 12/31/2001
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
does hereby reappoint the following persons to the following commissions for 3 year terms
expiring 12/31/01:
Planning Commission - Geoff Michael, Michael Mueller and Frank Weiland.
Parks & Open Space Commission - Norman Do'holt.
Dock & Commons Advisory Commission - Jim Funk.
Economic Development Commission - Stan Drahos, Paul Meisel and Jerry Pietrowski.
6
---- Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission November 19, 1998
PUBLIC HEARING: 1999 DOCK LOCATION MAP
Dock Inspector McCaffrey presented the 1999 dock location map changes as detailed
in his November 10, 1998 memorandum. In summary, the recommendation is to remove
docksites #00030, #00115, #00155, #60785, #60825 and #61070, to add docksite
#32750 (replaces #32775), change docksite #32760 to #32710, and add multiple
docksite #42800 sites A through J and remove docksite #42821, #42856, #42871,
#42901, and #42990.
Chair Goldberg opened the public headng at 8:30 p.m. and requested public input.
Mr. Smith Anderson asked that he be allowed to keep his dock in the center of his
property, rather than move it to the East or West side, and that a location be added
where his dock currently is.
Commissioner Funk stated that the Council has suggested the neighborhood get
together and see if a recommendation can be reached. No decisions will be made
without input from neighborhood residents.
Commissioner Hanus suggested starting this process dght away, and the neighborhood
needs to begin discussing this issue.
There being no further public input, Chair Goldberg closed the public headng at 8:40
p.m.
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Funk, to recommend approval of the
1999 Dock Location Map Changes as presented. Motion carried
unanimously.
CITY OF
HOUND
IVIINNESOTA
;|.,,..., ~
DOCK LO(~ATION
MAP
N N F
L! A IK !t'E t [ I~ ! ~ [I ~ t ~ .~ .
i
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
CASE #99-01
REF #97-38
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO REVIEW A ONE YEAR REVIEW OF THE USE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW FOR WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT TO CONTINUE THE OPERATION
OF E.C.F.E.
LOCATED WITHIN THE B-1 BUSINESS DISTRICT
AT 5241 SHORELINE DRIVE
LOTS 7-20 & 26-35 & ALL VAC. ALLEY & PARKING, BLOCK 1,
SHIRLEY HILLS "F",
PID # 13-117-24 34 0072
P & Z 99-01
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, January 26, 1999 to review the one year review for the use of a
Conditional Use Permit to allow the continuing operation of Early Childhood Family
Education (E.C.F.E.) at 5241 Shoreline Drive located within the B-1 Business
Zoning District. This business is allowable within the B-1 Business Zone through
Conditional Use Permit.
All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be
given the opportunity to be heard at this meetin~g~
- "--__Ed,~L-iffquist, Pla/~ng~ Secretary
Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on January 12, 1999
Published in the Laker, January 16, 1999
printed on recycled paper
Bills
January 12, 1999
Ba£ch 8103
Batch 8104
107,362.36
155,038.19
TOTAL BILLS
$ 262,400.55
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION MINOR BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT
TO INCLUDE 5700 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD WITHIN THE PROPERTY ADDRESSED
AS 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD, PIDS #14-117-24 41 0010, #14-117-24 41 0011,
#14-117-24 41 0052, #14-117-24 41 0058, & #14-117-24 44 0007
P & Z CASE #98-67
WHEREAS, the applicant, Westonka Public School District 277, has
submitted a Minor Subdivision Minor Boundary Adjustment to include Lot 18 Lynwood Park
as part of the Community Center property, an existing parcel, by relocating boundary lines
that is in full compliance with the City Zoning Code, Section 330:20, Subd. 1.B; and,
WHEREAS, the property located at 5700 Lynwood Blvd. and is currently
used for residential purposes with and existing residence; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within R-1 Single Family
Residential Zoning District; and,
WHEREAS, the new site would meet zoning and subdivision standards and
would be developed as proposed by the Westonka Community Center CUP proposal; and,
WHEREAS, the Mound Planning Commission conducted public hearings on
December 14, 1998 on the Applicant's request for a conditional use permit and variance. The
Planning Commission made no recommendation to the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, Staff has recommended approval of minor subdivision minor
boundary adjustment as submitted with the following conditions:
1. Approval be conditioned on ownership transfer of lot 18 to the Westonka
Community Schools.
2. Approval be conditioned on approval of the conditional use permit and variances
for the Westonka Community Center, case #98-64.
3. Utility easement documentation for the existing storm sewer and sanitary sewer
force main be provided or a new utility easement be established.
4. A new stormwater catch basin be installed in the alley adjacent to lot 19. The
City Engineer shall be provided with revised plans for review and approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a minor subdivision of the property pursuant to Section
330:20, Subd. 1.B. with the following conditions:
1. Approval be conditioned on ownership transfer of lot 18 to the Westonka
Community Schools.
2. Approval be conditioned on approval of the conditional use permit and variances
for the Westonka Community Center, case #98-64.
3. Utility easement documentation for the existing storm sewer and sanitary sewer
force main be provided or a new utility easement be established.
4. A new stormwater catch basin be installed in the alley adjacent to lot 19. The
City Engineer shall be provided with revised plans for review and approval.
This Minor Subdivision is granted for the following new legally described property:
PIDS #14-117-24 41 0010, #14-117-24 41 0011, #14-117-24 41 0052, #14-117-
24 41 0058, & #14-117-24 44 0007
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.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
rill3
l ln
TO: Mound City Council and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: January 12, 1998
SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision Boundary Adjustment
APPLICANT: Westonka Public Schools
CASE NUMBER: 98-67
HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5jjj
LOCATION: 5600 and 5700 Lynwood Blvd.
ZONING: R-2 Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Westonka Public Schools have submitted an application
for boundary adjustment to expand their property to include lot 18 of Lynwood Park addresses as
5700 Lynwood Blvd. The property is currently zoned R-2, One and Two Family Residential
District and has an occupied residence currently. The lot measures 50 feet by 230 feet
encompassing approximately 11,500 sf. In the rear of the property is a public alley used for
access purposes. The Westonka School District has a signed purchase agreement for the property
which is conditioned on approval of the Community Center CUP. As per the submitted plans for
the community center, the existing house will be removed to incorporate the lot into the site.
Section 330:20 subd. I(B) Minor Boundary Adjustments states that "The relocation of a
boundary line between two abutting, existing parcels of property; such relocation not causing the
creation of a new parcel or parcels and such relocation not violating the Zoning Ordinance."
Based on the Community Center proposal, the incorporation of lot 18 will not violate the Zoning
Ordinance. We have discussed the possibility of replatting the property to create one PID for the
property. This is an option to make the property "cleaner", but is not necessary for any approval
of the project as proposed. Additionally, rezoning the property to have one district rather than 3
was discussed. This too would make the site "cleaner" from an administrative review standpoint,
but is not needed from a use standpoint.
The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has two comments that need to be addressed as
conditions to approval. The first comment is the existing sanitary sewer force main and storm
sewer line the runs through the site. There does not appear to be records of a recorded easement
for these lines which runs from the alley to Alder Road. If such easement exists, documentation
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
Case ii98-67 Westonka Community Schools Minor Subdivision Boundary Adjustment
December 14, 1998
needs to be provided, otherwise a new easement will need to be established. The second
comment is the storm sewer catch basin on lot 18 that will be removed with construction.
Because the water mn-off in the alley drains to the east, a new catch basin will need to be
installed in the alley adjacent to lot 19. No public lands permits would be required to this work,
but the City Engineer will need updated plans for review, and the Street Superintendent will need
to oversee the project.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the minor subdivision as requested
with the following conditions.
l. Approval be conditioned on ownership transfer of lot 18 to the Westonka. C3mrr, m.~j
Schools.
2. Approval be conditioned on approval of the conditional use permit and variances for the
Westonka Community Center, case #98-64.
3. Utility easement documentation for the existing storm sewer and sanitary sewer force main
be provided or a new utility easement be established.
4. A new stormwater catch basin be installed in the alley adjacent to lot 19. The City Engineer
shall be provided with revised plans for review and approval.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
Engineering · Planning ' Surveying
FRA
RECEIVED
,JAN 0 7 FJ99
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning
FROM:
John Cameron, City Engineer
DATE: January 6, 1999
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
Minor Subdivision
Westonka Public School (1SD #277)
5600 Lynwood Boulevard
Case 98-67
MFRA NO.: 12252
As requested, we have reviewed the revised plans submitted for a minor subdivision and have the
following comments and recommendations:
Grading and Drainage Plan
The plan shows the City of Mound's existing storm sewer line that runs through the school property
from the Bellaire Lane/Alder Road intersection south to the alley. At this point it runs west within
the right-of-way of the alley. The plan, however, does not show the existing Minnetrista sanitary
sewer forcemain which runs parallel and on the east side of the storm sewer line. The original
construction plans show an air release manhole on this line that will end up in the new driveway.
None of the documents that I have seen indicate if there are recorded easements for either of these
mains.
There are two existing catch basins with leads connected to the main storm sewer line that have been
ignored on the plan. The critical catch basin is located at the east end of the existing alley and is the
inlet for most of the surface drainage from the alley and adjacent properties. Because this catch basin
will now be located within the median between the parking lot at the drop-off area and the main
driveway, a new collection structure will need to be constructed in the alley.
15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447
phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532
e-marl: mfra@mfra, com
I I [] ii
Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning
January 6, 1999
Page 2
RECEIVED
0 ?
,~uu~u i'LAN~ING & INSP.
These revisions will need to be incorporated in the final construction documents and resubmitted for
approval before commencing construction.
Comments and Recommendations
I would recommend that the following conditions become part of any approvals granted for this
minor subdivision.
1. The applicant furnished proof of recorded easements for both the City of Mound storm sewer
line and the City of Minnetrista sanitary sewer forcemain,
2. If there are no existing easements, the applicant must provide easements in recordable form for
said existing utilities, or,
3. The grading and drainage plan be revised to accommodate changes to existing storm sewer
system and be approved by the City Engineer.
e:Lmain:\ 12252\sutherland 1-6
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 22, 1998
1.6 CASE 98-67:
MINOR SUBDIVISION: TO INCORPORATE ADJACENT
RESIDENTIAL LOT 18 TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT
AT 5700 LYNWOOD BLVD., INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
277, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., PID 14-117-24 44 0007.
Loren Gordon explained that this is the minor sulxlivision/minor boundary adjustment to address
Lot 18, which is going to be incorporated within the Community Center site. The lot is currently
has a residential property on it. The proposal would incorporate this into the school site. The lot
is approximately 11,500 square feet. It is approximately 50 x 230 feet, and is zoned R-2. In the
subdivision ordinance, a minor boundary adjustment requires that whenever any property is going
to be incorporated within a site, that this is one way to handle that boundary adjustment. He
reported that staff has gone through some of the issues with the boundary adjustment, in terms of
looking at the zoning ordinance and would a driveway type use and plantings be consistent with
the R-2 Zoning Code. Staff finds, it is consistent.
Staff also looked at rezoning and concluded there would not need to be a rezoning.
Staff also talked about the alley on the back side of the property and because of the use of the alley
and the underlying ownership, it was concluded to leave it as it is.
Staff recommended approval with two conditions.
1. Upon ownership transfer of the lot to the Westonka School District.
39
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
Upon approval of the Conditional Use Permit and variances, along with the site
plan for the Westonka School District.
Councilmember Hanus made the following comments. "I stated earlier the scenario for
the School District that I haven't heard any comments about it so evidently they're O.K.
with accepting the risk of the potential loss of that property from the school districts' hands.
Again, I'll state, relative to the subdivision, that we have to have this site subdivided and
we have to have it now."
"Some specifics about this particular subdivision. There are utilities that run approximately
along the property line between Lot 18 and the community center project. There is a couple
of power poles and those actually are sited on the survey. There is also some buried
telephone cable that runs along the property line. That's going to be approximately down
the center of the new road that's running through there. Those will have to be removed.
I don't know what other utilities are running through there. I don't know if there are city
utilities. I don't know what might be in there or gas lines. I'm assuming there is a current
utility easement running through there for those power poles and telephone lines to be in.
I question where is the request for vacation of that easement and I also am asking for the
drawing of the easement for the new parcel. The drafting of the documents for the new
easement where those power lines and telephone lines are going to have to go. Those are
requirements of a subdivision. They have not been yet submitted. I'm still waiting to see
those. New drainage easements, which are required. Those are required in a subdivision,
to be drawn. They have not yet been drawn. Are there any unknown utilities under there.9
I want to argue that this is not a minor realignment. I did this at the Planning Commission
Meeting. Staff has argued that their position is that this is a minor realignment and those
of us that were here, not very long ago, two years, maybe three years ago, that provision
for a minor realignment is a new provision in our code. And if you recall, that provision
was put in for the purpose of minor shifting of lot lines in the event .... we've used it a couple
of times .... In the event the neighbor has a retaining wall that encroaches on your property
or a house that encroaches on your property, or some other structure. It gives you the
ability, without going through a full blown subdivision to shift that line just a little bit to
alleviate the encroachments. In this particular case, we're removing a lot line, we are
eliminating an entire parcel from existence, and combining it with another one. It adds a
third zone to this site. We are now going to have R-2, B-1 and R-i, I think, all on this
community center site. It's not illegal. It's not very clean. It probably should be rezoned.
That doesn't have to be done now. It can be done in the future but, it's not a real clean deal.
The subdivision requires new easements, like I just stated. Does that make it a minor
subdivision, or a major subdivision, or a minor realignment? Really that's the issue at hand
here. We're changing the use of this parcel from residential to public. Is this still just a
minor realignment of a lot line? The use is changing on this property. It just does not
follow to me at all, that this is a minor realignment. It's either a minor subdivision ....
actually there's only two provisions under minor subdivisions.., one is for residential, which
this isn't ....... and the other is for a minor realignment. The only thing left is a major
subdivision and there's all kinds of requirements with that. Again, both major and minor
subdivisions, require easements to be drawn, both utility and drainage easements to be
drawn on the survey for approval. Again, the future possible, and I say possible, position
for the new subdivision on the northwest side, actually I think it's roughly where the dotted
40
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
line is on this particular drawing is referred to but, we don't know where it is exactly, we
don't have the dimensions, we don't have all of the calculations that the City Council just
granted variances for. We don't know what they are because we don't know where that line
is going to be. There is no City Engineer's report on this parcel. His report was dated, I
think, November 2nd, and it was on the site before this was part of the plan. There is no
reference at all to this. Is there storm sewer in Lynwood? If there are, are there any catch
basins in front of Lot 187 If there is, that's storm sewer work that's got to be done. There
is no engineer's report on it. Are there any City utilities in that lot? Are there any other
rights-of-way? None of this stuff, to my knowledge, has been looked at. This is all missing
information, we would never, I can't imagine we would grant, a subdivision with all of these
unanswered...answers and all of these missing reports. It boggles my mind but, I suspect,
we're probably going to pass this one, too."
Mayor Polston. Well Mark, I agree with you to the extent that the utilities should be on
... The intent of having the utilities written and described on a right-of-way is for, I think,
new construction. I do agree with you, that the utilities should be an intragal part of the
subdivision. They should be plotted on the plot and whether or not there are any existing
other utilities, such as, water, sewer, and storm sewer, which I'm almost certain that they
aren't there but, we should have it delineated on the documents so if this passes, I would like
to see us require that the utility alignment plan be given before the permit ... or before the
final subdivision is granted."
Counciimember Hanus. "Just delineated or reviewed?
Mayor Polston. "Well, delineated and reviewed. I mean you have to review it to delineate
it. I mean you can't say.., you have to verify whether there are, in fact, storm sewer,
water, sanitary sewer, which there isn't. Which is just a matter of looking, really, at the
plans to verify whether or not they're there. There are, as you indicated, phone lines and
gas and those normally ..... those normally are not always required to be moved."
Councilmember Hanus. "In this case, it rum right down the middle of the driveway."
Mayor Polston. "Well, if they're underground, it doesn't make any difference, if it's on
the right-of-way. Power poles would have to be moved."
Councilmember Jensen. "What is the advantage here of doing this as a minor boundary
adjustment versus some other method? Why are we doing it this way?"
Loren Gordon. "There's two ways that land can be subdivided. One with a minor
subdivision and one with a major subdivision. Usually, the difference between the two
being the major subdivision has public infrastructure improvements planned within it
(streets, utility lines, water, sewer, that types of things). This project does not have public
street, does not have new public infrastructure, water, sewer plans, with it and so our
recommendation was to use the minor boundary adjustment portion of the subdivision code
to handle incorporation of this new land, because there are no utility issues involved."
Councilmember Ahrens. "Except for all the ones that he just mentioned."
Mayor Polston. "Well, the only utility issue is moving the phone poles really and verifying
41
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 22, 1998
that there, are, really no, water and storm sewer and sanitary sewer there and then
delineating where the underground gas and electric, or gas and telephone lines are and if
they are, in fact, on right-of-way. That's really all there is to it."
Loren Gordon. "The existing utilities are services to that property, Lot 18, the current
residence. Those aren't public improvements as would be like a public watermain, to serve
within a right-of-way. So, you don't want to confuse those."
Councilmember Jensen. "It would just seem to me that before approving, there ought to
be some additional conditions then, relative to addressing utilities to some extent."
Mayor Polston. "What I suggested, Liz, was some verbiage to say that a utility site plan
verifying the public water, sewer, sanitary and storm, and whether or not there are existing
gas and phone lines there, in fact, on the public right-of-way and that the phone poles be
moved to public right-of-way, if they are not on public right-of-way."
Councilmember Hanus. "It was suggested earlier, that there are some people that may be
trying to delay this project. There are people, I believe, that are trying to ram this thing
through before the end of the year. Before the next Council gets seated. I'm trying to be
somewhat neutral in this thing. But, after some of the documents have been presented.
Some of the letters that have been written, have been presented, it has become evident to
me that there are people that are trying to ram this thing through before the end of the year.
Now, it's beyond 'belief, what is being suggested to be approved, with almost no
information, subject to some review down the road, after the fact. After the approval. This
is, absolutely, contrary to everything we have been trying to uphold. It is gutting our
ordinances. It's gutting our codes and it means now that people are going to be coming in
and asking to be treated the same. And they are going to be asking for subdivisions without
surveys. They're going to be asking for subdivisions, without easements. They're going
to be asking for all kinds of things, of the very things that I just listed, with missing
information and I for one, after this kind of activity, am going to have a hard time denying
them."
Counciimember Weycker. "I have a question of Staff. I was at the Planning Commission
Meeting when there was a lengthy discussion on whether this should be a minor subdivision,
minor boundary adjustment and you said you had already talked to John Dean about the
issue and it was Staff's determination that it be treated as such. Do we require anything
different from anyone else coming in for this?
Loren Gordon. "Well, we've got the necessary information to handle this request. We've
got the property legal description and it's included within the boundary for the community
center property. So, in terms of that, that's been provided. We've gone through, we think,
the issues with the boundary adjustment and we feel there is nothing that would hold it up,
that's different then how we may treat somebody else. We're trying to apply the same
rules."
Councilmember Hanus. "Loren, how may times have we gone back and required
applicants to go back and get easements, to have the engineer, look at, review these things?
We don't act on them until we have that information."
42
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 22, 1998
Mayor Polston. "Put it in context of, not just saying how many times that we've required
it. Under what specific conditions, are you talking about? I'm sure we've .... I know we
have but, if your talking about ...... I know we've required developers to go back when they
are going to put in significant public infrastructure, such as, water sewer and streets. Under
what other conditions, have we ...... '
Counciimember Hanus. "Mr. Mayor. I know you don't sit at the Planning Commission
and I've been there for about 7 or 8 years. I can't remember a time, that we didn't insist
that the documents required in our code, exist and are presented to the City. I don't
remember that happening. I don't even know how to answer that. Everybody is required
to provide that information, except this applicant."
Mayor Polston. "I don't agree with that."
Councilmember Ahrens. "Can I ask a question of Staff?. Loren, did you say that the
reason that this isn't a major subdivision is because it doesn't have any utility infrastructure
on it?"
Loren Gordon. "There are no planned utilities."
Councilmember Ahrens. "Oh, now it's planned. It has to be planned utilities."
Loren Gordon. "There's no public watermains or sewer lines.
Councilmember Ahrens. "Well, what about the power poles?
Counciimember Hanus. "They're existing and they will be moved.
Loren Gordon. "They're existing and they will be moved so the driveway can go in, in
some fashion."
Councilmember Hanus. "Where are they going to go?"
Loren Gordon. "We can require those easements be looked at."
Counciimember Hanus. "Let's vote. It's not going to change. I don't think we're
changing anybody's mind."
Councilmember Jensen. "Well, unfortunately, my mind's not made up on this. I'm real
uncomfortable with this part of it. Only because, it's missing some information."
Mayor Polston. "Is it the prerogative of the Council to table it; send it back to the Planning
Commission; request additional information; or make a motion to approve it; or deny it?"
Councilmember Ahrens. "I'll make a motion to deny it."
Councilmember Hanus. "I'11 second.
The Mayor asked if there was further discussion.
43
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- DECEMBER 22, 1998
Councilmember Hanus. "Yes. I just want to explain my position, again. I'm not opposed
tO the subdivision, perse. I want more information and I also am... absolutely,
wholeheartedly of the opinion that the other subdivision, as well, has to take place as part
of this. So, I'll just leave it at that."
Councilmember Jensen. "I'm a little concerned about voting to deny this. What are the
implications of that, in terms of its ability to come back? We've got certain things that can't
come back for a year and I don't know if this is one of them."
City Attorney. "I don't think it is."
Councilmember Jensen. "Since he's looking that one up, I would be far more interested
in tabling it and letting this additional information be gathered."
Councilmember Hanus. "And I could live with that, as well."
Councilmember Ahrens withdrew her motion. Councilmember Hanus withdrew his second.
Mayor Polston. "Are you talking about tabling it or are you talking about sending it for
... to a specific review and specific information because, if we're going to just table it, I
think we need to give the Staff and the applicant some indication of what we're looking for
or where it's going so they have ..... in fairness, that they have, the Staff and the applicant
know what it is that they're going to be requested to provide."
Councilmember Hanus. "And I stated the issues that I happen to think of. There could,
very well, be more. Really, the point is, that all the information that we require of all the
other applicants. I want no more, no less."
Councilmember Weycker. "I think Staff just said, they thought they did have all that and
that this would be what was required. Am I correct, in assuming, that this is another,
somewhat new code, in the way we're applying this?
Loren Gordon. "Mark indicated at the Planning Commission, to me, that this was adopted
in 1995 or 6 or 7. It's a fairly new provision."
Counciimember Hanus. "Two or three years old. But, my point on that, is that the
intention of that provision, was nothing like what we're using it for here and I think most
of the Council would remember when we did that. Remember what the intention was.
Leah, I'm not sure if you were here yet or not. It was two to three years. I'm not sure."
Cotmcilmember Jensen. "I'm just sufficiently uncomfortable with the data that I have to
more forward with this and that's not to say that I'm opposed to it. This one is too light for
me."
Mayor Polston. "Is there a motion to direct it back to Staff with specific requirements?"
Councilmember Jensen moved that we take this thing and send it back to Staff to gather
additional data and document that data. Councilmember Hanus seconded. The vote was 4
in favor with Mayor Polston voting nay. Motion carried.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 1998
DRAFT
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1998
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Michael Mueller, Cklair Hasse, Frank Weiland, Orv
Burma, Becky Glister, Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss, and Council Liason Mark Hanus. Staff
present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary
Kris Linquist.
Public Present: Franz Burris, Peter Meyer, Leah Weycker, Bruce Charon, Bert Haglund, Brad
Ethering Jr, Barb Zimmerman, DuWayne Dorfner, Cathy Bailey, Dan Iverson, Tom Reese, Pat
Meisel, Norm Domholt, Dale Sherburne, Pam Meyers, Keith Aardhler, Bob Brown, Terri Lyons,
Cindy Palm, Jim Funk, Davis Braslau, Tim Heyman.
Meeting was called to order at 7:37 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 98-67: MINOR SUBDIVISION: TO INCORPORATE ADJACENT
RESIDENTIAL LOT 18 TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT AT 5700
LYNWOOD BLVD, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #277, 5600 LYNWOOD
BLVD, PID # 14-117-24 44 0007
Loren Gordon presented the case.
The Westonka Public Schools have submitted an application for boundary adjustment to
expand their property to include lot 18 of Lynwood Park addresses as 5700 Lynwood Blvd. The
property is currently zoned R-2, One and Two Family Residential District and has an occupied
residence currently. The lot measures 50 feet by 230 feet encompassing approximately 11,500
sf. In the rear of the property is a public alley used for access purposes. The Westonka School
District has a signed purchase agreement for the property which is conditioned on approval of
the Community Center CUP. As per the submitted plans for the community center, the existing
house will be removed to incorporate the lot into the site.
Section 330:20 Subd. I(B) Minor Boundary Adjustments states that "The relocation of a
boundary line between two abutting, existing parcels of property; such relocation not causing
the creation of a new parcel or parcels and such relocation not violating the Zoning Ordinance."
Based on the Community Center proposal, the incorporation of lot 18 will not violate the Zoning
Ordinance. We have discussed the possibility of replatting the property to create one PID for
the property. This is an option to make the property "cleaner", but is not necessary for any
approval of the project as proposed. Additionally, rezoning the property to have one district
lo&
DRAFT
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 1998
rather than 3 was discussed. This too would make the site "cleaner" from an administrative
review standpoint, but is not needed from a use standpoint.
The Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the minor subdivision as requested
with the following conditions.
Approval be conditioned on ownership transfer of lot 18 to the Westonka Community
Schools.
Approval be conditioned on approval of the conditional use permit and variances for
DISCUSSION:
Mueller questioned the subdivision process. Gordon explained the procedure. Sutherland
further explained the process they took to determine that it is a Minor Boundary Line
Readjustment.
Mueller stated that we are setting precedence.
MOTION by Burma, seconded by Mueller to extend the meeting to '11:15 p.m.
Motion carried 6-2. Opposed: Weiland & Michael.
Hanus stated that a Minor Boundary Alignment is fairly new. Hanus stated that by eliminating
the boundary line, it changes the use. By adding Lot 18 to the site, it will now incorporate 3
different zoning districts.
Gordon stated that he would like to walk the Planning Commission through the process in how
they came about with the Minor Boundary Alignment. Gordon stated that this was addressed
with the City Attorney and they concur this is the process to be used.
Mueller questioned to vacation of the public alley. Gordon stated that the City Attorney has
reviewed the status and the records on the status of the alley are sketchy.
Weiland commented on the use of the alley by the general public.
Gordon stated that he and the City Attorney discussed how they should handle the vacation of
the alley and determined that it would not be necessary.
Hanus asked if the alley would be open onto the new driveway or would it end at the beginning
of lot 18. Gordon stated that it would end.
There was a request to have the City Attorney be present to answer some of the questions.
Mueller questioned the letter which he asked to be written from staff to MCWD to determine if
2
DRAFT
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 1998
ponding would be required. Gordon stated he has spoken with Jim Hafner, MCWD on
numerous occasions, Mr Hafner indicated they would be performing a staff level review of the
project to determine the applicability of new storm water rules. It was determined that it would
be required. Gordon felt this addresses the Planning Commission concerns. He stated that he
has spoken with Jim Hafner, MCWD. They discussed how the ponding was suppose to
happen. It was scheduled for a Staff review, at that point, it was determined that it will be
reviewed and action will be taken.
Weiland commented on the alley again. He stated that at one time the residents along that alley
did not want to have it upgraded, that they just wanted to use it themselves.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to adjourn. Motion carried 6-2. Opposed:
Hanus & Mueller.
Voss called for a roll call vote on the Motion to Adjourn.
Burma - No
Mueller - No
Glister - No
Michael - Yes
Weiland - Yes
Hasse - Yes
Voss - No
Hanus - No
Motion failed 5-3.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to table based on the following
conditions: 1) Items that were requested at the November 23rd Meeting were not
provided. 2) Letter of explanation from the City Attorney justifying the non vacation of a
public right of way. 3) A copy of Tom Reese's Task Force report for review. 4) A certified
Survey showing the proposed Boundary lines and new Legal Descriptions. 5) To allow
the continuance of hearing Loren Gordon's report on the Minor Subdivision. Motion
carried 8-0.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Burma to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 8-0.
Meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
3
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Oroup Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: December 14, 1998
SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision Boundary Adjustment
APPLICANT: Westonka Public Schools
CASE NUMBER: 98-67
HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5jjj
LOCATION: 5600 and 5700 Lynwood Blvd.
ZONING: R-2 Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Westonka Public Schools have submitted an application
for boundary adjustment to expand their property to include lot 18 of Lynwood Park addresses as
5700 Lynwood Blvd. The property is currently zoned R-2, One and Two Family Residential
District and has an occupied residence currently. The lot measures 50 feet by 230 feet
encompassing approximately 11,500 sr. In the rear of the property is a public alley used for
access purposes. The Westonka School District has a signed purchase agreement for the property
which is conditioned on approval of the Community Center CUP. As per the submitted plans for
the community center, the existing house will be removed to incorporate the lot into the site.
Section 330:20 subd. I(B) Minor Boundary Adjustments states that "The relocation of a
boundary line between two abutting, existing parcels of property; such relocation not causing the
creation of a new parcel or parcels and such relocation not violating the Zoning Ordinance."
Based on the Community Center proposal, the incorporation of lot 18 will not violate the Zoning
Ordinance. We have discussed the possibility of replatting the property to create one PID for the
property. This is an option to make the property "cleaner", but is not necessary for any approval
of the project as proposed. Additionally, rezoning the property to have one district rather than 3
was discussed. This too would make the site "cleaner" from an administrative review standpoint,
but is not needed from a use standpoint.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the minor subdivision as requested
with the following conditions.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
Case #98-67 Westonka Community Schools Minor Subdivision Boundary Adjustment
December 14, 1998
1. Approval be conditioned on ownership transfer of lot 18 to the Westonka Community
Schools.
2. Approval be conditioned on approval of thc conditional usc permit and variances for the
Wcstonka Community Center, case #98-64.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
Rev. 11-14-97
RECFIVED
,'~nnin§ Commission Date:
City Couacil Da~c:
Disu'ibutiou:
Application for
MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND
City of Mound, 5~341 Mnywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 47~, Fax: 471-0620
Case No. --
DEO 8 1998 Application Fee: $75.00
Escrow Deposit:
Deficient Unit Charges?
$1,000
~ uuG
Public Work~ Other
· ~adC)4~City ngi,.r qlq Delinquent T~.s?
, . n VARIANCE REQUIRED?
..................................................................................................
Fleue type or print the foiiowh~ information:
PROPERTY Subject Address 5700 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD
INFORMATION
EXISTING Lot 18
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION Subdivision LYNWOLD PARK
ZONING
DISTRICT Circle: (R-l) R-lA R-2 R-3 B-I B-2 B-3
Block Plat
PIDI
APPLICANT
OWNER
(if o~her than
applicantJ
Theappl~sm ~: Xowner o~er:
Name WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD, MOUND, MN
IWl 491-8001
Address
Phone (H)
Name
Address
Phone IH)
55364
IM}
ON) (M)
Name SCHOELL AND MADSON, INC.
SURVEYOR/
ENGINEER Address 10580 WAYZATA BLVD., SUITE 1, MINNETONKA, MN 55305
Phone IH) ~ 546-7601 (MI
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( } yes, ~) no. If yes,
list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution numberis) and provide copies of resolutions.
T~is application must~ be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanaEon given why this is not the case,
Owner's Signature Date
Owner's Signature Date
log
I'
I
I
--r
o
o
6'tg6 LCd6 ~
6
(~) ~'Lt6 t'Lt~5 L'Lt6 - :
~X X X X'×X X X
j xxx~~$ ~N/mS
"-~?1 1o7 jo .~au.~o~ .~N x ~
C,.VII'~ Wi'? N//-~9
III
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
This focm approved by the Minnesota Asscx:tation o~
REALTORS'. which disclaims any lie bi~rdy aftsing out
-' 1. Date
2. Page I of Pages
bi~I~HEC-"~- ASH-NOTE ae earneet ~ney to be depoMted upon acceptance of Purcheee Agreement by all pa~let, on or
7. ~fore the third business day after acceptance, In the trust account of listing broker but to ~ returned to Buyer If Purchase
8. Agr.ement I. n~.c~.pt.d by ~~, money ,. part payment for the pur~ha., of the property Iocat.d at:
"9. Street Address: · ~ ~ ~ 0 '
10. Ci~ of ~ ~. , Coun~ of WO~ ~ ~. ~, , State of Minnesota,
11. Legally descd~d ~s: ~'
12.
13. including the follow~ropefly, if any, o~ed by Seller and used and located on said prope~y: garden bulbs, plants, shrubs, and
14. trees; storm sa~torm doors, screens and awnings; window shades, blinds, traverse and cuflain and drape~ r~s; aflached lighting
15. fixtures and bulbs; plumbing fixtures, water heater, heating plants (with any burners, tanks, stokers and other equipmenl used
16. connection therewith), built-in air ~nd~ioning ~uipment, el~tronic air filter, Water Softener OWNED / RENTED / NONE bulb-in humidif~r
17. and dehumidifier, liquid gas tank and controls (if the propedy of Seller), sump pump; a~ached television antenna, cable W jacks
18. and wiring; BUILT-INS: dishwashers, garage disposals, trash compactors, ovenS, cook top stoves, microwave ovens, hood fans,
19. intercom's; ATTACHED: carpeting; mirrors; gara~ doQr openers a0d all,~ontrols; smoke de~ctors; fireplace screens, doors and
20. heatilators;~ND: the following ~mon~pro~: ~//~ ~J ,~: .~ ~.../~~ ~ .
23. all of which~opedy Seller has this ~ay agreed to sell to Buyer for sum of: ($ / OQ ~ ~O ~ )
whichBuyeragreestopayinthelollowingmanner:E~mestmoneyof$~[) /~O. OD
27.-th~ balance M $ uy [~a~l.u ~t ss~rBonoo wifh lh~ Rffa~b~ addendum:
25. C=uve~l~.~ FHA VA A3su,,~tl~a ~.~t ~, D~ Pdrche~e Molly Me~a~ O[I,~r:
29. This Purchase Agreement I~subj~ to a C~tingency A~ndum for sale of Buyer's pr~dy. (If answer
is
IS,
see
a~ached
a~endum.)
30. This Purchase Agreement I~.~ubject 1o cancellation of a previously wd~en Purchase Agreement dated
has been made aware of the availabil~y of pro~ ins~ctions. Buyer elec~J~to have a pro~ffy tns~ction pedo~
31.
Buyer
32. at Buyer's ex~,
33. This Purchase Agreement L~ubj~t to an Inspe~ion Addendum. (If answer is IS, see attached addendum.)
~. A~ached are other addenda which are made a pad of this Pumhase Agreement. (Enter page or pages on line 2)
35. DEED~ARKETABLE TITLE: U~n pedo~ance by Buyer, Seller shall deliver al~~.~~t- Warranty Deed
36. joined in by spouse, if any, conveying ma~etable title, subject to:
37. (A) Building and zoning laws, ordinances, state and f~eral regulations; (B) Restrictions relating to use or improvement of the prope~
38. w~h~ eff~tive fode~ure praising; (C) Re~wal~n of any mineral dghls by the State of Minne~ta; (D) Utili~ and dmina~ ea~ments
39. ~h do not intedere with existing improvements; (E) Rights of tenants es follows (unless specified, not subject to tenancies):
40.
41. (F) Others (Must be s~cified in writing): ~O ~)~
DA~E O~ CLO~I SELLER SHALL PAY ON DATE OF CLO~ING all installments
44. of s~ciaJ assessments codified for ~nt with the real estate taxes due aqd payable in~ the year of cl~ing.
BUYER SHALL ASS~ELLER SHALL PAY on ~te of ~osi~ all other s~ial assessments levied as of the date of this Agreement
~BUYER SHALL ASSU~ ~E~ER SHALL PROVIDE FOR PAYME~ OF s~ial as~ssments ~n~ng as of !~ ~te of this Agr~ment
47. for improvements thai have been o~ered by the City Council or other assessing authorities. (Seller's provision for pa~ent shall be by
48. payment into escrow of two (2) ti~s the estimated amount of the assessments, or less as required by Buyer's lendec)
49. BUYER SHALL ASS~,~LLER SHALL ~ on date of closing any deferred real estate taxes (i.e. Grin Acres, etc.) or special
50. assessments payment of which is required as a result of the closing of this sale. Buyer shall pay real estate taxes due and payable in
51. the year following closing and thereafter and any unpaid special assessments payable the~ereaffer, the payment of which is
52. not othe~ise provided. As of t~ date o[ this Agr~ment, ~ller represents that Seller HA~~e~iv~ a not~ of headng for a
53. new public improvemenl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~. ~ a
~, ~ ~ ~ s~cial assessment is iss~d after lhe date of this Agr~ment and on or ~fom the date of closi~, B~er shall assume
55. paint ~-~,~~1 NONE/,OTHER: of any su~ s~ial a~essmnts, a~ Seller shall provue for
56. pa~ent on date of closing AL~NOHE) OTHER: of any such special asse~ments. If such
s~ial
57. assessments or escr~ amounts~'~'for said s~ial as~nts as r~uir~ by Buyer's lender shall e~d $/O0. ~'~ ,
58. Seller and Buyer Initial: Seller(s) ..~_ __~" Date J - [ 2~ Buyer(s) ~ Date ~l'
'ea!l~o s,JmfoJq §u!ls!l aql le apecu aq IleqS sa!uou~ pue s.~eded lie lo/~a^!lep' l 0 t
aq.L '§U!IpM U! ]aliaS .~q aoueldeaae al loa[qns s! lua~aoJ§V aseqoJnd s!ql leql sea]§e pue spuels~apun ~a,~nl3
· luewee~Gv eseqomd s!ql u! eouesse eql ia s! eWLL :~i::)N~SS~ dO ~llNIl '96
'u!aJeq al paas§e suo!loedsu! Jo s~a/uns/,ua 1o egueuJJoped JOl ,(pedold @ql Ol ssaaoe alq~LlOSi~al MOiie Ol S~)ulJ~ JaljaS ' !. 6
'/[iJadoJd alii Ol luauJa^oJdJm Jo uo a.lnlon~|s
'uo!jonJisuo3 L~J!M uo!i3auuoo uJ §u!sol3 aqi §u!paaaJd Alalmpeluuq sAup OgL alii u!Lij!/v~
'/~JaLl!LigeLLl 'Sle!JaJeLLl 'JoqeI lie Joj apeLu ueaq a^eq JI!M lint u! lua[uJ~ud '§~.l!SOlg alii
'~U~SOIO lO aJep aqJ t~ SB ~u~pJooaJ loJ p~AoJdde aq li~J JO u~aq ~RN paX~Auo~ 'LB
UO~S~A!PqNs lie Aed IleLtS JellaS 'JelleS Aq peUMO pueI JO uo!s~A~pqns e saJ~nbeJ Jo Selni~lsuo~ ~lUS s~ql It :GNVl ~0 NOISIAlaBRS 6L
'§u!sop IQ JaAnl~t al IOJjUO3
Jo uo!ssassod s,JellaS u! lo~Jlsqe ~ue JapuaJJnS ill~qs lalla$ 'aaueJnsu~ alibi lo ~3llod S,JeUMO Ue JOt lUe~l~Uituo3 u sap{AoJd ~etle~ Il ' ~ Z
'laeJlsq~ eql 5u!p!Ao~d jo siso3 lie Xed (g) Jo :(Aa~lod s. JapUel eqt Jol ~n~eJd eql Xed II~qs JeAn~) peumiqo s{ Aa~lod s. Jepuel e 'OL
i! X3~lOd S,JaUMO penss~ Alsnoeuelln~s e ~u!ufelqo lo lso~ iEuo~l~ppe eql Aluo pue 'pmqBlqo s~ Aa~lod s. Jepual au j~ Ag~lOd eouEJnSU~ '69
alibi qans Joj mn~LuaJd aJ~lua eql Aed (t) IlUqS JellaS 'SlUemSSaSSV le~oeds 5u!pu~d pue pa!Aal pu~ 'su~!l pue SlUmUaSpn( 89
peJeis!~eJ e Jo alibi jo 13e~Isq~ u~ (~) Jo :eloseuu~ u! eouemsu~ eli!l elpM Ol pesua3~l JeJnsu! ue Aq penssl rajaI ~&~ lu~una u ua '99
~ a§ed '09
IN=ilN:I:lt~gV =ISVHOI=INd
· PURCRASE AC.~IEEMENT
107. Peg, 3Date dO[/. ~-~..~, /~'90~
108. REAL ESTATE TAXES shall be paid as follows:
109. Buyer shall p ,~ORATED PROM DAY OF,.~?~IN~i__12THS. Am.NONE
110. Seller Il'tall ~ PRORATED TO DAY OF C. I~,?_?ING-~12THS. ALL. NONE rill Iltate tlxae dui and payable in thl year 19~,~ . If the
111. closing date is changed, the real estate taxes paid shall, if prorated, be edlusted to the new closing date. Seller warrants taxes due and
112. payable in the year 19C~ C~ w, ill be FULL PART NON hu~r~tall ele=;ilk~du,,., pd, i u, "u'~'bv,,,&~tecd ..I.~o~4~,.,,, ;e G,,.,I..J.,
114. toward the non-homestead real estate taxes. Euyer .sregt ~ ~ any mm:~inino balanca of n~' 1"9-/ltetlad ta.(~& .*v~r, ti,or fssael~a
(~)POSSESSION: Seller shall deliver possession o! the properly not later than L .... - . ~ after closing.
117. All interest, homeowner essecialion dues, rents, fuel oil, liquid petroleum gas and all charges for ci~/walar, City sewe~, electricity, and nalural
118. gas shell be prorated between the parties as of dele of closing. Seller agrees to remove ALL DEBRIS AND ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY
119. N~T INCLUDED HEREIN from the property by possession date.
120. ENVIRONMENTAL CONC~E/qNS..'_To lhe bis! of lhe S~, liars knowledge there are no hazardous substances, ~ underground storage tanks, excel.
121. herein noled:
122.
123. SELLER,,.~R~TS THAT THE PROPERTY IS DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO: CITY SEWER II~ES I~ NO CITY WATER I;~S E] NO
124 SEL~.I.~GREES TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY TEST RESULTS IF REQUIRED BY GOVERNING AUTHORITY AND/OR LENDER.
125.--,~.SELL.E,~.~GREES TO PROVIDE, IF REQUIRED BY THE TERMS OF THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT OR BY GOVERNING
126. AUTHORITY AND/OR LENDER, A LICENSED INSPECTOR'S SEPTIC SYSTEM INSPECTION REPORT OR NOTICE INDICATING IF
127. THE SYSTEM COMPLIES WiTH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS. NO~ICE: A VAUD CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR THE SYSTEM MAY
128. SATISFY THIS OBLIGATION. NOTHING IN LINES 125 TO 129 SHALL OBUGATE SELLER TO UPGRADE, REPAIR OR REPLACE THE
129. SEPTIC SYSTEM UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED TO IN THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT.
130. SELLER WARRANTS THAT CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONING, HEATING. PLUMBING AND WIRING SYSTEMS USED AND LOCATED ON
131. SAID PROPERTY WILL BE iN WORKING ORDER ON DATE OF CLOSING, EXCEPT AS NOTED IN THIS AGREEMENT.
132. BUYER HAS THE RIGHT TO A WALK-THROUGH REVIEW OF THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO CLOSING TO ESTABLISH THAT THE
133. PROPERTY IS IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME CONDITION AS OF THE DATE OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT.
134. BUYER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT NO ORAL REPRESENTATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE REGARDING POSSIBLE PROBLEMS OF WATER
135. IN BASEMENT, OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY WATER OR ICE BUILD-UP ON ROOF OF THE PROPERTY AND BUYER RELIES
136. SOLELY IN THAT REGARD ON THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT BY SELLER:
137. SELLFtF("~ HAS NOT HAD A WET BASEMENT AI~'~'~AS NOT HAD ROOF, WALL OR CEILING DAMAGE CAUSED BY WATER
138. OR ICE BUILD-UP. BUYER H . ~A~H"~S NO~ECEIVED-- A SELLER'S PROPERTY DISCLOSURE STATEMEN~r:--~C~
139. BUYER HAS RECEIVED THE INSPECTION REPORTS, IF REQUIRED BY MUNICIPALITY.
140. BUYER HAS RECEIVED THE WELL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OR A STATEMENT THAT NO WELL EXISTS ON THE PROPERTY,
141. AND A SEPTIC SYSTEM DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OR A STATEMENT THAT NO SEPTIC SYSTEM EXISTS ON OR SERVES THE
142. PROPERTY, AS REQUIRED BY MINNESOTA STATUTES.
143.1 ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE RECEIVED AND HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO
144. RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY~GREEMENT..~} REVIEW THE ARBITRATION DISCLO,.~RE AND
145. SELLER(S) /--~ ~ ~'~ ) -- BUYER(SI. ~
146. SE LLE~''~ ~/~~ B UYE R(S)
147. NOTICE
149.
15o.
151.
152.
iD ~.ller'3 Agcnt/Da/¢r'3 A?e,,,~U~)~ uat
,c ?.::2.., ,
THIS NOTICE DOES NOT SATISFY MINNESOTA STATUTORY AGENCY DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.
113
153. DUAL AGENCY REPRESENTATION
154. DUAL AGENCY REPRESENTATION ~ APPLY IN THIS TRANSACTION.
155. Broker represents both the Seller(s) and lhe Buyer(s) al the property involved in this transaction, which creates a dual agency. This
156 means thal Broker and ils salespersons owe fiduciary duties lo both Seller(s) and Buyer(s). Because the parties may have conflicting
157. interests, Broker and its salespersons are prohibited from advocating exclusively f~ either pady. Broker cannot act as a dual agent in this
158. transaction without the consent of both Seller(s) and Buyer(s). Seller(s) and Buyer(s) acknowledge that:
159. (I) confidential information communicated Io Broker which regards price, terms, or motivation to buy or sell will remain confidential
160. unless Seller(s) or Buyer(s) instrucls Broker in writing to disclose this information. Olher information will be shared;
161. (2) Broker and its salespersons will nol represent the interest of either party to the detriment of the other; and
162. (3) within the limits of dual agency, Broker and ils salespersons will work diligently ID laciltfate the mechanics of the sale.
Seller ,
167.
Dale
170. OTHER:
171.
172.
173.
174.
175. I, t~e owner of the property, accept this Agreement and
176, authorize the listing broker to withdraw said property from
177. the market, unless instructed otherwise in writing and
178. I have reviewed all pages of this Purchase Agreement.
179. X (Se~lT~l'~"~ture) / I- {Date)
, o.x
{Sellers Printed Name)
I agree to purchase the property for the price and in
accordance with the terms and conditions set forth above
and I have reviewed all pages of this Purchase Agreement.
(Buyer's Printed Name)
181. X ' ' X ;
(Social Security Number- optional) (Ma~al Stalus) (Social Security Number - optional) (Marital Status
{Date) (Buyer's Signature)
X (Bu'~'s Printed Nama)
(Date)
184. ,X X_._
(Social Security Number - optional) (Marital Status) (Social Secunly Number - oppOnal) (Marital Status)
185. FINAL ACCEPTANCE DATE
186, THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT BETWEEN BUYERS AND SELLERS.
187. MN:PA-4 (9/97) IF YOU DESIRE LEGAL OR TAX ADVICE, CONSULT AN APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL.
7.
8,
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19,
20.
22.
23.
24.
26.
28.
ADDENDUM TO
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
This form ~ ~ the Minne~ot~ Ass~x:lstion of
R~: Mtn~a ~im M R~L~R~
1. Date 7~,~~/ / ~ ~
2. ~ of ~s
3. .Addendum to Purchase Agreement between parlles dated ~d~' c~ ¢~ ,19 ~:~ pertaining to the purchaee
4. and eele of the property ~t
~~.~. ~'~/~' /~'~ ~. :'
t ·
31.
BUYER PURCHASING
"AS IS" ADDENDUM
This lorm approved by the Minnesota Association of
REALTORS*, which disclaims any liability
arising out Of use or misuse Of this form.
2. Page of Pages
3. Addendum to Purchase Agreement between parties dated ~ ~19 ~'
4. and sale of the property at
__ pertaining to the purchase
;
6. CONDITION OF PROPERTY: The property being purchased by Buyer, including the dwelling, other improvements, fixtures,
7. appliances and personal property, is not new, and is being purchased "AS IS."
8. RIGHT AND DUTY OF INSPECTION: Buyer shall have the right and duty to inspect the property or to have them inspected
9. by a person of Buyer's choice, at Buyer's expense. Buyer shall have the right to make a pre-closing inspection of the
10. property, to determine that the property is in the same condition as of the date of this addendum.
11. SETTLEMENT IS FINAL: It is understood the Buyer accepts the property "AS IS;' ANY WARRANTIES OF PHYSICAL
12. CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY CONTAINED IN THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT ARE VOID. The Seller has no further
13. responsibility or liability with respect to the condition of the property. This provision shall.survive delivery of the deed or
14. contract for deed.
15.
OTHER:
18. T~m IS k LEOAL.LY ~ C~ BETWEEN BUYERS AND
19. ~ You DE.RE LEGAL OR TAX ADVICE, COH~ULT AN ~&TE ~AL.
20. MN:Bf:~tA
ADDENDUM TO
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
This form approved by the Mirtne~ola ~,e, ocillfion ~
R~L~R~: Min~a ~iati~ ~ R~L~RS*
di~iml a~ li~l~ 8fl~n~ ~ ~ u~ ~ misu~ ~ this
1. Date ~"~,~'~.~ ~,~, ~'~'; ~
2. ~ge of ~ges
3.
4.
5.
6~
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Addendum to Purchase Agreement between parties dated ~-o-~-,~ ,X;-~.,~,6~, 197 ~') pertaining to the purchase
and sale of the property at ,.~'?~
;
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
~4.
2Z
~0.
:t4.
,OE ~(~,01~ .l:.l,qq8 -40 JO1
,0~ hA ~1 S N
INDEMNITY AND
HOLD HARMLESS
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of the day
of ,1 999, by and between INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT NO. Z77 ("District"); THE CITY OF MOUND, ("City");
and WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER BOARD, ("WCCB").
NITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the District and City have created WCCB to
operate a community center to be located on property to be
conveyed to WCCB by the District; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the land which the District will
convey to WCCB is currently being purchased by the District
from third parties, such portion having a sreeet address of
5700 Lynwood Boulevard and situated on land legally
described as the South 220 feet of Lot 18, Lynwold Park
("Site"); and
WHEREAS, neither WCCB, nor the City as a member of WCCB
is willing to accept conveyance of the Site unless the
District provides each with the undertakings hereinafter
contained.
NOW THEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing and upon
the mutual consideration of the parties, which each deems
adequate, it is agreed and stipulated as follows:
INDEMNITY AND HOLD HARMLESS
The District agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City
and WCCB from any claim or cause of action for personal
injury, property damage or death arising out of any use or
activity on the Site occurring between the date of sale of
the Site to the District, and the date of transfer of the
Site to WCCB.
PROOF OF INSURANCE
Additionally the District will funish the City and WCCB with
evidence that it has in place, during all times covered by
the indemnity, comprehensive general liability insurance
covering the District from all forms of risk reasonably
related to the ownership of the Site at levels of coverage
which are customary for such risks.
NO WAIVER OF IMMUNITY
The indemnity provided hereunder shall not be construed as a
waiver of any liability limits available to any of the
parties hereto.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands as of
the day, date and year first above written.
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIBTRIBT NO. 2??
By
Its:
WESTONK~ COMMUNITY CENTER BOARD (NCCB)
By
Its:
CITY OF MOUND
By
Its:
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission
December 10, 1998
DISCUSS: 2217 CHATEAU LANE MEMOS
It was noted that pages 72-75 of the meeting packet contained a memorandum offering
the City of Mound a 40' x 120' lot for the sum of $1.00 by Sunshore Partners. It is
located between two small residential lots. One of these homes does not meet
guidelines for size and eventually, the house would have to be renovated to be made
conforming. The offered lot is not buildable, however, should things change in the future
with the adjacent lots, this situation could change. The Park Director recommends that
the City go ahead and buy the property for $1.00.
Weycker also recommended that the Park and Open Space Commission move to obtain
this land for park services.
Motion made by Casey, seconded by Domholt, that the City proceed with the
purchase of this lot for the sum of $1.00 and dedicate it for park land usage.
Motion carried with ayes from Domholt, Botko, and Casey. The nay votes
were Weycker and Meyer.
1999 BUDGET
This is an information only item as it was indicated by Weycker that the 1999 Budget is
a "done deal." Weycker called attention to bullet #3 that was made less specific from
original budget documents and will allow the Park Commission to use the money for
more general purposes,
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
MEMORANDUM
NOVEMBER 18, 1998
TO: ~D SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER ~,,~. ~~-~
FROM. J~M FACKLER, PARKS DIREC~'.~
SUBJECT. 2217 CHATEAU LANE. /// ~/
I have inspected the vacant lot at 2217 Chateau Lane that
Sunshore Partners I is offering to the City of Mound for
for one dollar. As you can see from the attached portion of
the plat map the lot is 40'X 120'. It is located between two
smaller older homes and is not being maintained.
It is level and appears that there are no major concerns
like trash, brush or hazardous trees on the property that
would require monies to be spent.
The size and location of the property is not conducive to
anything more then limited park improvements or a small
green space retention area.
My recommendation is to purchase this lot but not restrict
its use to the city and that only limited rough mowing and
ground repairs be preformed.
printed on recycled paper
October 6, 1998
SUNSHORE PARTNERS I, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
3131 McKINNEY AVENUE
gUITE 404
.i' DALLAS
~I , TEXAS 75204
(214) 220-0205
Mr. Ed Shukle, Jr., City Manager
CityofMound ..
5341 Maywood Drive
Mound, Minnesota 55364
VIA FACSIMILE
Re: 2217 Chateau Lane, PIN 13-117-24-43-0059
Dear Mr. Shukle:
I am writing in com~ection with our conversation today concerning the status of the referenced
property. As we discussed, the property is smaller than the minimum currently required by the
City of Mound in order to be "buildable". Therefore, there are a limited number of options
available to this partnership for the use of this property.
I would like to donate the property to the City of Mound for $1.00 for use as a park or for any
other purpose the City feels is appropriate and would appreciate your consideration in this regard.
If you should have:any questim~s, please'do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
SUNSHORE pARTNERS I, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By: SUNSHORE, INC., its General Partner
Vice President
IA,3
goal 9t;'t7'011 0~90~Lt~;ETgT (-- £88~ 0~ t,'l:~ S3IN~clI.40D NOIN:I8 Lt,:c;.'l:
j 2217 Chateal~
Tonka Inc.
,I
Crev~.er's Snb Lot/36
Lafayet!~e Park
Block 1 Lot 18
i,: j ......... "-. GOV'T' ...... 1444.LoTll RES T ....
I
January 8, 1999
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
December Honthly Report
Public Works
There was not a whole happening for the month. The
weather was mild and we only sanded the streets twice. We did
work on some of our equipment and trimming. We did have two
watermain breaks for the month. With the mild weather we were
able to patch the street for the winter. The weather allowed
us to do extra sewer and storm sewer cleaning.
printed on recycled paper
FIRE FIGHTERS
1 JEFF ANDERSEN
2 GREG ANDERSON
3 PAUL BABB
4 DAVID BOYD
5 SCOTT BRYCE
6 JIM CASo~f
7 BOB CRAWFORD
8 RAiN'DY MNGELHART
9 DAN GRADY
iOKEVIN GRADY
llBRUCE GUSTAFSON
12PAT HANLEY
13-
14PAUL H~INRY
16MA~ JAKUB~
1 ~ROGER KRYCK
18JO~ LARSON
19JASON MAAS
2GrONY MYERS
2]JOHN NAFUS
22JAMES I~ELSON
23~RET NICCLTM
24GREG PALM
25MIKE PALM
26TIM PALM
27GREG PEDERSON
28CHRIS POU~DN~R
29RI CHARD ROGERS
3~tIKE SAVAGE
31KEVIN SIPPRELL
32RON STALDMAN
33BRUCE SVOBODA
3451) VANECM<
_3_SRICK WrbLIA~lS
36TIM ~.rILLIAMS
37 nk'Wk~Tq WnVtF~W~
DARREN POIKONEN
MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
MOUND, MINNESOTA
FOR MONTH OF
DECEMBER 1998
DRILLS & MAINTENANCE
~ , ~ Bqrrl,~ lltlIL MAINL
12/14 12/?1 ~ RIRS
X X 2 lq.OD ~
X X 2 19.00 5
X X 2 19.00 2
X X 2 19.00 0
X X 2 19 .OQ 2
X X 2 19.00' 1.5
X X 2 19.00 1.5
X X 2 19.00 4.5
X X 2 19.00 3
X X 2 19.00 2
X X 2 19.00 2.5
X X 2 19.00 Z~.5
FIRE & RESCUE
50 6.50
35 6.50
42 6.50
31 6.75
36 6.50
51 6.50
33 6 50
26 6.50
40 6.50
28 6.50
43 6.50
38 6.50
X X 2 19.00 2.5
X X 2 19.00 4.5
X X 2 19.00 1.5
X X 2 19.00 3
X X 2 .-. 19.00 4
X X 2 19.00 2
X X 2 19.00 4
(O x 1 9. o
X X 2 19.00 O
X X 2 19.00 2
X X 2 19.00 3
X X 2 19.00 2
X X 2 19.00 2.5
X X 2 19.00 0
X X 2 19.00 2.5
X X 2 19.00 2.5
X X 2 19.00 0
X X 2 19.00 2.5
$ o -o- o
,-~ 0 "-0- 0
X X 2 19.O0 2
X X 2 19.00 4.5
X X 2 19.O0 2.5
X X 2 19.00 4
12/19/9~"~ ~ 0 -0- 0
33 34 67
82.5 85 167.5 636.50 86
33 6.50
57 6.50
33 6.50
37 6.50
39 6.50
42 6.50
50 6.50
34 6.50
5 6.50
31 6.50
35 6.5O
45 6.50
41 6.50
38 7.00
35 6.50
52 6.50
44 6.50
34 6.50
O 6.5O
0 6.50
37 6, 50
41 6.50
31 6.50
37 6.50
23 6.50
1307 FIRE
167.5 l]~ll; s
86 MAIN~
IODL
227.50
273.00
209.25
2q4.OO
~1.50
2t 4.50
169.00
260.00
182.00
279.50
247.00
214.50
370.50
214.50
240.50
253.50
273.00
325.00
221. O0
32.50
201.50
227.50
292.50
266.50
266. O0
227.50
2.86.
221
-0-
-0-
240.50
266.50
201.50
240.50
149.50
8522.25
636.50
1,250.00
10,408.75
l[
UL~L
L681
086
90I
99
O~
0~I
9~6
0~9
§9~
~£~L
0~
0
6
86£
6
6~
99
9~
(~o~)
XIIAI&O¥
0 6
O L
L~ ZOfl
~'L9f
0 0
0
~0I
~0I ~9
0 Of
0 0
0 0
0 0
ZZ
6~I 9bi
~9 9~
b£ 06
9~ ZZ
~ 0
~2 LZ
~9~ 9~9
L~I LI~
I~ 6~
6
I
0 0
I 0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0
L9
S~QOH IHI~ SYZOZ
9qq5'3 ~0 ' O~
DISCIPLINE & TEAMWORK
CRITIQUE OF FIRES
PRE-PLAN & INSPECTIONS
TOOLS & APPARATUS IDENTIFY
HAND EXTINGUISHER OPERATIONS
WEARING PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
FILMS
FIRST-AID & RESCUE OPERATIONS
USE OF SELF-CONTAINED MASKS
HOURS TRAINING PAID:
EXCUSED
MISCELLANEOUS:
MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT
PUMPER OPERA~ON$
FIRE STREAMS &FRICTION LOSS
HOUSE BURNING
NATURAL/PROPANEGAS DEMOS
LADDER EVOLUTIONS
,~ad.VAGE OPERA. OHS
RADIO OPERATIONS
HOUSE EVOLUTIONS
NOZZLES & HOSEAPPL~NCES
X UNEXCUSED O PRESENT(n~ pai~
PERSONNEL
J. ANDERSEN ~ [ t ~ P, HENRY ~tJ ~ G. PEDERSON
G. ANDERSON ~ C. POUNDER
P. BABB ~,, I' I1~'~'-'"'~"' M. HENTGES ~ R. ROGERS
D. BOYD ~,1 j*~,=~M. JAKUBIK 1~ 1 ~''' M. PALM
S. BRYCE ~,.~ I ~,.. R. KRYCK ~.,.~ ~ '~, T. PALM
J. CASEY ~_~ J. LARSON *~" I--%1~M. SAVAGE
B. oRAw~o~ ~ ~. ~s ~.\~.- ~.s,PPREU_
~. ~,~.~~1~. ~.,~u, ~ ,. ,vo,o~^
K. GP,~¥ ~. N~LSON ~ ~. WN~C~K
B. ~US~SON Z ~ B. N~CCUM ~ ~ R.
~ D. WO~C~
TOTAL # OF FIREFIGHTERS
DISCIPLINE & TEAMWORK
OF FIRES
PRE-PLAN & INSPECTIONS
TOOLS & APPARATUS IDENTIFY
HAND EXTINGUISHER OPERATIONS
VVEARING PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
FILMS
FIRST-AID & RESCUE OPERATIONS
USE OF SELF-CONTAINED MASKS
HOURS TRAINING PAID:
~ EXCUSED
MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT
DRILL REPORT
X UNEXCUSED
PUMPER OPERATIONS
FIRE STREAMS & FRICTION LOSS
HOUSE BURNING
NATURAL / PROPANE GAS DEMOS
LADDER EVOLUTIONS
SALVAGE OPERATIONS
RADIO OPERATIONS
HOUSE EVOLUTIONS
NOZZLES & HOSE APPLIANCES
O PRESENT (not paid)
PERSONNEL
2~[~-- G. ANDERSON
~ J~ D. BO~ ~} ~ M. JAKUBIK
2{1~ ~.c~s~ 2~l~ ~.~.so.
~ tj ~ R. ENGE~RT ~t ~ ~ T. ~RS
Zt/~ S. eUSTAFSON Ztl~ a. NlCCUM
G. PEDERSON
~'~"' C. POUNDER
3-\[% R. RO~ERS
~ M. PALM
~ M. SAVAGE
~,'~{ ~ K. SIPPRELL
~l R. STALLMAN
~ B. SVOBODA
~. ~ I'/,, E. VANECEK
2.~1 ?-- R. ~LU~MS
~-['t~ T. W~LLIAMS
~. '--~ D, WOYTCKE
.~'~ TOTAL#OFFIREFIGHTERS
DATE
MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT
TOTAL MAINTENANCE FOR MONTH OF
ANDERSEN
'ANDERSON
BABB
D. BOYD
S. BRYCE
j. CASEY
B. CRAWFORO
D. GRADY
K. ORADY
B. GUSTAFSON
. HENDERSON
P. HENRY
M. HENTGES
M. JAKUBIK
R. KaYCK
J. LARSON
J. ~S
MEN ON DUTY
z/ T. MYERS
~/~ J. NAFUS
J.'~NELSON
B. NICCUM
--~ G. PALM
~ M. PALM
~]~ T. PALM
~ G. PEDERSON
3 C. POUNDER
R. ROGERS'
~ M. SAVAGE
~/~ K. SlPPRELL
R. STALLMAN
B. SVOBODA
E. VANECEK
~ R. WILLIAMS
~/~d. T. WILLIAMS
~/ D. WOYTCKE
TOTAL MONTHLY HOURS
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
DATE:
Januarv 8, 1999
TO:
FROM:
City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
SUBJECT: DECEMBER 1998 MONTHLY REPORT
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
There were 27 building permits issued in December for a construction
value of $ 508,104. We issued 20 plumbing, mechanical, and miscellaneous
permits for a total of 47 permits this month, and 781 permits year-to-date.
Total valuation now stands at $ 6,247,432.
PLANNING & ZONING
The Planning Commission reviewed Three (3) cases and sent One (1)
variance case to the City Council. One (1) Conditional Use Permit case and
one (1) Minor Subdivision case were tabled.
kl
printed on recycled paper
City of Mound
BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT
Month: DECEMBER Year: 1998
THIS MONTH
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 2 2 315,250
SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (CONDOS)
TWO FAMILY / DUPLEX
MULTIPLE FAMILY (3 OR MORE UNITS)
TRANSIENT HSG. (HOTELS / MOTELS)
SUBTOTAL 2 2 315,250
COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT}
OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL
INDUSTRIAL
PUBLIC / SCHOOLS
SUBTOTAL
ADDITIONS TO PRINCIPAL BUILDING 1 41,000 33
DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS i 5,000 29
DECKS 61
SWIMMING POOLS 3
REMODEL- MISC RESIDENTIAL 22 145,354 315
REMODEL- MULTIPLE DWELLINGS i i, 500 2
SUBTOTAL 25 192,854 443
ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS
COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) 3
OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL 3
INDUSTRIAL 1
PUBLIC / SCHOOLS 6
DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
SUBTOTAL
13
RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS 2
NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2
TOTAL DEMOLITIONS 4
#PERMITS #UNITS VALUATION # UNITS
# PERMITS
27
TOTAL *
27 2 508,104 474
· BUILDING 2 7 4 7 4
FENCES & RETAINING WALLS i 23
SIGNS i 9
PLUMBING 8 12 8
MECHANICAL 7 110
GRADING 0 3
S&W, STREET EXCAV., FIRE, ETC. 3 3 4
IT°T^L 147 I 781 I
YEAR TO DATE
# UNITS I VALUATION I
10 1.269,634
4 1.349.803
14 2,619,437
#PERMITS I VALUAT'ONI
VALUATION
1,365,509
362,849
216.046
23.717
1,442,343
10,076
3,410,464
VALUATION
50,670
6.700
5OO
156,161
214,031
2,300
1,200
3,500
VALUATION
6,247,432
GENERAL PERMIT REPORT FOR MONTH OF DECEMBER 1998
MONTH YEAR DAY PERMIT # ADDRESS
CONTRACTOR
PERMIT TYPE
DEC 98 1 4146 2601 COMMERCE BLVD
DEC 98 9 4148 5942 HAWTHORNE RD
DEC 98 9 4149 6035 CHERRYWOOD RD
DEC 98 9 4150 3027 BLUFFS LN
DEC 98 4151 VOID
DEC 98 10 4152 5411 BARTLETT BLVD
DEC 98 14 4153 4837 LANARK RD
DEC 98 16 4154 2135 CEDAR LN
DEC 98 16 4155 6655 HALSTEAD AVE
DEC 98 16 4156 5910 IDLEWOOD RD
DEC 98 18 4157 4831 SHORELINE DR
DEC 98 16 4158 5601 GRANDVIEW BLVD
DEC 98 17 4159 4773 ABERDEEN RD
DEC 98 17 4160 6363 RAMBLER LN
DEC 98 21 4161 3084 TUXEDO BLVD
DEC 98 22 4162 2121 COMMERCE BLVD
DEC 98 28 4163 1574 CANARY LN
DEC 98 30 4164 2212 CENTERVIEW LN
DEC 98 30 4165 2212 CENTERVIEW LN
JAMES GOUNTANIS
CULLIGAN
CUSTOM PLUMBING
CUSTOM PLUMBING
VOID
DINIUS PLUMBING
VALLEY PLUMBING
ROYALTON HTG & CLG
ROYALTON HTG & CLG
A-ABC APPLIANCE
PUMP & METER
PLUMB
PLUMB
PLUMB
PLUMB
VOID
PLUMB
S & W CONNECT
MECH
MECH
MECH
TANK REMOVAL
GOLDEN VALLEY HEATING MECH
ALPINE HTG MECH
FIRESIDE CORNER MECH
NORBLOM PLUMBING PLUMB
GRINNELL FIRE PROTECT REPAIR SPRINK
CUSTOM PLUMBING PLUMB
JULIA ANTONSEN PLUMB
PARADISE CONSTR MECH
z
0
0
~0000~0000
00~00~00000000
00~00~0000000
-r
I--
Z
0
0
L~
0
Q.
LU
w
.-I
I--
z
0
0
~ Q w z
z ~ ~
~w o w ~
~www
~ ~ z
~ ~ ~ 0 z 0
~ ~ z ~
~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z w 0 w
~ ~g~o ~ ~ o~ ~
z
QQQQQ
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
To: Mayor, City Council and City Manager
From: Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager
Date: January 6, 1999
Re: December 1998, Monthly Report
Well December was sure an adventurous and eventful month. First the not so good news. One
of our cash register went on the blink. Fortunately we have a maintenance contract so it didn't
cost any more to fix the other than what we pay for the yearly contract. Secondly, one of our beer
cooler condenser fans bit the dust. Just got it fixed a couple days ago. No maintenance contract
on this. I haven't received the bill yet so the cost is up in the air yet. And last but not least, the
biggest problem of the month was our furnace went down. For Good! No repairs could revive
it. It dated back to the 70's. So we were without heat for several days. As I write this I am
enjoying heat from our new carrier 7 1/2 ton heating and Air Conditioning unit. What joy! The
Cost? Considerable but necessary.
The good news. With the extra $13,000.00 in sales that we had over last year in December we
can afford to pay for these major repairs. For the month, gross sales were $181,000.00. Our best
month ever. Another record was shattered. Gross sales for New Year's Eve was a few dollars
shy of $21,000.00. So you have to take the good with the bad. December was a perfect example
of this adage.
prmted on recycled paper
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
JANUARY 8, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ~~,~ ~-.~-
· /,
FROM· JIM FACKLER, PARKS DIRECTOR'~;~/~/~-----
SUBJECT: DECEMBER 1998 MONTHLY R~ORT
PARKS;
With the mild fall and the beginning of winter the ice rinks
have been delayed. We did not have any snow to build berms
until after January 5th. We have begun flooding and the
weather will determine how fast we will have ice.
I have had to wait to do repairs to the trucks that I put
off due to the not replacing the 1990 Coverlet 3/4 ton 4x4
in 1999 and the high expense of the May / June storms of
1998. I had put used tires on the truck that I had hope to
send to the auction last fall but will have to put a new set
on for the upcoming season.
Please keep in mind that my 1998 budget will more than
likely be over. This is due to the storm expenditures and is
the first time the budget has been over since I came to
Mound in 1985.
CEMETERY;
The cemetery had two burials. A new updated map is being
done for plot locations.
DOCKS;
The dock inspector has been busy with the 1999 application
process. Again we have seen a increase in demand for docking
in the city program.
TREE REMOVAL;
Three trees were removed from city property and two trees
were marked on private property.
pr~nted on recycled paper
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 December, 1998
STATISTICS
The police department responded to 1,012 calls for service during the
month of December. There were 15 Part I offenses reported. Those
offenses included 1 criminal sexual conducts, 11 larcenies, 2 burglaries,
and 1 vehicle theft.
There were 44 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 5 child
abuse/neglect, 3 forgery/NSF, 5 damage to property, 6 liquor law
violations, 2 DUI's, $ simple assaults, 5 domestics (1 with assault), 4
harassment, 4 juvenile status, and 5 other offenses.
The patrol division issued 112 adult and 4 juvenile citations. Parking
violations accounted for an additional 26 tickets. Warnings were issued to
161 individuals for a variety of violations.
There was 1 juvenile arrested for felonies. There were 13 adults and 16
juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were 2 felony and an
additional 5 misdemeanor warrant arrests.
The department assisted in 7 vehicle acCidents, 1 with injuries. There
were 29 medical emergencies and 39 animal complaints. Mound assisted
other agencies on 24 occasions in December and requested assistance 6
times.
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT - December, 1998
III.
INVESTIGATIONS
The investigators worked on 2 criminal sexual conduct case and 5 child
protection issues accounting for 55 hours in December. Other cases
included arson, assault, robbery, credit card fraud, damage to property,
forgery, theft, trespassing, threats, missing person, narcotics, fraud,
harassment, and absenting.
Formal complaints were issued for criminal damage to property,
disorderly conduct, false information to police (gross misdemeanor),
obstructing legal process, gross misdemeanor driving after cancellation,
open bottle, exterior storage, proof of insurance, dog at large, and
underage consumption.
Personnel/Staffing
The department used approximately 59 hours of overtime during the
month of December. Officers used 72 hours of comp-time, 142 hours of
vacation, 100 hours of sick time, and 26 holidays. Officers earned 45
hours of comp time and 28 hours at double time. There were 5 standby
hours used.
IV. TRAINING
Two officers continue to attend the Wilson Supervisory Leadership
course. Individuals attended a course on Y2K issues for the state and our
computer system. Chief Harrell attended the ATOM winter training as an
instructor for "Ethics".
V. COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICERS
Officers Holzerland and Piper resigned in December and officers have
been required to assist in their duties until replacements can be found.
RESERVES
Not available at this time.
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
DECEMBER 1998
0~'~-~SES ~ EXCEPT- C~F.J~RED BY ARReSTeD
PART I _~.
Homicide
Criminal Sexual Conduct
Robbery
Aggravated Assault
Burglary
Larceny
Vehicle Theft
Arson
TOTA~
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 i 0 1
2 0 0 0 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
15 0 0 Z 0 I
PART II CRIMES
Child Abuse/Neglect 5 0 0 1 0
Forgery/NSF Checks 3 0 2 0 0
Criminal Damage to Property 5 0 2 1
Weapons 0 0 0 0 0
Narcotic Laws 0 0 0 0 1
Liquor Laws 6 0 0 6 3
DWI 2 0 0 2 2
Simple Assault 5 0 2 0 0
Domestic Assault 4 0 0 2 4
Domestic (No Assault) 1 0 0 0 0
Harassment 4 0 0 0 0
Juvenile Status Offenses 4 0 0 4 0
Public Peace 2 0 0 0 0
Trespassing 2 0 0 0 0
All Other Offenses 1 0 0 1 2
TOTAL
44 0 6 17
13 16
PART II & PART IV
Property Damage Accidents
Personal Injury Accidents
Fatal Accidents
Medicals
Animal Complaints
Mutual Aid
Other General Investigations
TOTAL
6
1
0
29
39
24
827
926
HCCP
Inspections
TOTAL
4
23
1,012
18
13
17
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT
DECEMBER 1998
GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY
Hazardous Citations
Non-Hazardous Citations
Hazardous Warnings
Non-Hazardous Warnings
Verbal Warnings
Parking Citations
DWI
Over .10
Propety Damage Accidents
Personal Injury Accidents
Fatal Accidents
Adult Felony Arrests
Adult Misdemeanor Arrests
Juvenile Felony Arrests
Juvenile Misdemeanor A~rests
Part I Offenses
Part II Offenses
Medicals
Animal Complaints
Ordinance Violations
Other Public Contacts
THIS
MONTH
57
55
14
81
76
26
2
2
6
1
0
2
18
1
16
15
44
29
39
23
827
YEAR TO
DATE
646
577
205
553
922
331
65
45
83
33
0
30
388
61
230
363
748
342
638
468
10,277
LAST YEAR
TO DATE
988
839
260
768
988
636
93
75
88
37
0
57
438
61
193
305
843
317
701
351
9,597
TOTAL
Assists
Follow-Ups
HCCP
Mutual Aid Given
Mutal Aid Requested
1,334
38
67
4
24
6
17,005
611
898
71
199
69
17,635
727
696
43
206
107
MOUND POLICE I}EPARTMENT
DECEMBER 1998
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 A~mViolations
Stop Sign Violations
Failure to Yield
Equipment Violations
H&R Leaving the Scene
No Insurance
Illegal or Unsafe Turn
Over the Centerline
Parking Violations
Crosswalk
Dog Ordinances
Code Enforcement
Seat Belt
Overweight Vehicles
Miscellaneous Tags
TOTAL
~ULT
2
2
0
6
2
36
1
0
18
1
4
1
4
0
12
1
0
26
1
0
14
1
0
138
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
DECI~MBER 1998
W~RNINGS
Insurance
Traffic
Equipment
Crosswalk
Animals
Trash/Derelict Autos
Seat Belt
Trespassing
Window Tint
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
WARRANT ARRRSTS
Felony
Misdemeanor
38
22
33
0
1
2.2
0
0
1
32
149
Juveniles
5
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
Run: 5-Jan-99 13:28 PRO03
Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 12/0i/98 - 12/31/98
Activ£t¥ coclee: All
S~a~us: All
Property Types: All
Property Descs: All
Brands: All
Models: All
officers/Badges: All
Prop Prop Inc no ISN Pr Prop Date Rptd Stolen
Tp Desc SN Stat Stolen Value
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Eh fore Property Report
**** Report Totals:
Date Recov'd
Recov'd Value
Page
Prop type Totals: 244 0
Prop type Totals: 300 0
Prop type Totals: 11,500 $,000
Prop type Totals: 689 0
Prop type Totals: 295 0
Prop type Totals: 1,030 0
Prop type Totals: 225 0
Prop type Totals: 1,000 1,000
Prop type Totals: 15 0
15,298 6,000
Quantity Act Brand Model Off-1 Off-2
Code Assnd Assnd
2.000
1.000
2.000
1.000
2.000
2.000
6.000
1.000
1.000
18.000
Ru~: 5-Jan-99 15:22 CFS08
Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 12/0i/98 - 12/31/98
Time range each day: 00:00 - 2]:59
How Received: All
Activity Resulted: All
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
9000 SPEEDING 36
9001 J-SPEEDING 2
9002 NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L 1
9012 OPEN BOTTLE 2
9014 STOP SIGN 4
9016 FAILURE TO YIELD 1
9018 EQUIPMENT VIOLATION 4
9024 ILLEGAL/UNSAFE TURNS 1
9030 CROSSWALK VIOLATION 1
9034 STOP ARM VIOLATION 1
9038 ALL OTHERTRAFFIC 1
9040 NO SEATBELT 1
9100 PARKING/ALL OTHER 18
9140 NO PARKING/WINTERHOURS 7
9150 NO TRAILER PARKING 1
9200 DAB/DAR/DAC 6
9201 J-DAS/DAR/DAC 1
9210 PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED 18
9211 J-PLATES/NO-EXPIRED-IMPROPER 1
9220 NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF 12
9240 CHAN~E OF DO. ICI~.~- 5
9301 LOST PERSONS I
Page
Run: 5-Jan-99 15:22 CFS08
Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 12/01/98 - 12/31/98
T~ange each day: 00:00 - 2~:59
HOW Received: All
Activi=y Resulted: All
Dispositions: All
Officers/Badges: Ail
Grids: All
Patrol Areas: All
Days of the week: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
9312
9313
9314
9315
9430
9450
9561
9564
9710
9730
9732
9800
9801
9802
9900
9904
9920
9921
POUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS 2
FOUND PROPERTY 5
POUND VEHICLES/IMPOUNDED 2
UNCLAIME DESTROYED ANIMALS 3
PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS 1
PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS 3
H/R PROPERTY DAMAGE ACC. 3
DO~ BITE 1
DOG BARKING 1
MEDICAL/ASU 1
MEDICALS 27
MEDICALS/CI 1
ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED 7
DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT 1
PUBLIC ASSIST 2
ALL HCCP CASES 4
OPEN DOOR/ALARMS 2
INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 14
INSPECTIONS CITATION 4
HANDGUN APPLICATION 9
OFP VIO. CRIME CONTROL & LAW ~ ACT OF '94 i
9932
9950
Page
Run: 5-Jan- 99 15: 22 CFS08
Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 12/01/98 - 12/31/98
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: All
Activity Resulted: All
Dispositions: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
Patrol Areas: All
Days of the week: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDEN~
9951 SEX OFFENDERS
9980 WA~R~tNTS
9990 MISC. VIOI~TIONS
9992 MUTUAL AID/8100
9993 ~3~;%LAID/6500
A2534
A5355
A5453
A5502
A5505
A5555
AL351
AL354
9994 MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER
ASLT 2-THREAT BODILY HARM-KNIFE ECT-CHLD-FAM
ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-CHLD-ACQ
ASLT 5-MS-FEAR BOD ~4-1=~%NDS-ETC-ADLT-STR
ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-NO WF_J%P-ADLT-ACQ
ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-NO WF-J%P-CH~-ACQ
ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-HANDS ETC-CHLD-ACQ
DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-AD-FAM
DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-CH-FAM
AL441 DOM ASLT-MS-FEAR BODILY HARM-OTH WEAP-AD-FAM
AL452 ASLT-DOMESTIC-MS-FEAR BODLY HRM-HNDS-ADLT-ACQ
AL454 DOM ASLT-MS-FEAR BODILY HARM-P~'DS-CH~FAM
B3394 BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT
B3494 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK WEJ%P-COM THEFT
C12C1 FORGERY-FE-U"/'r-POSS-PLAC~-CHK-201-2500-PER
J3501 TI~AFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE
J3E01 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MO~-UNK INJ-MV
1
7
7
10
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
Page
Run: 5-Jan-99 15:22 CFS08
Primary ISN's only:
Date Reported range:
range each day:
HOW Received:
Activity Resulted:
Dispositions:
Officers/Badges:
Grids:
Patrol Areas:
Days of the week:
No
00:00 - 23:59
All
All
All
All
All
All
Ail
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT A~YSIS BY ACTIVIT"f CODE
ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
TRAF-ACC-MS-UND AGE DRINK DRIVE-UNK-MOTOR VEH
CSC 1-CONTACT-ACQUAINT-UNDAGE-13-F
JUVENILE-;LLCOHOL OFFENDER
JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO
JUVENILE-CURFEW
JU%'ENILE-RUNAWAY
DISTURB PEACE-MS-DISORDERLY CONDUCT
J3T01
L1B71
M3001
M3005
M5313
M5350
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
4
1
1
1
4
2
2
1
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
N3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COI~qUNICATIONS
N3230 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARASS-ABUSE-THRT-MAIL-DELIV
N3370 VIOLATION OF ORDER FOR PROTECTION
Plll0 PROP DAMAGE-FE-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT
P3110 PROP DAMAOE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTEI~T
P3310 TRESPASS-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT
TC029 THEPT-501-2500-FE-BUILDING-OTH PROP
TC059 THEFT-501-2500-FE-YARDS-OTH PROP
TO031 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-COIN MACH-MONEY
TG059 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-YARDS-OTHR PROP
TG069 77{EFT-LESS 200-MS-MAILS-OT~ER PROP
TG151 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR V~/4-MONEY
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-OTHER
U3028 THEFT-MS-ISSUE WORTKL~SS C~ECK-200 OR LESS
VA024 VE~-MORE T~ 2500-FE-~t{EPT-SNOW
Page 4
R~n: 5-Jan-99 15:22 CFS08
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Primary ISNfs only: No
Date Reported range: 12/01/98 - 12/31/98
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: All
Activity Resulted: All
Diapoaitions: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
Patrol Areas: All
Days of the week: All
Enfora Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
Page
Report Totals: 315
Run: 5- Jan- 99 1:': 15 0FF0!
Primary ISN'e only: No
Date Reported range: 12/01/98 - 12/31/98
each day: 00:00 - 23=59
Dispositions: All
Activity codes: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
ACT ACTIVITY
CODE DESCRIPTION
A2534 A~LT 2-T~T BODILY HARM-KNIFE BCT-CHIZ)-FAM
A5355 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-CHLD-ACQ
A5453 ASLT 5-MS-FEAR BOD HR~-HANDS-ETC-ADLT-STR
A5502 ASLT 5-T~RT BODILY ~-NO WEAP-ADLT-ACQ
A5505 ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-NO WEAP-CHLD-ACQ
A5555 ASLT 5-THRT BODILY F2%RM-HANDS ETC-CHLD-ACQ
AL351 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-AD-FAM
DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-~%NDS-CH-FAM
AL441 DOM ASLT-MS-FEAR BODILY F~RM-OTH WEAP-AD-FAM
AL452 A~LT-DOMESTIC-MS-FEAR BODLY HRM-HNDS-ADLT-ACQ
AL454 DOM ASLT-MS-FEAR BODILY HARM-HANDS-C~-FAM
B3394 BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT
B3494 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT
C12C1 FORGERY-FE-UTT-POSS-PLACE-CHK-201-2500-PER
J3501 TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE
J3E01 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV
J3T01 TRAF-ACC-MS-UND AGE DRINK DRIVE-UNK-MOTOR VEH
L1BT1 CSC 1-CONTACT-ACQUAINT-UND AGE-13-F
M3001
M3005
M5350
N3030
JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER
JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO
JUVENILE-CURFEW
JUVENILE-RUNAWAY
DISTURB PEACE-MS-DISORDERLY ~ONDUCT
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Offense
OFFEN~E ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS
Page i
..... OFFENSES CLEARED ....
OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT
REPORT~ FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING A/~ST ~RREST CEPTION TOTAL CLF~D
i 0 I 0 0 i 0 I 100.0
i 0 i I 0 0 0 0 0.0
i 0 I i 0 0 0 0 0.0
I 0 i I 0 0 0 0 0.0
i 0 I 0 0 0 I i 100.0
I 0 I 0 0 0 i i 100.0
i 0 I 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
3 0 3 2 0 1 0 i 33.3
1 0 i 0 1 0 0 I 100.0
2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0
i 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 0.0
I 0 i i 0 0 0 0 0.0
I 0 i i 0 0 0 0 0.0
I 0 I i 0 0 0 0 0.0
2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0
2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0
2 0 2 0 i I 0 2 100.0
I 0 i i 0 0 0 0 0.0
2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 100.0
i 0 i 0 0 I 0 i 100.0
i 0 i 0 0 I 0 I 100.0
2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 100.0
1 0 I 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
Run: 5~Jan-99 12:15 OFF01
· Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 12/01/98 - 12/31/98
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
Dispositions: All
Activity codes: A/1
Officers/Badges: All
~rids: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Offense Report
OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS
Page 2
ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL
CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING
N3190
N3230
N3370
Plll0
P3110
P3310
TC029
TC059
TG031
TG059
TG069
TG151
TG159
U3028
VA024
..... OFFENSES CLEARED
ADULT JD~/ENILE BY EX- PERCENT
;tRItEST ;%R/~ST CEPTION TOTItL CLEARED
DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COI~UNICATIONS 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0.0
DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARASS-ABUSE-~"rlRT-MAIL-DELIV 1 0 I I 0 0 0 0 0.0
VIOLATION OF ORDER FOR PROTECTION 1 0 I 0 i 0 0 I 100.0
PROP DAMAGE-FE-PRIVATE-UNK IIFi'ENT I 0 I 0 I 0 0 I 100.0
PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 4 0 4 2 0 0 2 2 50.0
TRESPASS-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0
THEFT-501-2500-FE-BUILDING-OTH PROP 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0
THEFT-501-2500-FE-YARDS-OT~ PROP 1 0 i i 0 0 0 0
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-COIN MACH-MONEY 4 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0.0
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-YARDS-OTHR PROP I 0 i 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MAILE-OTHER PROP i 0 i I 0 0 0 0 0.0
~"6~FT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-MONEY i 0 i i 0 0 0 0 0.0
~{EFT-LESS 200*MS-I~TOR VEH-OTHER i 0 I i 0 0 0 0 0.0
T}i~FT-MS-ISSUE WORTHLESS CHECK-200 OR LESS 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 100.0
VEH-MORE THAN 2500-FE-THEFT-SNOW i 0 i I 0 0 0 0 0.0
Report Totals: 57 0 57 33 9 9 6 24 42.1
TO: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER
FROM:
GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR
RE:
DECEMBER FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT
Investment Activity
Bought:
Money Market 4M Plus 63,891
Money Market US Bank 125,767
Money Market Norwest 108
CP Norwest Bank 5.44% 815,212
CP Smith Barney 5.311% 312,857
CP Dain Rauscher 5.18% 299,387
Matured:
Money Market US Bank (120,000)
CP Smith Barney 5.578% (308,940)
During the month of December we prepared for the closing of the year
in the Finance Department. Changes will be implemented in the Payroll
System to conform to the regulations from the IRS. W-2's will be printed
and will be distributed in early January.
The 1999 City Budget was approved by the Council on December 8.
The levy was certified to the County, the truth in taxation report was filed
with the State Department of Revenue, and a summary report will be submitted
to the Office of the State Auditor. The same summary will be published in
the Laker in January of 1999.
It is again that time of the year when we finalize the year's activity,
summarize and analyze the numbers and prepare for the audit.
City of Mound
Monthly Report
Utilities
Month of: December 1998
Residential Commercial
No. of Customers:
Water
Sewer
Water Used:
(in 1,000 gallons)
Billing:
Water
Sewer
Recycle
Payments:
Water
Sewer
Recycle
01/06/1999
Utility-98
Total
,085 126 1,211
,088 126 1,214
20,225 2,840
Total
23,065
$34,857 $5,778 $40,635
$61,845 $16,391 $78,236
$5.818 $125 $5.943
$102.520 $22.294 $124.814
$32,939 $4,902 $37,841
$61,684 $13,169 $74,853
$5.665 $109 $5.774
$100.288 $18.180 $118.468
Total
MINUTES OF A MEETING
MOUND PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
DECEMBER '10, 1998
Present were: Chair: Peter Meyer; Commissioners: Tom Casey, Norman Domholt, Tom
Casey, Bev Botko; City Council Representative: Leah Weycker.
Absent was Christina Cooper (without prior notice.)
The following interested citizens were also present: Elizabeth and Jeff Bjerksett (2605
Tyrone Lane) and James Chelman (4786 Carrick Road). In addition, Tim Piepkorn from
the School District and Loren Gordon from HKG were present.
Chair Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
MINUTES
Motion made by Botko, seconded by motion Domholt, to accept the minutes
of the November 12, 1998 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission
meeting with the following changes:
Domholt expressed some confusion aboutwhich commissioner's term
is ending and exactly when.
Page 6, Commissioner Casey indicated that "Walner" should be
"Wolner."
Motion carried unanimously.
AGENDA CHANGES
The agenda was adopted with the following changes:
1. Chair Meyer added item 2a: "Green Thumb and Brown Hand" Award.
2. Chair Meyer added item 7z: 1999 Budget.
3. The order for items 3 and 4 were changed around.
4. Tyrone Park was moved to item 2b.
"GREEN THUMB AND BROWN HAND" AWARD
On behalf of the Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission, Chair Meyer
presented to City Council Representative Weycker the "Green Thumb and Brown Hand"
award for efforts "above and beyond the call of duty."
An actual copy of this award is attached to these minutes. However, below is the wording
taken from the award.
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission December 10, 1998
"In Special Recognition to: Leah Weycker for her efforts above and beyond the call
of duty to Mound Parks, including, but not limited to:
· N.C.A. Cleanup Day
· Initiating the cleanup of over 3 recycling bins of old, leaking
batteries at Lost Lake at this year's Annual Recycling Day
· Swenson Park Spruceup
· Repainting the Depot deck at Mound Bay Park
In honor of her dedication to our Mission on the Park and Open Space Commission
which in part is to strive to ~
Provide present and future residents an unpolluted environment.
Provide parks, which afford natural beauty as well as recreational
enjoyment.
This is the City of Mound's "Friends of the Parks, Green Thumb and Brown Hands
Award," very sacred and rarely handed out. Keep up the good work!
Thank You, Mound Park and Open Space Commission.
DISCUSS: TYRONE PARK
Chair Meyer introduced interested citizens Elizabeth and Jeff Bjerksett and James
Chelman. He covered the recent and on-going issues and vandalism at Tyrone Park.
Ms. Bjerksett reported their excitement when purchasing a home located near a park.
However, as the years have gone on, she is not sure it is a positive thing anymore. There
have been numerous problems including drugs, theft of private property, damage to the
park property as well as that of private residents, groups of juveniles hanging out, and
residents being shot at with b-b guns. The problems are significant and the police have
been called on numerous occasions.
Since the perpetrators involved are between the ages of 13 and 18, the police are very
limited in what they can do except turn them over to the Hennepin County Attorney's office
for action. A recent article in The Laker indicated how two of these offenders had been
turned in a combined total of 91 times in the past 27 months.
The citizens felt that some of the issues stemmed from the physical make-up of the park
itself. The "woodsiness" doesn't help. Additionally, it is felt there could be more lighting,
and control the "speeding" that takes place on or near the park. Additionally, there are
several weeds and tall grasses which need to be kept mown, especially the poison ivy.
Recently, an arson based fire burned and charred some of the playground equipment and
the unsafe equipment is left. Ms. Bjerksett stated she had a conversation with the Park
2
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission December 10, 1998
Director and was very frustrated that possibly this equipment may have to remain there
until next summer.
City Council Representative Weycker said she would follow-up on this issue and make
sure the damaged equipment is removed shortly or repaired to a safe condition.
Commissioner Casey suggested that the citizens organize a "Neighborhood Crime Watch"
and that all take responsibility for watching the area to avoid some of these issues. They
can talk with the secretary of the Mound Police Department to get additional information
and call the County Attorney's staff for additional suggestions.
Another suggestion was made to obtain a civil order for harassment control. Again, this
would be through the County Attorney's staff and a person files this independently of a
lawyer. While not a guarantee of protection, it at least would provide a firmer basis for
legal action to be taken if violated.
Finally, Casey suggested that this be a January agenda item for the Mound Park and Open
Space Commission. It was agreed that each member should visit Tyrone Park and come
prepared with suggestions. Ms. Bjerksett was invited back to this meeting to bring an
update.
REVIEW: 1998 SUMMER PARKAND BEACH PROGRAM, TIM PIEPKORN WESTONKA
COMMUNITY SERVICE
Mr. Piepkorn reviewed how the parks and beaches were staffed and what functions took
place at each for the summer of 1998. Costs to obtain capable staff were higher this year
and it was harder to obtain staff from Mound residents. They were successful in hiring
some teachers from outside the area and other personnel for around $7 - $10 per hour.
Additionally, cell phones became part of the necessary equipment at the park and beach
sites. The cost of the cell phones was minimal and served the intended purpose well.
He explained that parks were staffed pretty much as before: 4 parks were staffed in the
mornings and 4 were staffed in the afternoons. As children tended to do other things
(swim, etc.) in the afternoons, only about % the numbers of children seen in the mornings
were present in the afternoon. They will keep this in mind for next season when planning
activities and staff needs.
They discontinued the swimming lessons at the beach because experience suggested that
was not the best use of staff. Weather, no shows, etc. contributed to this decision. They
did add additional swimming lessons at the pool site.
One of the park supervisors will be moving and thus will not be there next summer. They
have replaced this person with a staff person from Watertown who worked the 1998
season.
Critical issues raised for future include:
3
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission December 10, 1998
Man holes in Hyland Park. This raises a safety and liability issue for Mound. They
are right in the middle of the play area. The Park Commission needs to take action
to prevent injury and make the park safer.
Mr. Piepkorn indicated that it would be nice to have some fencing installed between
softball fields and other facilities in a park. This would prevent outfielders from
running into other equipment or people.
Often activities are canceled because of rain and picnic shelters would make the
parks more useful in the summer. Rains are often shod and as such to cancel an
activity seems a waste when a "roof" would help keep that activity going. In
particular, the parks without many trees should be looked at for picnic shelters. The
recommendation for these shelters from Mr. Piepkorn is to have a roof and concrete
slab.
The Commission suggested that Mr. Piepkorn contact the DNR and see if anything can be
done to obtain "Trail Plans" moneys and additionally to see if Mound can work in
collaboration with them for these shelters.
The amount of money available for staff salary needs to be higher if the similar
levels of service are expected. Also, additional money in the budget for the use of
cell phones.
Finally, Mr. Piepkom will submit his bill to the Park Director. It will come in at the budgeted
level allowed by the City Council.
Weycker asked Mr. Piepkorn what the anticipated expenses were for next year. He
responded they are $50,000. There are many good opportunities to expand activities;
however, the budget and staff resources are very "thin."
Weycker indicated that the City Council passed a zero percent tax increase for next year
and a minimal (3%) staff salary increase.
DISCUSS: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - Loren Gordon
Mr. Gordon works with City Planner, Mark Kroeger.
to develop a comprehensive park plan for Mound.
background was developed in 1990.
His consulting firm has been asked
The plan currently being used as
Mr. Gordon explained that basically, the Metropolitan Council requires a new
comprehensive park plan every five years from each municipality and city in Minnesota.
The deadline for this was to have been the end of the year 1998. However, very few cities
have actually completed this process in Minnnesota.
The following items are yet to be accomplished for Mound's plan:
· Process ·
Goals, policies
4
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission December 10, 1998
· Land Usage ·
· Access element ·
Schedule
Infrastructure
Educational element
Implementation procedures
Mr. Gordon stated his purpose in coming to this meeting was to collect information and the
Park Commissioner's input for a 5 -10 year period. They should use the 1990 plan as a
basis to begin. He would then collate this information and other he has to put together a
preliminary draft plan for the February, 1999 deadline. Mound has an objective to have the
preliminary plan for comment done by the end of March for April/May review by the Metro
Council. The plan then comes back to City Council for review of the Metro Council's
comments and revision and finally goes to Metro Council later next summer.
Weycker indicated that the City Council had passed a resolution allowing the deadline for
this project to be September, 1999. She was concerned why that deadline now was
February. Mr. Gordon indicated that the need for review and return to the Council for
changes would take up the extra time.
Commissioner Casey asked what the driving process was and asked why the plan wasn't
done by the end of 1998. Mr. Gordon responded that additional mapping and data input
was needed to move forward. He also explained that this is not an easy process. Finally,
Weycker indicated the City Council's frustration with a mandated process from the State
and yet no State funds were set aside to accomplish it. However, if the process is not
done, funding from State agencies could be held up.
Questions were raised regarding a lack of an up front visionary process with citizens. The
Commissioners did not believe the citizens would feel that they had ownership in the
process if only asked about the plan after it had passed the City Council and the
Metropolitan Council.
After discussion about whether or not to have a public hearing to get input, the Commission
was reminded that the time table now does not allow for that process.
Mr. Gordon stated he feels that this version of the Comprehensive Plan is more a
"maintenance" one as opposed to the 1990 plan that was more visionary. The
Commission needs to look at updates and what has changed and make decisions for the
content of the new plan.
Casey asked about the rate of development in Mound, the amount that is developed in
response to page 9, third line of the 1990 plan. In 1990 it was 91%, what it is now will
determine the impact on the park and open spaces of Mound.
Mr. Gordon indicated that this type of information would be updated as they did their plan.
They are currently inventorying the lands, both public and private (open spaces and parks),
what is developed, what facilities are available, and so forth. This will be used to produce
some base numbers that will be available for the January meeting. The actual data is 1996
numbers.
5
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission December 10, 1998
Weycker indicated that the old equipment in the parks should be replaced with new
equipment or other facilities. The park commission needs make sure that the parks and
open areas are maintained better. (This is a "Pride in Ownership" issue.) There is concern
over the usage of fire lanes and lake access. These are public and there is a need to
make public areas public and take charge and not let these areas be taken over by private
parties. She made these comments in reference to page 46 of the 1990 plan.
This goes to what is the Commission's role and what do they see the needs of the
community are. Trails would be one answer. Weycker indicated that since we have lost
the ability to buy much new land, the Commission needs to make the parks more attractive
for usage, have more things available to do in the existing parks, make better use of the
space Mound has.
Domholt also commented that the parks and open areas should be kept clean and neat.
Get rid of damaged equipment and replace it with new or other facilities.
Casey, commenting on page 9-11, wanted to know what the current metropolitan open
system standards are for each type of park. Then the Commission needs to build
efficiency into the existing parks, especially in the community parks.
Page 11. In the Lost Lake plan, there should actually be less park land due to wetland that
are shown. The Plan needs to package wetland as wetland not park land. Questions
were raised as to what the suggested percentages of park land usage to residents actually
is.
A suggestion to have floating walkways/docks/board walks was made. Commenting on
page 15, paragraph 3, Casey asked whether the 26 acres of commons, 10% shoreline is
still the true need and what are the expectations for today's population and usage.
The Minnetonka Beach case was reviewed and how the fire lanes and access points were
taken over and how they are being used. This would be useful information when
developing the Plan.
Domholt asked what the purpose of this exercise was. (Reviewing 1990 plan and creating
a new comprehensive plan.) What will the information gathered be used for: a wish list,
park improvements, and what will be done as a result of this information.
It was discussed that this is a vision, long range plan, goals and actions for the park system
in the next 5-10 years. It is not necessarily a funding document. If this is the case,
Domholt pointed out that the involvement of citizens was necessary to help not only plan
the parks but maintain them. The parks need more maintenance than the City can afford,
citizens need to get together and help maintain and fix up the parks and open spaces.
There needs to be "personal neighborhood involvement" in the local parks.
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission December 10, 1998
The idea of park signage and information centers was raised again. This has been
discussed in the past. It was mentioned that, perhaps, the Park Commission should have
local neighbors "chairing" a park.
Casey cited pages 18-20. He wanted to know what the change in the short fall numbers
was, what the demand for each park site is, and what demands can be met by the regional
parks. He asked what demands have changed and further asked what percentage of
Mound residents are using or going outside of Mound to get their park/recreation needs
met. Additionally, what percentage of the people using Mound parks are residents of other
cities. These needs must be taken into consideration. How are the parks used
individually, which ones are used more often than others, and what facilities are not being
used. Commissioners asked if a survey of the Mound citizens has been completed of what
they need and want.
It was discussed that neighborhood parks should be designed for use by younger children
and young teens. Facilities such as baseball field, basketball courts, benches, skating rink
("bare bones"), and more lights. The parks need to be safe, clean, and drug-free. Aisc,
it is important to inventory all existing park equipment, land, etc., per Commissioner Casey.
He commented that the City needs to know supply before one can meet demand.
Meyer stated he feels there is a shortage of ball fields, soccer fields, basketball courts, and
football. This may mean working with other communities to meet the demand. Perhaps,
according to Casey, there are too many tennis courts.
Discussions will continue in next meetings and be passed on to Gordon through the Park
Director for inclusion in the planning process. A professional planner is useful since they
can help put the needs, etc., in writing.
Motion was made by Casey, seconded by Botko, to invite Mr. Gordon back to
the January meeting of the Mound Advisory Park and Open Space
Commission. Botko seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSS: 2217 CHATEAU LANE MEMOS
It was noted that pages 72-75 of the meeting packet contained a memorandum offering
the City of Mound a 40' x 120' lot for the sum of $1.00 by Sunshore Partners. It is located
between two small residential lots. One of these homes does not meet guidelines for size
and eventually, the house would have to be renovated to be made conforming. The
offered lot is not buildable, however, should things change in the future with the adjacent
lots, this situation could change. The Park Director recommends that the City go ahead
and buy the property for $1.00.
Weycker also recommended that the Park and Open Space Commission move to obtain
this land for park services.
Motion made by Casey, seconded by Domholt, that the City proceed with the
purchase of this lot for the sum of $1.00 and dedicate it for park land usage.
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission December 10, 1998
Motion carried with ayes from Domholt, Botko, and Casey. The nay votes
were Weycker and Meyer.
'1999 BUDGET
This is an information only item as it was indicated by Weycker that the 1999 Budget is a
"done deal." Weycker called attention to bullet #3 that was made less specific from original
budget documents and will allow the Park Commission to use the money for more general
purposes.
It was requested that the 1999 Budget be included as a January agenda item.
DISCUSS: JANUARY POSC AGENDA
It was requested that Staff gather information on park usage. Perhaps get volunteers to
fix up and donate to service foundation or use as something like "yellow bike program" from
other municipalities' example. The following items will be placed on the January, 1999,
POSC Agenda:
1999 Budget
Tyrone Park
Bicycle recycle program (bicycles remaining from police auction)
Park Service Program
- Discuss ideas on how to clean up parks, stop vandalism, steer problem
youths to helping make the parks better rather than damaging them, etc.
New member handouts and swearing in of new members according to Section 255.
Comprehensive Plan: allocate as much time as possible in this meeting for Mr.
Gordon to finish from tonight. Commissioners should be thinking of items and
perhaps visit parks between now and then.
Standard "January" items per Park Director such as work rules, new chair, and
officers
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
g)
h)
City Council Minutes
COW Minutes
DCAC Minutes
Planning Commission Minutes
Rules of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District adopted on November
24, 1998
Monthly Events Calender
Section 255:00 Park and Open Space Advisory Commission
Parks Information
Resolution to appoint Domholt and Cooper
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission December 10, 1998
Casey is on the citizen's committee for the Watershed District and will share what he learns
in these meetings with the Commission.
REPORTS
a) City Council Representative
Weycker reported she talked with Al Green and suggested that because of his background
and previous experience on the Park Commission that he would be a good speaker to
have in at some meeting.
Weycker stated she is working with the City Council on who would be the best
representative from that body on the Park and Open Space Commission for next year.
She would enjoy it but, perhaps, this would be a good opportunity for the new
councilmember, Bob Brown, to learn how the Commission operates.
Weycker stated she received estimates for Island Park renovations for $50,000. It breaks
out as follows:
$
5,000
6,500
8,000
11,000
1,800
$33,000
Electric
Paint
Heating (includes furnace, air conditioning, and duct
work.)
Plumbing (includes fixtures, sink, and hot water
and handicap bathroom)
Appliances
Net total, but work on the roof must also be done and
the estimated total would then be $50,000
Weycker also covered the City Council's recommendations of zero percent increase in
taxes/funding for next year's budget.
It was suggested that as many Park Commissioners as possible attend the next Planning
Commission's meeting on Monday, December 14, 1998. The Lynwood site will be
considered which was "passed by the voters," however, is a "large can of worms."
B) Park Director
There was no Park Director's report.
Chair Meyer reported that there were volunteers to staff local skating rinks on Friday and
Saturday evenings and urged the participation of other park commissioners.
ADJOURN
Motion was made by Weycker, seconded by Botko, to adjourn the meeting at
10:42 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
9
CITY OF MOUND
DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
DECEMBER 17, 1998
Present were: Chair Mark Goldberg, Commissioners Frank Ahrens, Orvin Burma, Jim
Funk, and Dennis Hopkins, and Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present was
Park Director Jim Fackler.
Excused: Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey
Chair Goldberg called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MINUTES
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Funk, to approve the minutes of the
November 16, 1998 DCAC meeting as amended: Page 5, "no decision will be
made without input from affected neighborhood citizens." Motion carried
unanimously.
AGENDA CHANGES
Fackler advised that Commissioner Hanus will arrive late and would like to be present to
discuss items #7 and #9. It was agreed that these two items would be discussed at the
end of the meeting, when he is able to be present.
A draft letter for non-conforming encroachment, to introduce the program was added to the
agenda.
Agenda approved as amended.
DISCUSSION OF BUILDING ON CITY PROPERTY
It was noted that a storage area and driveway were built on City property this summer,
without a permit. Staff was directed to look into this situation and provide more information
at the next meeting.
WELCOME NEW COMMISSIONER
Chair Goldberg welcomed newly appointed Commissioner Orvin Burma and pointed out
the value of adding the opinions of someone who was on a multiple slip dock.
DOCKS CAPITAL OUTLAY, 1998
Fackler advised that the budget has been approved and the cost of multiple slip docks is
currently the only Capital Outlay. It was noted that the lake level seems to cause some
problems with multiple slip docks and this should be taken into account when building new
ones.
ADDITIONAL MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK LOCATIONS
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission December 17, 1998
Different areas where there are possibilities of building multiple slip docks were reported
on including Twin Park, Highland Avenue, and Carlson Park. The suggestion was made
that the Commissioners should to visit each site, to better make a decision.
Commissioner Ahrens stated he was under the impression that adding multiple slip docks
was to solve existing problems, not to suggest multiple slip docks to citizens who may not
want it. This was the original purpose of the multiple slip dock program. However, it may
also be used to add more dock space so more people are able to join the dock program.
When considering a multiple slip dock location, input from the area residents will be given
high priority, as will current City ordinances and setbacks, to make sure all new areas will
meet requirements. Currently, locations A, B, C, D, and H do not meet setback
requirements.
Carlson Park area was also discussed, as being a problem area. It was noted that people
fish from the commons dock there. Since setback problems exist there and a multiple dock
would be desirable, discussion was held about the option of redoing the area and meet the
setback requirements without ending up with less docks.
The idea of a shuttle boat from downtown to the Mound Bay Park dock was an idea that
was brought up but it was determined this feature needs more discussion.
Fackler advised there are approximately 70 dock sites, out of 450, which need to meet
setback requirements. All these locations should be looked at and considered for multiple
slip docks but they should be looked at first so setback requirements can be considered
and possibly rectified. Fackler explained that this is the most important reason to look at
the locations with multiple slip docks in mind, not simply to add more dock spaces.
It was discussed that improvements need to be very specifically documented so that it can
be proved that an effort by the City is being made to conform to setbacks. LMCD may
insist on setbacks sometime in the near future, and the City needs to be able to prove a
willingness to conform.
It was discussed that the West Crescent Wildlife Area is a very large area and may be a
potential site. Paths exist through there now and it could possibly be used for docks. The
area between Jennings Bay and West Arm is also a potential site for additional dock
space. These areas need to be considered and studied. He advised that Mound Bay Park
is also an option, however, it is very close to the beach. These areas can be considered
for dock space, or for open space, or some other public use. All areas can be examined
individually and the best use for each property found.
Fackler explained that the next step is to locate exactly where the setback problems are
and examine the survey to consider each location. Staff will provide a "problem survey"
to examine specific sites and specific setback problems.
DISCUSS POSSIBLE SURVEY ON DOCK PROGRAM USERS
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission December 17, 1998
It was noted that the last survey was done about three years ago. A new survey could
measure overall satisfaction, and look for any specific problems. The survey can be kept
short and possibly include questions regarding multiple docks to help target areas that may
be more receptive to this.
It was discussed that a postcard-type survey card could be sent to a random sample of
dock program members, or a survey could be included with the yearly dock application
forms. This would not be a massive survey, simply a small questionnaire with specific
direction.
Consensus was reached that all multiple slip dock owners should be
surveyed to find out their overall satisfaction level. This also will help decide
on the location of more multiple slip docks. All agreed that this is the most
important information needed. Commissioner Ahrens stated he will write a
draft of the questionnaire for multiple slip dock owners.
1999 DOCK APPLICATION FORMS
Changes in the dock application form were highlighted and discussed. The order of the
questions and some terminology was changed.
STORM DAMAGE REFUND TO DOCK FUND
Fackler advised that State money has not yet been received but the Federal money has
been received. These monies will reimburse the General Fund and then be transferred to
the Dock Fund.
APPROVE 1999 DOCK BUDGET
Fackler explained that the pages for the 1999 dock budget have not yet been received. He
pointed out that the Capital Outlay fund is down approximately $2,500 for a computer.
Otherwise, everything else remains the same. He noted that storm damage caused
overspending but when refunds are transferred, it may be within budget for 1998.
Specific areas of the budget were discussed and all areas were agreed upon.
ENCROACHMENT FEE
Ahrens reviewed the language of Subd. 3d - "Repairs equal to 50% or more depreciated
replacement value" and explained that the question is regarding how this value will be
calculated. Past issues have had this same question, but the wording is consistent with
other structures. Usually past tax value has been used to arrive at this value.
Consensus was reached to invite the public to come to a meeting to discuss
this fee and the Commission can answer any questions at that time. This
information will be discussed more in depth at the next meeting and may be
put on a future agenda for public input.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission December 17, 1998
NEXT AGENDA
Fackler reviewed the topics for the January 1999 agenda, some of which involves new year
business:
· Election of officers
· Review of 1999 agenda calendar
· Review of work rules
Other business, as discussed in this meeting, will also be added.
ADJOURN
Motion was made by Ahrens, seconded by Funk, to adjourn the meeting at
10:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
h A
R T E R
E D
470 Pillsbury. Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.com
'RECEIVED
,3 11998
JAMES M. STROMMEN
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9233
email: jstrommen@kennedy-graven.com
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
SRA City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates
Jim Strommen
December 30, 1998
Notice of' SRA Annual Meeting
The annual meeting of the Suburban Rate Authority will be held on January 20, 1999,
beginning at 6:15 p.m. at the Hopkins Center for the Arts. (Map attached).
We have an interesting and entertaining annual meeting this year which will include dinner,
music by a Hopkins High School string ensemble, a tour of the new Hopkins Center for the Arts
in th~ City of Hopkins, a special guest, Gregory Scott, of the Public Utilities Commission and a
full agenda of interesting developments and issues facing SRA cities.
To obtain a preliminary head count of SRA delegates who will be able to attend, we ask that
upon receipt of this notice you call 337-9279 or email Shannon Stang. (Jim Strommen's
secretary) at sstang~kennedy-graven.com regardina your intention to attend or not.
Your participation at this meeting will be greatly appreciated.
JM5-155630
AGENDA
OF THE SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY
ANNUAL MEETING
Hopkins Center for the Arts, Hopkins, Minnesota
January 20, 1999
6:15 p.m.
(The meeting will be preceded by a brief tour of the Hopkins Center for the Arts starting at
6:15 p.m. After dinner, the meeting will begin.)
1. ROLL CALL:
0
INTRODUCTIONS AND COMMENTS BY
COMMISSIONER GREGORY SCOTT: (See Memo #6)
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
4. REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
5. COMMUNICATIONS:
6o
ELECTION OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:
-(See Memo #1)
OLD BUSINESS:
-Electric Undergrounding (See Memo #3)
-Status of PUC Right of Way Rules Proceeding (See Memo #4)
-612/951/952 Area Code Matter (See Memo #5)
-US West Alternative Forum of Regulation Plan (See Memo #7)
-US West Generic Cost Proceeding (See Memo #8)
0
NEW BUSINESS:
-Demand Side Management (See Memo #2)
0
TIME, FORMAT AND LOCATION OF NEXT MEETING:
-(See Memo g9)
10. CLAIMS
11. ADJOURNMENT
JMS-155632
H A
~,en
R T E R
E D
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.corn
JAMES M. STROMMEN
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9233
email: jstrommen~,kennedy-graven.corn
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
SPA City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates
Jim Strommen
December 30, 1998
Nominations for 1999 £xecutive Committee
(MEMO #1)
Each year, a slate of seven executive committee members is nominated and elected at the annual
meeting. The current executive committee has only six members because Tim Kruikshank resigned
from his position at the City of Lauderdale. Seven members are required in the bylaws. There is
one open position, as well as the possibility of electing new members.
The current composition of the executive committee is as follows:
Jim Keinath- Chair
Jim Gates- Vice Chair
John Wallin- Treasurer/Secretary
Matt Fulton
Steve O'Malley
Dave Osberg
This committee has been invaluable to me between quarterly meeting to give direction when
decisions are necessary before a quarterly meeting. I have attempted to limit the inconvenience of
the executive committee role by eliminating executive meetings before quarterly meetings. The
executive committee meets prior to the annual meeting where, among other things, a new slate of
executive committee members is recommended. The main component to executive committee
participation is communications between quarterly meetings and reaction to issues.
We urge anyone who is interested in serving on the executive committee to contact me at (612) 337-
9233/istrommenC_a)kennedv-araven.com or any of the current executive committee members. I should
also note that the inclusion of elected officials on the executive committee is always encouraged,
particularly as the chair. While we know all of you are busy, this position should not entail
significant new responsibilities.
JM5-155634
5U160-3
Keng?.q .
CHARTERED
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-931o fax
e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.com
MEMORANDUM
JAMES M. STROMMEN
Attome.~ at ka~
Direct Dial (612) 337-9233
email: jstrommen~kennedy-graven.com
(MEMO #2)
TO:
FROM:
SRA City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates
James Strommen
DATE:
RE:
December 30, 1998
Demand Side Management/Potential Double Rate Recovery by Utilities
ACTION ITEM
In December, the SRA was contacted by a firm known as Dahlen Berg, a Minneapolis financial
analyst company that participates in utility rate review. Dahlen Berg as been active in a number
of areas typically on behalf of large end-users, business or industrial interests.
Dahlen Berg has requested that the SRA consider participation in one or two issues Dahlen Berg
regarded as important to all ratepayers, including SRA residential and business ratepayers.
Dahlen seeks financial support from the SRA to continue its efforts on behalf of consumers,
residential and business. I bring the so-called Demand Side Management issue to the full SRA
for its consideration.
After conferring with the executive committee, I was given authority to attend a December 17,
1998, meeting with the PUC and interested parties to gain more information about one of the two
issues raised by Dahlen Berg~double recovery by utilities in demand side management (DSM),
specifically, the conservation improvement programs (CIP).
In 1991, the legislature passed a law requiring all gas and electric utilities to invest up to 1.5% of
their gross annual revenues (2% for NSP) on CIP programs, also known as DSM. These
programs include many of the types of opportunities you might be familiar with as a residential
ratepayer--interruptible rates, home insulation, rebate on purchases that increase efficiency on
heating and cooling. The law provides that the utilities are reimbursed for CIP investments
dollar for dollar.
In addition, the PUC has discretion to reimburse or compensate the utilities for "lost margins" on
kilowatt hours or BTU's that were "lost" by promoting conservation. The theory is that when a
JMS-155670
170
Demand Side Management/Double Recovery by Utilities
December 30, 1998
Page 2
customer is given incentive to conserve and use e.g., less kilowatts, that is a kilowatt lost by the
electric utility, not only in the year the ratepayer conserves, but in each year thereafter.
As a result, the electric, and to a lesser extent gas, utilities have been recovering increasingly
large lost margin amounts from the ratepayer. These lost margins are reviewed annually by the
PUC and either allowed or disallowed. Dahlen Berg has been active on behalf of several large
users in objecting to the lost margins, which for NSP is now approaching 4% of the ratepayer
bill, labeled as a resource recovery adjustment. The cumulative amount that is being sought for
1998 and going forward has been estimated by the Department of Public Service as reaching two
hundred million in additional rates from all ratepayers over a five year period, if nothing is done
about the "lost margin" analysis.
The major premise of Dahlen Berg,, with support from the DPS and the attorney general, is that
these lost margins are not lost at all. The electric utility has an increasing ability to sell the
unpurchased kilowatt-hours on the wholesale market and recover its cost. Dahlen Berg also
notes that the load has been increasing each year and therefore the "lost" kilowatt-hours have
been potentially non-existent.
CURRENT STATUS
The current PUC proceeding involves determining whether to allow these lost margins for 1998
and to set policy for the future of the CIP program. The issue is most evident to large end users
that must pay thousands of dollars for the conservation programs under the CIP-DSM
requirements. This involves all gas and electric utilities throughout the state. Though this is not
an issue that uniquely affects the SRA, it affects nearly every SRA resident and business in
substantial amounts of money over the next five years under the current program.
SRA ISSUE
Dahlen Berg has requested financial support from the SRA and its name as an additional
intervenor in this action. Currently, the multiple utilities are lined up on one side. The consumer
side is represented by the Department of Public Service and the attorney general. Dahlen Berg's
clients are strictly businesses. The issue is as significant to residential ratepayers collectively as
it is to businesses. Dahlen Berg believes that the addition of the SRA will add incremental
weight to the arguments made that the lost margins are not an appropriate expense for ratepayers
to incur, especially for electric utilities. The clients of Dahlen Berg have agreed to contribute an
amount towards the financial analysis not to exceed $7,500.00.
RECOMMENDATION
The SRA must always choose the matters in which it participates carefully with a limited budget
and numerous expensive rate proceedings. The issue must be sufficiently related to SRA
interests to warrant the cost. Issues like right-of-way management, rates that uniquely affect
SRA residents and businesses, cost pass through to municipal governments and area code
boundaries all relate to SRA interests.
JMS-155670
S U 160-3
Demand Side Management/Double Recovery by Utilities
December 30, 1998
Page 3
The SRA has in the past, however, participated in issues of general ratepayer interest and import,
e.g., the gas customer charge, recovery of accumulated medical benefit costs from ratepayers.
Generally, the SRA allows matters not uniquely affecting the SRA to be advanced throughout the
Department of Public Service or the attorney general. This is an issue that involves significant
dollars to SRA ratepayers and good advocacy by Dahlen Berg on behalf of the consumers. The
matter is still unresolved and runs the risk of being determined based on the sheer quantity of
utilities represented and their influence with the PUC.
I believe it is appropriate to support Dahlen Berg's effort with a financial commitment of
$5,000.00. Dahlen Berg would then represent the SRA in addition to its other clients, which I do
not believe create any conflict of interest. To save cost, I would monitor only, rather than
actively participate and determine whether SRA interests were properly represented and whether
it was appropriate to continue participation. My observation from the December 17 hearing is
that Dahlen Berg and other consumer advocates have convinced the PUC of the merit, of not
continuing the lost margin recovery as currently designed. Yet, the danger is that the PUC will
let the utilities off the hook for the accumulated "lost" margin costs from January 1, 1998 going
forward. This is a significant amount of money that should not be disregarded in fixing the
global problem of promoting conservation without penalizing the utilities or customers.
In other words, this is a worthy effort and a support amount that comes well within the resources
of the SRA for 1999. There will be some necessary participation on my part, however, including
written comments that may be appropriate from a policy perspective. I would estimate that my
participation would not exceed $5,000.00. Considering the fact that the SRA is not expending
significant amounts to contest the PUC right-of-way management rules, this is a reasonable
substitute.
JM5-155670
SU160-3
R T
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.com
MEMORANDUM
SPA City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates
James Strommen
December 30, 1998
Electric Facilities Undergrounding Update
JAMES M. STROMMEN
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612~ 33'7-9233
ernail: jstrommen~kennedy-graven.com
(MEMO #3)
As of the date of this memorandum, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has not decided the NSP v.
City of Oakdale appeal. The City of Oakdale case involves an ordinance requiring
undergrounding of new electric facilities carrying 15,000 volts or less, or upon a public
improvement requiting relocation of electric facilities.
At issue in this case is the authority of a municipality, rather than the PUC, to require
undergrounding of an electric utility and potentially not reimburse the utility to the additional
cost. NSP and PUC argue that that is NSP and the PUC's decision, not the City's. A further
issue that may be decided by the Court of Appeals is whether the City must reimburse the NSP
for an undergrounding. The City is arguing that the exercise of a police power does not require
reimbursement of the object of (NSP) that police power. The PUC retains its authority to
approve a petition for recovery of cost by the utility, which may be from the customers within the
city imposing the undergrounding requirement. The difference becomes a ratepayer versus
taxpayer reimbursement.
I argued the case before the Court of Appeals on November 10. 1998. The Court of Appeals has
up to 90 days to issue a decision. I am cautiously optimistic that the decision will be favorable to
the City, at least in several respects. This is a jurisdictional battle between the PUC,
municipalities and utility serving municipalities. It is closely related to the types of authority
issues that arise in the PUC right-of-way rulemaking proceeding. (See Memo #4).
When the decision is issued and the rights of cities are more clarified, cities will be in a position
to enact ordinances consistent with the Court of Appeal's decision and legislate an orderly
undergrounding process. The PUC's interpretation of the 1997 right-of-way legislation may also
affect this matter, however.
JMS-155656
5U160-3
I:t T
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.com
MEMORANDUM
JAMES ~I. STROMMEN
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9233
email: jstrornmen~kennedy-graven.com
(MEMO #4)
TO:
FROM:
SRA City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates
James Strommen
DATE:
RE:
December 30, 1998
PUC Right-of-Way Rules Proceeding; Post-Rulemaking Model ROW Ordinance
ROW RULEMAKING
This is a report on the status of the extensive right-of-way rulemaking proceeding that is nearing
completion at the PUC level. The remaining issues are very important to local government units
and are the focus of the current "contested case hearing." The hearing will be held on January 6
and 7, 1999, before an administrative law judge, and will eventually reach the pUc for a final
decision. Any decision by the PUC that is objected to by a party may be appealed to the Court of
Appeals immediately following. Thus, there may be a court clarification of the scope and
meaning of the PUC rules by the end of 1999 with possible adjustments at the legislature in this
year's session or in the year 2000.
Because of the vigorous negotiation process and active participation by city engineers, the
proposed rules themselves have been regarded by reviewing cities as very workable.
Accordingly, there are only minor exceptions being taken to the rules as they are now proposed.
At issue, however, is the scope of PUC authority over the right-of-way. The PUC has taken a
very expansive position regarding its authority to issue rules on many subjects and to exercise
authority over gas, electric and cable companies, in addition to telecommunication right-of-way
users.
With SRA assistance, the League of Cities is objecting to the scope of rules (e.g., fees,
relocation, abandonment of facilities and right-of-way vacation and the broad inclusion of non-
telecommunication right-of-way users in the rules. The latter issue is important for a number of
reasons, including the potential result of the PUC being the "court" of first review of any dispute
between a gas and electric company and a city, franchise or no franchise. The PUC was given by
the legislature authority to review disputes between cities and telecommunications carders. This
review authority allows the PUC to enjoin the City, fine a city, and impose civil penalties or
other "appropriate" relief. To expand this authority into the gas, electric and even cable area is
JM5-155659
5U160-3
PUC Right-of-Way Rules Proceeding
December 30, 1998
Page 2
beyond what the legislature contemplated and a limitation on current city authority over gas and
electric utilities.
While these issues are being vigorously pursued, the SRA is not shouldering the cost of these
appeals. Following the October quarterly meeting, the executive committee recommended that
the SRA allow the League of Cities to pursue the above issues, provided they were vigorously
pursued. I am working closely with the League on these issues and the League is taking an
appropriate lead in clarifying the scope of the PUC in the fight-of-way management area. One of
the considerations was the fact that SRA cities have separately contributed to the League on
these issues and should avoid duplicating effort where possible. The current posture of this
matter is in the best interests of SRA cities both from a fiscal and issue standpoint.
The important thing to note in the jurisdictional issue is that the proposed rules can easily take
the form of ordinances passed by the local government units rather than through a rule governed
by the PUC. This allows the local government units to fulfill the legislative requirements of
uniformity where appropriate without giving up the process of establishing and amending right-
of-way management ordinances.
Once the PUC becomes the decision making body on all right-of-way management rules and
interpretation of proper conduct, cites have lost significant authority in that area. While that was
understood to some extent in the telecommunications area, that was never the intention in gas,
electric and cable. In sum, at issue here is a delineation of PUC and local government unit
authority of right-of-way management.
MODEL RIGHT-OF-WAY ORDINANCE
ACTION ITEM
The League is further refining the model right-of-way ordinance in light of the rulemaking
developments. Some Twin City municipalities have already enacted comprehensive right-of-
way management ordinances, including the Cities of Crystal and Bloomington. To accelerate the
process of developing a model ordinance, it may be worthwhile to discuss a joint effort between
the SRA and the League in establishing a model right-of-way ordinance. This would be similar
to what was done in gas and electric franchises and for water tower leases. Further, the ROW
rules will also have an effect on the terms incorporated into gas and electric franchises. I may be
appropriate to jointly amend the gas and electric franchises also.
Your reaction to these proposals would be helpful. If the SRA decides to explore this further
authorization should be given through Board action at the annual meeting.
JPD-152601
Iq A
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
£ R
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.com
MEMORANDUM
SRA City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates
Jim Strommen
December 30, 1998
Area Code Developments
JAMES M. STROMMEN
Attorney at [.aw
Direct Dial (612) 337-9233
email: jstrommen~;kennedy-graven.com
(MEMO #5)
ACTION ITEM
You may have read in the newspapers that the PUC made a "surprise" decision to accelerate
further division of the Metropolitan area by area code. In an Order dated December 15, 1998, the
Commission decided, tentatively, to implement a "second phase" division adding the 952 area
code in Minneapolis, Richfield and Fort Snelling by the year 2001. This would result in three
geographically based area codes, along municipal lines; 612, 65 t and 952. The Order opens this
decision for comments by interested parties later this year.
The December 15 Order was precipitated by an FCC decision limiting state authority to preserve
numbers by number pooling or other plans that could have extended the period of number of
availability. As you know, the area code problem is based on the high demand for new numbers
and the "exhaustion" of those numbers in densely populated area codes. In 1995, the 612 area
code was split to include a 320 area code. In early 1998, the addition of the 651 area code along
municipal boundaries was ordered by the PUC and is now in place. The December 15, 1998,
Order will tentatively implement another geographically based area code split along municipal
lines in the year 2001. The Order requires calling traffic studies to be conducted and submitted
by February 16, 1999. From this information, the PUC will confirm that this plan is appropriate
for a new area code.
The fact that the SRA position prevailed in the earlier 651 proceeding is paying dividends in the
December 15 Order where the PUC provides that:
The Commission will implement Phase II of the (612) area code relief plan by
separating Minneapolis and Richfield (by municipal boundaries) and Fort Snelling
(by wirecenter) from the remainder of the new 612 area code. (December 15,
1998 Order at paragraph 1 (a)).
JMS-155645
SU160-3
Area Code Developments
December 30, 1998
Page 2
The wirecenter boundary of Fort Snelling does not affect municipal boundaries or population
areas.
Note, however, that the PUC does not rule out the possibilities of choosing an area different than
Minneapolis-Richfield-Fort Snellint or implementing the previously rejected "overlay"
approach. The PUC provides in its memorandum that:
While the Commission at this time finds that its proposed relief plan is the most
logical and workable plan available, the Commission remains open to the
possibility, upon reconsideration, that an adjusted "carve out" area may be
preferable, or even that a delayed overlay or other overlay may in the end prove
the best choice for further area code relief. (Order at 6).
The overlay was strongly opposed by the business community and most municipalities. It is
likely that US West will again argue that the overlay is the most appropriate approach.
The SRA clearly needs to monitor the development of this issue, and a motion allowing that
participation is necessary at the annual meeting. A change in area code deviating from the
proposed area, deviating from municipal boundaries or implementing the overlay would affect
most of the Minneapolis area SRA cities in some way. The current proposal is ideal because it
changes no area codes for any SRA city.
JM$.155645
5U 160-3
T E
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 td¢?honc
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: attys~kennedy-graven.com
MEMORANDUM
SRA City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates
James Strommen
December 30, 1998
SRA Guest--Commissioner Gregory Scott
JAMES M. STROMMEN
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial ~612) 337-9233
email: jstrommen~kennedy-graven.com
(MEMO #6)
We are very pleased to have Gregory Scott of the Public Utilities Commission as the SRA
special guest at its annual meeting. Leroy Koppendrayer, a former legislator from the Princeton
area had also accepted the invitation but is unable to attend. A couple of notes are appropriate
regarding the Commissioner's presence at the meeting.
Mr. Scott was a lawyer in private practice before being appointed to the PUC. He was
reappointed recently by Govemor Arne Carlson for an additional six-year term but now is subject
to Governor Ventura's decision because the appointment is to be made after Govemor Carlson
leaves office. Commissioner Scott has been well received by both the utility companies and
consumers that appear before him. I have found him to be extremely well prepared and
innovative in dealing with the issues that come before the Commission, in which the SRA has
participated. Please introduce yourselves to him and make him feel welcome.
It is important that municipal elected officials and staff demonstrate a level of knowledge and
interest in the utility area, particularly fight-of-way issues. While we cannot discuss the PUC
right-of-way rules presently before the PUC in a contested matter, the SRA's interest in such
issues on behalf of the cities is appropriate to discuss.
There is a state law regarding what is known as "ex parte contacts" with commissioners on
matters before the Commission. You cannot advance any argument of the SRA or "lobby"
commissioner to make any particular decision on the right-of-way or area code issues. You
might recall when US West and NSP were severely reprimanded in 1987 for lobbying
commissioners on matters then currently before the Commission.
If you have any questions regarding this, please call.
JMS-155636
SU160-3
R T
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.corn
MEMORANDUM
SRA City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates
Jim Strommen
December 30, 1998
US West Alternative Regulation Plan
JAMES ,M. STROMMEN
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612} 337-9233
email: jstrom men~'kennedy-graven.com
(MEMO #7)
On December 21, 1998, US West accepted the PUC modifications to its proposed alternative regulation
plan (AFOR) to be implemented early this year.
The SRA was successful in negotiating a very important provision affecting SRA member city
governments regarding right-of-way management costs. In addition, the agreement will save residential
customers in the metro area $0.77 a month from the current rates and business customers between $2.50-
3.00 a month on business rates. There was no rate reduction for rural ratepayers. No SRA cities are
considered rural or out-state calling areas.
In exchange for the rate reduction and cap, US West will be less regulated for services that are not
monopoly services such as basic telephone access. This will allow US West to respond to the
competition and may result in further benefits to ratepayers if competition forces US West to reduce
rates. The PUC will closely monitor any increase in rates. In addition, there is a forty-five million dollar
long distance access charge reduction that will be passed through to ratepayers by the long distance
companies that will not be required to pay US West that amount to access local customers. This is a
five-year plan with reevaluation of certain price issues after three years.
The significant benefit to SRA local governments is a negotiated provision that prevents US West from
passing through any right-of-way management or other police power fees that cities may charge US West
during the AFOR plan. If cities are granted authority to require franchise fees (presently not available)
or other tax or taxes, those will be passed through as is customarily done through a PUC rate surcharge
process. Because of SRA intervention, US West was not able to obtain the police power fee pass through
that possibly exists in the Sprint and Frontier AFOR plans serving other communities. The SRA strongly
objected to what would amount to passing through a US West cost of doing business to the ratepayers of
a city that was merely recovering its costs for, e.g., significant right-of-way excavation costs for new
facilities.
JMS-155647
Iq A
R T
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: atrys@kennedy-graven.com
MEMORANDUM
JAMES M. STROMMEN
Attomey at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9233
email: jstrommenOkennedy-graven.com
(MEMO//8)
TO:
FROM:
SRA City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates
James Strommen
DATE:
RE:
December 30, 1998
Administrative Law Judge Report--US West Generic Cost Proceeding
The Administrative Law Judge issued his report on December 17, 1998, in the long and complex
US West generic cost proceeding. In this proceeding, the cost to US West of providing
telephone service to residential and business customers in its service area is determined for the
purpose of leasing to competitors (such as AT&T and MCI). Because of the prohibitive cost of
this proceeding, the SRA has monitored these proceedings only. The issues decided in it,
however, are important in terms of the cost determination and the variation of cost based on
geographic location of a customer.
This proceeding has established that the greater density of population the lower the cost of
providing the facilities to serve the customer. This tends to benefit most SRA members.
The focus of the ALJ Report was the issue of geographic deaveraging and the proper test for
determining actual wholesale cost of US West facilities. This Report did not calculate the
specific averaged cost per customer, but calculations done by parties place the cost at just below
$18.00 per month. This will be the starting point for a wholesale price calculation for
competitors who seek to lease US West facilities to provide local services to customers. It
appears that deaveraged costs could range anywhere from tess than $10 per month in the heavily
populated urban and suburban areas to over $150 per month in remote rural areas. The SRA
may be in a position in a later proceeding to advocate geographic deaveraging. The problem not
yet addressed at the federal and state level is how rates in the more expensive areas will be
subsidized. Now it is obvious that urban and suburban ratepayers subsidize rural rates.
The recommendation of the ALJ and of nearly all parties is that these wholesale rates not be
geographically deaveraged. The model used for the cost analysis, HAI model, as opposed to the
BCPM model, may not be totally accurate on a wirecenter by wirecenter basis. When
wirecenters have significant differing population densities (small towns and rural areas within a
wirecenter), the actual cost is not regarded by the parties or the ALJ as reliable. Further, the
universal service fund has not been established at the federal or state level as yet. This will
JMS-155652
SU160-3
US West Generic Cost Proceeding
December 30, 1998
Page 2
equalize the disparity in cost of service from urban to rural areas and the resulting range in
customer prices if the service were based solely on cost.
The Commission will eventually adopt a wholesale cost by decision this year. The choice of
competitors in the local service market will be either to lease facilities from US West or build out
their own facilities in the right-of-way. This will further necessitate that cities and other local
government units review their right-of-way management ordinances. (See Memo # 4)
JM5-!.55652
$U160-3
14 A
R T
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
£ R
£ D
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.com
MEMORANDUM
SRA City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates
James Strommen
December 30, 1998
Time and Format of Meetings
JAMES M. STROMMEN
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9233
email: jstrommen~kennedy-graven.com
(MEMO #9)
ACTION ITEM
For the last couple of years, the SRA Board has agreed that a 4:00 p.m. meeting time during the
quarterly meetings of April, July and October on balance enhances participation in the meetings.
The dinner hour time for quarterly meetings tended to be a conflict for many delegates. On the
other hand, many elected officials who are delegates for the SRA and .are not on city staff were
somewhat less able to meet at the 4:00 p.m. time.
Nevertheless, this time has been used and the annual meeting has been the time to reevaluate and
decide on the time for quarterly meetings in 1999. An additional issue relevant to time is the
format of SRA meetings. Since the SRA's reestablishment in 1975, it has met on quarterly basis
and relied on reports from legal counsel and updates at the meetings. Certain action items were
necessary to authorize counsel to move forward. Often the executive committee would be
required to act between quarterly meetings. Written material is shared with SRA representatives,
both before the meetings and after in the form of minutes. This keeps all SRA members
informed. Meetings have typically involved the attendance of ten to 15 delegates of the 38
municipal members. The annual meeting has typically had a higher representation.
In considering whether to meet at a certain time, the SRA board is also free to evaluate whether
the meeting format is helpful to SRA cities. In the age of electronic communication, it may be
that more information is appropriate on an ongoing-"as it happens basis" with less meetings.
JM5-155670
5U160-3
H A
R T £ R
£ D
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Skth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: atrys@kennedy-graven.com
MEMORANDUM
JAMES M. STROMMEN
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9233
email: istrommen~kcnned¥-~xaven.com
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
SRA City Managers/Administrators/Delegates/Alternates
James Strommen
December 2, 1998
SPA Annual Meeting--PUC Commissioner Guests
This memo is to inform you of an entertaining and informative SRA annual
meeting on January 20, 1999, and to urge your attendance to it. Please also distribute a
copy of this memo to all SRA directors and alternates, as they change from time to time
and we don't have everyone's address.
We are fortunate to have both an exciting new municipal facility as the location
for our annual meeting and two Public Utilities Commissioners as guests, Greg Scott and
LeRoy Koppendrayer. The event will be held beginning at 6:15 p.m. at the Hopkins
Center for the Arts. The Arts Center has received an award from the League of Cities
and has become a local center for arts and entertainment. A tour of the facility will be
conducted at 6:30 p.m. with music during the dinner provided by a Hopkins High School
string ensemble. Both Commissioners are interesting individuals with definite opinions
on the role of the PUC during this time of significant change in the delivery and
regulation of utility services.
It is also important that the SRA have a large cross section of its membership at
the meeting to demonstrate its interest and expertise in local regulation of utility ROW
use. Delegates from large and small communities and elected officials and staff can
convey to the Commissioners suburban interest and knowledge in the utility environment.
We will be reminding you of this meeting with the packet of materials normally
sent during early January. Please mark your calendars now for the evening of January
20, 1999. We may send RSVPs this time to gain information that is more specific on the
number of delegates who will be attending.
See you then.
Oz
>
RECEIVED ..'.:,?i 1 1 I999
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA
7:00 PM, WednesdaY, January 13, 1999
Tonka Bay City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock
· "Save the Lake" Recognition Banquet, Thursday, February 11.
READING OF MINUTES - 12/09/98 LMCD Regular Board Meeting
. PUE-L.~ '-"_.:3~';Ji~;q'TS - Pe~ sons in atter:dance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.)
CONSENT AGENDA- Consent Agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one
motion unless a Board member requests a discussion of any item, in which case the item will be
removed from the consent agenda.
EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE
A) (*) Minutes from the 118/99 meeting (handout);
B) 118/99 meeting report;
c)
EWM Project Manager, Update of expenses incurred on the overhaul of LMCD
harvesting equipment;
D)
Ordinance Amendment, Continuation of third reading of an ordinance relating to
launching of watercraft infested with zebra mussels (previously discussed at
12/9/98 Board meeting);
E) Additional Business;
LAKE USE & RECREATION
A) (*) Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Significant Activity Report;
B)
Considera, tion of Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Special Deputy
Candidates;
C) Additional Business;
3. WATER STRUCTURES
FINANCIAL
A) Audit of vouchers for payment (12/16198 - 12/31./98);
(01101/99 - 01/15~99)
6.
7.
8.
e
B)
C) Additional Business;
SAVE THE LAKE
ADMINISTRATION
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
OLD BUSINESS
· Discussion on direction for outlot licensing
NEW BUSINESS,
ADJOURNMENT
November financial summary and balance sheet;
RECEIVED 1 1 i999
DRAFT
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
7:00 PM, Wednesday, December 9, 1995
Tonka Bay City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Douglas Babcock, Tonka Bay; Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Bert Foster, Deephaven;
Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Gene Partyka, Minnelrista; Lili McMillan,
Orono; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Greg Kitchak, 1VAnneton~; Bob i'mscop, Shorewood. Also present:
Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Gregory Nybeck, Executive Director; Roger Winberg,
Administrative Technician.
Members absent: Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Herb Seurth, Woodland;
Sheldon Wert, Greenwood.
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock
There were no Chair announcements.
READING OF MINUTES - 11/18/98 LMCD Regular Board Meeting -
MOTION: Partyka moved, Eggers seconded to approve the minutes of the 11/18/98 Regular Board
Meeting as submitted.
VOTE: Ayes (7), Abstained (1, Raseop); motion carried.
Foster and Gilman arrived at 7:05 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.)
There were no comments from the public.
1. LAKE USE & RECREATION
A. Schoell & Madson, Inc., Discussion of draft 1998 Lake Minnetonka Boat Density Survey.
Meg Jeffrey, representing Schoell & Madson, was in attendance to provide an overview and
answer questions of the draft 1998 Lake Minnetonka Boat Density Survey. She noted this was
the second time she has worked on this Report because she assisted in the 1996 Survey. She
provided an overview of the 1998 Summary of Lake Activities and Sources, noting:
· The total number of boats counted was 15,360, with an average number of boats per
weekend flight of 1,097.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
December 9, 1998
Page 2
· The maximum number of boats observed was 1,550 on May 25 with a minimum
number of boats observed of 243 on May 30. She noted historically, the maximum
number of boats observed occur on the July 4t~ weekend; however, the flight was
cancelled due to inclement weather.
· The most heavily used area of the lake was Lower Lake North with the least heavily
used area of the lake being Echo .Bay.
· Aggregate boats on the water breaks down to 26% from public accesses, 23% from
marinas and yacht club slips, 17% from municipal docks, 12% from homeowners
associations, 1% from rental boats, and 21% from other sources. She noted the
other sources consisted of fee launches through marinas, undesignated accesses not
monitored, and the accumulation of errors for all categories.
She asked the Board for questions and comments.
Foster questioned what category riparian homeowners fell into on 1998 aggregate boat sources?
Jeffrey stated she believed that riparian homeowners fall into the category of other aggregate
boat sources.
Foster stated he believed this should be footnoted in the Historical Trend Chart, Figure 2, and
on the pie chart that breaks down Aggregate Boat Sources.
Babcock noted one difference in the Report this year is that boats associated with licensed
homeowners associations have been separated from riparian homeowners. He stated he believed
this separation of data could be beneficial in trend analysis in the future.
McMillan questioned how this survey compares to past years.
Jeffrey reviewed the Historical Trend Table noting that maximum number of boats observed was
--1,550 and the average number of boats observed was 1,097. She stated maximum numbers of
boats observed are down from past years due to the scheduled flight on the July 4'~ weekend
being scrapped. She noted the numbers observed on this weekendin previous~reports were
generally around 2,000.
Foster stated the flight scrapped on the July 4t~ weekend has great significance and should be
properly footnoted on the Historical Trend Table.
MclVlillan stated it might be appropriate from a statistical standpoint to throw out the highest and
lowest numbers of boats counted.
Jeffrey stated she believed that would need to be checked with Tim Kelly, a MN DNR Planner,
who assisted in this project.
Foster stated the District has accumulated a good collection of data and trends over the year~
from these surveys. He suggested the District might want to consider further analysis of this
data and trends collected.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Muting
December 9, 1998
Page 3
B. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
WATER STRUCTURES
A. Hennepin County Environmental Management, discussion of approved 1998 Multiple Dock
License/Streaters Park Addition.
Babcock introduced the agenda item noting residents from the Streaters Park Addition requested
it at the 11/18/98 meeting.
Steve Osmera, 3900 Shoreline Drive, spoke on behalf of the residents from the Streaters Park
Addition. He noted since the 11/18/98 meeting, the neighbors have met with Hennepin County
to discuss how to distribute the approved 25 overnight storage slips when there is a demand for
31. He stated the neighborhood would like the Board to consider approving a special density
license for the neighborhood to allow them to store 31 boats on an overnight basis. He
questioned why an overnight slip conversion was allowed in 1986 when an ll-unit multiple
dwelling was constructed.
LeFevere stated he believed Hennepin County determined that they had to apply for these
additional 11 overnight slips because they had no legal basis to deny them. He added the
possibility of a lawsuit did no affect approval because the LMCD was probably not aware of
possible litigation.
Babcock stated the Board has reviewed why a special density license was granted in 1986 even
though specific parcels have fights to those docks. He noted that one of the grounds for
denying the special density license applied for this year is that the Code prohibits that.
Osmera questioned why action was taken at meetings after the 5/13/98 public hearing when he
expressed interest in attending future meetings.
Babcock stated the District is a public body and that minutes and agendas are available to the
public in general. He suggested Osmera keep up with both the minutes and agendas by either
contacting the office or by viewing the web page.
Osmera questioned how the County could provide additional public amenities that might qualify
them for a special density license.
Babcock stated the problem that Hennepin County has is that they do not qualify for a special
density license because the Code prohibits issuance of a special density license for facilities
where the owners of specific real property have special rights.
Foster added the slips available at a multiple dock that have been approved in a special density
license must be available to the public at large without a requirement that they own property in
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
December 9, 1998
Page 4
a particular area.
Osmera asked for background on the Code that was adopted that allows for special density
licenses.
Babcock stated the Board granted a special density license to Hennepin County in 1986 and
determined that it had been done in error. He noted the Board had a decision to make later
either to grandfather what is currently approved or to require the applicant to conform to
current Code. He concluded the consensus of the Board was to grandfather
what is currently approved as a legal, non-conforming structure.
Foster stated he believed when the special density license ordinance was adopted, it was
determined that a facility with density up to one watercraft for every 10 feet of continuous
shoreline must be available to the general public.
Babcock updated the residents that when the special density license was initially approved in
1986, 650' of continuous shoreline was dedicated toward it. He stated upon advice of
LeFevere, the Board licensed all 1,160' of shoreline at this parcel of land in 1998.
Osmera provided an update to the Board on discussions the neighborhood has had since the
11/18/98 Board meeting. He noted they recently met with Hennepin County to explain their
thoughts on this issue. He added they met with the Spring Park City Council who indicated
this issue is not within their jurisdiction. He stated the neighborhood is looking for a solution
that protects docking from both the past and the future.
Babcock stated beyond the details in the deed, Hennepin County is required to comply with
regulations of the District. He noted the site is currently licensed for 40 transient slips and 25
overnight storage slips.
Don Landon, 3906 Shoreline Drive, asked the Board if they would consider another application
from Hennepin County for a special density license for the 1,160' of continuous shoreline.
Babcock stated the Board reviewed a special density license application in 1998 and denied it
because Code prohibits it and because specified riparian property rights are tied to it.
Nelson stated one alternative might be for Hennepin County to make application on the 1,160'
of shoreline, provided slips approved are available to the general public.
Babcock stated he believed that would not work unless the details of the deed between
Hennepin County and the Streaters Park Addition were changed. He added if a special density
license were approved, slips would need to be available to the general public immediately.
Nelson asked if the City of Spring. Park could make application for a special density license and
then delegate the use of the slips to its residents.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
December 9, 1998 Page S
Babcock stated both residents and non-residents of a municipality that has a special density
license generally can make application for slips at these facilities.
Ahems added she believed that would not work because Hennepin County owns the land.
LeFevere explained if a special density license granted to a city is restricted to its residents, the
entitlement is not linked to a specified piece of property.
Mike Mason, 3950 Del Otero Ave., suggested since 1,160' was deeded to Hennepin County in
1947 in exchange for docking rights, could it be grandfathered because the special density
ordinance was adopted after that.
Rascop suggested there were not 65 boats docked associated with this property in 1947.
Babcock stated there are several legal, non-conforming multiple dock facilities that were
grandfathered when the special density ordinance was adopted. He explained the 1947 deed
date has no significance with regards to grandfathering in this multiple dock license.
Kitchak questioned how many lots were in the original 1947 subdivision.
Mike Erickson, 3934 Del Otero Ave, stated that he had a plat map and that there were 26 lots.
Babcock stated he talked to the Mayor of Spring Park regarding this issue. He noted he was
informed that the Spring Park City Council cautioned the developer regarding assuming dock
rights with the approval of the development.
LeFevere stated he understands that residents might be unhappy with both the District and
Hennepin County. He noted over some years, a series of mistakes were made that licensed 42
more slips than should have been originally approved. He added the result of these mistakes
was beneficial to the residents.
A resident of the neighborhood stated she had lived in it since 1955. She provided a historical
perspective on the issue noting the demand for docking rights has grown significantly over
the years. She concluded she believed the original homeowners should not be denied dockage
rights and that there is no additional space for docking.
Ahrens suggested the Board might want to view transient slips differently in the future because
they provide destination points to assist in relieving boat density during peak periods.
Kitchak asked Mike Brandt, representing Hennepin County, who owned the buoy placed out in
the area of the multiple dock facility?
Brandt stated he was unaware of this buoy and whom it might be permitted to. Mason stated
the buoy was his.
Lake 1Vflnnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
December 9, 1998
Page 6
Babcock advised the neighborhood that the buoy needs to be included in the approved 25 spaces
for overnight storage. He thanked the neighborhood on behalf of the Board for attending the
meeting to clarify the issues.
B. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
EWRUEXOTICS TASK FORCE
A. Ordinance Amendment, Third reading of an ordinance relating to launching of watercraft
infested with zebra mussels.
Babcock introduced the agenda item, stating it was tabled at the 11/18/98 Board meeting to
allow staff to provide scientific data regarding the mortality of zebra mussels. He noted staff
has provided a summary memo and some scientific data that addresses this.
Nybeck advised the Board that EWM/Exotics Chair Suerth was unable to attend the meeting
and that he has had some contact with the MN Sea Grant Program that might be beneficial. He
suggested the Board might want to discuss the issue and table it to the 1/13/99 meeting to allow
for his input. He introduced Gary Montz, ~ DNR Coordinator of Zebra Mussels, who was
in attendance to make comments regarding the draft ordinance and to answer questions from the
Board.
Foster stated he believed the agenda item should be tabled to the 1/13/99 Board meeting to
allow for feedback from Suerth. He asked for feedback from Montz on the draft ordinance.
Montz stated he had been in contact with Nybeck and had sent a variety of information that
addressed the issue of boat drying and how long this should be required to ensure zebra mussels
have been killed. He reported that:
· Temperature and humidity are key factors in determining the maximum drying time
required to ensure zebra mussels have been killed. He noted the warmer
the temperature, the shorter the time zebra mussels can survive out of water.
· He reviewed studies conducted in controlled environments and how long zebra
mussels can survive. He stated in optimal summer conditions, with temperature
between mid 60's and mid 70's degrees Fahrenheit, adult zebra mussels will die
within two weeks. He added smaller adult zebra mussels would die a lot quicker.
He added when water temperatures get warmer, the time generally drops to one week
or less.
· Veligers are the most delicate and weak link in the life cycle of zebra mussels. He
noted they can generally be killed within one day with any type of drying. He noted
they could live for a limited amount of time if water is being transported. He stated
temperature shock, such as hot water spraying, is the best way to kill them.
· Boats on the St. Croix River that are moored and have zebra mussels on them are
required to be removed from the water and cleaned off. He noted this includes
removal of the zebra mussels and a heated washdown with water temperature starting
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
December 9, 1998
at 190 degrees Fahrenheit.
Page 7
He stated generally the zebra mussels he had observed are in the stern or in-take
areas of watercraft.
Babcock asked what typically should be done around boat cooling systems.
Montz stated a flushing of hot water for a short period of time should suffice. He added
generally the mussels in the engine in-take would be more of a problem to the engine itself.
Foster stated he knows someone from Cleveland who has described the damage to beaches in
that area. He asked for feedback from Moritz on that.
Montz stated damage to beaches depends on wind direction, location of the beach, and water
movement in the area. He added that rock structures could help promote mussel growth
populations because they slow down water movement. He suggested large populations of zebra
mussels that pose problems to swimming beaches might be dead mussels that have washed up
towards shore.
Foster asked for feedback from Montz on the probability of Lake Minnetonka becoming infested
with zebra mussels.
Montz stated it is difficult to give a definitive answer to that question. He noted he had talked
to both people familiar with infestations and researchers in Michigan who have researched
infestations on inland lakes there. He stated a couple of things that have assisted Minnesota
versus Michigan are that boats are inspected and that law prohibits the movement of plants on
the road. He stated he believed the St. Croix River has a good chance of not becoming infested
in the near future because smaller populations of zebra mussels are less likely to reproduce and
infest the water.
Gilman questioned the normal life longevity of a zebra mussel.
Montz stated it is typically three to five years.
Babcock asked how he rates the threat of commercial transporters to bodies of water around the
state. He noted the Board has expressed concerns in recent years that boats are being
transported to Lake Minnetonka from infested waters and these boats may not be washed
effectively before they are transported.
Montz stated if a boat has been sitting in zebra mussel infested waters, there is a great likelihood
of mussel transportation into Lake Minnetonka. He noted on the Mississippi River in the
Hastings area, the levels of zebra mussel populations are not very high, especially compared to
Lake Pepin.
Foster asked for feedback from Montz regarding if the DNR has budgeted funds that could
assist the District on public education on this issue.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
December 9, 1998
Page 8
Montz stated there is funding in place; however, it focuses on a wide range of exotic species
rather than one specifically.
Kitchak stated he liked the idea of a public awareness campaign. He added he would also like
to see marina staff trained to recognize mussels on watercraft and how to respond appropriately.
He suggested the DNR facilitate seminars in training marina staff on the launching of watercraft
at their facilities.
Montz stated he would be willing to come to a meeting of marina operators to assist in training
marina staff. He added he has had more success in talking to marina owners on a one-on-one
basis.
Rascop asked for feedback from Montz on the proposed ordinance amendment, especially the
requirement of identifying the zebra mussels and the need for a DNR representative to inspect
the watercarft.
Montz stated it is virtually impossible to ascertain life stages of a zebra mussel based on an
inspection, especially the veligers. He noted it is more feasible to evaluate life stages of adult
zebra mussels either by a DNR employee or the person operating the washing station. He stated
the DNR cannot participate in the program the way the ordinance is currently written. He stated
the DNR could assist in the training of a District staff member, esp~i~y by observing the
washdown of a boat with zebra mussels on it at the St. Croix River.
Rascop asked what level of inspection expertise the District might legany need if a boat launches
into Lake Minnetonka that is infested with zebra mussels.
Montz stated when divers from the DNR observe adult zebra mussels on a watercraft, they have
been instructed to remove a few from the boat, place them in preservatives, and forward them to
the DNR for review. He added the divers are encouraged to take pictures or videos wherever
possible. He noted the DNR has generally believed this is sufficient to stand up in court.
LeFevere stated the draft ordinance would allow the DNR to give the opinion there are no viable
adult zebra mussels.
Montz stated if a thorough spraydown is done with hot water and the visible zebra mussels are
removed, the watercraft should be ready to launch.
Babcock stated the Board has considered several alternatives of the draft ordinance. He noted if
the boat is required to stay out of Lake Minnetonka for 30 days, the DNR has expressed concern
that it would be too long and counterproductive. He added to address this, a clause was written
into the draft ordinance that would allow the DNR to inspect the watercraft and give an opinion
that it is safe to launch. He expressed concern as to what the District should do if the DNR
does not assist in conducting these inspections.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting:
December 9, 1998 Page 9
Montz r~statcd if the boat is thoroughly washed with hot water, and there are no zebra mussels
visible, the District should be comfortable that the boat can be launched.
Babcock stated when a boat arrives at Lake Minnetonka with zebra mussels on it, some
members of the Board would prefer to error on the side of caution rather than launch the boat.
He noted that is why the draft ordinance was drafted because that would be a high-risk situation.
He suggested the DNR should assist the District in public awareness and to assist when a high-
risk situation occurs.
Montz stated washing with hot water and inspecting are the best means of addressing high-risk
situations. He added when a boat comes to a launch ramp, boat owners need to understand they
are not leaving the ramp site until all zebra mussels have been removed and inspected. He
noted if they leave, a call should be made to a local law enforcement agency.
Babcock asked Montz how many days he thought a boat should be kept out of the water because
they have not had it washed and inspected?
Montz stated he believed that two weeks should be adequate to encompass all unknown factors
such as temperature and humidity. He added the DNR is typically comfortable with five to
seven days.
LeFevere stated District staff might be able to assist the DNR on inspections once they are
properly trained. He asked Moritz his opinion on the occurrence of zebra mussels in live wells
and bilges of a watercraft and their chance of survival.
Montz stated that oxygen in the reservoir of water in the bilge or livewell will be lost. He noted
a spray of hot water is merited in the livewell if there are zebra mussels on the exterior of the
boat. He suggested emptying the water in the bilge if possible.
Kitchak stated he would like to see the DNR, in addition to the District, be available to assist in
conducting public inspections. :
Babcock stated he believed until this becomes an overwhelming problem, the DNR is the only
agency trained to identify and oversee removal of mussels from watercraft. He noted he
believed the frequency of these inspections would be low.
Montz explained he or other DNR employees might not always be available to conduct these
inspections in a timely manner. He suggested the training of District staff might be the most
appropriate way to address this.
The Board thanked Montz for his attendance at the meeting.
MOTION: Gilman moved, Ahems seconded to continue discussion on this agenda item to the
1/13/99 Board meeting.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
December 9, 1998
Page 10
VOTE: Motion carded unanimously.
B. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
®
FINANCIAL ~ ..
A. Audit of vouchers for payment (11/16/98 - il/30/98) & (12/1/98 - 12/15/98).
Nelson reviewed the audit of vouchers for payment as submitted.
MOTION: Babcock moved, Gilman seconded to approve the vouchers for payment as
submitted.
. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
B. October financial summary and balance sheet.
Nybeck reviewed the October financial summary and balance sheet as submitted. He noted staff
would communicate final expenditures relating to the office move and overhaul of the EWH
harvesters.
MOTION: Gilman moved, Rascop seconded to accept the October financial summary and
balance sheet as submitted.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
C. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
6. ADMINISTRATION
A. Tallen and Baertschi, update from prosecuting attorney.
The consensus of the Board was to move this agenda item ahead of 'Save the Lake".
Steve Tallen, prosecuting attorney for the District, reported on the following:
· 1998 is the first year in the 12 years he has been prosecuting attorney for the District
that legal fees will exceed fine revenues. He attributed this mainly towards the
changes in DWI legislation. He noted cases that used to be pled at the first or second
court appearance are now being settled on the day of the trial, often after a hearing
has been conducted regarding the admissibility of evidence.
· One case has gone to a jury trial that challenged the authority of the Special Deputy.
He noted the District prevailed in this case and the defendant was convicted. He
stated the finances concern him and stated he would look for Board direction in mid-
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
l)ecember 9, 1998
Page 11
year if it continues. Hc stated he believed the District spent the funds up and beyond
thc budget on thc Special Deputy challenge.
There are two pending cases thc Board might have interest in. First, no charge has
been made relating to thc drowning incident on Crystal Bay this summer. Second,
there is a case where a charter boat operator allegedly engaged in improper conduct
while chartering a cruise.
The Board discussed the issue of prosecuting expenses exceeding revenues collected. There was
discussion that the District investigate in sharing in confiscations and the adjustment of fines.
Babcock asked for feedback regarding citations issued for violation of minimum wake speeds
within the 150' shoreland zone.
Tallen stated he receives only a few of those annually. He added the Water Patrol Deputies
might be issuing warnings rather than citations for these infractions. He closed by thanking the
Board and asked for a 2 % adjustment in fees to continue as prosecuting attorney for the District
in 1999.
Babcock stated that he was re-appointed for 1999, at the 2% adjustment, at the 11/18/98 Board
meeting. He thanked Tallen on behalf of the Board for the commendable work he has done for
the District over the years.
SAVE THE LAKE
A. Minutes from the 11/17/98 "STL" Advisory Committee meeting.'
B. 11/17/98 Meeting Report.
McMillan
reported on the following:
She would be finalizing details for the "Save the Lake" Recognition Banquet with
staff in the near future. She noted some of these details include date and speaker(s).
· There was discussion of using DNR Conservation Corps Officers to assist in spraying
boats down at the public accesses. She noted the Committee believed the lake would
benefit if the District had some input on what accesses these Officers inspect, what
times they go to them, and on what days. She added Michele Bratager, DNR
Inspections Supervisor, will be invited to the January meeting to discuss this.
· There was discussion with Tom Maple, MCWD Board Manager, regarding water
quality issues on the lake, especially on the west-end. She noted until efforts are
made to improve the inflows from Painters and Three-Mile Creeks, it does not make
sense to spend funds improving water quality on the west-end of the lake.
· The committee discussed using local public access televison channels to provide
educational information on various lake issues to the public.
MOTION: Gilman moved, Nelson seconded to accept the 11/17/98 "STL' Advisory
Committee minutes as submitted.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
December 9, 1998
Page 12
C. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
6. ADMINISTRATION
B. Fames v. LMCD, Report from LMCD Attorney.
LeFevere stated Mr. Fames is suing the LMCD, noting the complaint is pretty self-explanatory.
He noted George Hoff has been appointed by the LMC1T and a response to the complaint must
be completed within 20 days. He added no Board action is necessary at this time and that it was
brought forward to inform the Boa~l. He suggested if the Board desired to discuss strategy at
this time, discussions should be done in executive session.
Nybeck stated he has forwarded background information to Hoff and will be meeting with him
in the near future.
C. Discussion of District Personnel Policy.
Nybeck stated staff believes there is a need to update the Personnel Policy for the District,
which was adopted on 4/22/86. He noted before staff proceeds too far in updating the
Personnel Policy, there is a need to get Board direction on certain aspects of it, especially paid
holidays and benefits. He reviewed a spreadsheet that highlights current holidays and benefits
for District employees in comparison to selected municipalities and agencies.
The consensus of the Board was to form a sub-committee to discuss holidays and benefits
outlined in this spreadsheet. Nelson, Babcock, Kitchak, Ahems, and Partyka volunteered to
serve on this sub-committee.
D. Additional Business.
Them was no additional business.
7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
Nybeck stated he would be going on vacation at the end of the month. He suggested Board
members contact him in the next week if there are pending projects that need to be addressed in the
near future.
8. OLD BUSINESS
Babcock stated there is a need to formally approve the salary adjustment for Nybeck as discussed in
the 10/28/98 Executive Session.
MOTION: Foster moved, Nelson seconded to approve a compensation adjustment for Gregory
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
December 9, 1998
Pa e 13
Nybeck, Executive Director, to the amount of $45,000 annually, and to increase annual
vacation to 120 hours, with pay and vacation adjustments retroactive to November 1,
1998.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Coffee Cove Channel
Foster stated at the annual meeting with the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol, they
indicated a concern with open water and water skipping by snowmobiles in Coffee Cove. He noted
there has been some preliminary discussion regarding constructing a temporary bridge over the
channel to assist snowmobilers in that area. He stated a meeting'will be hosted with the Mayors
from Spring Park and Orono, Sgt. Ken Schilling, Denis Bailey, and other interested parties in the
near Mt'are to discuss tlds topic.
Babcock stated he was aware of the issue and stated something needs to be done. He suggested a
better long-term solution is to provide an alternative on land. He stated research on liability to the
District should be checked into.
Foster stated he would keep the Board informed on this issue.
Discussion on direction for outlot licensing
This was tabled to the 1/13/99 Board meeting.
9. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 10:20 P.M
Douglas Babcock, Chairman
Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary