Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1999-02-09
A G E N D A MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1999 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE AGENDA. *CONSENT AGENDA *A. PAGE APPROVE THE MINUTES, AS AMENDED OF THE JANUARY 12, 1999, REGULAR MEETING ........................................ 269-286 *B. APPROVE THE MINUTES, AS AMENDED, OF THE JANUARY 19, 1999, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING .......................... 287-299 *C. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 26, 1999, REGULAR MEETING ........................................ 300-313 APPROVAL TO REDUCE THE LETTER OF CREDIT - t~ ~,. ~{ MAPLE MANORS ........................................... 314-316 APPROVAL OF PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT TO USE MOUND BAY PARK FOR WEIGH-IN, FRIDAY JUNE 4, 1999, DENNY'S SUPER 30' BASS TOURNAMENT ............................ 317 APPROVAL OF OPERATIONS PERMIT- ZYGROVE CORPORATION, TO BE LOCATED IN BALBOA BUILDING .......................... 318-332 *G. PAYMENT OF BILLS ........................................ 333-359 PUBLIC HEARING: TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND FACILITIES, CODE SECTION 350:1300, ET SEQ. (PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE HEARING THIS ON FEBRUARY 8.q[ MINUTES FROM THAT MEETING WILL BE DISTRIBUTED TUESDAY~ I~-i 0 EVENING REGARDING THIS ITEM ................................... 360-387 267 PUBLIC HEARING: ONE YEAR REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMT ,. APPLICATION RE: EARLY CHILDHOOD FAMILY EDUCATION (ECFE) LOCATED ~'lq ~ AT SHORELINE PLAZA ........................................... 388-429 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. REPORT FROM JANUARY 30, 1999 MEETING OF RESIDENTS FROM THE DEVON COMMON AT ROANOKE ACCESS RE: DOCK PLACEMENT ......................................... 430-442 o 10. RESOLUTION 99 - RESOLUTION REGARDING VARIOUS MATTERS RELATING TO THE PROPERTY OWNED BY WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS (WITHDRAWAL FROM WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT) ........ 443-448 1998 DEPARTMENT HEAD ANNUAL REPORTS: -JIM FACKLER, PARKS DIRECTOR .................................. 449-470 -GREG PEDERSON, FIRE CHIEF .................................... 471-480 -GREG SKINNER, PUBLIC WORKS SUPERINTENDENT .................... 481-487 -FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK ...................................... 488-504 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. Departmem Head Monthly Reports for January 1999 ..................... 505-525 B. LMCD Executive Director's Newsletter ............................. 526-527 C. Dock and Cormnons Advisory Commission Minutes of January 21, 1999 ........ 528-531 Do Letter from concerned residems on Bartlett Blvd. near the proposed South Saunders Lake project in Minnetrista .................................. 532 Eo REMINDER:SPECIAL MEETING RE: BECKER APPEALS CASE ON WETLANDS EXEMPTION IS SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1999, 6:00 P.M., MOUND CITY HALL. Fo REMINDER: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1999, 7:30 P.M. Go REMINDER: CITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED MONDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1999, IN OBSERVANCE OF PRESIDENTS DAY. Ho REMINDER: ENCLOSED IS AN APPLICATION FOR THE VACANCY ON THE PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION. THE POSC WILL INTERVIEW THE APPLICANT ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1999 AT 7:30 pm. YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND .................... 533 268 PERSONS PRESENT AT MEETING 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23 PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS ADDRESS MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 12, 1999 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, January 12, 1999, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, and ~ Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens: Garry & Marie Everson, Ric Williams, Mark Thiede, Pam Myers, Bill Pinegar, Mary Pauly, Patty Guttormson, Carol and Rick Todd, Greg Meisel, Betsy Brown, Tom Reese, Frank & Betty Weiland, Becky Glister, Eric Meisel and Paul Meisel. OATH OF OFFICE The City Clerk administered the Oaths of Office to Mayor Elect Pat Meisel, Councilmembers Elect Bob Brown and Mark Hanus. Mayor Meisel apologized for wearing a hat to the meeting but, she explained that she has had some major surgery and has no hair on the right side of her head. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 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 Brown asked to have Item B removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Hanus asked to have Items G, H and I because names need to be inserted in these items. He also requested Items J and K be removed. Mayor Meisel asked to have Item C removed from the Consent Agenda. *CONSENT AGENDA MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker 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 22. 1998. REGULAR MEETING. MOTION Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. '1.1 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JANUARY 12, 1999 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY CLERK. RESOLUTION//99-1 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY CLERK Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. '1.2 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY TREASURER/FINANCE DIRECTOR. RESOLUTION//99-2 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY TREASURER/FINANCE DIRECTOR Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. '1.3 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES FOR 1999. RESOLUTION g99-3 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIF$ FOR 1999 Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. '1.4 CASE 99-01: MOTION 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", PID 13-117-24 34 0072. SUGGESTED DATE: JANUARY 26, 1999. Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. 2 '1.5 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JANUARY 12, 1999 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. · 1.6 RESOLUTION APPOINTING ACTING CITY MANAGER FOR 1999. Brown moved to appoint Fran Clark, City Clerk, as the Acting City Manager in 1999. seconded the motion. Hanus RESOLUTION//99-4 RESOLUTION APPOINTING FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK, ACTING CITY MANAGER FOR 1999 Councilmember Hanus asked who would be next if both the Manager and Acting Manager were gone. Councilmember Brown stated it would remain the same, Police Chief Len Harrell. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. '1.7 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE LAKER AS THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 1999. Mayor Meisel stated that The I_aker is a tenant in the building that she and her husband own. She therefore will abstain from voting to avoid a conflict of interest. Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g99-5 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE LAKER THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 1999 The vote was 4 in favor with Meisel abstaining. Motion carried. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JANUARY 12, 1999 .1.8 RESOLUTION APPOINTING ACTING MAYOR FOR 1999. Meisel moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g99-6 RESOLUTION APPOINTING ACTING MAYOR FOR 1999 MARK HANUS Weycker stated that discussion in the past had been to alternate this appointment. Ahrens stated that last year this was discussed and the Council, at that time, decided then that the appointment should run with the term of the Mayor. Weycker stated she thinks it should alternate. The Mayor asked what Councilmember Weycker would suggest. Councilmember Weycker stated. "I would think it alternates to me if Mark was it before Andrea. Andrea for the last two years. It should go to my seat." The Mayor asked if Hanus had a problem with that? Hanus stated. "I, and it has nothing to do with me. If it's come to this, I will give you my opinion on Leah. Leah, appears still not to follow a lot of things that are being talked about. I don't want to sit here and say this but, this is what's brought it up now. It's a whole different thing to run a meeting and try and follow what's going on. I feel that you're still trying to catch up on some of the regular activities, as far as what's going on in some of the discussions, so I don't know how effective you can be doing that." Mayor Meisel explained that she was looking at long-term with Mark and nothing other than that, when she made the motion. Councilmember Brown called for the question on the motion. The vote on ending discussion was unanimously in favor. The vote on Resolution g99-6 was 3 in favor with Weycker voting nay and Hanus abstaining. Motion carried. 4 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- ~ANU~Y 12, 1999 .1.9 RESOLUTION APPOINTING REPRF~ENTATIV~ FOR 1999. COUNCILMEMBERS AS COUNCIL The following was proposed: Planning Commission Bob Brown Park & Open Space Commission Leah Weycker Economic Development Commission Bob Brown Dock & Commons Advisory Commission Mark Hanus Councilmember Weycker stated. "I have a problem with that, in the sense that we had set up that commission to be representative of the program with so many people using the dock program, as abutters and as nonabutters. I feel it skews it due to the fact that Mark is an abutter ......... There are two people here that haven't been in our dock program and I would find that more appropriate than skewing the make-up when you set it up to be made up of how the program is used and representative of the people in the program." Councilmember Ahrens stated. "The only thing I would say about the way it's set up now is that it's 50/50, isn't it?" Councilmember Hanus stated. "It is if the Councilmember is an abutter. If the Councilmember is not an abutter then it's 4 to 2. Councilmember Ahrens. "So now it's 3 and 3. So nobody has a majority." Councilmember Weycker. "It was actually supposed to be set up ...... I think when Mark set it up originally, it was set up by users of the program and there are many more nonabutters using the program than there are abutters. I believe 3 nonabutters and 2 abutters." Councilmember Hanus. "And there are more nonabutters appointed than there are abutters, for that very reason. Councilmember Weycker. "Exactly. So by putting you on, it skews that number and makes it 3 to 3, instead of 2 to 3." 5 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- ~ANUARY 12, 1999 Councilmember Brown. "I don't think Mark is one of these people that really takes a side when it comes to something like that. I think when you start to say that it skews the side one way or another, he sits on a lot of commissions and so do you. I feel that having someone here from the Council like that, no matter who it is, your not going to take a side. You're going to look at what's right. I agree with Mark." Councilmember Weycker. "I don't consider it an issue of sides. I consider it an issue of experience in the program. What you're bringing to the commission is your knowledge of being a participant in the program." Councilmember Hanus. "You do consider it sides, that's why you want to make this a 4 to 2 vote in that group. That group doesn't typically do that. That group typically votes unanimously. They get along quite well and they do produce and they're doing good things. I take exception to the comment that you said that you're not for that. But, that's not the case. Everything you do and argue about, relative to that, is to pit one side against the other." Councilmember Weycker. "I disagree, Mark. I still don't think it's got anything to do with sides. I think it has to do with how you come to the commission, with what experience and coming into the commission as an abutter and a nonabutter are two different experiences. Therefore, they contribute different information to the group." Councilmember Hanus. "You've got all sides represented." Councilmember Weycker. "No, we don't. We don't have any people not involved in the program. Which of the Mound citizens, actually, is the bigger percentage that aren't currently active in the program, but have a chance to be." Councilmember Hanus. "Now, you're getting into the same debate that we went through a year or two ago. Councilmember Ahrens. "We've been down this road before. W sent out 600 requests to nonparticipants and we couldn't get one." Councilmember Weycker. "Actually, we did have one on the Task Force and when Mark scheduled how this Dock Commission was going to be formed or made up, he did not put a non user into that mix. Rita Peterson was the one on the Task Force. She was more than willing to serve again." MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JANUARY 12, 1999 Councilmember Hanus. "It's not my intention to go down this road and re-debate that. We're talking about an appointment to a commission here. I suggest, if you want to do that, then we put that on as an Agenda Item at some point down the road and we re- debate the entire issue all over again. I don't think that's a valid thing to do at this point. We're just appointing Councilmembers as reps to these commissions. Ahrens moved and Brown seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION RESOLUTION APPOINTING LEAH WEYCKER TO THE PARK COMMISSION (POSC); BOB BROWN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION; BOB BROWN TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (EDC); AND MARK HANUS TO THE DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION (DCAC) AS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES FOR 1999 The vote was 4 in favor with Weycker voting nay. Motion carried. *1.10 RESOLUTION APPOINTING COUNCILMEMBERS TO SERVE AS DIRECTORS ON THE WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER BOARD (WCCB). The City Manager advised that there are two openings. One for a 1 year term and one for a 2 year term. Ahrens moved and Brown seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//99-8 RESOLUTION APPOINTING MAYOR PAT MEISEL TO THE ONE YEAR TERM (EXPIRES DECEMBER 31, 1999) AND COUNCILMEMBER MARK HANUS TO A TWO YEAR TERM (EXPIRES DECEMBER 31, 2000) TO SERVE AS DIRECTORS ON WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER BOARD (WCCB) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 7 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999 *1.11 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 has had a Policy for several years to reappoint Members to Commissions who desired to be reappointed. If 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 Commi~ion. City Councilmembers would be invited to attend the interviews, if interested. Then a recommendation would follow from the respective Commi~ion to the City Council). Councilmember Hanus stated that he asked for this to be removed from the Consent Agenda because one of the member of the DCAC opted not to be reappointed and he is of the same category that we just got done interviewing for about one month ago. He suggested appointing the number two selection, Greg Eurich to replace Dennis Hopkins on the DCAC. The City Manager will contact Mr. Eurich and notify him of his appointment. The Council decided to leave the vacancy policy as noted above. Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION/D9-9 RESOLUTION APPOINTING AND REAPPOINTING THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: GEOFF MICHAEL, MICHAEL MUELLER AND FRANK WEILAND TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION; NORMAN DOMHOLT TO THE PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION; JIM FUNK AND GREG EURICH TO THE DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION; AND STAN DRAHOS, PAUL MEISEL AND JERRY PIETROWSKI TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - ALL 3 YEAR TERMS - EXPIRING 12/31/2001 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999 '1.12 APPROVAL OF 1999 DOCK LOCATION MAP. The DCAC held a public hearing in on November 19, 1998, for the 1999 Dock Location Map. Their recommendation is as follows: 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, g00115, //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. In addition, Hanus brought up an issue that was raised last summer, a request from Mark Smith on Island View Drive. Mr. Smith discovered last year that his dock was not centered in his dock location. He is now asking to have a new number assigned to his dock where it currently is located and has been for many years. The dock is located next to a light pole that has underground wiring. He would like a new number assigned to his current location. Because of that small shift, it would also require the next dock (the Albrecht dock) to the east to be shifted. Albrecht leased the site last year, but never put in a dock. This would allow Smith to be where he has always been. It would also allow him to use the light pole. Hanus stated it wouldn't deprive anyone of anything. It is very flat and accessible along there. Smith currently has two water spaces in front of his house and will continue to have two water spaces. Hanus stated that nothing is really changing and it is a valid and honest request. Smith requested this about 6 or 7 months ago and the City still hasn't taken any action on it. The neighborhood was going to get together before winter and try to come to a consensus. There has not even been a meeting on it. Staff has not resolved the issue. Hanus stated it is time to set the dock location map and he suggested this change be made as well, to clean up the area. Councilmember Hanus suggested the following: Move the Smith site (Dock//41866) to//41842 and then moving the next dock site to the east, which is currently #41824 up to #41790. This would also complete the pattern that's in the neighborhood, where you have the abutter docks, more or less toward the center of their lots and the inland docks that are in there tend to be closer to the lot lines. It spreads them out a little more evenly and it's less intrusion on the people that are there because the neighbors that are coming into the neighborhood are more toward your lot lines rather than down toward the center of your lot. MOTION made by Hanus to approve the 1999 dock location map as recommended by the DCAC; moving the Smith site (Dock//41866) to//41842 and then moving the next dock site to the east, which is currently//41824 up to//41790; and directing Staff to resolve this by the first Council Meeting in February,( February 9). If the affected people come up with another alternative that they can reach agreement on, that would be acceptable. 9 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999 Councilmember Weycker stated that the last time this was before the Council, it was decided that that neighborhood would get together and work this out. She stated that notices did go out in their dock packets encouraging them to get together with Staff and work this problem out. Brown seconded the motion. Hanus stated that this was to be taken care of before winter. Last Fall at a DCAC Meeting when it was discussed, he told the Park Director to do it then. He stated it is merely shifting 2 docks over a few feet. Weycker disagreed and encouraged the Council to delay action on shifting these particular docks until the neighborhood is notified of the possible shift and a meeting with them can be arranged. Hanus does not feel the neighborhood will be able to reach an agreement and that is why he is proposing this shift. He stated it will only affect the two docks in front of Mr. Smith's home. The Mayor stated she would rather see Staff work with these people and reach an agreement. Councilmember Ahrens stated that Mr. Smith has two dock locations in front of his house. The Park Director sent letters to 12 people asking them to agree on where the docks should be located in front of Mr. Smith's home. She did not feel this was appropriate. Brown suggested the Council go ahead and approve the motion as presented on the condition that Staff speaks to the two people involved and if they have no legitimate objections to moving the two docks, it will be resolved. The City Manager suggested giving these people some time to respond to Staff since the letters just went out in their dock packets. The Mayor stated she would like to see the neighborhood notified before a decision is made. The Council discussed moving ahead with the proposed motion. Having Staff notify the affected people and if the neighborhood comes up with a different solution, it can be changed. Councilmember Weycker did not agree. A vote on the motion was 4 in favor with Weycker voting nay. Motion carried. 10 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999 CASE 98-67: MINOR SUBDIVISION: TO INCORI~RATE 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 the background. 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 replotting 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 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 run-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 do this work, but the City Engineer will need updated plans for review, and the Street Superintendent will need to oversee the project. PLANNER'S RECOMMENDATION: The Planner recommended that the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the minor subdivision as requested with the following conditions. 1. Approval be conditioned on ownership transfer of Lot 18 to the Westonka Schools. 11 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999 Approval be conditioned on approval of the conditional use permit and variances for the Westonka Community Center, case//98-64. Utility easement documentation for the existing storm sewer and sanitary sewer force main be provided or a new utility easement be established. 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. Mr. Gordon then reviewed the City Engineer's Report and Recommendation. 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. These revisions will need to be incorporated in the final construction documents and resubmitted for approval before commencing construction. Engineer's Comments and Recommendations: I would recommend that the following conditions become part of any approvals granted for this minor subdivision. The applicant furnish proof of recorded easements for both the City of Mound storm sewer line and the City of Minnetrista sanitary sewer forcemain, If there are no existing easements, the applicant must provide easements in recordable form for said existing utilities, or, The grading and drainage plan be revised to accommodate changes to existing storm sewer system and be approved by the City Engineer. The Mayor asked for any comments or questions from the Council. 12 IdOUND CITY COUNCIL IdlNUTE$- JANUARY 12, 1999 Couneilmember Hanus made the following comments: "This subdivision doesn't represent the subdivisions required for the entire project. There are other subdivisions that are going to be required in the future. The site currently includes the football field and the baseball fields and that's contrary to what the final plan looks like and what the final plan calls for. In other words there are future subdivisions that are going to have to happen down the road. What that really leaves us with now, is what I consider to be half a subdivision plan. We have part of the subdivisions in front of us. That is very, very bad public policy and it's very, very bad planning procedures. It's something you just don't do. It is entirely possible that those future subdivisions, that I'm referring to, may not get approved down the road. There are reasons not to approve them and they may not get approved and then what do we have? We've got an option, that a future Council has of really, what? Three options: A. We can either approve it. aw Or the alternative is that, either the school district loses the property that the football field is on and the baseball fields, because all of that property has got to transfer at the end of the project. C. Or we end up in court. One of those three things are probably what's going to end up happening. I believe that the entire subdivision has to take place now. The entire site has to be subdivided now in its final plan in order to make sense. In order to keep from binding a future Council. You're really not binding them. They still can do whatever they want but, the options are not very good that I just mentioned. The site has to be subdivided now in order to validate the variances that were granted previously. The need doesn't even exist as we stand here today. There is no reason why the rest of the subdivisions can't happen at this point in time. It just doesn't make any sense not to do it. This is no longer a minor realignment of a line. Actually, I never thought it was but there's a question of whether it's a minor subdivision or a major subdivision.? As far as the minor realignment that we have presented in our packet. Again, think about what the minor realignment is doing in this particular case. It's eliminating an entire parcel. The total elimination of a lot line rather than the shifting of a lot line. It adds a third zone to a site that already has two zones in it. It requires new drainage easements. It requires new utility easements. It changes the use of the property from residential to public. Now, after the last meeting, new information we found out, now that is does require alteration, moving of the storm sewer, or at least the catch basins in the area. That's a public improvement and Loren that's one of the primary points that you've argued 13 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JANUARY 12, 1999 the last time that made it a minor subdivision, is that there are no sewer, water issues involved. Now, there clearly are. It's very arguable now, that this is a major subdivision, not even a minor one, let alone, a minor realignment of a lot line. There's still missing information. I think a sketch plan does exist but, I don't see one in our packet here tonight. A final plat, I believe is required and we don't even have the site survey in here. I think that exists, as well. But, again, that's not in our packet here tonight. The utility easements that I mentioned earlier, have to be drawn up. They haven't been done. B. The drainage easements have to be drawn up. They haven't been done. The new storm sewer and catch basins or at least the design work for those, have not been drawn and submitted. We're obligating a future Council to pass a future subdivision and we don't even know how it's defined at this point in time. We don't know the size of the future parcel. We don't know where the lot lines are going to be drawn, exactly. We know they're going to go somewhere around the parking lot but, we don't even know the size of the parking lot at that point in time. We don't know about potential utility issues around those lot lines. We haven't addressed the citizen COmments that were brought up at the last meeting, relative to the loss of the baseball field and the finks. That was the first comment I heard, was at the last meeting about the negative aspects of losing those sites. If we were to pass this tonight, we're just ignoring those people." So again, the obligation of a future Council, puts them between a terrible rock and a hard place. Between deciding whether to go to court or go ahead and pass it. Not much of a choice. The Planning Commission has not yet reviewed this plan, relative to the Comp Plan. This goes back to that strange issue we talked about with that Statute at the last meeting. I still believe that it's a State Law and it says that they need to review that relative to the Comp Plan. The 45 day provision has not yet passed. The Council has not passed a resolution to take it away from the Planning Commission yet, which they can do, but haven't yet. And if we approve this, subject to the Planning Commission approval, then we are really conveying to a group of volunteer commissioners, that are appointed (volunteer people). We are putting them in the position of having a veto authority over this project because if they don't approve it. If we approve it subject to their approval and 14 MOUND CITY COUNCIl. MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999 they don't approve it, it's dead. That's a vary unfair position to put a group of volunteers into. o So, where does that leave us? We are sitting here now with a CUP that's been passed subject to conditions, not all of which have been met yet, so the CUP isn't even valid yet. We've granted variances to conditions that don't exist. We've required an escrow account that doesn't state whose in control of the account; doesn't state how much needs to be in the account; and doesn't state when the account must be used. It's a pretty worthless provision. I still believe that the CUP language is just full of incorrect information. It also requires the City to be satisfied that the new neighbor's concerns are satisfied and I haven't seen anything back on that. I don't know if those discussions have taken place yet. Now, we have a proposed subdivision in front of us. It's half a plan, like I stated. It doesn't address the entire site. It's only part of a plan. We have evidence that it could now be a major subdivision, rather than a minor subdivision and it's time to stop for a second and backup. There has been enough short circuiting of this system. The process has been short circuited here and that's why we've got such a terrible mess that we're looking at. It is a terrible mess, from a planning perspective, to work through. It's because things have been short circuited and bypassed. We have to let the process work. The process was designed to work out the bugs. It may not always be a great process. It may be difficult to work through sometimes but, the process was designed to work out the bugs in these plans. We need to let it do what it was intended to do. It's the only way the City can stay out of trouble. The process is spelled out in the ordinances. The process, I don't think, has been followed. The Planning Commission, as an example, hasn't even had an entire Staff report on the subdivision yet. It got part way through it and that was the end of it. I think that we're in big trouble, if, this gets to a point down the road, where one of the groups wants to sue the City for not following a process. We're in trouble because we've circumvented the process here. We need to back up and run through the process. We know that the School District has already hired an attorney. We've received a letter regarding comments about the process. It's already started. I want to be very careful, from a legal perspective here, that we don't circumvent the system and the process. We have to be consistent. We have to treat this case the same as we would any other subdivision. M Hanus then referred to the Planning Commission Minutes from January 11, 1999. The Commission discussed this and passed a motion recommending that the City Council return it to them, by a unanimous vote. That is what Hanus would strongly recommend. 15 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JANUARY 12, 1999 MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Brown to return this case back to the Plannlno~ Commission to go back through the process as the process was designed to work. The Mayor and Councilmember Brown both voiced concern about the subdivisions and how this will ail come together. The Mayor asked for any comments from the people in attendance. There were none. The vote was 4 in favor with Weycker voting nay. Motion carried. The City Manager asked if the Council would like this back from the Planning Commission by a certain date? MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Brown to reconsider the motion. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Council discussed a time-line for this item to return to the Council from the Planning Commission. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Brown to refer this case back to the Planning Commission to go back through the process as the process was designed to work. The Council asked that the PlanninE Commission have this back to the City Council for their 1st meeting in February (February 9, 1999). The Mayor asked that the Planner provide the School District with an good guideline of what the Planning Commission needs. The Planner stated he has good notes of Councilmember Hanus concerns but he disagrees with his interpretation of the process. The vote on the motion was 4 in favor with Weycker voting nay. Motion carried. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were none. 1.14 RECOMMENDATION FROM PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: PURCHASE OF LAND AT 2217 CHATEAU LANE FOR PARK PURPOSES. The City Manager explained that Sunshore Partners Limited of Dailas, Texas has contacted the City about donating Lot 18, Block 1, L.P. Crevier's Subd. of Lot 36 to the City of Mound for 16 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JANUARY 12, 1999 $1.00 for use as a park or any other purpose the City feels is appropriate. It is an unbuildable lot as it only has 4800 square feet. The Park Commission has reviewed this and recommended the purchase for parkland usage. Councilmember Weycker stated that she voted against it at the Park Commission because they wanted it dedicated to park land usage. She felt there are houses on both sides of this lot which appear to be nonconforming because of lot size and it might better serve to be divided and attached to each nonconforming property to make them conforming. The Council discussed this and decided to do some further checking on this property and the neighboring property to see if there is a better use than park land, possibly leaving it just as green space. The City Attorney suggested checking on whether the property taxes have been paid on this parcel. Hanus felt this item should go to the Planning Commission for review because we're taking private land and putting it into public use. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to direct Staff to investigate if there are any back property taxes owing on this parcel and then refer this item to the Planning Commi~ion for their review. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. Department Head Monthly Reports for December 1998. B. Dock and Commons Advisory Commission Minutes of December 17, 1998. C. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of December 10, 1998. De Notice and agenda material for the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) Annual Meeting. Councilmember Hanus is the City's delegate to this organization and Ed Shukle is the alternate delegate. 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 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JANUARY 12, 1999 coordinated the project and to Ted who developed the material for the site. F. REMINDER: City offices will be closed Monday, January 18, 1999 in observance of Dr. Martin Luther King's Birthday. G. 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. I-IRA 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. January 1999 Calendar. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Brown to adjourn at 8:55 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk 18 MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING-JANUARY 19, 1999 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. Members present: Meisel, Hanus, Weycker, Brown and Ahrens (arrived 7:40 p.m.). Also Present: Ed Shukle, City Manager. City Council Seating, Mayor Meisel requested that the seating arrangement at the Council table be changed. She indicated that she has received comments from citizens regarding consistent talking between Ahrens and Hanus during Council meetings. Ahrens indicated she did not want to move. She said if Hanus wants to move, that's fine. Mark asked if there were truly residents who have observed this. Meisel indicated again that there were. Mark indicated that he preferred to stay where he was because he liked being seated next to John Dean, City Attorney as he frequently will ask questions of the Attorney during the meeting. Brown: Being's we're on this, I had three people after the council meeting concerned, I'm not pointing fin~,ers but twice or three times [addressing Leah Weycker] you got up while things were t, oing on you were handing notes to John [John Dean, City Attorney]. Weycker: Brown: Weycker: Brown: Weycker: Brown: Shukle: Weycker: Brown: Weycker: Brown: Weycker: No, I don't believe that. You want to look at the tape? Sure. I've looked at it many times. I got up once and handed a note to John. Twice. No, once. And it was brought up to me by two people. You know, can we turn that off [referrint, to tape recorder and asking Ed Shukle, City Manager] for a minute? No, you can't. It's a public meeting. Absolutely not. It's a public meeting. You...You get... Whenever somebody says anything to you, you immediately take it as a personal front or offense and you jump right back... You know, Bob, the tone of that last meeting was very personal against me. I didn't say anything... And I think I deserve a personal apology from Mark. COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 2 Brown: Excuse me, I think I had the floor. And I don't think I said it anything here. But I had the two people say 'What's the councilmember handing notes while we're talking' to John, twice,' they said. I didn't notice it. But it was brought up to me afterwards wanting to know what was going on our side. And I don't think I said it abruptly to you or anything like that. I brought it up just like they [Andrea and Mark] were brought up about their whispering. These are things that are happening and I was just making, you aware of them. And immediately, you took it as a personal attack. I have nothing personal against anybody. Weycker: Bob, you said two or three times 'you got up.' I know, for a fact, I got up once and handed John a note. Brown: O.k .... Weycker: So it gets bigger, it gets exaggerated. Brown: You get awful.., you get awful defensive and immediately take an attack position. Weycker: Yes, I do. After the tone of the last meeting, I am very defensive. Very. And until I see the tone change, I will continue to be defensive. Brown: And you're going to be on the outside lookint, in. Weycker: That's fine, Bob. If you want to play that game. You play that game. Brown: I'm not playing no ~,ames. I'm just saying... Weycker: No, it is a game. Brown: It's nice.., it's not a game. I didn't have nothint, to do with that last meeting, with you. I didn't say one thing bad about you or anything. And I did not say anything bad to... Weycker: I didn't say you did. The tone of the whole meeting... Brown: Well, you just told me I was playing games, Leah. And I'm not playing games. I haven't said a word to you. I said it politely tonight. I was bringing something to a point, and immediately, you want to attack. And I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to let anybody attack me...for just being COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 3 Weycker: Nor will I. Brown: ... a comment. On tryint, to get together with somebody and pointing out something,. If you don't like the way I point it out, then say, 'Bob, hey you're wrong.' Weycker: I didn't say that. Brown: And I may be wrong. Weycker: I said,'Bob, I got up once.' Would you like to know what was in the note I passed to John Dean? Brown: No. I don't care. I could care less. But citizens brought it up to me that we were doing thint, s... Meisel: Notes. Notes. Brown: Hanus: Maybe, maybe, maybe collectively, we all have to be a little more cognizant of, of, of that. Let's just try and do that for a little while and see if we can't check that a bit. Meisel: One of the things, as I stated with the facilitator, we are not on the same page. It appears we aren't going to be working together well, and I don't want to start out that way. And some of it with the first meeting is I should have been stronger, and stopped some of it. So, I'm just as guilty. And the offset to it is I also think we need to hash it out or we're never goint, to get over it. Weycker: I... I totally at, ree, Pat. And I will tell all of you right now I will not sit on this Council if that kind of behavior continues. I think it is very unprofessional and inappropriate. And, I will not be here if that's the case. Meisel: I'm sorry if you felt attacked, Leah. I felt bad at the end of the meetint,. But I also have the vote the way I did. But I didn't go home and call any citizens either so that I was getting calls at 8:30 in the mornint,. I usually t'o to the person directly if I don't like what happened. Weycker: I received calls from those citizens constantly for over a year asking to be informed about these issues, as well as these people [referring to Andrea and COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 4 Mark]. They know exactly what was going on. The fact that thev were not informed of we vote on it, I had every right to call them. That's why... Meisel: I'm not telling you not to call them· What I'm telling you is. the attack that proceeded from it. And. that's fine. I can hold my ground. I don't have a problem with it. But. I also don't want to spend the next two years second guessing if I'm going to get calls from the residents because somebody scooted out of a council meeting immediately to make a telephone call. 'Do you know Pat did?' And that's the way it felt. Weycker: I think you're assumin~ that's what the conversation was. That wasn't the conversation. The conversation was your docks got moved at the city council meeting. Meisel: But did you go on to explain the why? Hflnus: But. who did you tell that to? Weycker: The why? Meisel: As far as... I explained why I voted the way I did. And I think Mark explained why he made the motion for it. and we all went forward. And I re-explained where my intention was. Weycker: You know the whole issue... Meisel: Which went out the window. Weycker: ·.. is so much bigger, though, than Mark presented, I... I don't think it was presented properly. I think there was a lot of misleadint, things that Mark presented. My note to John Dean happened to be about Andrea who had been advised that if she talked about these issues or voted on them, was a direct conflict of interest. She broke the law sitting up there, according to me. Brown: But, see.., this is exactly what I am saying. Weycker: He said he had to check into it because he didn't know where the docks t'ot moved. Ahrens: I have.., now... I...let's be fair. I have never stepped down from voting on any of those issues because I said I would be breakint, the law. Never. You better COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 5 ~o back and check all the tapes. Because I've never said that. Weycker: I didn't say you did say that. Ahrens: I voluntarily removed myself from discussion. Weycker: I said you've been advised... Brown: See, this is a situation... Ahrens: I have been... Brown: Madame Mayor, this is a situation of what exactly I'm talking about. And I feel, personally, that when you vote on something, or since just watching you lately, you're not voting for what's best. You're voting on an issue, and you're making it a personal thing and you take it personally whether it's.., if it's defeated, it's not that, well, maybe I was wron~ on this one, because it's 4-1, and I may have to rethink the way I'm going on this. Or, maybe I have to make a little stronger case on the next issue to show that maybe I'm right on this and they need to rethink their position. You take it personally and you get very upset and you go dog bite right at a person. You come riI, ht at them, you... you just get hostile and you just take it as a personal attack. And there was...maybe there was that night but, like tonight, there was no personal attack here, to you, when I said what I did. But, immediately, instead of sayin[, 'well, Bob, he may be wrong on this,' you took it as a personal front and then you take it as a personal attack and you get really... Weycker: I do take it as a personal attack. Brown: That's not what were here for. Weycker: Like I said, the tone of the last meeting,, I... I feel like I'm sitting in the same meeting right now. Brown: Whoa, we're here...for what's.., the five of us are here, well six of us, with Ed, we're here for one thing, not personal gain or a personal issue. I have no issue, here, on this council. I don't have a dock, I don't have a house, I got an apartment, that I re... own. So you gotta be here for one thing. What is best for my town? Weycker: Absolutely. Absolutely. COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 6 Brown: And, I don't feel you feel that way. I feel you got an agenda that you're on, whether, and I'm going to say it, personally, whether it's the school or docks, and you take those two issues. Anything else that we might say to you, you think I'm personally attacking you because you believe... I'm glad you believe that strong about the school. And I'm glad you believe that.., people should believe about somethint,. There's nothing worse than somebody that's lukewarm. Somebody that doesn't believe one way or the other or they're lukewarm on something. But if you believe wholeheartedly in it, then go for it. But don't take it as a personal attack on you. I don't think anybody here wants to attack you because you sit on the end of the bench about how you feel. I don't. I'm here to work with Pat and this council to make this town the best it can be. And there are going to be times when I'm going to argue like crazy but at the end of the night, I'm going to walk out and say 'hey Mark, do you want to go out get a beer?' Or, 'you want to go get a beer?' After it's over with, I've lost or whatever.., that's the end of it. I don't take it home with me. Weycker: Now, you've sat at this very table and called me a treehugger for sitting on the Park Commission. I was appointed that job. Brown: I call everybody a treehugger. Weycker: Well, I take offense to that. Brown: Well, I'm sorry, then. I would apolo~,ize to you. Weycker: ... and the Park Commission as well. Brown: I'll apologize to you. Weycker: There is no personal issue with me and the schools. I don't even understand where that comment is coming from. Again, I sit on another commission called the WCCB and on the Building Committee that I was appointed to by this council. Had nothing, to do with the schools. I had nothing to do with the schools, before that. This is all in my job that this has come about. And yes, I sat in here, I made the decisions and I strongly support that project. I... I have been working on it for the past two years. And I think I should, just like you said, I will strongly support it and I will stand by it. I'm not wishy washy at all on my opinions on things. And I don't find that you should criticize me for having,.., having that opinion on things. And if you can't agree to ar~,ue the facts with me, I think that's what this council is all about, to debate the issues and discuss them, and if we're on different sides, to try and convince the other COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 7 side of what we're thinking, and if we can't, so be it and the vote comes down, one side wins, one side doesn't. And I have no problem with being on the losing end of the vote. I have been for the past two years. It has nothing to do with a 4-1, it was a 2-3 last time. It doesn't matter that. I... I...and I didn't have a problem before that first meeting of this year. I didn't have a problem. Brown: But you say that... Weycker: That first meeting was very contentious and was personal. Brown: You say that and immediately when you say you don't mind that we should give the opinions but as soon as the opinions are given, you went right out and called the citizens and had somebody calling Pat. Weycker: Absolutely and I think that's my job and I would do the same thing again. Brown: That's... Weycker: They have called me several times. I got calls almost daily during the summer. Almost daily. Mr. Fackler was down there, almost daily this summer, I talked to those people. They have continually asked the city to be informed about these issues and here we are sitting up there as a council voting behind their back? I think that's reprehensible, to the public. I don't care if it had to do with docks or a building permit, or a school, what it had to do with. You don't do that behind the public's back. I do work for the public. I don't know who you're working for. Hanus: And...and...and... and...that opinion is fine. And that opinion is your opinion. And I don't for a minute believe we're voting behind the public's back. That was on the agenda. It's been on... it's been in the paper. And... and that issue, that dock location map, is done every year. And... and.., it's.., it's noticed every year. It's gone throu~,h the commission, it's gone now to the council. Voting on it when its noticed in the paper is not voting behind people's backs. So, my position on that issue is completely different than yours. That's the way it is. Weycker: I will point out that these issues do go to our commissions first. The neighbors called me when this came up at the dock commission. Said 'do I need to be there?' I said 'I would be there ifI were you.' They all showed up to the dock commission meeting. What were they told? We had it in our notes. They were told these issues will not be decided without the neighborhood input. COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 8 They were told that at the dock commission meeting. What did we do? Hanus: We're giving the neighborhood input. We're letting them make their decision. They're having... Weycker: Not a lot of incentive for the people to show up and even have this conversation with the neighborhood if they don't even show up, they still get exactly what they wanted. Ahrens: You know... I think... I think...that we could be on this one issue all night. But I think one of the things that, uh, and.., and Leah touched on it and... and.., and I think you did too, Bob, we are going to have different ideologies and different philosophies, and, you're right, we should argue the facts. I... I... I sat here for eight years on the short end of 4-1 votes for a long time. So, I understand what it's like to be there. But, when you have a different ideology, and I think my ideology, and I think even Mark's ideology, on this whole issue is a little different than yours. And... and.., and... I think the point that has been.., that you refuse to listen to, just let me finish this point so I could at least say that you heard what I said. You refuse to listen to the fact that there are two dock locations and they are in front of one individual's house. And why Greg Knutson, four houses down or Gretchen Smith five houses down, or anybody who lives on Three Points is affected and should have a say in where those two locations in front of one individual's house should be, I don't know. I don't know why you think that. And you haven't explained that to me. Weycker: I can explain it if you would like me to explain it. Ahrens: Yeah, I would really love to hear a valid reason why they are affected. Weycker: Because this is just one little issue of an ongoing thing that you keep, seem to keep brint, ing up to the neighborhood. Ahrens: It's not me. It's Mr. Smith. Weycker: No. First, Andrea, first it was you, you planned or the dock commission planned to putting this multiple dock in front of these people's houses. That's what got them mad in the first place. Ahrens: No. It was in front of the road, the fire lane. Weycker: A fifteen foot fire lane. But we are moving all the non-abutting docks from in COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 9 Ahrens: Weycker: Ahrens: Weycker: Ahrens: Hanus: Weycker: Hanus: Weyeker: Hanus: Brown: Hanus: Ahrens: Weycker: Ahrens: Weycker: Ahrens: front of... There used to be one dock there, Leah. Now tell ali the facts correctly. No, that isn't correct, Andrea. Multiple with 20 slips. It was a straight dock. It was a multiple with one... I don't think so. You were moving Casey's dock, Albrecht dock... It was a straight dock. It was a straight dock with 4 slips. With 4 slips. Okay... Four boats on one... Did Andrea say one dock? One dock with 4 boats on one. Leah, listen, listen. A straight dock with 4 boats on it. That's what it was. Ed, isn't this kind of the plan I brought to you? Two on each side. We have lots of docks like that have. I mean, my dock is like that. It has one dock and it has 4 boats. Do you think the people that were on either side of that area had a right to say they didn't want it? The... the one gentleman... Do you think that Mr. Smith has a right to say where the docks should be in front of his house? This isn't in front of your house, Leah. And that's the point I'm making. You said this is just.., this little issue. This isn't. This is one issue, then it's a next issue, then it's a next issue. It has nothing to do with that multiple anymore. COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 10 Weycker: Things keep coming up and the neighbors just don't trust what you guys are going to do with them. Because things keep ~,ettint, put little, little pieces at a time. Ahrens: O.k.,, well, finish your answer. What does Greg Knutson or somebody fifty houses down... Weycker: Nothing. I don't think they should have a say. Ahrens: ...on Three Points have to do with Mark Smith? Weycker: I don't think they should have a say. I don't think they should have a say in it. Ahrens: O.k. Thank you. That's all I wanted to know. Weycker: What I'm sayint, is you just keep pushing these little things in front of them dangling in front of their nose, saying 'oh, now, we're goin~ to do this, you you've told them to their faces 'just wait, I'll I~et you.' What do you think? Ahrens: Mr. Smith figured that if the multiple was down on the end of the fire lane, the issue about where his dock was went away. But when that didn't happen, he said 'I would like to move my location. I have plenty of frontage in front of my house to move my location. Can I please do this?' (Note: The balance of this discussion was focused on rationale as to why a majority of the City Council voted to move the docks unless the neighborhood could come up with another alternative. I believe Councilmember Brown's intent with asking for verbatim minutes was to demonstrate the intensity of the discussion. There is more discussion and if you would like me to add it, I will, but in the interest of time, I stopped at this point). Following some discussion regarding the "tone" of the first meeting of the year and new term, the Council consensus was to keep the seating arrangement the same as it was for the January 12 meeting. Mayor Meisel was asked to monitor the frequency of conversations at the Council table between members and should the need arise, call for a change at a later date. Possible City Council/Staff Retreat Utilizing an Outside Facilitator Shukle asked if there was interest in having a city council/staffretreat using an outside facilitator for purposes of establishing goals and a strategic plan for the next 1-2 years. The Council was very interested and asked the city manager to contact some facilitators, review proposals and select a Minutes of the Committee of the Whole January 19, 1999 Page 11 person or firm. A date and location will be announced following the city manager's research. Meetings with Advisory Commissions to Establish Relationships. etc. Shukle indicated that this subject has been discussed before and asked if due to recent events, if the City Council would be interested in setting these meetings up with the various commissions. The Council thought this would be a good idea and suggested that such meetings be set once the retreat has occurred. In addition, material prepared by Councilmember Weycker for the Park and Open Space Commission in regards to their role as an advisory commission was briefly discussed. It was suggested that this material be customized to fit all of the advisory commissions. In addition, it was suggested that a review of the appointment/reappointment process regarding positions on the commissions be undertaken at a future COW meeting. Mound Visions Update Shukle reviewed the status of the Lost Lake Improvement Project, Auditor's Road Improvement Project and the Post Office Relocation and related development. Mayor Meisel stated her position related to her and her husband's involvement in the project. She indicated that she wanted to be up front and honest about what could possibly take place with regard to the Post Office development and related development that would be tied to Meisel's property on the west side of Commerce Blvd. She indicated that she and her husband may sell some property to a developer and remove themselves from the project or they may be partners in the project. Shukle explained the interest by the Post Office, TIF and related matters that the city would be getting involved in relating to the project. Meisel explained that she and her husband were in the process of interviewing prospective developers to find the right fit for the development. She further indicated that the developers that they had interviewed to that point seemed to be more interested in developing the property along the new Auditor's Road. Perhaps both areas will be within the same project but the first priority is to locate the new Post Office so that the Lost Lake Improvement Project can be completed within its time schedule. Report from 1/19/99 WCCB Meeting/Update on Westonka Community Center Meisel, Hanus, Weycker and Shukle reported on the discussions held on January 19, 1999 at the WCCB meeting. They indicated that a special meeting of the WCCB will be held on Monday, January 25, 1999, 7:30 p.m., Mound City Hall. Westonka School Board, City Council and Planning Commission will be present to review the existing renovation project, clarify issues and will identify the next steps to be taken with regard to this project. Minutes of the Committee of the Whole January 19, 1999 Pagel2 Proposed Wara Development in Minnetrista - Southside of Saunders Lake Shukle indicated that this project is on hold by Minnetrista until the water connection issue with the City of Mound can be resolved. He also indicated that the previous City Council asked that the water and sewer connection issue be delayed until a resolution to the composting/recycling facility can be found. The Council consensus was to schedule a meeting with two representatives and related staff from Minnetrista and Mound. Meisel indicated she would serve in this capacity along with Councilmember Weycker. A meeting will be scheduled as soon as possible. Proposed Wara Development in Minnetrista - Northside of Saunders Lake Shukle reported on a concept plan being proposed to the City of Minnetrista by Wara Development. He indicated that a neighborhood meeting was scheduled for January 21, 1999. He further indicated that a resident had contacted him regarding this proposed development and had a number of concerns regarding access and egress, utilities and other related development issues. Shukle indicated that he will monitor the project as it progresses. Update on Minnetonka Boat Rental Shukle indicated that this matter is still ongoing. Appraisals are being conducted on adjacent properties for possible sale to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as well as the boat rental site. More information will be forwarded once the appraisals are completed. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Vacancies Shukle reported that two vacancies are being advertised for the MCWD. Malcolm Reid and Pamela Blixt are up for appointment/reappointment; both incumbents wish to be reappointed. Area cities have endorsed three other candidates for the two positions. It was the consensus to send a letter to Hennepin County endorsing Charles Scott Thomas, Minnetrista; Warren McNeil, Deephaven; and Robert Rascop, Shorewood. City Council Photo[,raph Consensus was to wait until Fall, 1999 to have the photograph taken. Newly Elected Officials Conference Shukle indicated that the new councilmembers had expressed interest in attending. Both Meisel and Brown asked the City Manager to register them for the February 26-27 conference in Plymouth. Minutes of the Committee of the Whole January 19, 1999 Page 13 New Councilmember Issues Hanus: -Transition for existing businesses to stay in Mound while redevelopment is to take place. Suggested meeting with businesses now regarding potential redevelopment/relocation issues. -Status of Island Park Hall. Brown: -City Councilmembers need to be more visible. More articles in the Laker on what is going on in the City. -Invite businesses for coffee/donuts twice per year at 7 a.m. to sit with City Council to discuss issues of concern. -Review of wages for parks/docks staff. Ideas for Web Site Hanus indicated he would like to see some linkages to businesses in Mound. In addition, the ability to download forms would be important at some future date. Also, Hanus would like continued downtown redevelopment promotions used on the Web site. Other Issues There were none. It was noted that the next COW meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 16, 1999, 7:30 p.m., Mound City Hall. One item already scheduled for the agenda is a brief presentation from the Hennepin County Assessor's Office regarding property valuation increases and what to expect during the April 21-22 Open Book meetings. Upon motion by Brown, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 11'10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, City Manager MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 26, 1999 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, January 26, 1999, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Attorneys Karen Cole and Mack LeFevre, City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens: Tim Becker, Gina and Mark Smith. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 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. Mayor Meisel requested adding an item to the Agenda after the Executive Session as follows: Action to formalize the City's withdrawal from the WCCB. Councilmember Brown asked that the Committee of the Whole Minutes be removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Weycker asked that the Minutes from the January 12th City Council Meeting be removed from the Consent Agenda. *CONSENT AGENDA MOTION Weycker, Ahrens, unanimously. *1.0 SET PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATION ORDINANCE (SUGGESTED DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 1999). MOTION Weycker, Ahrens, unanimously. *1.1 SET PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING CONDmONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW OF EARLY CHILDHOOD FAMILY EDUCATION (ECFE} LOCATED AT SHORELINE PLAZA (SUGGESTED DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 1999). MOTION Weycker, Ahrens, unanimously. 1 '1.2 '1.3 City Council Minutes - January 26, 1999 SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG} PROGRAM. (SUGGESTED DATE: MARCH 9, 1999). MOTION Weycker, Ahrens, unanimously. RESOLUTION 99- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF 1999 GRANT APPLICATION FOR RECYCLING AND EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT. RESOLUTION NO. 99-10 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF 1999 GRANT APPLICATION FOR RECYCLING AND EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT MOTION Weycker, Ahrens, unanimously. *1.4 SET BID OPENING FOR AUDITOR'S ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. (SUGGESTED DATE: FEBRUARY 25, 1999, 11 A.M.). MOTION Weycker, Ahrens, unanimously. *1.5 SET BID OPENING FOR NORWOOD LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. (SUGGESTED DATE: FEBRUARY 25, 1999 11 A.M.). MOTION Weycker, Ahrens, unanimously. '1.6 APPROVE TREE LICENSE FOR OSTVIG TREE. INC. MOTION Weycker, Ahrens, unanimously. '1.7 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION Weycker, Ahrens, unanimously. 3ol City Council Minutes - January 26, 1999 1.8 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 12. 1999. REGULAR MEETING. Councilmember Weycker asked that the discussion on the following items be added to the Minutes: 1. Appointment of Mark Hanus as Acting Mayor for the year 1999. 2. Appointment of Council Representatives to various Commissions for 1999. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 19. 1999, COMIVH'ITEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. Councilmember Brown asked that under City Council Seating on page 1 of the COW Minutes, the second paragraph be done verbatim so that his reason for asking that the tape be turned off is related in the minutes. MOTION made by Weycker, seconded by Brown approve the minutes of the January 12th and 19th Meeting Minutes, as amended above. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF REPORT AND SCHEDULING DATE FOR CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION. RE: APPEAL OF TIMOTHY BECKER AND DALE AND LORELL BECKER. The City Manager explained that the City now has the Hearing Examiner's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation in the Appeal of Timothy Becker and Dale and Lorell Becker relating to wetland delineation and Exemption on four lots in the City of Mound. He stated the City Attorney has recommended that the Council do two things tonight. Receive and acknowledge receipt of the Report of Hearing Examiners, along with the transcript and exhibits from the hearing, as the record of the proceedings. Water 2. Set a date and time for the meeting of the Council for consideration of the Report, with an opportunity for both the Beckers and City Staff to address any objections to the Report. This would be an opportunity to review the record and hear arguments based on the record. It would not be an opportunity for new evidence to be offered. The parties had the chance to offer all evidence at the hearing. The City Attorney recommended that the Council consider hearing this matter at a special meeting. He further recommended that the Council establish a deadline (one week before the meeting), for any written objections to the Report or other written comments to be submitted to the Council. At the meeting, the Council would consider its final action on the Report. That is, whether to: a) accept the Report and affirm the denial by City Staff of the grading permit; b) reject the Report and approve the grading permit; or c) modify the Report and take other action. These are things that need to be done before the Report is passed on to BOWSR (Board of and Soil Resources). MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to receive and acknowledge receipt of the Report of Hearing Examiners , along with the transcript and exhibits from the hearing, as the record of the proceedings. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 3 City Council Minutes - January 26, 1999 The Council discussed dates and times for a special meeting to consider the Report. Brown asked if the neighbors within so many feet need to be notified of the special meeting. The City Attorney stated that they did not need to be notified by law. MOTION made by Brown, seconded by Ahrens to set February 10, 1999, at 6:00 P.M. for a Special City Council Meeting to consider the Hearing Examiner's Report on the Becket Case. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Attorney suggested that the Council review the hearing transcript, exhibits, and Hearing Examiner's Report, prior to the meeting. The City Attorney will work with the City Clerk in sending out a notice to the Beckers of the time, date, and the process that will be followed at the hearing. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. Tim Becker, 6919 North Shore Drive, EauClair, Wisconsin, presented the Council with a memorandum on the following subject: "The Hearing Examiner's Report is incorrect, misleading and totally biased. A Council members vote would be corrupt if they use her Report because he report misrepresented the facts." 1.10 EXECUTIVE SESSION: STATUS OF PENDING LITIGATION. The City Attorney explained that he has two other lawyers with him, that are representing the City in the following pending litigation: 1. Netka vs. the City of Mound; and 2. The Woodland Point litigation. Karen Cole and Mack LeFevere would like to discuss issues involving those two litigations with the City Council. Councilmember Weycker removed herself from the Council on the Woodland Point litigation. The Council went into Executive Session at 8:10 P.M. to discuss the status of the above pending litigation. The Council returned from Executive Session at 9:35 P.M. The City Attorney explained that the City's attorneys wanted to update the City Council on the two items of litigation. The Council was given a report and discussed certain options. The attorneys received direction from the City Council on how to proceed. 1.11 ADD ON ITEM: WITHDRAWING FROM THE WCCB Councilmember Hanus stated that he feels the proper thing would be to clarify withdrawing from the project because the WCCB may have to continue to operate to settle business matters. The Council agreed. City Council Minutes - January 26, 1999 The City Manager summarized as follows: 1. The City Council, City Planning Commission, the School Board and the WCCB met last night for the purposes of looking at the proposed project for the renovation of the existing Westonka Community Center. There were also a number of residents present at that meeting. Following discussion, the School Board indicated that they were unwilling to continue looking at this project if the City Council was unwilling to continue looking at this project. They were of the opinion, collectively, as well as individually, that if this project is not going to proceed with the City Council's support, that they would not be interested in working with the City Council on this project or any other project. The Council took no action at the meeting last night but, asked that this item be placed on tonight's agenda for discussion for the purpose of withdrawing from the project and formalizing that withdrawal in the form of a motion and/or resolution. The City Manager stated that he felt what was intended was to discuss options that the City Council has, relative to a community center and provide some direction to Staff, in that regard. Councilmember Ahrens stated she has concerns about hastily writing up a blanket resolution to cover the withdrawal. She asked for he City Attorney's opinion. The Council voiced concerns about the following: financial considerations that need to be worked out; property that was purchased without the authority of the WCCB and whose liability is that now?; and the School District needs to know whether to close on the bonds on Thursday. Councilmember Hanus suggested adopting a motion tonight that would indicate to the School District, the City Council's intent to withdraw. This would give them clear direction of the Council's intention. Have Staff draw up a resolution to withdraw which would come back at the next City Council Meeting for approval. The Council discussed not being able to come up with solutions to the financial aspects of the project tonight. There are too many unknowns that need to be researched. The City Attorney stated that he has spoken to the School District's Bond Counsel today and the bond deal is over. There will be no closing. The bonds will not be sold. The potential buyer of the bonds has been notified of that fact. Councilmember Brown would like to see the Joint Powers Agreement that was entered into by the City and the School District. The City Attorney gave him one. He stated he was under the impression that the way this was drafted, if the project did not proceed, the City would not be on the hook for the money. Councilmember Hanus stated he is familiar with the Agreement and it really addresses parting ways after the project is complete, not during or before. The City Attorney pointed out that there is a provision for dissolution. City Council Minutes - January 26, 1999 The City Manager stated that there have been a number of expenses that have been paid out with regard to the project. He pointed out that it all depends on where you start the clock because you could go all the way back to April of 1997, when the project was first talked about, pre-referendum days, and a lot of those expenses were borne by the City. The City and School District shared in the cost of a survey. He thought we paid for the architect to do the preliminary cost estimate and some of those things. But, if you go back to July or August of 1998, when the contracts were signed with the construction manager and the architects, that's really when the expenses started to roll up because we started into the preliminary design, budgeting, etc., to bring us where we are today. There have been some numbers thrown out at WCCB Meetings, relative to that. The City Manager did not know what the City Attorney's advise would be but, would guess that he would ask the Council to wait to make any kind of statement or reaction to such a thing, should the School District decide that they want to invoice the City for those costs. The City Manager stated that as far as the land purchase that was made, as well as the other expenses, that have been paid out, the School District was banking on the fact that the bond issue would pay for those costs. His understanding of the finances and how they've done it, is the original bond issue of $1.9 million, which is somewhere about $1.4 or $1.3 million right now, is probably the fund that they used to cover that with the anticipation that the funds from this bond sale would go back. He does not know this for sure but, that would be his guess. The City Manager asked that the City Attorney research and address whether the City has legal liability for this money. Councilmember Hanus stated that he informed the Board members, the day before closing on the additional property, that they may be purchasing this at their own risk because the conditions had not been met yet for the approval. The City Attorney suggested that the Council direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution of withdrawal, for consideration at the next City Council Meeting. This would let the School District know what action has been taken. He suggested that we word the withdrawal language in such a way, as to minimize any potential liability for the City of Mound. He further suggested language be included disposing of the land use applications currently pending before the City. MOTION made by Brown, seconded by Ahrens to direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution of withdrawal, for consideration at the next City Council Meeting. Language to be included disposing of the land use applications currently pending before the City. Councilmember Hanus stated he would like to offer a friendly amendment and see if it flies or not. ' To add to that also, and I don't think it would be a separate action, to direct Staff to gather the financial data necessary for the Council to start deliberating over the finances that are hanging on this project. Also come up with some suggestions. ~ The City Attorney suggested that the Council act separately on this point. He stated that he assumed it is not the Council's intention to create an impression that the Council is of the belief that it is, in fact, obligated to pay any money at all. Hanus agreed. Hanus would still like to know the numbers. Councilmember Ahrens stated. "Maybe really, what you are asking for is what the financial status is of the project and what's been incurred, not whose responsibility it is?" Councilmember Hanus agreed. Hanus stated he is not trying to indicate any responsibility, in anyway. City Council Minutes - January 26, 1999 Councilmember Weycker stated. "I thought that's what we were going to cover tonight, as information in deciding if it truly was going ..... or if that's what we were going to do here was truly stop the project, what ramifications does it have? What other solutions do we have? I guess I thought that's what was going to happen tonight." Mayor Meisel stated that she too thought that some of this would be covered tonight. Councilmember Hanus stated that the Council could talk about some of that but he doesn't know if we are really prepared because we don't have a lot of that data, yet. We are trying to give some kind of a response to the School District. Councilmember Weycker stated that at the same time we are responding to something we don't have the data to respond to, i.e. if it's going to cost $2 million to back out of the project, are we still willing to back out? She felt that was an exaggerated number but, those issues need to be discussed. Councilmember Brown stated. "Basically, my motion is just directing John Dean to proceed to prepare a resolution to be considered at the next meeting, with an amendment on the disposing of the land use applications currently pending before the City." Councilmember Hanus. 'While that sends a message to the School Board and really tells them where we're at, it really doesn't truly obligate us. If, by some chance, we found that it was too much or it affected our decision to the point where we would change our mind, we could still change our mind, because we have not adopted the resolution. Quite frankly, I don't see that happening but ...... " Mayor Meisel stated. "I want some time to look over the Joint Powers Agreement which I have not seen or read. I need to understand more. On the off side of it, I do back the resolution as far as stepping back from it and reviewing it. I also want to know the ramifications but, if we don't have the data to study it tonight and really look at it, as far as dollars and the City's involvement, perse, I would be willing to vote to let the School District know that we are considering withdrawal and this is where we're at. I do want time to cover all these things. M Councilmember Hanus. MAs do I. But, like I say, it's difficult to discuss it when you don't have the data." Mayor Meisel. "I've got little bits and pieces, but only since January 12th. I do want the same time that you're talking about, Leah." Councilmember Weycker. "And what I'm concerned about then is voting for the motion, or voting for a resolution. I feel like I can't vote for that. You know what I mean. Mayor Meisel. "See, one of the reasons, too, that I even asked that we even put it on the Agenda tonight was that the School Board wanted something by tomorrow, based on the bond sale. Now, if they've stopped the bond sale, then how important is it that we do this?" City Council Minutes - January 26, 1999 Councilmember Ahrens. "That's the impression that I got last night from them was that they absolutely needed us to do something official and that's why when John tells me that sale of the bonds has been stopped, this makes me curious." Councilmember Hanus. "I did state last night, at the close of the meeting, that they will be getting a report tomorrow, from us, as to the status of what we decided." Mayor Meisel. "And that's the reason we added it to the Agenda tonight." City Manager. "I was also asked today, by the Superintendent, if the Council was going to take some formal action tonight. She encouraged that to happen. That some action be taken." Councilmember Weycker. "Well, they want it to be somewhere." Councilmember Hanus. "Keep in mind that voting for this motion does not mean you're voting for the resolution. It's only voting to prepare the resolution, which is somewhat noncommittal. Councilmember Ahrens. "This voting to prepare something, in no way, obligates one to vote yes or no on the resolution..." Mayor Meisel. "Because there is a lot of missing data." Councilmember Weycker. "Yeah, and I think I'm on the record of supporting it and have continued to and so I want to see the ramifications of stopping it. If I don't have Council's support on the whole project, why should I continue to vote for it? But, at the same time, I don't agree with the decision and I want to know a lot more information." The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Manager asked the Council what they would like the Staff to do in preparing this resolution? "What do you want us to prepare? What numbers are you talking about? Should there be options that we should be looking at? The reason I'm asking these questions and I don't mean to make this sound hasty but, the fact of the matter is, that if the School District proceeds now to do something with that property, and all the tenants are asked to vacate, to what extent is the City obligated to help in that matter? There needs to be more than just preparing a resolution." The City Manager felt there needs to be some form of direction tonight so that the Staff can work on something to bring back to the Council. Mayor Meisel. "You're saying the School District is giving notice to tenants?" City Manager. "I don't know that for sure, but they've talked about that, if the results of last night's meeting came out the way they came out. That was prior to that meeting, so, I have a hunch that that might be happening or in the works." Mayor Meisel. "What kind of a time frame?" 8 City Council Minutes -January 26, 1999 City Manager. "I heard 30 to 60 days in previous discussions, that. they would give notice. It may not be that. It might be longer but, I don't think we want to delay too long, is what I'm saying." Councilmember Weycker. ~I think those are some pretty critical issues as well and maybe we need to schedule another separate meeting to address them, if it needs to be done that fast. ~ Councilmember Brown suggested putting this subject on the next COW Meeting Agenda, February 16th. The City Manager again asked for some kind of direction so Staff can start preparing some information. The Mayor again asked for a copy of the Joint Powers Agreement. The Council discussed a couple of other options for a community center. Councilmember Brown stated that last night he heard someone commenting that we have a pretty dilapidated Williams Store. One house is abandoned on the left side of it and the house on the right could be purchased. What a gorgeous spot to build a real community center overlooking the new dredged Lost Lake area. The Mayor asked the Council to give staff direction on the information and data that the Council would like to discuss at the COW Meeting. Councilmember Brown stated that there are alternatives for the services that would have to leave the current community center. The part of the Balboa Building that was vacated by Toro is one alternative. The old Country Kitchen building in Spring Park. The Mayor stated these are avenues that need to be explored. Mayor Meisel. "If we continue with this, we do have the displacements and the one thing that none of us want to see done, is the Seniors being put out in the street. ~ Councilmember Hanus. "The other possibility or variation again on that. You talk about the Balboa Building and I don't know if this would work at all but, help facilitate the groups getting together. This is just temporary now, just getting together and kind of collectively consolidating into more or a single area and getting into Balboa and getting a single lease under a blanket kind of a thing with numerous groups pooling together to get a single lease in a single area. It would be inconvenient. It would not be what they're looking for certainly but, it might keep them alive for awhile, until something better can be worked out. It depends on how quick the plug might get pulled. That might be a very temporary thing to talk about.' Councilmember Brown. "The reason I brought it up is strictly because I care about the Seniors as much as anybody here and I know we all do. The last thing you want, as a Councilmember, is one of your senior constituents coming up to you and saying, what are you doing throwing me out of my building? This way at least, you can say to them. Yes, we're out of that ........ We're planning on getting out of this but, we are already thinking about you. We are already planning and working to make sure you aren't just thrown out with the bath water.' Mayor Meisel. "Is there a way that we can ..... ? The School District made their statement last night, that they would like something from us as of tonight's meeting. Can we, as well, request something 9 City Council Minutes - January 26, 1999 from the School District? What their plans are? We're talking 30-60 day notice. Is that really where they're at? We have a hunch. ' Mayor Meisel. "As long as they're putting us on the spot for a decision." Councilmember Hanus. wi think that's very appropriate, not only to ask what their plans are with the tenants but, what their plans are .... as to the dissolution of.., just encompass the whole thing? The dissolution of the WCCB and how they want to work with us to work that out and settle that.' Mayor Meisel. "Now, does that get drafted as a letter from Staff and City Council? Does it get put into an action form? City Attorney. "My suggestion would be in the form of a letter. Mayor Meisel. "Ed, will you handle that, please? City Manager. "Sure." Councilmember Ahrens. "Can I just ask a question? When I heard that 30-60 days. Is that how much notice they give you? So conceivably tomorrow they could hand out notices to the seniors and they would have to be out 30 days from tomorrow, or 60 days from tomorrow.?" Councilmember Hanus. "Gee, that sounds odd to me because the District has to stay in those offices yet for some time. I mean, they don't have a place, unless they're going to go lease a place somewhere. I suppose they could do that. ~ The Council does now know what the plans are and that's why they were asking the questions. Mayor Meisel. "That's why I thought, in fairness, they asked us to give them some definite ways. Can't we expect that in return?" Councilmember Weycker. "Actually, I work in the youth center in that building and it is progressively getting worse. I think there has been huge concern, by the School District and all the tenants in there, that it is getting too bad to occupy and if it's going to just drag out or if they see it already coming to a stop, I think there's just no sense for them to stay and they would take the temporary measures, I would guess. I haven't spoken to them but, from working in there, there are more and more buckets by the day. Heaters are blowing up. I don't think they want to stick another dime in there, if they don't have to. ' Mayor Meisel. "That means we should have stuck dimes in it a long time ago. Councilmember Ahrens. "What was the construction... If the project would have proceeded, when was construction scheduled to begin?" City Manager. "About the fall of this year. Late summer, early fall. They had their phases. Councilmember Weycker. "Asbestos removal was starting in March." Councilmember Ahrens. "That was where I was going with my question. At what point were they intending that the building was going to be vacant, if the plan were to be going forward, right now? 10 City Council Minutes - January 26, 1999 When were they all supposed to be out?" City Manager. "It was going to be phased. So you could stay there while the construction was going on." Councilmember Hanus. "People would be moving around. Nobody was going to move out at all, completely. They were going to move around the construction." City Manager. "They were talking about doing it in two phases where they could move out certain groups so they could get it done faster and cheaper but, no one had a solution to that." Councilmember Weycker. "One group was going to move out., the Head Start had chosen to move out." Mayor Meisel. "O.K., so what would we like to request of Staff for the COW Meeting? Councilmember Hanus. "I think, starting from where we are now. Now that we have this letter that we've talked about. First of all, a response from the letter is the first thing, from the School District and depending on what's in that letter, depending on what they're suggesting or requesting .... any applicable background data, numbers, whatever, that would address what they are talking about in their response. That's somewhat ambiguous but, until we know what they are going to respond with, we don't know what we need." City Manager. "I asked John earlier, Should we be talking about numbers when we...? Should we be waiting on the School District to respond on numbers rather than for us to ask about numbers?" City Attorney. "If, in fact, the Council thinks it's appropriate and necessary to have those numbers before you can decide on the resolution, it's kind of a catch 22. We'll need to know some of the fiscal impacts within the next couple of weeks or so. If the Council is going to act on the resolution in a couple of weeks, It would be nice to have the School District provide that information but, it may be necessary to prompt them into doing that." City Manager. "For purposes of the City, though, what liability would the City have, if any, regarding financial implications?" City Attorney. "Well, again, I can just hypothesize on what some of the claims might be and again, at this point, it seems to me that for most of those claims, we have a valid reason why we should not be obligated to pay that money. The idea of the purchase of Lot 18. I think that one could argue that the School District proceeded at its own risk there. If they've incurred any costs in connection with going forward and bidding and accepting bids, in processing the bond documents, any fee for placement and things of that sort, again, there was a letter from the City suggesting that they might want to try to resolve the unresolved issues before they went forward trying to market their bonds. Again, I think one could argue that they proceeded at their own risk there. I think that, as far as a number of those kinds of things, there's a fairly clear argument. In terms of some of the start up costs, architecture, engineering, whatever may have been done, I'm not sure that there is any clear obligation on the part of the City. I'm not aware of any, at the moment. I can only give you a real qualified response. Maybe to be a little callous on it as well, the School District may now have a piece of property that's worth more than they would have had if they would have developed it as we were proposing. So, maybe this is a good deal for them. Again, that's a little cynical and I don't really mean it to be taken that way but, that property may have significant market value that would City Council Minutes - January 26, 1999 more than cover some of the costs and expenses that they might want to be talking about here. So, it's really hard to know for sure what the fiscal impact of the decisions may be and it's very difficult for me, at this moment, based upon the limited basis we have for what their claims might be, to know whether or not, if they came in and said, well the City agreed to pay half of the engineering or the architect's fee or something, and we've got a letter from somebody saying that, then that might change my view on that. But, absent that kind of stuff, I think it's speculative and remote at best." City Manager. "I don't want to beat a dead horse but, I guess what I'm getting at is. should we really be concerned about the costs that have been incurred unless the School District insists that the City participates in settling those claims or costs?" Mayor Meisel. "See, I wouldn't be as concerned asking you to write the letter. It's more of a direction to where and what the School District is thinking and that's what I would like input from. That's the reason I'm asking for that kind of input and at that time when they respond, I would guess that if there's money involved, it will come out in that letter." Councilmember Ahrens. "Well, lets face it, they're getting the bills. They're paying the bills. If they think we're responsible for some of the bills, I've never known them to be shy. I'll bet they'll come over here with the bill." Councilmember Weycker. "The City has also incurred costs. I would also like to see that cost, to date. Like you said, we paid for some of the things that have already been done (half the survey). City Manager. "Again, when do you want to start the clock because, if you go back to when we first started with the groups together, that's one .... that the City agreed to do. We agreed with the School District to split costs on the survey. If you want that information, we could start there but, the real costs have been incurred, post referendum, which have been after the December, 1997, when we began preparing the Joint Powers Agreements and going forward with the contract on the construction manager and the architect, and all that. So, if you want us to, we can give you an accounting starting from April of 1997 or we can start at some later date but, I guess you need to give me some idea when you want to start." Mayor Meisel. "I would say from 12-4-97, personally, as far as the City is concerned." Councilmember Ahrens. "Before we get off the money thing. Who has been approving all of these expenditures that we are likely to be? Are these all things that the WCCB has? City Manager. "Some have been. For example, the analysis on the asbestos was approved by the WCCB but, then ultimately approved by the School Board because they had to write the check. Other expenses related to the contracts with the architect and with the construction manager have just been paid as a format of the contract. They invoice for their service and they get paid." Councilmember Ahrens. "So the WCCB hasn't acted on those things, individually?" City Manager. "It was all done by contract. Councilmember Weycker. "Other than, we hired the contractors, the WCCB." Councilmember Hanus. "I don't think that's accurate. The School District, I think, hired the contractor." 12 ~// City Council Minutes - January 26, 1999 City Manager. "The WCCB and ..... made a recommendation and the School Board did it." Councilmember Hanus. "Right, but, the School Board is the contractor's client, not the WCCB, technically." City Manager. "Yes." Mayor Meisel. "Because of the bond passing." Councilmember Brown. "One of the things that John mentioned about maybe this property will be worth more than a few years ago. We submitted asking for people to come in and bid on the Lost Lake development and couldn't get one bidder to come in. Now, things are progressing here, we've got people falling all over each other trying to get here to work with the City of Mound and work with this new downtown development committee. Now you can see a future for Mound. That it's going to be a town on the grow and it's going to be a progressive town, and that property now is right back at a choice intersection with the new road going to go in. That is going to be a very lucrative piece of property to someone, I would think. The main stop in town. So this could end up.being a very lucrative thing for somebody." Councilmember Ahrens. "A blessing in disguise." Councilmember Brown. "Really, you may have somebody that is going to say, yes, I really want that piece of property now but, that's up to the School District." Mayor Meisel. "That would be up to the School District." Councilmember Brown. "That's up to them. We're out of that. Whereas before, I think the only person they had, offered this grocery store. Mayor Meisel. "Well, they had some other bids, but the grocery store was high, if I remember right." Councilmember Hanus. "And that was the one bid that was not per the bid documents, as well. The other two bids were per the bid documents and that's why they were so much lower. The exceptions were taken for the one that they accepted." Councilmember Ahrens. "And that was because it wasn't, an "as is" deal." Councilmember Hanus. "Right." Councilmember Ahrens. "And that's the way it was put out for bid, is "as is", so it really didn't meet the specs. The Mayor asked if there was any other discussion.? The Council asked if the City Manager needed any more direction. The City Manager stated he feels more comfortable with what he is supposed to do. Councilmember Weycker stated it is her job to update the Building Committee and they have a Building Committee Meeting in the morning. City Council Minutes - January 26, 1999 INFORMATION/MI~qCELLANEOUS: Preliminary 1991] Financial Report as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of January 14, 1999. Invitation to attend the annual LMCD "Save the Lake' dinner, Thursday, February 11, 1999, Lord Fletchers. Please let Fran know if you are interested in attending. REMINDER: Special WCCB Meeting is Scheduled for Monday, January 25, 1999, 7:30 P.M., Mound City Hall. The purpose of this Meeting is to Discuss the Westonka Community Center Renovation Project. MOTION nmde by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker to adjourn at 10:20 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Do Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk 14 RESOLUTION NO. 99- February 9, 1999 RESOLUTION RELEASING A PORTION OF LETTER OF CREDIT - MAPLE MANORS SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, the City of Mound has received a request from Joel Zylman, Waters Edge Development, Maple Manors Subdivision, for another partial release of funds from the letter of credit (original amount ($187,500.00) for work completed to date on said project; and WHEREAS, a partial release of $168,750.00 was done in May of 1998, leaving a balance of $18,750.00; and WHEREAS, since that partial release, most of the remaining work was completed, but the City Engineer was not given the opportunity to do a follow-up inspection before everything was covered with snow; and WHEREAS, based on what could be inspected and what the City Engineer knows is left to do it is his recommendation to further reduce the letter of credit by $13,750, leaving a balance of $5,000.00. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby authorize releasing a portion ($13,750.00) of the remaining $18,750.00 Letter of Credit for Maple Manors Subdivision. FRA Engineering · Planning RECEIVED · Surveying MEMORANDUM DATE: January 21, 1999 TO: Edward J. Shukle, City Manager FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer SUBJECT: Maple Manors Letter of Credit MFRA #11417 It has come to our attention that the full amount of the original letter of credit, $187,500 may still be in place. In May of 1998, the release of $168,750.00 was approved leaving a balance of $18,750.00, see attached letter. Since that time; most of the remaining work was completed, but we were not given an opportunity to do a follow-up inspection before everything was covered with snow. Based on what could be inspected and what we know is left to do, it is our recommendation to further reduce the letter of credit by $13,750.00, leaving a balance of $5,000.00. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. CC: Joel Zylman, Waters Edge Development Mark Gronberg, Coffin and Gronberg Jon Sutherland, City of Mound e:~nain:\11417:\memo 1-21 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-maiL' mfra@mfra.com McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth,, MN 55447 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors May 7, 1998 Mr. Edward J. Shulde, Jr., City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound Maple Manors Letter of Credit MFRA #11417 Dear Ed: Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Coffin and Gronberg, the engineer for Waters Edge Development requesting a partial release of funds from the letter of credit for work completed to date on said project. They have not requested an amount, only listed the remaining work. We have reviewed the project and put dollar amounts to the incomplete items and have concluded there is approximately $15,000.00 of work left on the project. The original letter of credit was for $187,500.00; therefore, we are recommending that 90% or $168,750.00 can be released at this time. The remaining 10% ($18,750.00) should be retained until this project is totally complete. We have also reviewed this project with Crreg Skinner and he agrees with our findings. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Sincerely, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:pry Enclosure cc: Joel Zylman, Waters Edge Developmem Mark Gronberg, Coffin and C-ronberg Jon Sutherland, City of Mound c:~main:\11417~shukle5-7 An Equal Opportunity Employer February 3, 1999 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FROM: RE: FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT Denny's Super 30 Bass Tournament, has applied to use Mound Bay Park for a Weigh-In on Friday, June 4, 1999, from i:00P.M, to 4:00 P.M. This requires a Public Gathering Permit. They have used the park before and we have had no problems with them. I recommend approval. printed on recycled paper RESOLUTION #99- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN OPERATIONS PERMIT TO ALLOW MANUFACTURING, WAREHOUSING AND OFFICE SPACE FOR ~ ZYGROVE CORPORATION LOCATED AT 5302 SHORELINE DRIVE (BALBOA BUILDING) WHEREAS, the Zygrove Corporation is requesting to locate its manufacturing and warehousing operations along with office space in 14,574 square feet of the Balboa Business Center, and; WHEREAS, the company is involved in the manufacturing of a synthetic brick and stone product used for wall and floor surfaces in residential applications, and; WHEREAS, the product will be manufactured from plastic and chemical materials, and; WHEREAS, the manufactured product will be warehoused inside the facility on pallets, and; WHEREAS, materials will be delivered to the site approximately once per week by semi-tractor trailer. Manufactured product will be shipped by semi-tractor trailer 2-3 times per week, and; WHEREAS, the company anticipates to have a total of 6 employees full time employees initially with potential growth to 10. At startup, 4 employees would be involved in the manufacturing and warehousing operations with 2 persons as office staff. Daily business hours of 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, and; WHEREAS, manufacturing and warehousing businesses are permitted in the PLA district as stated in Section 350:680 Subd. 6(A)(17) and 6(C), and; WHEREAS, adequate parking is available for employee use within the property and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve an Operations Permit for Zygrove Corporation for an occupancy of approximately 14,574 square feet within the Balboa Building, providing that the nature of the business and products stored on the premises remains essentially unchanged. Approval is conditioned on compliance with all building and fire codes. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound City Council FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: February 3, 1999 SUBJECT/APPLICANT: Zygrove Corporation Operations Permit - Balboa Center OWNER: Balboa Center Ltd. Partnership LOCATION: 5302 Shoreline Drive EXISTING ZONING: Planned Industrial Area (PIA) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Industrial BACKGROUND: The Zygrove Corporation has submitted an operations permit to conduct their business operations in the space addressed as 5302 Shoreline Drive. Zygrove Corporation manufactures a synthetic brick and stone product called Z-Brick that is used for wall and floor surfaces. The product is made of plastic materials and the company believes it is an economical alternative to brick and stone. This product is typically sold in Menard's, Home Depot, Tru- Value, and Ace Hardware primarily for residential applications. Zygrove recently purchased the Z-brick Division of ChemRex Inc., which is located in Shakopee, MN. Business operations include manufacturing, warehousing, shipping and offices which will be conducted between 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The leased floor area is 14,574 sf, divided between manufacturing, warehousing, and a small amount of office space. The company expects to employ 6 people, 4 for manufacturing and warehouse operations, and 2 office staff and could grow to 10. The space is located between Triax Cablevision and W.G. Anderson Corporation. Materials will be shipped to the site once per week with product shipped out by semi-tractor trailer 2-3 times per week. Equipment that will be used in the manufacturing process includes mixers, hoppers, and extruders. Product will be warehoused in the space until it is shipped out to retailers. DISCUSSION: The proposed company operations fit within the manufacturing industries use in the Planned Industrial Area District. As primarily a manufacturing and warehousing operation, the building is certainly conducive to the company operations. Staff has not uncovered any issues with the business that are of concern at this time. The manufacturing operations will be contained within the building and do not appear to present a nuisance to adjoining building tenants or adjacent residential properties. The Building Official and Fire Chief will need to review internal plans to ensure compliance with all applicable building and fire codes. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 Zygrove Corporation Operations Permit February 3, 1999 In evaluating the merits of a conditional use the Council may make the following findings in rendering a decision. These conditions which may be considered include but are not limited to the following: 1. 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. 2. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area. 3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. 4. That adequate measures have bee or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. 5. That adequate measures have bee or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that non of these will constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. 6. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. 7. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. 8. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City. 9. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. 10. Existing adjacent uses will not be adversely affected because of curtailment of customer trade brought about by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Council approve the operations permit for the Zygrove Corporation as requested with the following condition: 1. Compliance to any building and fire and safety code issues as determined by the Building Official and Fire Chief. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Feb O~ 88 ll:~Sa RICHSRD TIBKE G1~747S-~3S p.1 Zygrove Corporation 157 Grove Lane Wayzata, MN 55391' Recipient: Ed Shukle Sent By: Company: City of Mound Company: Fax Number: 472-0620 Fax Number: Voice Number: Voice Number: RICHARD TIBKE ZYGROVE CORPORATION 612/475-2235 612/865-7336 Date: 2~2~99 Time: 11:18:15 AM Total No. Pages: 3 Subject: Operations Permit Application Message: Ed, Loren suggested that I fax you a drawing of how we intend to utilize the space and also a brief business overview. Pleas find those two items attached which should be added to my Operations Permit application which you already have. Thank you, R. H. Tibke Feb 02 99 11:27& RICHRRD TIBKE 612/475-2235 P-~ ~AfllDI I u BALBOA BUSINESS CENTER Feb 02 99 ll:27a RICHRRD TIBKE 612/475-2235 p.3 Fho~ 61~2/865-7336 612/475-2235 lB7 GROVE WAYZATA, ~ BUSINESS OVERVIEW Zygrove is a company which recently purchased the Z-Brick Division of ChemRex, Inc. (Shakopee, MN). We will manufacture, warehouse and ship packaged synthetic brick poducts fi.om this facility. We plan to employ around six people, four in the warehouse and two in the office. Our normal business hours will be 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM. Our market is the Home Improvement industry and our typical customers are retailers such as Menard's, Home Depot, Tree-Value, and Ace Hardware. 01/15/99 10:27 FAX CITY OF MOL~D ~002 OPERATIONS PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF I~IOUND, 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD, MOUND, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, FAX: 472-0620 Distribution: City Planner: rations Permit Fee: $250.00 Building Official I-o~0-C~ cC C. 3AN 1' '0 CnTOFM0UNn Uses bY (pperations Permit: Within any Planned Industrial Area, no structure or land shall be used for the uses listed within the Zoning Ordinance, Section 350:680, Subd. 6. (attached), except by operations permit. Criteria for granting operation permits is the same as listed in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:525, Subd. 1, A - L (attached}. All operations permits must be approved by the City Council. Applications must be received two weeks prior to the City Council meeting to allow time for staff review. The City Council meets on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month. The City Council meetings are held at City Hall in the Council Chambers, and commence at 7:30 p.m. The applicant or a representative is encouraged to be present at the meeting. Section 1 - Application Information 1. 2. Street Address of Propertv:~--:~0 ~ Legal Description of Property: Lot Addition Owner, s Name: f-~'t (~/eb -~ ~l~"~ Address: /~'7 ~RoVF- L-~/uF_ (t ,~ B,oc PID Phone Applicant (if other than owner): Name Address Phone Section 2 - Business Information Name of Business Total Floor Area Manufacturing Area Sales Floor Area Office Are~ J~ ~;7~ Warehouse Area 1o, 0oo ~, ~=T-' Other (please specify) Describe Nature of Business I1qt~uFAcr'~ Wholesale/~. Retail 01/15/99 10:28 FAX CITY OF ~OUND ~003 o Location (cite unit number or attach floor plan) ~'~Z'J]~i-/"- Number of Employees: 1= shift z/z._ ~ 2"~ shift 3'~ shift (~ Adjacent Uses (list businesses) (~. ~. ~fJbF_-J~ Section 3 - Business Operations ~ EFJJ~iT~ C Describe Products produced or services offered (attach product brochures if available) SyN'r~ri c What types of materials will be shipped into and/or stored within the premises ? / Will materials be shipped by: rail Other (specify) Semi truck 3. Will delivery vehicles be stored on the property? Yes No/'< Does the business plan future expansions at this location? Yes ~ No ~ . If yes, describe amount of anticipated expansion and timing. 5~ Will the business require any modifications to the exterior of the existing building including but not limited to doors, windows, overhead doors, cooling towers, HVAC units, etc? Yes No if yes, please describe and attach a floor plan and exterior building elevation drawings. Will the proposed operation involve: Noise Generation: Yes ~ If yes, describe source and amount Odor Generation: Yes No /x~ . If yes, describe source and amount_ Toxic and/or Hazardous Waste Generation: Yes If yes, describe source and amount No/2~ 01/15/99 10:28 FAX CITY OF MOUN~ ~004 R~v. 11-16-g~ Provide a detailed listing of all chemicals which will be discharged into the sanitary sewer system. /V Will the operations include either interior or exterior storage of bulk chemicals? Yes. ~ No /~, .. If yes, attach floor plan and/or site plan showing location and describe spill/leakage containment provisions. ~ 9, Other than chemicals, will the operation require outdoor storage of any materials? Yes . No .~_. If yes, describe materials and attach site plan showing locations and identifying proposed screening by type and location. Section 4 - Certification I Certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers and plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, notices as may be_required/~y~.y /~...ngaintaining and removing such Signature of Applicant f~--/~~/ Date Section 5 - City Review and Action Reviewed by: Building Official City Engineer Fire Chief City Manager Other City Planner EXHIBIT A Lots 19 to 21 inclusive Block 11, 'Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, Mound, Minnetonka.' That part of Lots 22 and 23, Block 11, lying south of a live drawn from the most westerly corner of Block 9 to the point of intersection of the southeasterly line of Block 1! with a line drawn parallel to and 40 feet northerly, measured at right angles, from the southerly tine of Block 1I and its extension, all in ~Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, Mound-Minnetonka.' Lots 1 to 5 inclusive, Block 11, 'Abraham Lincoln Addition to La 'keside Park, Mound, Minnetonka", according to the duly recorded plat thereof. The northerly, westerly and southerly boundary lines of said Lot 1, the northerly and southerly boundary lines of said Lots 2, 3 and 4, and the, and the northerly, easterly and southerly boundary lines of said Lot 5 are marked by judicial landmarks set at the northwest and southwest comers of said Lot 1, at the southeast corner of said Lot 5 and at a point on the Easterly tine of said Lot 5 distant 4 feet Southeasterly from the northeast comer of saic[ Lot 5, pursuant to Torrens Case No. 15803. Lots 23 to 28 inclusive, "Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka, according to the recorded plat thereof. The north, east and southerly boundary lines of said Lot 23, the north and south boundary lines of said Lots 24, 25, 26 and ~-7, the north, west and southerly boundary iiixes of said Lot 28 are marked by judicial landmarks set at the northwest and southwest comers of said Lot 28 at the northeast and southwest corners of said Lot 28 at the northeast and southeast corners of .~aid lot 23, pursuant to Torrens Case No. 15804. Lots 6 to ~.2 inclusive, Block 11 "Abraham Lincoln Adctition to Lakeside park, Mound, Minnesota", according to the duly recorded plat thereof. Lots 13 to I8 inclusive, Block 11, "Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, Mound, Minnesota", according to the duly recorded plat thereof. The easterly line of Lot 18, Block 11, said subdivision is marked by judicial landmarks set pursuant to Case No. 15803. That part Of Lot 36, Auditor's Subdivision No. 170, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and that part of the southwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 13, Township 117, Range 24, all described as beginning at a point on the north line of said Lot 36, distant 25 feet west from the northeast comer thereof, which point is marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 15078; thence east to the northeast corner of said Lot 36, which point is marked by judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 1600~ thence south along the east line of said Lot 36 and its extension to an intersection with a line drawn parallel to and 33 feet southerly from the southerly line of said Lot 36; thence westerly along the last described parallel line to its intersection with a line drawn south, parallel to the east line of said Lot 36 and its exter~sion from the point of beginning; thence north along said last described parallel line 34.15 feet to a point marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 15078; thence continuing north along ~id last described lithe 121.9 feet to the point of beginning. That part of Lot 8, Block 5, Sylvan fteights Addition to Mound-Minnetrista Township, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: beginning at the northwest corner of said Lot 8, which point is marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 16002, thence east along the north line of said Lot 8, 358.35 feet to a point which is 134.4 feet westerly from the northeast corner of said Lot 8, which point is marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 15805; thence south parallel to the east line of said Lot 8, 287.3 feet to the south line of said Lot 8, which point is marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 15805, thence westerly and northwesterly along the south line of said Lot 8, 207.77 feet to a point which is marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 16002; thence continuing northwesterly along said south line 162.58 feet to a point which is marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 16002; thence continuing northwesterly alon§ said south llne to the west line of said Lot 8; thence nortber[y along the west line of said Lot 8 to a point which is 40.14 feet south of the northwest comer of said Lot 8, which point is marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Ca~ No. 16002; thence according to the recorded plat thereof. That part of the southwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4, Section 13, Township 117, Range 24 described as beginning at the northeast comer of Lot 36, Auditor's Subdivision No. 170. Hennepin County, Minnesota, said point being marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 16002; thence westerly, alon§ the north line of said Lot 3~ a distance of 2f feet to a point marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 15078; thence north parallel with the east line of said southwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4, to the point of intersection with a fine 40 feet northerly of measured at a right angle to and parallel with the northerly line of said Lot 36 said point of intersection being marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 17105 thence easterly, along the last described parallel line a distance of 25 feet to the point of intersection with the east line of said southwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4, said point of intersection being marked by a judicial landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 16002; thence south, along said e~t line, to the point of besinnin~, according to the Government Survey thereof. Lots I0 to 14 inclusive, and that part of Lot 15, lying north of the south 8 feet thereof, all in Block 2, L.P. Crevier's Subdivision of part of Lot 36 Lafayette Park Lots 1 to 11 inclusive, Block Lots I to 7 inclusive, and that part of Lot 8 lying easterly of a line drawn south, parallel to the east line of Lot 8, from a point on the northerly line therof distant 134.4 feet westerly from the northeast corner of Lot 8, Block 6; All of Yost Street, vacated, lying between the extension across said street of the northerly lines of Lots 1 to 6 inclusive, Block 6, and a line drawn from the southwest corner of Lot l, Block 6, to the southeast corner of Lot 11, Block 5; Ail in Sylvan Heights Addition to Mound-Minnetrista Township, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. The boundary lines of the above tract have been judicially determined and marked by judicial landmarks as shown by Torrens Case No. 15805. Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2, Balboa Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. XH,II)IT "B BALBOA BUSINESS CENTER Brick & Stone For Interior and Exterior Use Z-BRICK Beautiful, Durable, Easy to Install For Do-It-Yourselfers & Professionals Z-Bricld' products have been developed with the do-it-yourself decorator in mind. These fine quality materials are highly efficient and economical com- pared to traditional masonry materials and techniques. Z-Brick~ is a durable and practical product which is cleady superior in ease of application and handling. Made of natural minerals, Z-Brick~ products are durable, abrasion resistant, and easy to install. Their unique, textured surfaces are impervious to moisture and the elements. And their timeless, classic beauty won't fade because the color goes all the way through. Z-Bricl¢ is easy to cut, which eliminates any need for corner brick or special cement, and allows notching and vertical cuts for outlets. Z-Bricl¢ is the leader in decorative wall surfaces with brick and stone, and has been for over 30 years. · Durable · Economical · Easy to install · Firesafe · Guaranteed for 10 years Inca Inca RED USED ., ..... , _,. :¢ ~, ',. ~ Inca Americana LIBERTY GRAY -::."~ ¢,-. r':.,, - - Design Images GRAYSTONE Four Easy Steps Create A Beautiful., Durable Wall 1 SPREAD Spread a thin coat of Z-Meat about 1/16" to 1/8" thick with a trowel or a drywall knife. PRESS Push the bricks or stones firmly into the adhesive and wiggle them to imbed them firmly so the adhesive squeezes into the spaces between the pieces. Installation Accessories ~MENT ; ~DHESIV£ · Interior/Exterior Z-Meat Color-mixed and ready to use from the container, Z-Meat is an extremely strong adhesive formulated for Z-Bricld' facing brick and stone. SMOOTH Smooth the adhesive in between the bricks or stone with a brush or tuck pointing tool to form mortar lines. Or, you can fill mortar joints using Z-Brick mortar. Z-Brick mortar is available in a cart- ddge with a tuck pointing tip. 4 Brdsh or spray on one or two coats of Z-Sealer, which dries clear, flat, and washable. Z-Sealer provides beauty as well as protection. And it's easy to maintain and clean. · Z-Sealer A clear coating that completes your Z-Bricl¢ installation by adding lasting protection, beauty and ease of maintenance. Call us for additional information Customer Service: 1-800-433-9517 Technical Service: 1-800-243-6739 Form No. ZB-687 ©1997 ChemRex® Z-BRICK_ Shakopee, MN 55379 3/97 BILLS February 9, 1999 Batch 9014 589.79 Batch 9015 17,878.45 Batch 9016 166,995.88 Batch 9017 112,512.24 Batch 9018 2,275.20 TOTAL BILLS $ 300,251.56 $$$ 0 0 0 0 0 ogo g°o i .-I I'- r ? *~ m i"'1"1 z z t~ ~ ;3~ ,4:) r-' o °°~ ~o o · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · -,CC) C ° n P g 8 0 C ooo0: ~,,.,,i LL, L, 'L, ~- Z ~,, I C~ QC7 ! ?i ':' ° 0 Z 0 Z r- ~0 ~ZZZZZ~ZZ~ ~o~oo~oo~ C C ..~ 0 0 z :z:: n-' '-r~! o o .... ~ .~ !oo J 'i ol J i ' ' ,-,., o~ o o ~ !§ ,o o ~ o I Z l r~, Z ~ :Z ~ Z ~ '~' ~n I.-- i~. ~ ',.,'9 ! ? ~ I ! Ill I I I I I I ~'..J _J Z l-- I~'i }:1,,i,,71.,:llj:¥l .... .! ~ I Ii I Z -., I ,,, , ,:, , ,:,~, ooooooooooim o~ 0 o z ~'~ ~.. UJ Z 0 !I I I , Z r~ 0 Iii I!l I I!l I I I I ' , i i ,:, I ~I, , ~,:' 0 ~ T I ~ I I I I I i:::0~ i33;0 I it' C: Il""' '~ ~"~ :33 ~t*~ .=~ r~l 0 Z mC) ._J ."'7 ~_. '"t- I 7.° t:~ ,-4 · · ,,,0 · "~0 frl~ ii I$ ~. ~ ?~,,?,,? ?777 ? ? ? . ~ ..... ~o~oooooooo ooq oo oo oo oo II I I II I I I o o J 0 O, z~q ~ ~ ~- ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ t,~ -r ~ i 0 .,goo° dddd .... .... · · · · 0 c PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Illlrt k-tH TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: January 4, 1998 SUBJECT: Telecommunications Ordinance Update $6o DISCUSSION: Since the adoption of the telecommunications ordinance last year, the City has approved a tower facility at the Westonka Community Center site. This tower site was highly controversial because the site did not meet established location criteria which made it difficult for the Planning Commission and Council to determine hardship based on the code. During the review of this case, many issues arose that have prompted the need to review the ordinance. This update is intended to fine tune existing ordinance language and propose additional language to protect the City from unnecessary expenditures in the review process. In your packets is a the existing telecommunications ordinance with proposed changes as noted in a legislative format - deleted text is struck out and new text is underlined. In preparing the ordinance, we were mindful not to be overly broad as a knee jerk reaction to the US West case. As a result, the ordinance remains somewhat restrictive. There are five areas being updated in the proposed ordinance. 1. Language change to Section 350:1330 - Removal of the "1 to 1" safety zone for tower and setback distance. This would allow a tower height of 125 feet in an industrial district. 2. Word change to Section 350:1370 Subd. 2 - Replace conditional use with building. 3. Addition of Section 350:1385 Subd. 2 - Evaluation and monitoring of facilities to protect City 4. Addition of Section 350:1390 Subd. 2 - Additional variance criteria 5. Addition of Section 350:1395 Subd. 2 - Compliance with Conditional Use Permit Due to the complexity of and rapid change in the wireless telecommunications industry, it is difficult to develop an ordinance that keeps pace. As a result, this ordinance will need review periodically as trends in the industry change. Again, is seems that an approach of being more restrictive than broad is advisable at this point. If the Planning Commission is comfortable with the revisions as proposed, a recommendation to 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. k-'4n TO: Mound City Council FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: February 9, 1999 SUBJECT: PC meeting minutes and recommendation - Telecommunications Ord. DISCUSSION: At the Planning Commission meeting last night, the motion was made to amend language in the proposed telecommunications ordinance. The meeting minutes state the Commission's language recommendation for section 350:1330 titled Height Restriction. I reviewed the proposed language today with Jim Strommen, the City's legal counsel on these matters and Garrett Lysiak, the RF engineer that assisted the City with the US West case. From a legal standpoint, Jim felt the proposed language was too narrow and did not offer the City the flexibility it may need for co-location. From a practical standpoint, Garrett stated that towers need to be designed to allow for co-location of antennas. Although one company may need 90 feet antenna height, the second company wishing to co-locate may need 120. The company building the tower understands this and will design the tower structure with this in mind. I asked Garrett if a company built a 90 feet tower could they add an extra 30 feet section at a later date. Garrett stated that a company usually builds a tower to the maximum allowable height and would choose not to add sections. Based on my conversations with both individuals, staff would recommend this language revision recommended by the Planning Commission not be adopted by Council. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Council approve the revisions to the Telecommunications Ordinance as proposed in your packet. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838 PROPOSED ORDINANCE//102-1999 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 350:1300 OF THE CITY CODE RELATED TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND FACILITIES The City of Mound Does Ordain: Section 350:1310, Subd. 5. is amended to read as follows: Section 350:1310. Subd. 5. Zoning Districts. A tower is not a permitted use in any zoning district. A towcr is a conditional usc in Light Industrial (I 1) and Planned Section 350:1320, Subd. 2. is ~ to read as follows: P~ormance ~ Subd. 2. ~ mtuimmn~ A tower must comply with the following setback requirements: will occur within a lesser dislancc under rca~ly forcsecablc cir~. Section 350:1330. is amended to read as follows: Secfian 350:.1330. Height Reslrktkm. A tower may not ex__eeed_ thc lcs,scr of 125 feet in height, or a hcight equivalcnt to 10 feet more than thc dislancc from thc brae of thc tow(x to thc ncarcst point of any prolx~' u~. Measarement of tower height must include the tower ~:ture itsdf, the base pad, and any Section 350:1370. Subd. 2. is anxaxled to ~ as follows: facts at lhe time plans are submitted for a building permit: Section 350:1385., Subd. 2. is mnen~ to read as follows: Se~ion 350:1390 is hereby added, as follows:. Sect/on 350:1395. is hereby added as follows: :'" :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: '"'" '-:::-'-' ' ' '"' '"' ========================================= ':::: ' ' ================================== ' ====================== :::5 Mayor 3 C~ty Clerk t~eUt~yt~City Coun~ Ve~uary 9, 1999 Publish in The l_al~, February 1:5, 1999 4 Mound Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1999 MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISION TELECOMMUNICATION ORDINANCE REVIEW MINUTES February 8, 1999 In attendance for this agenda item: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland. Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Deb Hawkinson. CONTINUANCE OF TELECOMMUNICATION ORDINANCE REVIEW City Planner Gordon took the Commission's four concerns from last month's review on this ordinance. They are: 1. Need for additional camouflage or stealth language. 2. Allow towers on publicly owned properties. 3. Remove the "1 to 1" height setback provision. 4. Review other communities for tower setbacks. He then reviewed ordinances from other municipalities including the City of Bloomington's ordinance. This is considered to be the model ordinance in the area. The following are his recommendations on the handling of each of the above items. After reviewing the City of Bloomington's ordinance for design requirements, it was realized that the City of Mound's ordinance paid more attention to the design and appearance of tower and non-tower facilities. Bloomington's ordinance mentions "compatibility." Our wording of "stealth" gives greater latitude for the tower/non-tower facilities to fit into a greater number of situations. Therefore, he proposed no changes on this item. Recommended modifications to Section 350:1310 subd. 5 to include provisions that address this item. By definition, public land includes "land owned or operated by municipal, school district, county, state or Mound Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1999 other governmental units." He presented an updated map that showed the property in Mound that fits this definition along with the previous locations permits consisting of the "light industrial" areas. 3. Gordon recommended that the section designating a "1 to 1" height setback provision should be removed. Other ordinances and codes indicate that tower setbacks are regulated like principal structure setbacks except when a "1 to 1" height setback is used. This approach allows the tower within the property's buildable area. Modifications to Section 350:1320 subd. 2 are proposed as follows: "Towers shall meet the principal structure setbacks of the underlying zoning district provided the tower does not encroach upon any easement." 2. "Towers shall not be located between a principal structure and a public area." o "A tower's setback may be reduced or its location in relation to a public street varied, if the City Council reasonably deems it necessary to allow better site integration." After outlining the proposed changes, City Planner Gordon requested that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the ordinance as it now reads. This item is scheduled to come before the City Council tomorrow evening, February 9, 1999. Because there wasn't a second Planning Commission meeting in January, Gordon is requesting this recommendation tonight. DISCUSSION Commissioner Weiland asked that the term "engineer" be defined as "telecommunications" engineer thus ensuring that the engineer possesses the proper credentials and is licensed to design this type of structures. Gordon indicated the intent of "Enginee¢' was to leave this more broad than narrow because there are a number of engineers that may work on this type of project. To limit it to a "telecommunications engineer" does not make sense. Project plans are subject to meeting all building code requirements when they are reviewed by the City Staff, Planning Commission, and Council. This is to ensure the facility is designed by qualified persons. Therefore, checks and balances are already in place regarding an engineer's credentials. Mound Planning Commission Minutes Fel~ruary 8, 1999 Weiland asked if a tower could be put on private property. Gordon responded affirmative, but it had to be zoned light industrial or planned industrial area. Another question from Commissioner Weiland concerned additions to existing towers. Would these modifications have to come through the City. Mueller clarified with this question: Can the owners change the tower configuration be changed without coming through the City processes. Gordon responded that since towers are regulated via a Conditional Use Permit, yes, any changes would be subject to that review process. Council Liaison Brown asked when a tower needs repair for "visual" purposes, will the City become involved and what authority do they have. This comment is in reference to Section 350:1385 subd. 2, item 3: "Towers, telecommunications facilities, and antenna support structures must be kept and maintained in good condition, order, and repair." Mueller suggested adding the word "visual" to condition in the above provision. Burma feels that by leaving the provision as is, it allows the City to review this situation at any point. He would like to see the language remain as is. Gordon feels that since the towers/non-tower telecommunications structures are regulated by a Conditional Use Permit, the City would have the option to review the condition of these structures at any point. Commissioner Mueller requested clarification on the language in Section 350:1330 regarding a tower's height. "A tower may not exceed 125 feet in height...This provision, however, is not a separate grant of authority to construct an antenna support structure or a grant that such a structure may be any particular height." Mueller feels this language is vague and non-definitive. Gordon indicated the intention is that an applicant needs to demonstrate the need for a particular height to the City in their application, they would not just be granted a permit to construct something up to 125 feet in height. Gordon also feels that the necessity of demonstrating needed height is also covered by the "Stealth Provisions." After much discussion among the Commissioners and the Staff, Mueller made the following recommendation: Mound Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1999 Motion by Mueller, seconded by Brown, that this provision be stated as "...a tower/antenna support shall not exceed its required needed height up to 125 feet." Motion carried 7-0. Mueller verified with Gordon that the "stealth factor" is adequate for this provision versus the language in the City of Bloomington's ordinance. Gordon responded that he felt it is actually better than Bloomington's ordinance on this point. Motion by Brown, seconded by Mueller, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Telecommunication Ordinance be approved as modified and with the Commissions additional comments this evening. Motion carried 7-0. Mound City Code Section 350:1300 Section 350:1300 - Telecommunications Towers and Facilities. Section 350:1300. Findingq. The city council finds: Subd. 1. The federal Communications Act of 1934 as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("the Act") grants the Federal Communications Commission exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions from telecommunications facilities and the regulation of radio signal interference among users of the radio frequency spectrum. Subd. 2. Consistent with the Act, the regulation of towers and telecommunications facilities in the city will not have the effect of prohibiting any person from providing wireless telecommunications services. The general purpose of this section is to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of telecommunication towers and facilities in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, while not unreasonably interfering with the development of the competitive wireless telecommunications marketplace in the city. In addition, this section recognizes the contractual control for the purpose of preserving public health, safety, and welfare that can be exercised over telecommunications facilities when those facilities are located on property owned or controlled by governmental entities. Specifically, the purposes of this section are: 1. to regulate the location of telecommunication towers and facilities; to protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts of telecommunication towers and facilities; to minimize adverse visual impacts of telecommunication towers and facilities through design, siting, landscaping, and innovative camouflaging techniques; to promote and encourage shared use and collocation of telecommunication towers and antenna support structures; e to avoid damage to adjacent properties caused by telecommunication towers and facilities by ensuring that those structures are soundly and carefully designed, constructed, modified, maintained and promptly removed when no longer used or when determined to be structurally unsound; to ensure that telecommunication towers and facilities are compatible with surrounding land uses; and e to facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunications services to the residents and businesses of the city in an orderly fashion. 131 5-12-98 Mound City Code Section 350:'305. Section 350:1305. Def'mitions. For purposes of this section the following terms have the meanings given them, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Subd. 1. "Antenna support structure" means a building, athletic fieldlighting, water tower, or other structure, other than a tower, which can be used for location of telecommunications facilities. Subd. 2. "Applicant" means a person who applies for a permit to develop, construct, build modify or erect a tower under this section. Subd. 3. "Application" means the process by which the owner of a plot of land within the city submits a request to develop, construct, build, modify or erect a tower upon that land. Subd. 4. "Engineer" means an engineer licensed by the state of Minnesota. Subd. 5. "Person" means any natural person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company, or other legal entity, private or public, whether for profit or not for profit. Subd. 6. "Stealth" means designed to blend into the surrounding environment; examples of stealth facilities include, without limitation, architecturally screened roof- mounted antennas, antennas integrated into architectural elements, and telecommunications towers designed to appear other than as a tower, such as light poles, power poles, and trees. Subd. 7. "Telecommunications facilities" means cables, wires, lines, wave guides, antennas or any other equipment or facilities associated with the transmission or reception of telecommunications located or installed on or near a tower or antenna support structure. The term does not include: a satellite earth station antenna two meters in diameter or less located in an industrial or commercial district; a satellite earth station antenna one meter or less in diameter, wherever located; or 3. a tower. Subd. 8. "Telecommunications tower" or "tower" means a self-supporting lattice, guyed, or monopole structure constructed from grade that supports telecommunications facilities; the term does not include amateur radio operations equipment licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. 132 5-12-98 Mound City Code Section 350:1310. Section 350:1310. Development of Towers: Approvals Required. Subd. 1. General Construction Prohibition. A tower may not be constructed in any zoning district unless such tower is a conditional or permitted use in the zoning district in which construction will take place. Subd. 2. Conditional Use Permits Required. A tower may not be constructed in any zoning district unless a conditional use permit has been issued by the city council if the tower is a conditional use in the zoning district in which construction will take place. Subd. 3. Building Permit Required. A tower may not be constructed in any zoning district unless a building permit has been issued by the building official. Subd. 4. City Property. The city may authorize the use of city property for towers in accordance with the procedures of this code. The city has no obligation to allow the use of city property for this purpose. Subd. 5. Zoning Districts. A tower is not a permitted use in any zoning district. A towcr is a conditional usc in Light Industrial (I 1) and Planned Industrial Area (PIA) Sub& 1. A person desiring to construct a tower must submit an application for a building lxxmit and, if applicable, for a conditional use ~mit, to the ~ A~. Sub& 2. An application to develop a tower must include: 1. name, address, and lel~ number of the applicant; 2. name, ~, and teleplx~ numbers of the owners of the prolx~ on which the lmver is 3. wfitlen consent of the property owner(s) to the application; of Ibis code; 5. written information demaknrafing the need for the ~mver at the lXoposed si~e in light of the 133 5-12-98 Mound City Code Section 350:.1315, Subd. 2. 6. acopy of reevant portions ora ~ase sign~ 0y the'~t an~ prop~ owner(s), muimg of operations on the leased si~e, or, if a lease does not yet exist, a writlen agreement to include Suixl. 1. ~ ~. Unless the applkmnt txesents clear and convincing evidence to the city coundl that collocation is not feamble, a new mua~r may not be built, ammucted or ereOed in the city unless ~ tower is catmble of ~ at least two telecommunications facilities comtmmble Subd. 2. Sefl:aek tequimm~ A tower must comply with the following sethack requirenents: Seeti~ 350:.1330. Height Restrktion. A tower may not exceedthc lcsc, or of 125 feet in he~,,ht._ or a height cquivalmt to 10 fcct rnorc than thc dimncc from thc ba~c of thc ~',~ to thc ncarc~t ~t of any prog:~ linc. Measaetm~t of tower height must include the ~ structure itself, lie base pad, and any lelecommmicafiom facilities an-ached tlxa-eto. Tower height is measured from grade. 134 5-12-98 Mound City Code Section 350:1335. Section 350:1335. Lighting. Towers may not be artificially lighted except as required by the Federal Aviation Administration. At time of construction of a tower, in cases where there are residential uses located within a distance which is three times the height of the tower from the tower, dual mode lighting must be requested from the Federal Aviation Administration. Notwithstanding this provision, the city may approve the placement of an antennae on an existing or proposed lighting standard, provided that the antennae is integrated with the lighting standard. Section 350:1340. Exterior Finiqh. Towers not requiting Federal Aviation Administration painting or marking must have an exterior finish as approved in the site plan. Section 350:1345. Fencing,. Fences constructed around or upon parcels containing towers, antenna support structures, or telecommunications facilities must be constructed in accordance with the applicable fencing requirements in the zoning district where the tower or antenna support structure is located, unless more stringent fencing requirements are required by Federal Communications Commission regulations. Section 350:1350. Landscaping. Landscaping on parcels containing towers, antenna support structures or telecommunications facilities must be in accordance with landscaping requirements as approved in the site plan. Utility buildings and structures acxesmry to a tower must be architecturally designed to blend in with the surrounding environment and to meet such setback requirements as are compatible with the actual placement of the tower. Ground mounted equipment must be screened from view by suitable vegetation, except where a design of non-vegetative screening better reflects and complements the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Section 350:1355. Accessory buiiding~ and Equipment. No more than one accessory building is permitted per tower. Accessory buildings may be no be more than 200 square feet in size. Telecommunications facilities not located on a tower or in an accessory building must be of stealth design. Section 350:1360. Security. Towers must be reasonably posted and secured to protect against trespass. All signs must comply with applicable sign regulations. Section 350:1365. Des_mn. Towers must be of stealth design. Section 350:1370. follows: Non-tower facilities. Telecommunications facilities are permitted only as Subd. 1. Telecommunications facilities are a conditional accessory use in the Central Business District (B-l), General Business (B-2), and Neighborhood Business (B-3) districts, provided that the owner of such a telecommunications facility, by written certification to the 135 5-12-98 Mound City Code Section 350:1370, Subd. 1., 1. building official, establishes the following facts at the time plans are submitted for a building permit: that the height from grade of the telecommunications facilities and antennae support structure does not exceed the maximum height from grade of the antenna support structure by more than 20 feet; that the antenna support structure and telecommunications facilities comply with the Uniform Building Code; and that telecommunications facilities located above the primary roof of an antenna support structure are set back one foot from the edge of the primary roof for each one foot in height above the primary roof of the telecommunications facilities. This setback requirement does not apply to antennas that are mounted to the exterior of antenna support structures below the primary roof, but that do not protrude more than six inches from the side of the antenna support structure. Subd. 2. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this ordinance, telecommunications facilities are a permitted accessory use on antenna support structures owned or otherwise under the physical control of the city, a school district, or the state or federal government provided a conditional usc ~~ permit has been issued by the city council and provided further that the owner of such a telecommunications facility, by written certification to the building official, establishes the following facts at the time plans are submitted for a building permit: that the height from grade of the telecommunications facilities and antennae support structure does not exceed the maximum height from grade of the antenna support structure by more than 20 feet; that the antenna support structure and telecommunications facilities comply with the Uniform Building Code; and that telecommunications facilities located above the primary roof of an antenna support structure are set back one foot from the edge of the primary roof for each one foot in height above the primary roof of the telecommunications facilities. This setback requirement does not apply to antennas that are mounted to the exterior of antenna support structures below the primary roof, but that do not protrude more than six inches from the side of the antenna support structure. Section 350:1375. Removal of Towers. Abandoned or unused towers and associated above- ground facilities must be removed within twelve months of the cessation of operations of the telecommunications facility at the site unless an extension is approved by the city council. Any tower and ass(x:iated telecommunications facilities that are not removed within twelve months of the cessation of operations at a site are declared to be public nuisances and may be removed by the city and the costs of removal assessed against the property pursuant to state law and the code. 136 5-12-98 Mound City Code Section 350:1380. Section 350:1380. Shoreland Management Ordinance. To the extent that any conflict exists between any provision of this Section 350:1300 of the code and any provision of the Shoreland Management Ordinance contained at Section 350:1200 of the city's zoning ordinance, the more restrictive provision shall apply. Section 350:1385. Additional requirements. Subd. 1. Inspections. The city may conduct inspections at any time, upon reasonable notice to the property owner and the tower owner to inspect the tower for the purpose of determining if it complies with the Uniform Building Code and other construction standards provided by the city code, federal and state law. The expense related to such inspections will be borne by the property owner. Based upon the results of an inspection, the building official may require repair or removal of a tower. Subd. ~ 3. provisions: Maintenance. Towers must be maintained in accordance with the following Tower owners must employ ordinary and reasonable care in construction and use commonly accepted methods and devices for preventing failures and accidents that are likely to cause damage, injuries, or nuisances to the public. o Tower owners must install and maintain towers, telecommunications facilities, wires, cables, fixtures and other equipment in compliance with the requirements of the National Electric Safety Code and all Federal Communications Commission, state, and local regulations, and in such a manner that they will not interfere with the use of other property. Towers, telecommunications facilities, and antenna support structures must be kept and maintained in good condition, order, and repair. e Maintenance or construction on a tower, telecommunications facilities or antenna support structure must be performed by qualified maintenance and construction personnel. 137 5-12-98 Towers must comply with radio frequency emissions standards of the Federal Communications Commission. o If the use of a tower is discontinued by the tower owner, the tower ovoaer must provide written notice to the city of its intent to discontinue use and the date when the use will be discontinued. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon publication. (ORD. 96-1998 - 4-18-98) p. 2 Telecommunications Ordinance Update January 4, 1999 forward the language to Council would be appropriate. 612-~8G838 raven HOISINGTON KOEGLE~ Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-93~ t~lephone (6ID 337-5310 ~ 988 P02 .TAN 86 '9g 11:59 JAMES M. STROMMEN Attome)' at L~w Direct Dial: (612) 337-9233 ernaih jsU:ommen~kennedy-graven.com November 10, 1995 .Nix. E~l Shukle City Manager City of Mound 53~,1 May~ood Road Mound MN 55364 Telecommunications Towers and Facilities-Code Section 350:1300, et s__~. Dear Ed: Enclosed is a draft of possible additions to the above ordinance pursuant to the review undertaken during the moratorium. I have spoken with both Garrett Lysiak and Loren Gordon regarding the tmique issues facing Mound in telecommunication tower and antenna siting. We assume the city council wants to remain protective of its residential areas and of the aesthetics in the City. Short of opening up the City residential districts to tower siting, there is no guarantee that any particular ordinance change will ensure that the City may direct new applicants to a desired area. What these proposed additions intend is to provide is a procedure forcing the applicant to demonstrate a need at the requested location in the City, with review by an expert consultant retained by the City at an early stage, at the applicant's expense, (Section 350:1385, subd 2). We also suggest a radiation emissions compliance check specific to thc wireless permits issued, and more flexibility in thc valance process. (Sections 350:1385, 1390) In remaining cautious and somewhat restrictive rather than expansive, we are mindful of the prediction that the only thing certain in this industry is uncertainty and the likelihood is that required antennas heights will be reduced not increased..Thus, rather than being overlybroad, we are suggesting staying the course of the existing ordinance, but affording the City the right, at no additional expense, to begin its analysis of proper location early on in the application process. $1~-~386838 HOISINGTON KOEGLER ?08 PO~ ~AN MY. Ed Shukle November 10, 1998 page 2 ORDINANCE CHANGES Enclosed is a copy of the existing ordinance which is not on our computer system. Section 350:1300 The first sentence should be deleted and read "a tower or antenna support structure may not exceed 125 feet in height. Measurement of tower height must include the tower structure itself, the base pad and any telecommunications facilities attached thereto. Tower height is measured from grade. Measurement of antenna support structure height must include the structure itself and any telecommunications facilities attached thereto, This provision, however, is not a separate grant of authority to construct an antenna support structure or a grant that such a structm'e may be a~,y particular height." Section 350:1317, subd. 2 In line four strike "conditional use" and insert "building." This appears to be a mistake in the ordinance as a later reference is to "building pemait." Section 350:1385 This is an additional subdivision to the existing provisions. This allows the City to charge back its expert consulting fees upon tb.e apptication for any site location. It also requires evidence of compliance with FCC radiation emission requirements. Section 350:1390 This provision adds variance criteria that is more consistent with the issue raised by wireless providers if the ordinance does not provide a location, and it is shown that the location is the only available spot. 0~ '99 11:59 JM$-153011 MU200-30 612-3386838 HOISINGTON KOEGLER Mr. Ed Shukle November 10, 1998 page 3 Section 350:1395 ?88 P04 JAN This is a provision outlining the procedure for penalties, discipline or revocation of the permit. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, .~~GP~VEN, CHAKTEKED JMS:sms Enclosures CC: John B. Dean Loren Gordon Oarrett Lysiak 0~ 1~:00 JMS-153011 Mt J200-30 2-33868.38 I1 ;~:ar~ rrmm,~, ....... ~.O..I.S. INGTON KOEGLER ?88 P05 J~N 06 '99 350:138S Add, itional Req~liremen~. Subd.l. See original text. Subd.2. ~valuation and Mor~itoring. As a condition of approv~ for telecommunication facilities the applic~t sh~l reimburse the City for its costs to re~n outsi~, ~x~ technic~ ~sist~ce to ev~uate any ~pcct of the proposed siting of telecommunications facilities, including bm not li~ted to o~her possible sites within the Cit~. The owner of a telecommumcadon~ facilx9 sh~l provide ~e City with cu~em, technical evidence of complimce with FCC radiation emission requir~mems, mnu~ly or more f~qucnfly at ~e City's rrasonable request, If the owner d~s not promp~l~ provide the City with satisfacto~ t,c~ic~ evidence of FCC compli~ce, ~hc City ma~ cmy out ~ests to ensure FCC radiauon cotnpli~ce using a qu~ificd ~xpen. The o~er reimb~se the City for its remonable cosI~ in c~rying our such compliance testing. Subd.3. See original text. Sectio~t 3b0:1390 Variances, Subd. 1. Imrial C~titeria. The cit~, council may grant a v~riance m the setback, s~paration or buffer mqniremems, and maximum height pro~bion of this subdivision based on the criteria set forth in Section of this Code. Sub& 2. Additional Criteria. In ~ddition to takirfg the criteria set tbn:h in Section of this Cocb into consideration, the citf. council may also grant a variance ii' the applicant demonstrates with ~,'ritten or other satisfactory evidence that: The locatiort, shape, appearance or nature of use of the proposed tower will no~ substantially d~tract from the aesthetics of the area not change the character of the neighborhood in which the ~og~t is proposed to be located; The vsri. ance will not create a threat ~o the public health, safety or welfare; in thc case of a requested modification to the setback requirement, that the size of plat upon which the tower i~ proposed to be locatecI m~¢s compliance impossible, and the onb, alternative for the applicant is to loc'ate the tower at another site but posc~ a greater threat to the public health. 5af~ty or a, elfare or is closer in proximity to a ~'esidentialls, zoned lind; In the case of a request for modification of separation rcquiremems, if the per,on provides written teclmical evidence from an engineer that the proposed tower anc~ ~elecommunicadons facilities must be located at th~ propo~;ed ,itc in order rd meet Ihe coverage needs of the applicant'.., wireless communication~ system and if thc person agrees to create approved landscaping and other buffers to screen the tower from being visible to the residential area; 612-3386838 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 714 P02 JAN 1~7 '99 10:29 in the casa of a request for r~odific~don of the maximum height limit, that the modificsfion is nacessa~ m (1) ~cilit~tc co-location of telecommunications f~ihties in order to avoid co~[~C[lOn of ~ n¢~ [o~ef; or (2) to m~e[ ehe coverage requirem~nt~ of ~h¢ applic~m's ~,ireless communications s~.¢~enl, which requiremem~ must be documented ~i~h written, techuic~ evidence from ~ engineer. Section 350:1595 Failure tO Comply Subd. 1, City'.~ Right to l~evoke. If the perrnilr, ee tails ~o comply with any or' the terms imposed by the conditional usc permit, the city may impose penalties or discipline for not, compliance, which may include revocation of the permit, in accorcl~nce with the following provisions: Sabot. 2. Proc,~ur~e, Except as provided in subsection (23)(c) below, thc imposition of m~y penalty sh~ll be preceded by (i) ~ri~ten notice of ~leged ~iol~ion, (ii) ~he opponunky ~o c~e ~he violauon during a period not ~o exceed ~hiny days following receipt of ~e written noace. ~d (iii) a heming ~fore ~he City Council a~ leas~ t'~een days of[er sending ~'ri~ten no, ice oi' the he,rig. The notices con~ned in (i) ~d (iii) m~y be core,ned in the s~e notification. The he~ing sh~l provide the p~ttee with ~ opportunity to show cause why sabjeet to discipline. Subd. 3. Exigent Circumstances. if the City find~ tha~ extg~n~ ¢~rcurns~anses e~ist requiring ~mmediate perrm~ revocation, the Cky may revoke the perrni~ ~nd shall provide a pos~-revocation hearing before the CityCouncil not more than fifteen days after permk~ee's receipt of wriuen notice of ~h~ hearing. Following ~ach hearing, ch~ City Coancil may s~tain or rescind ~h¢ revoc~.fion, or may impose such other anc~ further discipline ~s it deem5 :~ppropn~te. Subd. 4. Record. Any decision to impose .~ penalty or o~.her discipline sh~ll be in writing and supported by 5ubstanti'4 evidence contained in a written record. M U20~- 30 Section 350:1300 - Telecommunications Towers and Facilities. Section 350:1300. Findings. The city council finds: Subd. 1. The federal Communications Act of 1934 as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("the Act") grants the Federal Communications Commission exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions from telecommunications facilities and the regulation of radio signal interference among users of the radio fi'equency spectrum. Subd. 2. Consistent with the Act, the regulation of towers and telecommunications facilities in the city will not have the effect of prohibiting any person from providing wireless telecommunications services. The general purpose of this section is to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of telecommunication towers and facilities in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, while not unreasonably interfering with the development of the competitive wireless telecommunications marketplace in the city. In addition, this section recognizes the contractual control for the purpose of preserving public health, safety, and welfare that can be exercised over telecommunications facilities when those facilities are located on property owned or controlled by governmental entities. Specifically, the purposes of this section are: 1. To regulate the location of telecommunication towers and facilities; To protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts of telecommunication towers and facilities; To minimize adverse visual impacts of telecommunication towers and facilities through design, siting, landscaping, and innovative camouflaging techniques; To promote and encourage shared use and collocation of telecommunication towers and antenna support structures; To avoid damage to adjacent properties caused by telecommunication towers and facilities by ensuring that those structures are soundly and carefully designed, constructed, modified, maintained and promptly removed when no longer used or when determined to be structurally unsound; To ensure that telecommunication towers and facilities are compatible with surrounding land uses; and To facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunications services to the residents and businesses of the city in an orderly fashion. Section 350:1305. Definitions. For purposes of this section the following terms have the meanings given them, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Subd. 1. "Antenna support structure" means a building, athletic fieldlighting, water tower, 136 or other structure, other than a tower, which can be used for location of telecommunications facilities. Subd. 2. "Applicant" means a person who applies for a permit to develop, construct, build modify or erect a tower under this section. Subd. 3. "Application" means the process by which the owner of a plot of land within the city submits a request to develop, construct, build, modify or erect a tower upon that land. Subd. 4. "Engineer" means an engineer licensed by the state of Minnesota. Subd. 5. "Person" means any natural person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company, or other legal entity, private or public, whether for profit or not for profit. Subd. 6. "Stealth" means designed to blend into the surrounding environment; examples of stealth facilities include, without limitation, architecturally screened roof-mounted antennas, antennas integrated into architectural elements, and telecommunications towers designed to appear other than as a tower, such as light poles, power poles, and trees. Subd. 7. "Telecommunications facilities" means cables, wires, lines, wave guides, antennas or any other equipment or facilities associated with the transmission or reception of telecommunications located or installed on or near a tower or antenna support structure. The term does not include: A satellite earth station antenna two meters in diameter or less located in an industrial or commercial district; 2. A satellite earth station antenna one meter or less in diameter, wherever located; or 3. A tower. Subd. 8. "Telecommunications tower" or "tower" means a self-supporting lattice, guyed, or monopole structure constructed fi.om grade that supports telecommunications facilities; the term does not include amateur radio operations equipment licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. Section 350:1310. Development of Towers; Approvals Required. Subd. 1. General Construction Prohibition. A tower may not be constructed in any zoning district unless such tower is a conditional or permitted use in the zoning district in which construction will take place. Subd. 2. Conditional Use Permits Required. A tower may not be constructed in any zoning district unless a conditional use permit has been issued by the city council if the tower is a conditional use in the zoning district in which construction will take place. Subd. 3. Building Permit Required. A tower may not be constructed in any zoning district 137 unless a building permit has been issued by the building official. Subd. 4. City Property. The city may authorize the use of city property for towers in accordance with the procedures of this code. The city has no obligation to allow the use of city property for this purpose. Subd. 5. Zoning Districts. A tower is not a permitted use in any zoning district. A tower is a conditional use in Light Industrial (I-1) and Planned Industrial Area (PIA) districts. Section 350:1315. Application Process. Subd. 1. A person desiring to construct a tower must submit an application for a building permit and, if applicable, for a conditional use permit, to the Zoning Administrator. Subd. 2. An application to develop a tower must include: 1. Name, address, and telephone number of the applicant; 2. Name, address, and telephone numbers of the owners of the property on which the tower is proposed to be located; 3. Written consent of the property owner(s) to the application; 4. Written evidence from an engineer that the proposed structure meets the structural requirements of this code; 5. Written information demonstrating the need for the toWer at the proposed site in light of the existing and proposed wireless telecommunications network(s) to be operated by persons intending to place telecommunications facilities on the tower; 6. A copy of relevant portions of a lease signed by the applicant and property owner(s), requiting the applicant to remove the tower and associated telecommunications facilities upon cessation of operations on the leased site, or, if a lease does not yet exist, a written agreement to include such a provision in the lease to be signed; and 7. An application fee established from time to time by resolution of the city council. Section. 350:1320. Performance Standards. Subd. 1. Collocation capability. Unless the applicant presents clear and convincing evidence to the city council that collocation is not feasible, a new tower may not be built, constructed or erected in the city unless the tower is capable of supporting at least two telecommunications facilities comparable in weight, size, and surface area to each other. Subd. 2. Setback requirements. A tower must comply with the following setback requirements: 138 A tower must be located on a single parcel having a dimension equal to the height of the tower, as measured between the base of the tower located nearest the property line and the actual property line, unless an engineer specifies in writing that the collapse of the tower will occur within a lesser distance under reasonably foreseeable circumstances. Setback requirements for towers are measured from the base of the tower to the property line of the parcel on which it is located. Section 350:1325. Engineer Certification. Towers must be designed and certified by an engineer to be structurally sound and in conformance with the Uniform Building Code, and any other standards set forth in this code. Section 350:1330. Height Restriction. A tower may not exceedthe lesser of 125 feet in height er a height equivalent to 10 feet more than the distance from the base of the tower to the nearest point of any property line. Measurement of tower height must include the tower structure itself, the base pad, and any telecommunications facilities attached thereto. Tower height is measured fi.om ~ ~ade. Measurement of antenna support structure height must include the structure itself and any telecommunications facilities attached thereto. This provision, however, is not a separate grant of authority to construct an antenna support structure or a grant that such a structure may be any particular height. Section 350:1335. Lighting. Towers may not be artificially lighted except as required by the Federal Aviation Administration. At time of construction of a tower, in cases where there are residential uses located within a distance which is three times the height of the tower fi.om the tower, dual mode lighting must be requested fi.om the Federal Aviation Administration. Notwithstanding this provision, the city may approve the placement of an antennae on an existing or proposed lighting standard, provided that the antennae is integrated with the lighting standard. Section 350:1340. Exterior Finish. Towers not requiring Federal Aviation Administration painting or marking must have an exterior finish as approved in the site plan. Section 350:1345. Fencing. Fences constructed around or upon parcels containing towers, antenna support structures, or telecommunications facilities must be constructed in accordance with the applicable fencing requirements in the zoning district where the tower or antenna support structure is located, unless more stringent fencing requirements are required by Federal Communications Commission regulations. Section 350:1350. Landscaping. Landscaping on parcels containing towers, antenna support structures or telecommunications facilities must be in accordance with landscaping requirements as approved in the site plan. Utility buildings and structures accessory to a tower must be architecturally designed to blend in with the surrounding environment and to meet such setback requirements as are compatible with the actual placement of the tower. Ground mounted equipment must be screened fi.om view by suitable vegetation, except where a design of non- vegetative screening better reflects and complements the character of the surrounding neighborhood. 139 Section 350:1355. Accessory buildings and Equipment. No more than one accessory building is permitted per tower. Accessory buildings may be no be more than 200 square feet in size. Telecommunications facilities not located on a tower or in an accessory building must be of stealth design. Section 350:1360. Security. Towers must be reasonably posted and secured to protect against trespass. All signs must comply with applicable sign regulations. Section 350:1365. Design. Towers must be of stealth design. Section 350:1370. Non-tower facilities. Telecommunications facilities are permitted only as follows: Subd. 1. Telecommunications facilities are a conditional accessory use in the Central Business Disthct (B-l), General Business (B-2), and Neighborhood Business (B-3) districts, provided that the owner of such a telecommunications facility, by written certification to the building official, establishes the following facts at the time plans are submitted for a building permit: That the height from grade of the telecommunications facilities and antennae support structure does not exceed the maximum height from grade of the antenna support structure by more than 20 feet; That the antenna support structure and telecommunications facilities comply with the Uniform Building Code; and o That telecommunications facilities located above the Primary roof of an antenna support structure are set back one foot from the edge of the primary roof for each one foot in height above the primary roof of the telecommunications facilities. This setback requirement does not apply to antennas that are mounted to the exterior of antenna support structures below the primary roof, but that do not protrude more than six inches from the side of the antenna support structure. Subd. 2. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this ordinance, telecommunications facilities are a permitted accessory use on antenna support structures owned or otherwise under the physical control of the city, a school district, or the state or federal government provided a conditional usebuilding permit has been issuedt~hhe citycom~cil and provided further that the owner of such a telecommunications facility, by written certification to the building official, establishes the following facts at the time plans are submitted for a building permit: That the height from grade of the telecommunications facilities and antennae support structure does not exceed the maximum height from grade of the antenna support structure by more than 20 feet; ° That the antenna support structure and telecommunications facilities comply with the Uniform Building Code; and 140 o That telecommunications facilities located above the primary roof of an antenna support structure are set back one foot from the edge of the primary roof for each one foot in height above the primary roof of the telecommunications facilities. This setback requirement does not apply to antennas that are mounted to the exterior of antenna support structures below the primary roof, but that do not protrude more than six inches from the side of the antenna support structure. Section 350:1375. Removal of Towers. Abandoned or unused towers and associated above- ground facilities must be removed within twelve months of the cessation of operations of the telecommunications facility at the site unless an extension is approved by the city council. Any tower and associated telecommunications facilities that are not removed within twelve months of the cessation of operations at a site are declared to be public nuisances and may be removed by the city and the costs of removal assessed against the property pursuant to state law and the code. Section 350:1380. Shoreland Management Ordinance. To the extent that any conflict exists between any provision of this Section 350:1300 of the code and any provision of the Shoreland Management Ordinance contained at Section 350:1200 of the city's zoning ordinance, the more restrictive provision shall apply. Section 350:1385. Additional requirements. Subd. 1. Inspections. The city may conduct inspections at any time, upon reasonable notice to the property owner and the tower owner to inspect the tower for the purpose of determining if it complies with the Uniform Building Code and other construction standards provided by the city code, federal and state law. The expense, related to such inspections will be borne by the property owner. Based upon the results of an inspection, the building official may require repair or removal of a tower. Subd.2. Evaluation and Monitoring. As a condition of approval for telecommunication facilities the applicant shall reimburse the City for its costs to retain outside expert technical assistance to evaluate m~y aspect of the proposed siting of telecommunications facilities, including but not limited to other possible sites within the City. The owner of a telecommunications facility shall provide the Citv with current. technical evidence of compliance with FCC radiation emission requirements, annually or more frequently at the City's reasonable request. If the owner does not promptly provide the City with satisfactory technical evidence of FCC compliance, the City may carry out tests to ensure FCC radiation compliance using a qualified expert. The owner shall reimburse the City for its reasonable costs in carrying out such compliance testing. Subd. 2. Maintenance. Towers must be maintained in accordance with the following provisions: Tower owners must employ ordinary and reasonable care in construction and use commonly accepted methods and devices for preventing failures and accidents that are likely to cause damage, injuries, or nuisances to the public. 141 Tower owners must install and maintain towers, telecommunications facilities, wires, cables, fixtures and other equipment in compliance with the requirements of the National Electric Safety Code and all Federal Communications Commission, state, and local regulations, and in such a manner that they will not interfere with the use of other property. o Towers, telecommunications facilities, and antenna support structures must be kept and maintained in good condition, order, and repair. Maintenance or construction on a tower, telecommunications facilities or antenna support structure must be performed by qualified maintenance and construction personnel. Towers must comply with radio frequency emissions standards of the Federal Communications Commission. o If the use of a tower is discontinued by the tower owner, the tower owner must provide written notice to the city of its intent to discontinue use and the date when the use will be discontinued. Section 350:1390 Variances. Subd. 1. Initial Criteria. The city council may grant a variance to the setback, separation or buffer requirements, and maximum height provision of this subdivision based on the criteria set forth in Section 350:530 of this Code. Subd. 2. Additional Criteria. In addition to taking the criteria set forth in Section 350:530 of this Code into consideration, the city council may also grant a variance if the applicant demonstrates with written or other satisfactory evidence that: The location, shape, appearance or nature of use of the proposed tower will not substantially detract from the aesthetics of the area not change the character of the neighborhood in which the tower is proposed to be located: The variance will not create a threat to the public health, safety or welfare; In the case of a requested modification to the setback requirement, that the size of plat upon which the tower is proposed to be located makes compliance impossible, and the only alternative for the applicant is to locate the tower at another site but poses a greater threat to the public health, safety or welfare or is closer in proxinfity to a residentially zoned land; In the case of a request for modification of separation requirements, if the person provides written technical evidence from an engineer that the proposed tower and telecommunications facilities must be located at the proposed site in order to meet the coverage needs of the applicant's wireless communications system and if the 142 person agrees to create approved landscaping and other buffers to screen the tower from being visible to the residential area: o In the case of a request for modification of the maximum height limit, that the modification is necessary to (1) facilitate co-location of telecommunications facilities in order to avoid construction of a new tower: or (2) to meet the coverage requirements of the applicant's wireless communications system, which requirements must be documented with written, technical evidence fi'om an engineer. Section 350:1395 Failure to Comply Subd. l. City's Right to Revoke. If the perrnittee fails to comply with any of the terrns imposed bv the conditional use permit, the City may impose penalties or discipline for noncompliance, which may include revocation of the permit, in accordance with the following provisions: Subd. 2. Procedure. Except as provided in subsection (23)(c) below, the imposition of any penalty shall be preceded bv (i) written notice of the pernfittee of the alleged violation, (ii) the opportmfity to cure the violation during a period not to exceed thirty days following receipt of the written notice, and (iii) a hearing before the City Council at least fifteen days after sending written notice of the hearing. The notices contained in (i) and (iii) may be contained in the same notification. The hearing shall provide the pennittee with m~ opportunity to show cause why the pemfit should not be subject to discipline. Subd. 3. Exigent Circumstances. If the City finds that exigent circumstances exist requiring immediate permit revocation, the City may revoke the permit and shall provide a post-revocation hearing before the City Council not more than fifteen days after pennittee's receipt of written notice of the hearing. Following such hearing, the City Council may sustain or rescind the revocation, or may impose such other and further discipline as it deems appropriate. Subd. 4. Record. Any decision to impose a penalty or other discipline shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. 143 c H A R TERED 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.com RI::CEIVEa '"", ' JAMES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Direct Dial: (612) 337-9233 email: jstrommen~kennedy-graven.corn November 10, 1998 Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound MN 55364 Re: Telecommunications Towers and Facilities--Code Section 350:1300, et seq. Dear Ed: Enclosed is a draft of possible additions to the above ordinance pursuant to the review undertaken during the moratorium. I have spoken with both Garrett Lysiak and Loren Gordon regarding the unique issues facing Mound in telecommunication tower and antenna siting. We assume the city council wants to remain protective of its residential areas and of the aesthetics in the City. Short of opening up the City residential districts to tower siting, there is no guarantee that any particular ordinance change will ensure that the City may direct new applicants to a desired area. What these proposed additions intend is to provide is a procedure forcing the applicant to demonstrate a need at the requested location in the City, with review by an expert consultant retained by the City at an early stage, a't thc applicant's expense. (Section 350:1385, subd 2). We also suggest a radiation emissions compliance check specific to the wireless permits issued, and more flexibility in the variance process. (Sections 350:1385, 1390) In remaining cautious and somewhat restrictive rather than expansive, we are mindful of the prediction that the only thing certain in this industry is uncertainty and the likelihood is that required antennas heights will be reduced not increased. Thus, rather than being overlybroad, we are suggesting staying the course of the existing ordinance, but affording the City the right, at no additional expense, to begin its analysis of proper location early on in the application process. Mr. Ed Shukle November 10, 1998 page 2 ORDINANCE CHANGES Enclosed is a copy of the existing ordinance which is not on our computer system. Section 350:1300 The first sentence should be deleted and read "a tower or antenna support structure may not exceed 125 feet in height. Measurement of tower height must include the tower structure itself, the base pad and any telecommunications facilities attached thereto. Tower height is measured from grade. Measurement of antenna support structure height must include the structure itself and any telecommunications facilities attached thereto. This provision, however, is not a separate grant of authority to construct an antenna support structure or a grant that such a structure may be any particular height." Section 350:1317, subd. 2 In line four strike "conditional use" and insert "building." This appears to be a mistake in the ordinance as a later reference is to "building permit." Section 350:1385 This is an additional subdivision to the existing provisions. This allows the City to charge back its expert consulting fees upon the application for any site location. It also requires evidence of compliance with FCC radiation emission requirements. Section 350:1390 This provision adds variance criteria that is more consistent with the issue raised by wireless providers if the ordinance does not provide a location, and it is shown that the location is the only available spot. JMS-153011 MU200-30 Mr. Ed Shukle November 10, 1998 page 3 Section 350:1395 This is a provision outlining the procedure for penalties, discipline or revocation of the permit. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, KE~ GRAVEN, CHARTERED JMS:sms Enclosures CC; John B. Dean Loren Gordon Garrett Lysiak JMS-153011 MU200-30 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegier Group Inc. gill TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: February 2, 1999 SUBJECT: Telecommunications Ordinance Update - supplement to 1/4/99 report DISCUSSION: Since January's Planning Commission meeting, I have addressed the 4 items we discussed: 1. Need for additional camouflage or stealth language. I reviewed the City of Bloomington's ordinance for design requirements. Our ordinance requires more in attention to design and appearance of tower and non-tower facilities through the "stealth" provision than Bloomington's which talks about "compatibility." I feel that the stealth language goes a long way to require facility design to fit any given situation. I would not be comfortable for example, requiring all towers to look like a tree not understanding that context around which the tower is located. Through the CUP review process, certain design issues could be required. No changes have been proposed on this item. 2. Allow towers on publicly owned properties. Section 350:1310 subd. 5 is modified to include provisions (1) and (2) to address this. In the definitions section of the zoning code, Public land is "land owned or operated by municipal, school district, county, state or other governmental units." This definition would not allow towers on church and other public service/institutional properties. 3. Remove the "1 to 1' height setback provision. · This section has been removed. 4. Review other communities for tower setbacks. I looked at a few other codes and found that tower setbacks are regulated like principal structure setbacks except when a "1 to 1" height setback is used. This is a reasonable approach to keeping a tower within a property's buildable area. Section 350:1320 subd. 2 shows the proposed revisions. Item 2 keeps towers essentially behind or on the side of a building unless there is reason to have it elsewhere as the Council may decide (item #3). 123 North Third SWeet, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838 p. 2 Telecommunications Ordinance Update - supplement to 1/4/99 report February 2, 1999 Because there wasn't a second Planning Commission meeting in January, this item is scheduled to go to Council tomorrow night. The attached ordinance has been prepared based on the above changes merely to assist Council with what is being reviewed by the Planning Commission. This is not to suggest that the Commission cannot make changes. Any changes that are made will be forwarded to the Council as an amended handout Tuesday night. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the Telecommunications Ordinance amendments as proposed. Section 350:1300 - Telecommunications Towers and Fadlifies. Section 350:1300. F'mdings. The city ~ finds: Subd. 1. The federal Comnxmicatiom Act of 1934 as amended by the Tdeconmamicafiom Act of 1996 ('~e Act') grants the Federal Communications Commission exdusive jufisdiet~ over the regulation of regulation ofradio sigml irteffermce among users ofthe radio frequmc3, spectrum when those fadlities are located on Vopeay owned or controlled by govemmental entiti~. Specifically, the ~ of this section are: Section 350:1305. Definifiom For lantx)ses ofthis section the following terms have lhe meanings given them, except where tl~ context dearly indicates a diffe~nt meaning: 136 2. a satdlite earth station amenna one meter or less in diameter, wherever 1~ or 3. atower. anmta~ radio opermions equipment licensed by the Federal Ccmmmnications Commissiort Section 350:1310. Development of Towers; Approvals Required. Subd. 1. General Constn~on Protubifion. Atower may not be cx~nstmc~ in any zoning district tmless arab tower is a eonditioml or txrmit~ use in the zoning ~ in ~ch ~on will take place. Subd. 2. CondifiomlUsePen'nitsRequired. A tow~ may not be constn~_~ in any zoning district unless a conditional use lx:rmit has bern issued by the city council ~ m~ h a ~ ~ ~ ~ Sul~ 3. Building Permit Requh~. Atowermay not be constmc~ in any zoning district unless a building permit has been imued by the building omcial. Subd. 5. ZoningDi~cts. A tower is not apenniuedusein anyzoning ~ Towexs shall be allowed as a conditional use in the following zoned areas: 137 I 2. Publidy owned or operated land in Resider~ and Commercial districts. Section 350:1315. Application Process. Subd. 1. Aperson ~to construct atowerr~t submit~mapplicafion forabuilding~~ if Subd. 2. An applicafionto develop atowerna~indude: 2. name, ~ arfl tdephone mmbexs of the owre~s of the property on which the tower is 3. written consent ofthe propeay owner(s) to the application; of this code; intending to place tdeco~cations fadlities on the tower, 6. a copy ofrdevant portions of a lease signed by the applicant and ~ owner(s), ~ the operations on the leased site, or, ifa lease does not yet exist, a writt~ agreement to indude sucha provision in the lease to be signed; and 7. an application fee established from time to time by resolution ofthe city coundl. Section. 350:1320. Peffonmr~ Standards. area to m__ch other. 138 Towe~s shall not be located betwe~a a principal stmcan~ and a public street the City Ctxmdl reasonably deems it neck_ ~ to allow better site integration Section 350:1325. Engineer CeYlon. Towers must be designed and certifi~ by an engine~ to be stmaumlly sound a~ in conformance ~ tt~ Uniform Building Cxxte, and any othff ~'xJ,~ls set forth in this code. Section 350:1330. HdghtRestfiaior~ A tower may not exceed 125 feet in heigl~ Measurem~oftower hdg~ must indude the tower ~ ~ the base pad, and any tdecomtmnicafions fadlifies ~acla~xt ~. Tower height is ~ from grade. Mea&u'~ of antenna support stmax~ hdght must include the mucture itself and any teleconmmnications fadlities ~ached thereto. This provision, however, is not a separam grant of~_ahotity to construct an antrum support snuax~ or a grant that such a ~uanre may be any partioahr hdght. Section 350:1335. Lighfi~ Towe~s may not be artificially lighted except as required by the Federal Aviation Admini~aiion. At time of consm~on of a tower, in cases where there are residential uses located within a the Federal Aviation Admini~ion. Notwithstanding this provision, the city may approve the placement of an standard. Section 350:1340. Exterior Ymisk Towees not mqtfifing Federal Aviation AdminisWa&m painting or mafldng must have an exterior finish as approved in the site plan. Section 350:1345. Fencing Fences constructed around or upon parcels containing towees, an/enna support struclxwes, or tde~ommunicalions fidlities must be constructed in accordance with the applicable fencing fencing requirements are required by Federal Cornrmnications Commi~bn re~ ii.om. Section 350:1350. Landscap~ Landscaping on parcels co~taining towers, ar~mna support structures or telecommunications fadlities must be in acca'dame with landscaping ~ as approved in the site ~ anmtnxiing environment and to meet such setback ~ as are compaffole with the actual placement of ofnon-~ screening better reflects and compl~ the ~vacter of the amunxiing ndghborlxxx[ Section 350:1355. Accesso~ buildings and Equipment. No rnge than one ~_c~y building is pennitt~l per tower. Aecesso~ buildings may be no be more than 200 square f~et in size. Tdeco~cafions fadlities not loca~d on atower or in an accessony building must be of stealth design. Secfion350:1360. Seoarity. Towers~be~ly~a~securedto~~~. Allsigns must comply with applicable sign re~ ,lations. Seaion350:1365. Desigrz Tow~s~beofstealthdesi~ 139 I Section 350:1370. ~ facilities. Telecommunications facilities are pomitted only as follows: (B-l% Gemini Business (B-2)~ and Neighboflxxxt Business (B-3) distl~ provi&xi that tbe owne~ of that the antenna suppoa sUucUwe and tdecomm~ fadlities comply with the Uniibrm Building Code; and submitted for a building pein'fit: Section 350:1375. ~ ofTowexs. Abandor~ or unused tower3 and assodated above-grotmd fadlities must be removed within twdve months ofthe _ces___~o~' n ofolx~tiom ofthe tdeco~~ facility at the site are not nm~oved within twelve months of the cessation ofopcmtk~ at a s~ are deckged to be public ~ 140 Section 350:1380. Shordand Management Ordinance. To the extent that any cx~dti~ ofists ~ any provision of this Section 350:1300 of the code and arty provision of the Slx~dand ~ Ordinance cotaained at Section 350:1200 of the cites zoning ~limm~, the more remica've prtn4sion ~ ~. Section 350:1385. Additional requirerne~. Subd. 1. Inspeetiom. The dty may conduct inspections at any lime, upon reasonable notice to the prolx~ owner and the tower owner to inspect the tower for the ~ of detennin~ if it complies results of an ~ the building official may require repair or removal of a tower. Subd.2. Evaluation and Monitoring. As a condition of approval for telecommunication facilities the applicant shall reimburse the City for its costs to retain outside expert technical assistance to evaluate any aspect of the proposed siting of telecommunications facilities, including but not limited to other possible sites within the City. The owner of a telecommunications facility shall provide the City with current, technical evidence of compliance with FCC radiation emission requirements, annually or more frequently at the City's reasonable request. If the owner does not promptly provide the City with satisfactory technical evidence of FCC compliance, the City may carry out tests to ensure FCC radiation compliance using a qualified expert. The owner shall reimburse the City for its reasonable costs in carrying out such compliance testing. Tower ownem must employ ordinary and reasonable care in construaion and use commonly accepted ~ and devices for~ failures and aceidems that are likdy to cause damage, injuries, or misances to the public. Code and all Federal Communications Commission, ~e, and local re~ ,l~ons, and in such a Towe~ must comply with radio frequency emissions standards of the Federal Communications Commission If the use of a tower is discontinued by the tower owner, the tower owner must provide written notice to the city of its intent to discontinue use and the date when the use will be discontinued. 141 I Section 350:1390 Variances. Subd. 1. Initial Criteria. The city council may grant a variance to the setback, separation or buffer requirements, and maximum height provision of this subdivision based on the criteria set forth in Section 350:530 of this Code. Subd. 2. Additional Criteria. In addition to consideration of a variance based on the criteria set forth in Section 350:530 of this Code into consideration, the city council may also grant a variance by considering the requirements imposed by the Act and showing by the applicant with written or other satisfactory evidence that: The location, shape, appearance or nature of use of the proposed tower will not substantially detract from the aesthetics of the area nor change the character of the neighborhood in which the tower is proposed to be located; 2. The variance will not create a threat to the public health, safety or welfare; In the case of a requested modification to the setback requirement, th~ the size of plat upon which the tower is proposed to be located makes compliance impossible, and the only alternative for the applicant is to locate the tower at another site that poses a greater threat to the public health, safety or welfare or is closer in proximity to a residentially zoned land; In the case of a request for modification of separation requirements, if the person provides written technical evidence from an engineer that the proposed tower and telecommunications facilities must be located at the proposed site in order to meet the coverage needs of the applicant's wireless communications system and if the person agrees to create approved landscaping and other buffers to screen the tower from being visible to the residential area; In the case of a request for modification of the maximum height limit, that the modification is necessary to (1) facilitate collocation of telecommunications facilities in order to avoid construction of a new tower; or (2) to meet the coverage requirements of the applicant's wireless communications system, which requirements must be documented with written, technical evidence from an engineer. Section 350:1395 Failure to Comply Subd. 1. City's Right to Revoke. If the permittee fails to comply with any of the terms imposed by the conditional use permit, the City may impose penalties or discipline for noncompliance, which may include revocation of the permit, in accordance with the following provisions: Subd. 2. Procedure. Except as provided in subsection (23)(c) below, the imposition of any penalty shall be preceded by (i) written notice of the permittee of the alleged violation, (ii) the opportunity to cure the violation during a period not to exceed thirty days following receipt of the written notice, and (iii) a hearing before the City Council at 142 least fit~een days after sending written notice of the heating. The notices contained in (i) and (iii) may be contained in the same notification. The hearing shall provide the permittee with an opportunity to show cause why the ,permit should not be subject to discipline. Subd. 3. Exigent Circumstances. If the City finds that exigent circumstances exist requiring immediate permit revocation, the City may revoke the permit and shall provide a post-revocation hearing before the City Council not more than fifteen days after permittee's receipt of written notice of the hearing. Following such hearing, the City Council may sustain or rescind the revocation, or may impose such other and further discipline as it deems appropriate. Subd. 4. Record. Any decision to impose a penalty or other discipline shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. 143 February[ 1999 PROPOSED RESOLUTION//99- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN EDUCATIONAL FACILITY, LOCATED IN THE B-1 BUSINESS DISTRICT, AT 5241 SHORELINE BOULEVARD, LOTS 7-20 & 26-35 & ALL VAC. ALLEY & PARKING AREA & PARK, BLOCK 1, PID 13-117-24 34 0072, P & Z CASE//99-01 WHEREAS, the applicant, Westonka Public Schools, has requested the one year review of the Conditional Use Permit # 97-84 to allow for an educational facility within the B-1 Business District, and; WHEREAS, Mound Zoning Ordinance Section 350:640 allows an educational facility as a conditional use in the B-1 Zone, and; WHEREAS, Westonka Schools plan to conduct the following functions: a preschool, early childhood family education and early childhood special education center, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommend approval with conditions, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City Council does hereby approve a conditional use permit for an educational facility for Westonka Schools subject to the following conditions: Install a two-sided portable stop sign to be placed that would be more visible than the current one. The Conditional Use Permit be reviewed again in twelve months 2. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 7-20 & 26-35 & All Vac. Alley & Parking area & Park, Block 1 This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. Mound Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1999 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 1999 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Michael Mueller, Cklair Hasse, Frank Weiland, Orv Burma, Becky Glister, Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus, Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Deb Hawkinson. Public Present: Sandy Wing. Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. BOARD OF APPEALS: PUBLIC HEARING: CASE # 99-01: 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 AND 26-35 AND ALL VACANT ALLEY AND PARKING, BLOCK 1, SHIRLEY HILLS "F," PID #13-117- 24 34 0072. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA, JANUARY 26, 1999. Assistant City Planner Gordon reviewed the concerns that were raised last year when this center opened at this site. There were four safety conditions that needed addressing as outlined below: (Taken from Resolution #97-84 dated September 9, 1997, pp. 27-28 of meeting packet.) The City Council does hereby approve a conditional use Permit for an educational facility for Westonka Schools subject to the following conditions: a. Eden Road will be used as the primary drop-off point. During the bus drop-off, supervision will be provided to route the children into the building to avoid play behind the building or in the street. b. Traffic control measures to be installed in the traffic lane in front of the building to slow traffic. The size and placement of the measures shall be approved by the City Engineer. c. No parking or drop-off will be permitted directly adjacent to the sidewalk on the front of the building. Mound Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1999 do eo Three-foot high protective railings with spindles will be installed between the existing columns on the edge of the walkway in accordance with State Building Code. This Conditional Use Permit will be reviewed by the City Council one year from building permit issuance to examine the conditions and safety issues." Gordon reported that item "a" has been adopted and is working. Stop signs going east and west have been placed as well as a crosswalk installed in the road in front of the building. (Item "b"). Speed bumps, however, have not been installed. It seems that this recommendation came from the City Engineer and Staff. He reported that there wasn't any dropping off of students in front of the building as specified in item "c." Three-foot spindles have been installed per item "d." Gordon requested that the need for review in one year (item "e") be dropped. DISCUSSION: Weiland raised concerns over whether or not the above safety rules were really effective. Several occasions when waiting up there, he has seen infractions. People have not always stopped at the stop sign, there were no speed bumps as had been recommended and there were students being dropped off in front of the building. Fortunately, there haven't been any accidents, but he feels the situation is unsafe. Sutherland suggested pointing out to the lack of speed bumps in the Planning Commission recommendation. Clapsaddle said that perhaps the City Engineer decided to place speed bumps that measured zero in size. The original Mound Advisory Planning Commission Minutes dated August 25, 1997 (pp. 32-38 of meeting packet) and the Planning Report dated August 25, 1997 (pp. 39-41 of meeting packet were reviewed and discussed. PUBLIC HEARING: Chair Michael opened the Public Hearing at 8:10 p.m. with an introduction on public hearings. Sandy Wing, 6348 Walnut Avenue, director of this center came, forward for questions. Weiland asked her how many children currently attended the center. Ms. Wing indicated that the following were the numbers of children and adults in the school broken out by the following age groups. Preschool 120 students (With six full time staff) 2 %'::::1o ~ound P~anning Commission ~inutes January 11, 1999 E.C.F.E. 100 students approximately (Involvement of 250 families) (Four full time staff) Sibling Day care 10 students (Three staff) In addition, there were several part time staff. Weiland asked the Assistant City Planner if parking, other facilities (such as toilets), and fire codes were being considered with this expansion in numbers, and where that information is provided. Gordon stated further review could be taken and provided to the Commission if they felt it was needed. Mueller asked the question: "Is it working? .... Are the safety enhancements working? .... Is it a good use of the building?" In each case, the answer to date is yes, they are working. "It is a good use of a building that otherwise probably would sit empty." Voss wanted to know if the facility had State accreditation. Ms. Wing responded that, at this time, it does not. Voss then asked what audits (internal or external) were conducted to see that things really were functioning well. The Community Education Director, Mike Looby (Ms. Wing's supervisor) conducts audits to make sure the facility is meeting public school standards and the state codes for such facilities. She indicated the only issue to date was the hallway congestion. They have adjusted their schedules to make this more tolerable. Class schedules have also been changed to allow for smooth transitioning in the parking lot for cars and people. Sutherland thanked Weiland for extracting the information with regards to the increase in occupant load and for his observations. He will review the items of concern relating to the building and zoning codes. It was suggested that the Planning Commission make a request to the Police Department about stepping up 'friendly' enforcement of the stop sign and crosswalk. Mueller explained that as a former "snow plower," he was not convinced that speed bumps were the best answer. These areas cannot be cleared with the snowplow and thus, the result is more ice and snow build-up and potentially greater safety issues. Voss suggested that the parking lot traffic flow be made one direction to avoid the concerns of people not stopping. He also suggested using a "portable" stop sign that could be placed in the middle of the parking lot and be more visible than the current one. Additionally, it could be moved for the snowplow. Mound Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1999 Glister also voiced her concern about speed bumps were not the proper answer. In addition, she pointed out that this facility was only temporary housing. To date there have been no injuries and things seem to working well. Ms. Wing indicated that this facility and location was not the first choice when they had to move last year. However, they were in a 'sick building.' They still plan to move back to the Community Center in the Fall, 2001. The parents are very conscious of the safety issues and work well with the Center to see that they are followed and obeyed. The doors are heavy, with alarms on them and the children cannot open them. The only thing missing from previous quarters is the playground and/or a gym. But, since it is temporary, the Center can live with this. Chair Michael closed the Public Hearing at 8:30 p.m. MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Voss, to recommend that this Conditional Use Permit be reviewed again in twelve months. DISCUSSION: Mueller questioned the need to review this unless there were complaints. It is working. He suggested making the review conditional upon receipt of complaints. Weiland has concerns about the rapid growth that is taking place and the ability to manage the facilities appropriately without further reviews. Is a one-year review sufficient? Hanus agreed that the rate of growth was "severe." Since it is a temporary situation, he felt it could easily be reviewed without setting a precedent for review of Conditional Use Permits. Chair Michael suggested that perhaps it is more feasible for Staff to review the facility from time to time and then bring back any problems to the Planning Commission. The motion was amended after discussion to include a two-sided portable stop sign to be placed that would be more visible than the current one. Both Clapsaddle and Voss accepted the amended motion. Motion carried 9-0. adjourn at 9:44 p.m. Motion carried 8- 0. 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 VVESTONKA 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, February 9, 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 m~ ~, "-J~ I~q UlSt,~la~ ::secretary Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on January 20, 1999 Published in the Laker, January 23, 1999 printed on recycled paper PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff Loren Gordon, AICP January 11, 1999 Conditional Use Permit APPLICANT: Westonka Public Schools - 5600 Lynwood Boulevard OWNER: Mark Siliterman - 4301 Highway 7, Ste 100, St. Louis Park CASE NUMBER: 99-01 HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5a LOCATION: 5241 Shoreline Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Central Business (B-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Business BACKGROUND: As a condition of the conditional use permit, the Westonka Public Schools Early Childhood program, ECFE, is back for a one year review to examine conditions and safety issues. The facility is located at 5241 Shoreline Boulevard, in the Jubilee Shopping Center and is zoned B-1 district which allows educational facilities. That resolution, staff report and meeting minutes are provided for your review. The safety related concerns regarding pedestrian/vehicle conflict appear to be adequately addressed. In front of the building, fencing has been installed between the colurmas to channel pedestrian traffic to the crosswalk. Stop signs have been placed at the crosswalk in both directions to stop vehicles. This appears to be working well. Morning bus drop-off is occurring in the rear of the building and is working well. Staff has also contacted the property owner to talk about any issues that have come up over the last year. Mr. Siliterman indicated his company has not received any complaints from tenants, shoppers, or parents of children involved in the program. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission recommend Council approve the one year Conditional Use Permit review with the conditions stated in the previous Resolution 97-84. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 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 A 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 HERE~,Y GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, January 11, 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 meeting. Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on December 30, 1998 Published in the Laker, January 2, 1999 prmted on recycled paper &,ptember 9, 1997 RESOLUTION//97-84 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN EDUCATIONAL FACILITY, LOCATED IN THE B..1 BUSINESS DISTRICT, AT 5241 SHORELINE BOULEVARD, LOTS 7-20 & 26-35 & ALL VAC. ALLEY & PARKING AREA & PARK, BLOCK 1, PID 13-117-24 34 0072, P & Z CASE #97-38 WHEREAS, the applicant, Westonka Public Schools, has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an educational facility within the B-1 Business District, and; WHEREAS, Mound Zoning Ordinance Section 350:640 allows an educational facility as a conditional use in the B-1 Zone, and; WItEREAS, Westonka Schools plan to conduct the following functions: a preschool, early childhood family education and early childhood special education center, and; WHEREAS, the facility would serve approximately 88 children with 10 staff personnel, and; WHEREAS, the proposed facility would consist of 6,708 square feet with three exit/entry doors, one located in the front of the building and two in the rear of the building along Eden Road, and; WHEREAS, the facility would require 49 parking spaces, and; WIIEREAS, City staff has met with the applicant to address the safety concerns discussed by the planning commission, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has prepared a detailed site plan to address these concerns at the guidance and input of staff, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommend approval with the approved modifications. NOW, TIIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City Council does hereby approve a conditional use permit for an educational facility for Westonka Schools subject to the following conditions: ao Eden Road will be used as the primary drop-off point. During the bus drop-off, supervision will be provided to route the children into the building to avoid play behind the building or in the street. Traffic control measures to be installed in the traffic lane in front of the building to slow traffic. The size and placement of the measures shall be approved by the City Engineer. Co September 9, 1997 No parking or drop-off will be permitted directly adjacent to the sidewalk on the front of the building. Three foot high protective railings with spindles will be installed between the existing columns on the edge of the walkway in accordance with State Building Code. This Conditional Use Permit will be reviewed by the City Council one year from building permit issuance to examine conditions and safety issues. 2. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 7-20 & 26-35 & All Vac. Alley & Parking area & Park, Block 1 ge This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jensen, and seconded by Councilmember Weycker. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen and Weycker The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Attest: Acting City Clerk Polston May r~~/Y~ Mound City Council Minutes - September 9, 1997 1.5 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ESTABLISH EARLY CHILDHOOD FAMILY EDUCATION (E.C.F.E.) LOCATED WITHIN THE B-1 ZONING DISTRICT AT 5241 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 7-20 & 26-35 & ALL VACATED ALLEY & PARKING AREA AND PARK, BLOCK 1. PID//13-117-24 34 0072, P & Z 97-38. City Manager Ed Shukle introduced Loren Gordon, City Planner, from Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. Loren Gordon summarized this item. The Westonka School District wants to establish their Early Childhood Family Education Center at 5241 Shoreline Drive, in the Jubilee Shopping Center where the old Headliner's used to be. A Conditional Use Permit is required to do this in the B-1 Business District. The proposed office space consists of 6,708 square feet which included the space of Headliner's and Larson Printing. The building space will have three public entry/exit doors, one in the front of the shopping center, and two in the rear of the building along Eden Road. The School District intends to conduct the following functions: a preschool, an early childhood family education and an early special education center. The facility will serve approximately 88 children with 10 staff persons. Mound CiU Council Minu~ - September 9, 1997 Mayor Polston introduced Mark Thiede, Architect for the school district, from TSP/EOS. Mr. Thiede stated that to provide for the safety of the children at the front of the building, a fence type railing with spindles will be added between the columns so children can not run out onto the parking lot. The entry will be open to the parking lot. The building owner is receptive to the plan and the Planning Commission recommended approval. The building does not contain a fire sprinkler system, it is not required if the walls are a two hour parting wall. The building does comply with ADA standards. Mayor Polston was concerned that there was no fire sprinkler system. He hoped that in the haste to accommodate the situation, that it would not be detrimental to the children. He was also concerned that the CUP of this nature would be a conflict within an retail location. Mayor Polston opened the public hearing. Bil Hawks, 3465 County Road 44, spoke against the Conditional Use Permit for the school district. Sandy Wing, Director of E.C.F.E., spoke in favor of the Conditional Use Permit. She stated that several parents will be with their children while at the facility. The two busiest times would be about 9 am and then again around 3 pm. This is not a busy time for the shopping center. The building that the ECFE was now using is not suitable for staff and children. There are issues of health, safety, and mold. Mayor Polston stated he was sympathetic and asked if there had been any effort to work with the churches in the area? Ms. Wing stated they had tried, but there was no area that could provide a dedicated space for their needs. Mark Saliterman, owner of the shopping center, spoke regarding the use of the space to be only temporary, around 2 years. Being there was no one else to comment, Mayor Polston closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Council for discussion. Councilmember Jensen was concerned with condition #1 regarding the non retail and commercial use at the same location. She commented on the proposed stop signs that would be located at the entry to the facility and a crosswalk. She commented that she has little faith in crosswalks. Consensus of the Council was to amend the resolution to include the following conditions: 1. A review of the CUP one year after Council approval. 2. The addition of a railing with spindles to be installed between the columns that currently exist. The following amended resolution was moved by Jensen, seconded by Weycker: Mound City Council Minutes - September 9, 1997 RESOLUTION//97-84 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN EDUCATIONAL FACILITY, LOCATED IN THE B-1 BUSINESS DISTRICT, AT 5241 SHORELINE BOULEVARD, LOTS 7-20 & 26-35 & ALL VAC. ALLEY & PARKING AREA & PARK, BLOCK 1, PID 13-117-24 34 0072. The motion passed 4-1, Polston opposed. Comments from the Council included: not a good way to spend tax payer dollars, only temporary, the 'option to review in one year gave the Council the ability to review the health, safety and welfare of the program being located within a commercial arena. MINUTES OF A MEETING MOUND ADvIgORY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1997 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Jerry Clapsaddle,, Becky Glister, Gerald Reifschneider, and Council liaison Mark Hanus. Absent and Excused: Michael Mueller, Bill Voss. Also presem: Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Kris Linquist. Public Attendance: Mike Looby, Mark Saliterman, Beth Saliterman, Mark Thiede, Linda Dreyer, Christine Fitz, Sandy Wing. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 11, 1997 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle to approve the Minutes of the August 11, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. Discussion Burma stated that in the minutes of August 11, 1997, on page 5 under Commissioner Questions second sentenance the "will" should not be in the sentenance. The corrected sentenance should read, "There would only be the front yard variance." The vote to approve the Minutes as amended carried 8-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING: CASE # 9/-38: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS (ECFE), 5241 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 7-20 & 26- 35 & ALL VAC ALLEY & PARKING AREA & PARK, BLOCK 1, PID 13-117-24 34 0072. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the case. BACKGROUND: Westonka Public Schools have submitted an application for a conditional use permit to allow an educational facility in the B-1 district. The property is located at 5241 Shoreline Boulevard in the Jubilee Shopping Center which is at the comer of Shoreline and Wilshire Boulevards. The proposed office space consists of 6,708 square feet which includes the space formerly occupied by the Headliner and the space currently occupied by a printing shop. The building space will have three public entry/exit doors, one in the front of the shopping center, and two in the rear of the building along Eden Road. Westonka Public Schools plan to conduct the following functions: a preschool, and early childhood family education and early childhood special education center. This facility would serve approximately 88 children with 10 staff persons. Minute~ - Mound Planning Comrni. tsion August 25, 1997 The space was previously leased by the Headliner Bar and Grill. The business received a parking space variance due to the floor area and the limited number of parking spaces in the shopping center. The variance allowed the Headliner to operate with 5 ! spaces. As noted in the application, Westonka anticipates needing 49 spaces during the day for their operations. COMMENTS: Public education facilities are permitted in the B-1 district as a conditional use providing conditions are satisfied. These conditions which may be considered include but are not limited to the following: 8. 9. 10. 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 the establishment of the conditional use will not impeded the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed used. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. Existing adjacent uses will not be adversely affected because of curtailment of customer trade brought about by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness. Zoning code regulations for the business relate to parking spaces. The code requires 20 spaces based on 6 classrooms and 88 students. The proposal to use 49 of the 51 spaces approved for the Headliner would exceed parking requirements. One of the primary objectives in running a daycare and preschool facility is to provide a safe environment for children to learn and interact. Meeting this objective is an issue that reaches further than the classroom walls and into the external surroundings of the site. Child care facilities will, when available, look for conflict with other businesses which could have an affect on the child care facility. Minutez- Mound Planmng Cornn~ion August 25. 1997 Staff concerns with the facility at this location are traffic safety related. The trips generated by the businesses in the Jubilee Shopping Center are predominantly auto related. Jubilee Foods, Domino's Pizza, Norwest Bank, and a liquor store produce a large amount of traffic. It has been observed that some cars drive through the parking area at speeds which are unsafe for the given conditions. What needs to be addressed is how to provide protection from car and pedestrian conflict during the drop-off and pick-up of children. The school indicates they will use Eden Road as a bus drop-off point. Children would exit the bus and enter the building from the rear. Presumably parents will pick-up their children in front of the building by waiting in front along the curb or parking and walking into the building. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission recommend Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions. These conditions are intended to protect the children from interaction with vehicular traffic on the site and on Eden Road. Eden Road will be used as the primary drop-off point. During drop-off, supervision will be provided to route the children into the building to avoid play behind the building or in the street. Speed bumps be placed in the traffic lane in front of the building to slow traffic. The size and placement of the bumps shall be approved by the City Engineer. Chair Michael stated the format for public hearings. Staff gives their report, Commissioners comments to staff, then the public hearing opens, and interested citizens can then speak. Commissioner Ouestions Reifschneider asked if the printing shop was leaving. Sutherland responded yes to the question. Larson Printing is purchasing and relocating on other property within the city. Clapsaddle inquired if there were requirements for outdoor recreation space? Sutherland stated not from the building code stand point. Looby stated that since parents are on cite that this facility , the main focus is on parent education and that a playground is not required. There will be preschool education on site and it would be desirable to have a outdoor playground but its not required. For the Commissions information, this site is not first choice. It is second choice since the Shirley Hills project is on hold. The Community Center is in dire need of repairs and it is not safe to hold classes there anymore. Sutherland stated that from a school board perspective that this is a temporary site for their educational needs. Saliterman didn't agree with the term temporary. He said the School District is signing a long Minutes - Mound Planning Commission August 25, 1997 term lease and is going to be spending well over $150,000 to do improvements. Looby stated they have agreed on a five year lease at this point. Included is a clause in the lease to be able to leave after two years. It could be a 2 year venture or a 20 year, it just is not clear at this point. It's the schools desire to hold classes on school grounds. He reiterated the condition of the Community Center. This location would also hold adult learning classes, alternative school children classes. Being on a school site is not a current option for them right now. Weiland asked if we spend $100,000 now, how much would, we put into it in ten years? Looby stated that the lease arrangement was favorable. The $100,000 dollars would cover getting the building up to code to house an educational site. Chair Michael asked Sutherland or Hanus to update the Commission on the status of the Community Center. Hanus stated that the City Councils of Mound, Minnetrista as well as the School Board continue to meet on a fairly regular basis. The current estimates have come in and they are substantial enough that the task force felt it was too big of a decision to make on the Council behalf alone. They chose to do a very abbreviated survey of the communities involved in the school district. Results should be in the second week of September. The next task force meeting will be mid-September. They then will get a report from the professional surveyor as to the results of survey, what it means, how it is analyzed, things of that sort. If the results are of the type that would require a referendum then that is what would happen. There are measures within the survey to determine how informed the respondent is. Referendum if it happens hoped to take place in November or December. It takes about 60 days to put a referendum together. This survey is suppose to be within a 5 % accuracy rate. Reiterate, the figures have been posted a number of times in the paper. Saliterman asked what figures that were being talked about to renovate the Community Center. Hanus stated there are some base numbers and then there are some options. He directed the question to Mark Thiede, the Architect for ECFE, he stated the base number is slightly over $5 Million and the total project is about $9.1 Million. Hanus stated that if the project came back on a positive note, with all that is involved with the renovation, the earliest start date would probably be next summer or even late summer. Clapsaddle stated the Commission was not sticking to the issue of the conditional use permit. Would like to make a motion for approval. Chair Michael stated that the Commission got a little bit ahead of ourselves. Asked for any more questions of staff. Hanus inquired on whether this type of use should be located so close to a liquor store. There is not a ordinance against it. He also inquired about the traffic in front of the building. Looby stated that the minibuses would be entering and exiting on Eden Road. The only traffic in the front should be that with parents escorting their children. Sutherland stated that directly in front Minutes - Mound Planning Commission August 25, 1997 of the building there may be a fn'e lane. Reifsctmeider raised the question of parking spaces. Expressed concern that there would not be enough spaces if all the parents were there at once. Sandy Wing, Program Coordinator for ECFE, stated that during the week in the morning most students arrive on the bus. Most of the traffic occurs in the morning. Possibly 3 nights a week with less traffic, and occasionally on the weekends with a few cars maybe 8 or so. Chair Michael opened the floor up to the public. Saliterman stated that there is additional parking on the east side of the building by the liquor store were staff could park. Clapsaddle questioned if there was enough parking for the school. Sutherland stated that according to the planners report they have more parking than they need. Weiland pointed out that Headliners had a variance for parking spaces. Saliterman explained the proposed improvements, he is going to rebuild the from of the building, new doors, hvc units, ceiling tiles. This money would be spent whether the schools or some other retail goes into the space. He is paying all expenses in the building one hundred percent. He has calculated the schools rent accordingly. Christine Fitz, 2440 Avon Drive, a concerned parent, the building that the ECFE is currently in is very unsafe. The classrooms are falling apart. She would like to see this proposed site approved. Chairman Michael closed public hearing. Weiland made spelling corrections on page 14 of the packet. The "bee" has been changed to "been", the "non" has been changed to "none". He expressed concern with the state or city allowing the school to be placed next to a liquor store. He also expressed concern with the traffic that goes through the parking lot. He cannot vote yes for this. He would really like to see this site back on the school property. He is really concerned about the children's safety. Burma stated that he couldn't see anything in the permit in violation with the conditional use permit. The safety issue is a concern. He understands the situation the school is faced with and expressed support of the conditional use permit. Glister had a question for Mike Looby. She asked if they had investigated any sites outside of Mound. Looby stated that they did look at other sites, one was the Freshwater Biological Institute in Navarre. They are looking at that site for adult classes. It could not be used for child education, the Institute does not have handicap accessibility, or an elevator, it lacks a sprinkler system, the building is 25 years old. The school does have to stay within the school district area. Reifschneider stated that he feels that this is the wrong building for children. There is a lot of Minutes - Mound Planning Commission August 25, 1997 traffic coming and going from this area. It is a commercial district. He would be opposed also if a karate school would want to go into the same site. Chairman Michael questioned that if the Conditional Use Permit could have a time constraint of less than one year be written into the conditions. Sutherland stated that there have been renewal requirements in the past, and it would have to be researched. Hanus asked if there was any provision in recommendation to restrict the drop off area in the front of the building that was discussed earlier, in addition to the safety issue. Sutherland said it could be added. He suggested the applicant could also address this issue. Hanus stated that he would like to make a recommendation to the issue. On page 15 under the recommendation section of the staff, add item number 3. Stated as, "No parking or drop off will be permitted directly adjacent to the sidewalk on the front side of the building." Saliterman expressed that everyone is concerned with safety. He recommended that the city staff, school board, and himself work on a safety plan. Possibly adding stop signs, adding panic doors, speed bumps, or other safety items. Clapsaddle feels that the exit could be moved to the side of the building instead of facing the street. Looby stated that other school districts have done the same thing in their school districts. It provides a non-threatening environment for adults and parents to come for parent education. The school would like to have this on a school site but right now there is not a site available and they have immediate needs. Clapsaddle in looking over the site plan, feels that the school should review the site plan and maybe come up with a better design. Chairman Michael stated that there is a daycare on Highway 12 that does real well. He can't see that this proposal will be a long term one. MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Burma, to recommend approval for a Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Michael added item//3 on page 15, "No parking or drop off will be permitted directly adjacent to the sidewalk on the front side of the building." Clapsaddle also added that there should be a reevaluation of the plan by city staff and the applicant to look for higher safety factors. Chairman Michael asked the seconder to concur with the amended motion, Burma concurs. The vote was called, the motion carried 5-2, Weiland and Reifschneider opposed. Minutes - Mound Planning Commission August 25. 1997 Hanus strongly suggested that if any safety issues are addressed that they should be done before the City Council meeting. This case will go to City Council September 9, 1997. Meeting of Whole was cancelled. Hanus raised a question as to whether or not the Planning Commission should be involved in the downtown development that the commission should be involved in the tax increment issues. First question was if the commission should be involved and secondly what should the role of the commission should be. No comments where expressed. Reifschneider asked when the dredging going to start. MNDOT is involved with this, its going to be sometime before dredging will begin. Hanus stated that the destruction of property along Auditor's Road should start within 2 weeks. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Chair, Geoff Michael Attest: PLANNING REPORT F ECEIVED Hoisin~o~-~, ~h~p. TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: August 25, 1997 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit APPLICANT: Westonka Public Schools - 5600 Lynwood Boulevard OWNER: Mark Siliterman - 4301 Highway 7, Ste 100, St. Louis Park CASE NUMBER: 97-38 I:IKG FILE NUMBER: 97-5w LOCATION: 5241 Shoreline Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Central Business (B-I) CO1VIPREHENSIVE PLAN: Business BACKGROUND: Westonka Public Schools have submitted an application for a conditional use permit to allow an educational facility in a B-1 district. The property is located at 5241 Shoreline Boulevard in the Jubilee Shopping Center which is at the comer of Shoreline and Wilshire Boulevard. The proposed office space consists of 6,708 square feet which includes the space formerly occupied by the Headliner and the space currently occupied by a printing shop. The building space will have three public entry/exit doors, one in the front of the shopping center, and two in the rear of the building along Eden Road. Westonka Public Schools plan to conduct the following functions: a preschool, an early childhood family education and an early childhood special education center. This facility would serve approximately 88 children with 10 staff persons. The space was previously leased by the Headliner Bar and Grill. The business received a parking space variance due to the floor area and the limited number of parking spaces in the shopping center. The variance allowed the Headliner to operate with 51 spaces. As noted in the application, Westonka anticipates needing 49 spaces during the day for their operations. COMMENTS: Public education facilities are permitted in the B-1 district as a conditional use providing conditions are satisfied. These conditions which may be considered include but are not limited to the following: 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. I).2 Westonka Conditional Use 8. 9. 10. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. That adequate measures have beetbr will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. That adequate measures have bee~or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that nomof these will constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. Existing adjacent uses will not be adversely affected because of curtailment of customer trade brought about by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness. Zoning code regulations for the business relate to park/ng spaces. The code requires 20 spaces based on 6 classrooms and 88 students. The proposal to use 49 of the 51 spaces approved for the Headliner would exceed parking requirements. One of the primary objectives in running a daycare and preschool facility is to provide a safe environment for children to learn and interact. Meeting this objective is an issue that reaches further than the classroom walls and into the external surroundings of the site. Child care facilities will, when available, look for sites which lend a certain degree of shelter from neighboring uses. This reduces the chances for conflict with other businesses which could have an affect on the child care facility. Staff concerns with the facility at this location are traffic safety related. The trips generated by the businesses in the Jubilee Shopping Center are predominantly auto related. Jubilee Foods, Domino's Pizza, Norwest Bank, and a liquor store produce a large amount of traffic. It has been observed that some cars drive through the parking area at speeds which are unsafe for the given conditions. What needs to be addressed is how to provide protection from car and pedestrian conflict during the drop- off and pick-up of children. The school indicates they will use Eden Road as a bus drop-off point. Children would exit the bus and enter the building from the rear. Presumably parents will pick-up their children in front of the building by waiting in front along the curb or parking and walking into the building. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission recommend Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions. These conditions are intended to protect the children from interaction with vehicular traffic on the site and on Eden Road. p. 3 Westonka Conditional Use o Eden Road will be used as the primary drop-off point. DUring drop-off, supervision will be provided to route the children into the building to avoid play behind the building or in the street. Speed bumps be placed in the traffic lane in front of the building to slow traffic. The size and placement of the bumps shall be approved by the City Engineer. CiTY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55,.164-1687 (6~ 2) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 97-38 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR WESTONKA SCHOOLS DISTRICT TO ESTABLISH E.C.F.E. LOCATED WITtilN THE B-1 ZONING DISTRICT AT 5241 SHORELINE DRIVE LOTS 7-20 & 26-35 & ALL VAC. ALLEY & PARKING AREA AND PARK, BLOCK 1, PID 13-117-24 34 0072, P&Z 97-38 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, August 25, 1997 to consider the approval of a conditional use permit to allow for Westonka Schools to establish Early Childhood Family Education (E.C.F.E.), 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 meeting. L ~-~'~MdA Strong, PI 'an~e~e Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property by August 13, 1997 Published ia the Laker Auguat 15, 1997. Application for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 JUL ,,'3 1 1997 CITY OF MOUND Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: ~ Conditional Use Permit Fee: $250.00 Distribution: City Planner: ?' /~ '~ Public Works: ?-/r9 ? Fire Dept. ~fl 9 7 Other: City Engineer: ~ , Please type or print the following information: PROPERTY Subject Address 5229-5271 SHORELINE BLVD. & 2324-2330 WILSHIRE BLVD. INFORMATION Name of Business Westonka Public Schools LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot7 thru 20 inc~ also Lots 26 thru 35 Subdivision Block 001 Plat # PlO# 13-117-24-34-0072 APPLICANT The applicant is: __owner X other: Tennmnt Name Westonka Public Schools (ISD #277) Address 5600 Lynwood Boulevard Phone (H) (W) 491-8003 {M) Name OWNER {if other than Address applicant) Phone (H) Mark A. Siliterman 4301 Highway 7, Suite 100 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 544-5937 (wi 920-8282 IM! ARCHITECT, SURVEYOR, OR ENGINEER ZONING DISTRICT Name Address Phone (H) Circle: TSP/Eos 21 Water Street, R-1 R-lA R-2 Excelsior, MN 55331 (V~ 474-3291 R-3 ~ B-2 B-3 {M} CHANGE OF USE FROM: TO: B-1 Educational Facility in B-1 Page 2 D~cfiptionofPmposedUse: The project retail development. The space Preschool, Early Approximately 10 approximately consists of a 6,708 square foot space in an existing will hold school district functions including: childhood Family Education and Early Childhood Special Education. staff will work at the facility and the programs will serve 88 children. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: Listimpacm thepmposeduse willhaveon property in theviciniv, Mcluding, but notlimit~ m ~affic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe thestepstaken m mitigmeoreliminate theimpacts. It is anticipated that approximately 49 parking spaces will be used buring the day. As indicated in Resolution #93-15, the former occupant needed 51 spaces and was approved based on that number of parking stalls, therefore the 49 spaces anticipated will have no impact. Eden Road will be impacted minimally by its use as a bus drop off area because it is currently used as a service drive by the of the shopping plaza. tenants If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project: $ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? lO[yes, { ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Resolution # 93-15 Granting a Conditional Use Permit on 1/26/93 This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. Pamela Myers Print Applicant's Name Print Owner's Name Applicant's Signaturq Owner's S~gnature Date Date Print Owner's Name Owner's Signature Date Rev. 1/29/97 Eos Architects and Engineers Offices in Rochester and Minneapolis, MN TSP/EOS 21 Water Street Excelsior. MN 55331 FAX (612) 474-3928 TEL (612) 474-3291 Member of TSP Group: Rochester. MN Minneapolis. MN Denver, CO Gillette. WY Rapid City, SD Sheridan. WY Sioux Falls. SD Marshalltown. IA TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 31, 1997 TO: City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 ATTN: Building Official RE: Westonka Public Schools Early Childhood Space Plan TSP/Eos # 97731 WE ARE SENDING: ( X ) HEREWITH ( ) UNDER SEPARATE COVER FOR YOUR: ( ) USE ( ) FILES ( ) INFORMATION ( X ) APPROVAL QTY DATE DESCRIPTION 1 08-01-97 I 07-31-97 1 07-30-97 I 01-26-93 1 05-05-92 1 08-08-95 Check for Application Fee Conditional Use Permit Application Certified Property Owner's List and Labels Copy of Resolution # 93-15 (Headliners Bar and Grill) Copy of Conditional Use Permit for Headliners Bar and Grill Copy of Resolution # 95-77 (Norwest Bank) REDUCED SIZE DRAWINGS (8-1/2" x 11") 1 07-31-97 CUP-1 Site Plan I 07-31-97 CUP-2 Floor Plan 2 07-31-97 Supplemental Site Plans FULL SIZED DRAWINGS (24" x 36") 3 07-31-97 CUP-1 Site Plan 3 07-31-97 CUP-2 Floor Plan REMARKS: Please refer to the enclosed Resolution # 95-77.reguarding hardcover calculations. SIGNED: An Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action Employer TRANSMITTED BY: ( ) FED EX ( ) MAIL ( ) MESSENGER ( X ) HAND DELIVER ( ) MODEM COPIES TO Mike Looby, Westonka Public Schools File January 26, 1993 RESOLUTION %93-15 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF A CLASS III RESTAURANT FOR "HEADLINERS BAR & GRILL" IN THE B-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT AND A PARKING VARIANCE AT 5241 SHORELINE DRIVE LOTS 7 THROUGH Z0 AND LOTS 26 THROUGH 35 INCLUSIVEv BLOCK 1, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT F, PID %13-117-24 34 00?2 P&Z CASE %93-071 WHEREAS, Applicants, Bill Feehan for Headliners Bar & Grill, Inc., and owner, Mark A. Saliterman, have applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a Class III Restaurant at 5241 Shoreline Drive, and; WHEREAS, The Mound Zoning Ordinance defines a Class III Liquor Service Restaurant as: "Restaurants where food and intoxicating liquors are served and consumed by customers while seated at a counter or table and/or restaurants which contain entertainment, either live or prerecorded. Food sales in such facilities shall account for a minimum of 50 percent of a restaurant's gross receipts on an annual basis." WHEREAB, The subject property is located in the B-1 Central Business Zoning District which allows Liquor Service Restaurants by Conditional Use Permit, and; WHEREAS, In 1985 a Conditional Use Permit was issued to Captain Billy's with a seating capacity of 157 people, this application calls for an operation which is very similar to the former use with a proposed seating capacity of 154, and; WHEREAS, A total of 51 parking spaces are required for the proposed Headliners Bar and Grill based on the standard of one parking space per 3 seats. The total required parking for the shopping center is 194. The shopping center has 158 existing parking spaces, therefore a parking variance of 36 spaces needs to be recognized. Unimproved, overflow parking exists immediately east of the shopping center, and; WHEREAS, The proposed operation is expected to be compatible with the surrounding land uses since the site was formerly used as a restaurant/bar and apparently no major problems occurred, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the application and unanimously recommended approval with conditions. January 26, 1993 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The city Council approves the Conditional Use Permit and parking variance for Headliners Bar and Grill to allow operation of a Class III Liquor Service Restaurant at 5241 Shoreline Drive, contingent upon the following conditions: ae Ail code compliance items as required by the Building official and all conditions required by Hennepin County are met and completed prior to occupancy. Be One Sewer Availability Charge of $750.00, as determined by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, must be paid prior to occupancy. Ce The dumpster enclosure at the rear of the building will be in conformance with City Code requirements currently in effect at this time. me This Conditional Use Permit is granted for the following legally described property: That part of Certificate No. 474801: Lots 13 to 20 inclusive, Block 1, together with the North Half of the adjoining vacated alley lying between extensions across it of the East line of Lot 13 and the West line of Lot 20 and the vacated park and parking area vacated lying North of said Lots between the East line of LOt 13 and the West line of Lot 20, and Lots 26 to 33 inclusive, Block 1 together with the vacated alley lying between LOt 31 and Lots 26 to 30 inclusive, Block 1 and the South Half of the adjoining vacated alley lying between extensions of the East line of Lot 33 and the West line of Lot 31, Block 1, also the vacated alley lying between Lots 18 and 19, Block 1, lying between extension across it of the North and South lines of said Lots 18 and 19 and the South Half of vacated alley adjoining Lot 26 lying between the East line of Wilshire Drive and the Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 31 and the North Half of the vacated alley adjoining Lots 21 to 25, Block 1, lying between the southerly extension of the East line of said Lot 21 and the East line of Wilshire Drive, Block 1, all in Shirley Hills, Unit F, files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. ALSO That part of Certificate No. 580443: Lots 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25, Block 1, and that part of the parking area vacated lying West of the northerly extension of the East line of said Lot 21, all in Shirley Hills, Unit F, files 21 January 26, 1993 of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. A~O That part of Certificate No. 474801: Lots 7 through 12, inclusive, Block 1, together with the North Half of the adjoining vacated alley lying between the extensions across it of the East line of Lot 7 and the West line of Lot 12 and the vacated park and parking area vacated lying North of said Lots between the East line of Lot 7 and the West line of Lot 12; and Lots 34 and 35, Block 1 and the South Half of the adjoining vacated alley lying between extensions of the East line of Lot 35 and the West line of LOt 34, Block 1, all in Shirley Hills, Unit F, according to the plat thereof, files of the Registrar of Tiles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Smith and seconded by Councilmember Jessen. The following voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk 22 IUESOLUTION t93- l H[NN[PIN I~HIBIT ii COMMUNITY HEALTH DEPARTMENT P' I °f 4 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANAGEMENT GROUP Suile 2,15 '~0'1 '1 South First Sireel Hopkins, Minnesoio 55343-94'13 Telephone: [6,12) 935-'1544 · FAX (6,12 93'1-9509 23 November 6, 1992 Mr. Bill Feehan PO Box 65 Spring Park, MN 55384 RECEIVED NOV 9 1992 Dear Mr. Feehan: Re: 5241 Shoreline Drive Mound, MN (formerly the Jock Club) On October 23, 1992,an inspection was made at the above location by Roger Carlson, Debra Anderson,and Paul Sivanich. The restaurant has been closed since June 30, 1990. If it were to be reopened it would need to be brought into compliance with Hennepin County Ordinance 3, Food Protection. This would require remodeling to correct all violations, including the following: KITCHEN There is no functioning make-up air system. An approved make-up air system must be provided. The exhaust hood does not fit the space or the equipment, has been cut and soldered together, and does not appear to have worked from the condition of the walls and the ceiling. It must be replaced. The fire extinguishing system in the hood is not properly installed and obviously has not been serviced. It must be replaced with an approved system. The ceiling is in poor condition, improperly installed, and too high to facilitate proper lighting. A smooth cleanable ceiling at an appropriate height must be provided. Se The light level is inadequate. At least 70 foot candles must be provided on all food contact surfaces, at least 20 foot candles in storage areas, and 30 foot candles in all other areas. All lights must be shielded. HENNEPIN COUNTY on equol opportunity employer Mr. Bill Feehan November 6, 1992 Page 2 EX%II BIT ~ p. 2 of~ The wall panels were not properly Installed and therefore are coming off. The wall panels are stained and discolored from grease. They must be removed and cleaned or replaced with properly installed panels. The stainless steel panel behind the cooking equipment is not properly insulated or installed. This must be corrected. The Silver King open top cooler does not meet current standards and must be removed. The single door Beverage- Air unit has a chipped bottom and must be removed. The two door Beverage-Air unit has broken gaskets, which must be replaced. The floor is filthy, especially in the grout lines. must be cleaned in order to be evaluated. It The fryer is very old and not up to current standards of cleanability. It must be removed. The range is on legs, not casters. All cooking equipment must be mounted on casters and installed with flexible gas lines and quick disconnects. 10. The prep tables are in poor condition. table, covered with a stainless steel top. removed. One is a wood Both must be 11. All domestic equipment must be removed, including the Toshiba microwave and the domestic toaster. 12. The handsink is porcelain and is adjacent to the prep sink. It must be replaced with a stainless steel handsink and a splash guard installed to protect food on or in the prep sink. STOREROOM 13. The lights were not shielded. Shields or shatterproof bulbs must be provided. A light level of at least 20 foot candles must be provided. 14. The walls are in poor condition and there is at least one hole. They must be repaired and painted. 15. The wood shelves are not approved and must be removed. 16. The floor tiles are broken and must be replaced. 17. The ceiling is cracked and must be repaired. F,.ESOLUT ION I}93 Mr. Bill Feehan November 6, 1992 Page 3 I~2X]{I BIT B p. 3of4 BACK ROOMS 18. The Superior beer cooler does not meet standards and must be removed. 19. If these areas are to be used for any kind of storage, they must be upgraded to have cleanable approved walls, floor and ceiling, and adequate, shielded lighting. Approved shelving must be provided and the wood platform removed. 20. The metal table by the back door needs a new top if it is to be used. 21. The room with the janitor sink must be provided with cleanable durable walls such as frp. A hard cleanable durable floor, such as quarry tile must be provided in that area. Shelving must also be provided for chemical storage. 22. The janitor sink must be provided with a backflow preventer, if one is not already installed. 23. There is a large amount of junk stored in the room behind the toilets. This must be removed, along with all unnecessary items. BAR 24. The back bar is not acceptable, having a hollow enclosed base and frp-covered shelves. It must be replaced with an approved back bar. 25. There is no approved underbar lighting. provided. There is also inadequate area cleanup. This must also be provided.. It must be light for 26. The ice bins do not have integral cold plates and drop-in cold plates are not allowed. If ice is used to cool the soda lines, new ice bins are required. 27. The beer coolers sit on the floor. They must be installed on 6-inch legs or on casters. 28. There are broken floor tiles and broken and missing basecove tiles, both behind and in front of the bar. All broken and missing tiles must be replaced. A curved basecove must be provided in all areas. ~sot.~no. ~9~-_~_ Mr. Bill Feehan November 6, 1992 Page 4 EXHIBIT B p. 4of4 29. The plumbing is exposed along the bar. All plumbing and electrical conduits must be built into the walls or bar. 30. There are extension cords running all over the bar and dining area. The electrical service must be upgraded to be adequate for all needs of the establishment. There is less than 3 feet between the barsink and the backbar. At least a 3 foot clearance must be provided. 32. The cabinets in the area formerly used for pulltabs have enclosed bases and must be replaced. 33. There is a wood enclosure above one end of the bar, which is full of Junk. This must be eliminated. 34. The ceiling in the dining area is falling down. It must be replaced or repaired. A smooth flat ceiling must be provided in the bar. 35. The exhaust fans in the toilet rooms do not appear to be working. They must be repaired or replaced. A complete plan, including the proposed menu must be submitted and approved prior to beginning any remodeling. If you have any questions, call me at 935-1544. Sincerely, Rog~ H. Carlson Program Supervisor CC: J0N SUTHERLAND , CITY OF MOUND HENN[PIN COMMUNII'Y HEALI'H DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANAGEMENT GROUP Suile 2 t5 ~0~ South First Sired Hopkins, Minnesola 55343-9413 Telephone: {6~2) 935-~544 o FAX {6~2 93~-9509 January 25, 1993 Mr. Bill Feehan P.O. Box 65 Spring Park, MN 55384 RECEIVED JAN 2 6 1993 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. RE: Headliners Bar & Grill Dear Mr. Feehan: I have done a preliminary review of the plan you submitted for Headliners Bar and Gill in Mound. The plan does not meet the requirements of Hennepin County Ordinance 3 in several respects and is rejected. The following items must be corrected before it can be approved: No plan review fee has been submitted. This fee is one and one-half times the license fee or $545. The plan is incomplete. We need complete information about all new equipment, including make and model number and manufacturer's cut sheets, and installation information regarding the cooking equipment. We need a finish schedule for all walls, floors, ceilings and information about lighting. We need a complete bar plan, showing all equipment, plumbing and surfaces. We need complete information regarding the walk-in cooler. Incomplete plumbing information is shown regarding the dish machine and the proposed walk-in cooler. We also need complete information regarding the hot water heater. The existing hood is not approved for use. replaced. It must be 4. A hood must be provided for the dish machine. There is no coffee or water station shown on the plan. Where will these be located? A splash guard is needed between the handsink and the prep sink. Adequate approved shelving or carts must be provided in the kitchen for the storage of clean dishes and utensils. HENNEPIN COUNTY on equal oppodunlty employer Mr. Bill Feehan January 25, 1993 Page 2 e 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Where will salads and dressings be kept? Will the waitstaff be using the cold rail by the grill to dress salads? Since there is no three compartment sink, all dishes and utensils must be sized so as to be effectively cleaned by the dish machine. Will the kitchen close if the dish machine breaks down? Where will the ice cream be served? dipperwell shown on the plan. There is no There is no freezer by the fryer. Will the cook be walking over to the reach-in freezer every time someone orders french fries? The doorway between the kitchen and the storeroom is at the wrong end. Provide an opening at the other end across from the entrance to the back rooms. Eliminate the entrance by the front. Do not install a door between the kitchen and the storeroom. The location of the walk-in cooler cannot be approved both because it is not convenient to the kitchen and because there is no floor drain in the area. Relocate to the area behind the kitchen. Provide approved cleanable surfaces on the walls, floor and ceiling of the general storage area behind the kitchen and adequate approved shelving for whatever i~ to be stored there. Provide shielded lighting of at least 20 foot candles. A completed and revised plan must be submitted before any approvals can be given. If you have any questions, call me at 930-2769 or Debra Anderson at 930-2779. Sincerel3~ Program Supervisor cc: Mark Saliterman ~,-City of Mound, Building Official revised 5/5/92 Application for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, M/~ 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Case No. City Council Date: Conditional Use Permit Fee: $200.00 copy to city Planner: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Engineer: Copy to Public Works: Others Please type or print the' following information: Address of Subject Property 5241 Shoreline Dr. Owner'sName Mark A. Saliterman DayPhone 920-8282 Owner'sAddress 4301 Hi§hway 7 STE 100, St. Louis Park, MN ~5416 Headliners Bar & Grill, Inc. ~i~/ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address 4301 Hi§hway 7- STE ~/100, St. Louis Pk, M~ayPhone 920-8282 ~,0,%0~ ~Q/~,~t,~rk' 55416 N~e of Surveyor: N/A t~ Day Phone N/A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: Lot 7 thru 20 incl also lots 26 Block 001 Addition Shirley Hills Unit F Zonin~istrict B-! PIDNo. 13-117-24 34 0072 ExistingUseofProperty: Shopping Center - Bar and Restaurant Name of Proposed Use as Listed in the Zoning Code: Liquor service restaurant - Class II Description of Proposed Use: Restaurant and Bar List lmoacts the proposed use will have on property in the RECE]¥ED P~E$OLUTION #95-77 ~SOL~ION TO ~P~O~ A CO~ITIO~ USE P~T TO ~OW ~ OP~TION 0P A DH~-~ B~G F~CILI~ IN ~ B-1 C~ BUSI~SS ~O~NG DIS~ICT ~T 5211 SHO~I~ D~ LOTS 7 - 20 ~ 26 - ~5, PIP ~1~-117-24 34 0072 P~Z C~E ~95-19 WHEREAS, Mark A. Saliterman, owner of the subject property, has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a Drive-in Banking Facility for a new free-standing Norwest Bank building in the parking lot area of Shoreline Plaza, next to Hardee's Restaurant, and; ~---n~REAS, ~he subject property is located in the B-! Central Business Zoning District which allows "Drive-in Retailing Establishments" by Conditional Use Permit, and; WHEREAS, the Mound Zoning Ordinance defines "Drive-in" as, "A//y use where products and/or services are provided to the customer under conditions where the customer does not have to leave the car or where fast service to the automobile occupants is a service offered regardless of whether service is also provided with a building, and; WHEREAS, Mound Zoning ordinance Section 350:775 sets standard for drive-in businesses in all districts, and; WHEREAS, the proposed bank will contain approximately 3,600 square feet and will have a drive-in facility that includes 4 teller lanes and 1 ATM lane, and; WHEREAS, requested variances include parking space count and space size, sign placement, impervious cover, and distance between drive-in facilities and residential uses, and; N~--~---R~-.%S, parking for the entire center needs to be considered. The site plan identifies a total of 176 parking spaces which is approximately 84% of the required parking amount. The present mix of uses in the Shoreline Plaza shopping center can probably be reasonably serviced by 176 parking spaces, and; WHEREAS, an impervious surface coverage variance; to increase from 88% to 98% (approximately), and; WHEREAS, Sign variance. In this case, the property has an extended frontage along County Road 15 and adequate space exists to accommodate the proposed Norwest sign in addition to the relocated shopping center sign, however, since the applicant has not provided any further details, it is assumed that the signs will conform to the City's height, area and setback criteria, and; W~R>~, Ri~e Away 0il is 10ca~ed on a separate parcel, so their sign is separate, and; WHElPed, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and ~/~ani~ously recommended approval, with the conditions, recommended ~y s~aff. ~OW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City Council does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a Drive-in Banking Facility and variances pertaining to parking, impervious cover, the placement of two freestanding signs along 1 street frontage, a/~d the electronic devices setback for a new free-standing Norwest Bank building to be located in the parking lot area of Shoreline Plaza, next to Hardee's Restaurant, subject to the following conditions: ae The applicant shall prepare the following plans for review and approval by the City Engineer and City Planner: l) Modified Site Plan - The plan shall contain a revised layout that depicts the expansion of the bank drive-in entrance aisle, the expansion of the concrete islands and the resulting modification of the new parking lot east of the existing grocery store. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan - The plan shall contain existing and proposed contours depicting all grading and identify all required retaining walls. The plan shall also identify storm sewer modifications and improvements and include a copy of all stormwater calculations. Erosion control measures shall also be included. 3) Landscaping Plan - The plan shall shcw the installation of landscaped island areas edged by poured-in-place curb and gutter in all parking lot islands shown on the site plan with the exception of the islands on either end of the 4 parking spaces on the west side of the site adjacent to Rite Away Oil Change. Landscaping shall also be shown around the bank building, in the sod island area separating Norwest Bank from the shopping center, and along the existing grass boulevard areas abutting County Road 15 and Wi!shire Boulevard. Plant material quantities and sizes shall be in conformance with the standards identified in Section 350:725 of the Mound Zoning Code. · ug~c 8, Z99~ Ce De Lighting Plan - The plan shall conform to Zoning Code Sections 350:775 and 350:730. Grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be reviewed and approved as conditioned by t_he Watershed Distr icC. With the exception of the placement variance for the Cwo freestanding signs along one street frontage that is granted herein, all signage shall comply with the Mound Sign Ordinance. The signs will conform to the City's height, area and setback criteria. Construction of all improvements shall be in conformance with all local, state and federal ordinance and permit requirements. The applicant shall complete and submit the required variance application form including corresponding fees prior to the time that this case is heard by the Mound City Council. The applicant shall have a qualified land surveyor complete.the required impervious cover calculation form and submit it to the City prior to the time that this case is heard by the Mound City Council. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for the following legally described property: That part of Certificate No. 474801. Lots 13 to 20 inclusive, Block 1, together with the North Half of the adjoining vacated alley lying between extensions across it of the East line of Lot 13 and the West line of Lot 20 and the vacated park and parking area vacated lying North of said lots between the East line of parking area vacated lying North of said lots between the East line of Lot 13 and the West line of Lot 20, and Lost 26 to 33 inclusive, Block ! together with the vacated alley lying between Lot 31 and Lots 26 to 30 inclusive, Block i and t_he South Half of the adjoining vacated alley lying between extensions of the East line of Lot 33 and the West line of Lot 31, Block 1, also the vacated alley lying between Lots 18 and 19, Block 1, lying between extension across it of the North and South lines of said Lots 18 and 19 and the South Half of vacated alley adjoining lot 26 lying between the East line of Wilshire Drive and the Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 31 and the North Half of the vacated alley adjoining Lots 21 to 25, Block 1, lying between the southerly extension of the East line of said Lot 21 and the East line of Wilshire Drive, Block 1, all in Shirley Hills, unit F, files of Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. ALSO That part of Certificate No. 580443. Lots 21, 22, 25, Block 1, and that Dart of the parkin~ area v~cat~d 1yin~ west of the northerly extension of tke East line of said Lot 21, all in Shirley Eills, Unit f, files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. ALsO That part of Certificate No. 474801. Lots 7 through 12, inclusive, Block 1, together wir2~ the Nor%h Half of adjoining vacated alley lying between the extensions across it of the East line of Lot 7 and the West line of Lot 12 and the vacated park and parking area vacated lying North of said Lots between the East line of Lot 7 and the West line of Lot 12; and Lots 34 and 35, Block i and the South Half of the adjoining vacated alley lying between extensions of the East line of Lot 35 and the West line of Lot 34, Block 1, all in Shirley Hills, Unit F, according to the plat thereof, files of T_he Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.3~, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject constl-uction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoi'ng resolution was moved by Councilmem~er Ahrens and seconded by Councilmember Jessen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen, Jessen and Polston The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None Mayor CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 February 5, 1999 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ~ ~~ FROM: JIM FAOKLER, PARKS DIREC~'~v~~ SUBJECT: ROANOKE ACCESS DOCKS ON DEVON COMMON. On January 30, 1999 I met with the dock site holders that had been invited by the City Council during the September 8, 1998 City Council meeting to work to a consensus on the dock locations at the Roanoke access (See attached Sept. 8, 1998 CC minutes). All were in attendance except Todd Stead and Barb Casey. At this meeting the plan that was adopted by the City Council was presented by staff (See attached 1999 Dock Location Plan Approved January 12, 1999 CC). The direction given by the City Council was for this meeting was: "If the affected people come up with another alternative that they can reach agreement on, that would be acceptable." An alternative plan was presented by Greg Knutson that had input of other dock site holders that were present (See attached 1999 Alternate Dock Location Plan). The discussion evolved to the recommendation that both plans needed to have their location staked out on the commons so the site holders may view the actual center of each site and with this done they would provide their input at the City Council meeting on February 8, 1999. The staking of locations was done on February 3, 1999 and staff noted that either plan will not significantly change the current dock locations as long as the site holder is allowed to adjust the access point due to dock configuration, boat size or topography. The only change is printed on recycled paper Bob Schmidt 4708 Island View Dr. M° u nd'/~r'~5~v..,~ 2-1-99 To: Mayor, city of Mound Ms Mayor, I was prompted to send a letter to Ed Shukle after the 1st city council meeting in January. I apologize for not coping you on that letter, but I have enclosed it now. Below is a history of the issues involving the Devon commons (Roanoke access), which are the reasons I wrote the letter. Over the last year and a half, Council members Hanus and Ahrens, with the support of the former Mayor have been attempting to remove non-abutting commons docks from in front of Ms. Ahrens property. 1~t there was the attempt to create a multiple slip dock. This attempt was spear headed through the DACC despite great opposition, by Ms Ahrens' husband (who was appointed to the DACC by votes from Hanus, Ahrens, and the former Mayor.) This plan would have removed 2 non-abutting sites, and moved the remaining 4 to a mui[iple slip dock at the location of my dock. Durin§ the city council meeting, I suggested that the residence of the entire neighborhood, who were eligible for these sites, should be notified before any sites were removed. The motion was defe~ted and sent back to the DACC for revision. Shortly after, Ms. Ahrens called my home and threatened to force me from my dock site, if l insisted on notifying the entire neighborhood. To paraphrase, she said; I can get the unused dock sites assigned to people that support a multiple slip dock. Then there would be majority in favor of it, and you will be forced out .... This is not over yet. We have a majority of the council and we can pass any motion we want. I have a whole list of things we can do to get rid of these docks. Next Mr. Hanus, Ms. Ahrens and the former Mayor apparently appointed them selves as Dock Inspectors and declared the Casey dock site was unsafe due to trees and Ms. Ahrens' gazebo. They said the Casey dock needed to be moved from in front of Ms Ahrens property, towards our end of the commons. This dock has been at the same location for 20 years. The neighborhood pulled together and the opposition prevented the motion from passing. Barb Casey, myself, and several users of the commons then petitioned the city council to obtain a permit to trim the trees in question. The threesome voted against popular opinion, to not grant the permit. Apparently this was done to maintain the safety issue (or as Mr. Hanus called it "a dark cloud over those sites") and to justify placing a non abutter's dock in a site that an abutter has 1st priority, instead of in front of Ms. Ahrens property (Stead dock). Last summer, Ms Ahrens brought up this issue of the Smith dock and light pole, at an administrative meeting without having it on the agenda. When it was finally discussed in a public meeting the council passed a motion to leave the dock site map unchanged and have the neighborhood resolve the issue. Mr. smith has not made any effort to bring the neighborhood together to discuss the issue. The neighbors that I have talked with agree that; for Mr. Smith to install his dock 4-6 feet to the east (the amount his dock was encroaching on the Alghbrect site) would not cause him any hardship. The light can be pointed to illuminate an additional 6 feet, and extension cords are made that will reach the extra 6 feet. We feel the whole argument is only a ruse to hide the fact that a non-abutting site is being removed from in front of Ms Ahrens property. We are now, after the Jan. 12th council meeting, victims of "Bait and Switch," the map was recommended by the Dock inspector and reviewed by the DACC, with many of us in attendance, but then a different map was approved by the City Council. This is in direct violation of the requirements of city code 437. The ordinance has the requirement; "Final approval of the dock location map.., shall be recommended by the dock inspector, reviewed by the Dock and Commons Commission, and approved by the city council. I am not a lawyer, but the duties of my job include writing proposals, which are reviewed by a legal department, and I have also been involved in contract negotiations. This experience has taught me the legal meaning of the woful "shall", which, as you probably ~,now, creates an absolute requirement. Also when the word "the" is used in reference to a map (vs. "a") it means there is only one map being discussed. Nowhere in this requirement are amendments by the council authorized. When the Mr. Hanus made a motion to approve a map that was not recommended by the Dock Inspector nor reviewed by the DACC, he and the council members who voted for its approval were in violation of this requirement. This requirement has been brought up to Mr. Hanus, Ms. Ahrens, and other members of the 1998 council during a previous meeting. Approval of a different map seemed especially underhanded because the council had passed a motion to leave the map alone unless the neighborhood submitted a plan to change it. Now the map will change unless the neighborhood submits a different plan. In my opinion, the council has only two legal alternatives; to approve the 1999 map as recommended by the Dock Inspector, and reviewed by the DACC, or send the matter back to the Dock Inspector and the DACC, so another map can be recommended to, and considered by the council. If the latter is chosen, I suggest submitting the plan, presented by Mr. Knutson at the Saturday Jan 30"~ meeting at city hall, to the Dock Inspector and the DACC. It appeared to me that a consensus of the attendees was in favor of this plan. Only one person objected to the plan and that was Mr. Smith. He objected, even though his dock would be centered on his light poll under this plan. He felt the non-abutting docks should be centered on the lot lines (however he wants his dock in a location that does not allow enough space for a non-abutting dock on his west lot line). We were disappointed by your actions at the council meeting. This is because, when asked by Mr. Knutson, last fall, if we need to attend every council meeting, in case unannounced changes to the dock map were brought up, you assured him that you would not let the council pull any fast ones. The agenda for that meeting was to approve the map, not change it. VVhen Mr. Hanus made the motion to change the dock map, he claimed no one would be hurt. At the following meeting, council members questioned why this is any ones concern, except for the two dock site users that were being moved. This motion to change the map eliminates the last potential non-abutting dock site within the Roanoke access commons. All non-abutting homes in the Roanoke neighborhood have the right to apply to Dock Inspector for use of this space. Eliminating the physical space for a non-abutting dock effects every home in the neighborhood! As mayor you have the authority and responsibility to insure the council adheres to city ordinances, and I hope you will do so. As Mr. Shukle has not responded to my letter, to date, perhaps you could reply as to your understanding of the council's ability to legally change the dock site map without the Dock Inspector's recommendation, and DACC review. Enclosure Bob $chmidt 4708 Island view dr Mound, MN 55364 1-19-98 To: Ed Shukle, City Manager Cc: John Dean, City Attorney City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd Mound, MN 55364 Cc' Hennipin County Attorney 300 South 6~' St. C-2000 Government Center Minneaoplis, MN 55487 During the January city council meeting Mark Hanus proposed a motion to approve the dock site map with changes that he created. This was a clear violation of city code section 437, which only allows the city council to vote on changes recommended by the Dock Inspector, and the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission. The ordnance is very clear on this subject, and nowhere does it allow for the city council to change the dock site map unilaterally. The ordnance states in section a 437:20 that a violation of the ordnance is a misdemeanor. (See enclosure) I believe state statute 10A.07 (Ethics In Government) was violated when Andrea Ahrens took part in the discussion and voted on this motion. The motion added approximately 25 feet of dock space to the site which her property has first priority, increasing its value. I felt ! had to write this letter because of the ongoing pattern of exceeding the authority of the city council by members Hanus and Ahrens, relating to the dock site map. I am very interested to know what con'ective action your o~ce will be implementing regarding these issues. Enclosure CITY OF MOUND DOCK PROGRAM INFORMATION The CiTy of Mound is licensed by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) to operate approximately 400 multiple docks. To be eligible to lease one of these sites, you must be a permanent or summer resident of Mound. Applications are available at City Hall on the working day of the year for new applicants, and are mailed to licensee's from prior 'ear during December each year. See dock application for current fees. These fees are due with the completed application by Februa~f 28th. The following priorities govern the issuance of dock licenses per the Mound City Code. First Priority. An abutting owner has first priority for a City designated location within his or her lot lines extended to the shoreline. Docks shall be located in accordance with the dock location map. Second Priorit~ A licensee or, if licensee has not applied for a new dock license, the shared owner as shown on the permit application for the preceding year, has second priority when applying for a dock permit for the same location held by the licensee the immediately preceding year. Second priority licensee has no priority of dock locations where a first priority license is in effect. Third Priority. A duly qualified applicant has third priority on locations vacant after the first and second priority applications have been made within the prescribed time limit described in this ordinance. Licenses will be issued to such applicants in the order of application dates. There shall be nn third priority where the firs~ and second priorities are in effect. Residents owning private lakeshore within the City which has dockable lake frontage shall have the last priority each year for a dock on public lands. Last Priority. Residents owning private lakeshore within the City which has dcckabie lake frontage shall have the last priority each year for a dock on public lands. Administration of Priority. The Dock Inspector shall assign all locations to the applicants upon compliance with this ordinance and subject to reasonable conditions and Council approval. Ail applications received after February 28th shall be subject to a minimum late fee of $20.00, and will be placed in a third priority category. There will be no late fee charged to new residents who apply after February 28th of the calendar year in which the resident ~oves to the City. Residents of the City of Mound, 65 years of age or older, shall pay 50% ~f the required license fee for a dock. RULES AND REGULATIONS (PORTION OF CITY CODE SECTION 437) Subd. 1. Dock Location Map Definition. There shall be on file in the City Hal! a drawing of the City of Mound that is maintained by the Dock Inspector showing the approved locations of private docks that may be constructed on or abutting public shore land under the control of the City. · ~ Subd.' 2. '/ Ann"al Review of MaP:~ Approved dock location maps shall be kept and maintained by the Dock Inspector and shall be reviewed by the DCAC Commission at least once a year. The Dock and Commons Advisory Commission shall review the dock location map between September 1 and Decen%ber 31 before each new boating season so their tQ.:and:considered.by+the_City.Councit~ on or before January 15. ~.~Maps shall contain all approved dock locatioJs a~ established by the Council upon the advice, and recommenda%j,QL_Qf r~he Dock Inspector and DCAC Commissio_g. Final apprLval of ~ dock location map and the number o~ ~censes ~to .be' permitted ~hall be recommended by the Dock Inspector, reviewed by_the__D_Doz.k-a~d-Commons~Advisory Commission and At'proved ]~che city Council. S~rbd.- 3. Dock Inspector to ~eview Auolicati6n. The Dock Inspector shall determine and approve the location of each permit according to the specifications of the approved dock location map. Subd. 4. Costs of Erection and Maintenance. Licensed docks shall be erected and maintained by the licensee at his or her sole expense and liability for same. Subd. 5. Susoension of Eligible Location. The City Council may suspend a dock location where it appears that a location as established on the dock location map reasonably interferes with the use of public waters or imposes a hardship on property owners abutting on public streets or public commons. Subd. 6. One Dock Per Family; Apartment Buildinc. No more that one dock shall be ~ermitted for each resident family. An apartment building or mu!tiule ~dwe!ling owner shall apply for dock licenses for his renters or lessees. He or she is entitled to apply for individual private dock license for himself or herself if he or she is a resident of the City. Subd. 7. Construction Materials; Use of Car Tires. All private docks shall be constructed of materials specified by the Building Inspector and the Dock Inspector and in accordance with all building codes of the City. The standards for the public health, safety, and general welfare and neither the materials or the workmanship for an approved licensed private dock shall result in docks being located on public lands which are unsightly, unsafe or create a public nuisance. No tire or tires shall be hung or attached on dock posts, dock ' , . , P.on,blt__ Design the City. (ORD. ~40-1990 1-29-90) Section 437:15 Maximum Dimensions ~ TM ' =~ of Docks. Docks for which a license is required by this Section 437:15 shall not be less than 24" wide or more than 48" in width with the exception that one 72" x 72" section is allowed on L, T, or U shaped docks provided ~hat ~his configuration be limited uo a setback of 10 fee~ from private property and shall nos infringe on an adjacent dock site. ~ock~ shall not exceed 24 feet in length except where necessary to reach a water depth of 48", using Lake Minnetonka elevation levels o~ 929.49 feet above sea level. Channel docks, wh~re navigation is limited and docks mus~ be instal!ed parallel ~o ~he shoreline, canno~ be less than 24" wide or more that 72" in width. The length shall be limited to a setback of 10 fee~ from private property or no~ to infringe on an adjacent dock site. Docks shall be of plank or rail construction. Dock posts shall be of equal height above the dock boards and shall be a~ least two rail construction and constructed to comply to standards and specifications approved by ~he Dock Inspec5or. Ail docks shall be built or placed wi[h ~h~ 10n~i~udinal axis ~hereof perpendicular to the shoreline unless variations otherwise may be permitted in accordance with the topographical conditions of the area. Docks which are in existence June 1, 1989, shall be brought into compliance with all provisions of the City Code when exq)ansion or modification is requested, or replacement of 50% or more of any such dock that is damaged, destroyed, or deteriorated. (ORD. ~38-1989 - 1-2-90) S%~bd. 8. Inspections - Notice of Non-Compliance - License Revocation. The Dock Inspector or such other officer as may be designated by the City Manager or the City Council, may at any reasonable time inspect or cause to be inspected any dock erected or maintained upon or abutting upon any public street, road, park, or commons, and if it shall appear that any such dock has not been constructed or the area surrounding the dock site is not being maintained in accordance with the application or the license granted therefore, or with the D!ans or location approved by the Council, or shall i5 appear tha~ such dock is in a condition that no longer complies with the requirements of this ordinance or other ordinances of the City, the City, by its City Manager or any other officer designated by him, shall forthwith notify the owner thereof in writing specifying the way or ways in which said dock does not comply with the ordinances of the City, after which said owner shall have ten days to remove such dock or make the same comply with the terms of the City's ordinances and the terms of the application and issuance of the license granted to said licensee. In the event such owner shall fail, neglect, or refuse to remove such dock or make ~he same comply with the terms of the City regulations within the period of ten days, the license therefor shall be revoked by direction of the City Council or the Dock Inspector and by notice in writing to the licensee, and said notice shall be issued by the City Manager or any other officer designated by him or her. Any appeal will be made in writing and submitted to the City Manager by a certified letter or by personal delivery to the City Manager for his or her consideration. Subd. 9. Notice of Revocation. Ail notices herein required shall be in writing by certified mail, directed to the licensee at the address given in the application. Subd. 10. Dock Storace. No person shall store, leave or abandon any dock, dock section, dock poles or dock hardware on any public road, street, park or Commons except for winter storage in approved areas. Subd. 11. Removal Deadline. Ail private docks abutting any public road, street, park, or commons must be removed from the waters of Lake Minnetonka or other navigable waters no later that November 1 of the license year unless it is a winter approved dock location as shown on the master dock map. Subd. 12. Dockinc of Non-Owned Watercraft. Docking of boats not owned by the dock licensee is permitted for a period of up to 48 hours, two times in a calendar year. Docking of boats no~ owned by the dock licensee in not permitted for a period in excess of 48 hours. Se~=ion~{~.0..~c~.iPenal~ies~Any~p~son ~r persons who shall violate any of the~prohibitions or requirements of this ordinance shall 'be guilty of a misdemeanor. In addition to any criminal penalties as above provided, the City Council may remove or cause to be removed any dock erected without a license as required by this Section 437, or where any license has been revoked as provided by this Section 437. Removal of unlicenced docks or docks which fail ~o comply with the City Code will be at the expense of the owner or licensee. No person convicted of violating City ordinances relating to docks will be issued a dock license for ~he present or for the next boating season, and said person forfeits any priorities set forth in this Section 437. NOTE: The use of fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides is not recommended on city property. These chemicals drain into the lake and cause serious environmental problems. the one requested by Mark Smith (See attached letter from Mr. Smith and CC minutes Special Meeting, August 18, 1998) which would shift two sites locations and designation as abutting and non-abutting. Both plans meet Mr. Smith's request to remain centered on the light as he states in his letter. A concern that I can see is if it is required that the site holders are required to center their dock within their allotted water space. This has come up in discussions but could place two dock sites to most westerly end of their property as you extend their property lines over the Commons (Greg Knutson & Gene Smith) affecting neighboring docks, place one dock on or near a sand bar (Scott Mack) and one in the middle of a large tree (Barb Casey). I have provided the dock location map that was in existence in 1998 for background information (See attached 1995-1998 Dock Locations). If you have any questions prior to the upcoming City Council meeting on February 8, 1999 I will be happy to assist you. 1999 DOCK LOCA~I'ION PLAN APPROVED JANUARY 12, 19,99 CITY COUNCIL ~,,~.O R E s T E R 40' 41437 Forester 41477 Stead Light Pole, located on Devon Commons, 37' from westerly property line "NOT TO SCALE" PATRICK J. & IRENE K. HARRINGTON 4687 Islaad View Drive Mound, Minnesota 55364 Tel: (612) 472-7666 o E-mail: ipharrington~msn.com February 9, 1999 Re: Harringtons' position on dock locations from footage 41437 through 42129 (January 12, 1999 dock location map) In order to establish stability on this issue, it would be our desire that the following parameters be followed so that we do not have to revisit the placement of docks on an annual basis: · Abutting spaces equals eight (8) plus the fire lane equals nine (9) · Non-abutting spaces not to exceed four (4): 42043 (Schmidt) - Centered at fire lane centerline 41956 (Casey) - Centered at property line 41790 (Albrecht) - ' ....... 41477 (Stead) - " " " " · No further consideration for multiple docks between 41437 and 42129 footages Thank you for consideration of our opinion in this matter. ~ed~~ Patrick J. H~~on 1999 ALTERNATE DOCK LOCATION PLAN SUBMITTED 1-30-99 Light Pole, located on Devon Commons, 37' from westerly property line "NOT TO SCALE" 1995-1998 DOCK LOCATIONS 41437 Forester 41477 Stead Light Pole, located on Devon Commons, 37' from westerly property line "NOT TO SCALE" MOUND ¢I7~ COUNCll. MINUTES- JANUARY 12. l~)t) '1.12 APPROVAL OF 1999 DOCK LOCATION MAP. The DCAC held a public heating in on November 19, 1998, for the 1999 Dock Location Map. Their recommendation is as follows: 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,/K)0115,/~30155,//60785,//60825 and #61070, to add docksite #32750 (replaces #32775), change docksite #32760 to #32710, and add multiple dock.site #42800 sites A through J and remove docksite #42821, #42856, #42871, #42901, and #42990. In addition, Hanus brought up an issue that was raised last summer, a request from Mark Smith on Island View Drive. Mr. Smith discovered last year that his dock was not centered in his dock location. He is now asking to have a new number assigned to his dock where it currently is located and has been for many years. The dock is located next to a light pole that has underground wiring. He would like a new number assigned to his current location. Because of that small shift, it would also require the next dock (the Albrecht dock) to the east to be shifted. Albrecht leased the site last year, but never put in a dock. This would allow Smith to be where he has always been. It would also allow him to use the light pole. Hanus stated it wouldn't deprive anyone of anything. It is very flat and accessible along there. Smith currently has two water spaces in front of his house and will continue to have two water spaces. Hanus stated that nothing is really changing and it is a valid and honest request. Smith requested this about 6 or 7 months ago and the City still hasn't taken any action on it. The neighborhood was going to get together before winter and try to come to a consensus. There has not even been a meeting on it. Staff has not resolved the issue. Hanus stated it is time to set the dock location map and he suggested this change be made as well, to clean up the area. MOUND CHT COUNCE M1NUYES- JANUARY 12, 1999 Councilmember Hanus suggested the following: Move the Smith site (Dock #41866) to #41842 and then moving the next dock site to the east, which is currently #41824 up to #41790. This would also complete the pattern that's in the neighborhood, where you have the abutter docks, more or less toward the center of their lots and the inland docks that are in there tend to be closer to the lot lines. It spreads them out a little more evenly and it's less intrusion on the people that are there because the neighbors that are coming into the neighborhood are more toward your lot lines rather than down toward the center of your lot. MOTION made by Hanus to approve the 1999 dock location map as recommended by the DCAC; moving the Smith site (Dock #41866) to #41842 and then movinR the next dock site to the east, which is currently #41824 up to #41790; and directing Staff to resolve this by the fa-st Council Meeting in February,( February 9). If the affected people come up with another alternative that they can reach agreement on, that would be acceptable. Councilmember Weycker stated that the last time this was before the Council, it was decided that that neighborhood would get together and work this out. She stated that notices did go out in their dock packets encouraging them to get together with Staff and work this problem out. Brown seconded the motion. Hanus stated that this was to be taken care of before winter. Last Fall at a DCAC Meeting when it was discussed, he told the Park Director to do it then. He stated it is merely shifting 2 docks over a few feet. Weycker disagreed and encouraged the Council to delay action on shifting these particular docks until the neighborhood is notified of the possible shift and a meeting with them can be arranged. Hanus does not feel the neighborhood will be able to reach an agreement and that is why he is proposing this shift. He stated it will only affect the two docks in front of Mr. Smith's home. The Mayor stated she would rather see Staff work with these people and reach an agreement. Councilmember Ahrens stated that Mr. Smith has two dock locations in front of his house. The Park Director sent letters to 12 people asking them to agree on where the docks should be located in front of Mr. Smith's home. She did not feel this was appropriate. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINU'IES - JANFARY 12, 1999 Brown suggested the Council go ahead and approve the motion as presented on the condition that Staff speaks to the two people involved and if they have no legitimate objections to moving the two docks, it will be resolved. The City Manager suggested giving these people some time to respond to Staff since the letters just went out in their dock packets. The Mayor stated she would like to see the neighborhood notified before a decision is made. The Council discussed moving ahead with the proposed motion. Having Staff notify the affected people and if the neighborhood comes up with a different solution, it can be changed. Councilmember Weycker did not agree. A vote on the motion was 4 in favor with Weycker voting nay. Motion carried. 8 4,3-7 949-9072 UERS~TIL 21~ P02 JAN 20 '99 10:07 Anderson/Smith Residence 4665 Island View Drive Hound, Minnesota 55364 City of Mound City Dock Inspector 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55354 This note is to inform you of our desire to m-locate the placement of our existing dock site from #41824 to #4i866. I believe this can occur pursuant to Mound Dock Licensing Procedure Manual, Section 437:05, Subd. 7 - a. "F/rst Pr/ority. An abutting owner has/?mt priority for a city des/gnated Iocabbn w/thin his or her lot iine~ extended ~o the shore//ne. Docks sba~~ be located/n accordance with the dock/ocat/on map. x (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) ,.If you have any questions or concerns please give me a call (612) 472-3703. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to seeing you this summer. Best Wishes, Gina Anderson & Mark Smith MINUTES- SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING-AUGUST 1998 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Polston. Members Present: Mayor Polston; Councilmembers Ahrens, Hanus and Weycker. Absent and Excused: Jensen. Also Present: Gino Businaro, Finance Director; Para Galanter, Frank Madden & Associates; Jim Fackler, Parks Director; and Ed Shulde, City Manager. Ed Shukle, City Manager indicated that the purpose of the special meeting was to move into Executive Session regarding labor relations issues and strategies. Following this discussion, the City Council would then return and adjourn the special meeting and then move into the Committee of the Whole meeting. The Mayor then called the City Council into Executive Session w/th the City Council, Ms. Galanter Gino Businaro and Ed Shukle present in the Executive Session. The City Council returned to the Council Chambers approximately ½ hour later following the Executive Session and the Mayor indicated that the Council was now back in session reporting that the Executive Session was held to discuss labor relations strategies and issues. Another item was on the special meeting agenda. Councilmember Ahrens asked to address the City Council regarding the City's Dock Location map. Ahrens indicated that City staffhas issued a dock permit to a non-abutting property owner in the Roanoke area. Ahrens indicated that the subject dock is in front of an abutter's house. She further stated that there are two locations in front of this aburter's house. She stated that it came to the abutter's attention that they had their dock and their boat in both locations. The abutter's have requested to adjust their locations so that they are not "straddling" the line. Circumstances regarding a light and boat lift make it difficult for Mark Smith and Gina Anderson (abutter's), to move their dock location. Ahrens asked if the non-abutting dock could be shifted down toward Scott and Linda Mack so that Smith/Anderson could utilize the light pole that is in this dock area and not to be straddling the lot line. The Mayor asked if the staff has the authority to adjust the dock sites under city ordinances or if it has to go through City Council. Jim Fackler, Parks Director, responded by saying that these issues go through the City Council under the approval of the Dock Location map. Ahrens moved that the center of the Smith/Anderson location be located where their dock currently is with their light pole and that the center of the non-abutting dock site be placed on the lot line on their easterly lot line. The motion was seconded by Hanus. Further discussion was held on the matter. .~rens then indicated she would amend her motion that the Mack's continue to have their 40' of water space through this suggested dock location adjustment. Hanus accepted the amendment to the motion. Weycker wanted to be assured that the Mack's do not have to move their dock. Polston wanted to be assured that neither the Mack's or the Smith/Anderson's would have to move their docks. Special Meeting Minutes of August 18, 1998 Page 2 Ahreus added that if the non-abutter does not like this adjustment, that the City is prepared to give the non-abutter a refund. Hanus agreed to this amendment. The motion was now clarified by Ahrens: The center of the Smith/Anderson dock space is moved to where their light pole and dock currently exists; the center of the non-abutting dock is centered on the lot line between the Mack and the Smith/Anderson property provided that neither dock has to be moved; and that the non-abutting dock site holder is given a refund if they do not like the shift in the non-abutting dock site location. The Council then voted unanimously to approve the motion. There was no further business in the special meeting. Upon motion by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Mayor 1.11 RECONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL'S PREVIOUS ACTION RE: RELOCATION OF DOCK SITE//41866. The City Manager explained that at the Special Council Meeting, August 18, 1998, an item was added to the Agenda, relative to a dock site that had been applied for by a nonabuttlng property owner on Devon Common. The Park Director has submitted a memo to the Council outlining the result of trying to implement the Council's action. It was Fackler's understanding that the action was based upon no one having to move their docks and as it turns out, docks would have to be moved. The City Manager stated that it is the Staff's opinion that the action taken at that meeting is no longer in sink with what the system has. Staff is asking for direction from the City Council on whether the Council wants this dock within the system and if so, is it to remain in that location? The Park Director advised the Council that he has contacted Mr. Albrecht and at this time he wants to retain the site that he originally had which is closer to his house..His only suggestion is that due to the constraints on the site during this season, he would like to see the fees from 1998 go toward his 1999 permit. The Park Director explained that Albrecht was originally assigned to Dock Site #41866, which is the site he would like to keep. At the August 18th Special Meeting, there was an attempt to move Mr. Albrecht to Dock Site #41775. Mr. Albrecht does not want to be moved. Because of damage to the Commons from a storm this Spring, Mr. Albrecht has not been able to put in his dock. The Park Director stated that all the docks in this area are somewhat off center and have been put in at different angles. Mr. Albrecht was not present, but has submitted a letter asking that Greg Knutson speak for him at this meeting. The Council asked if Mr. Albrecht wants to put in a dock this year. Mr. Knutson stated that Albrecht has paid for site, including late fees and would like to stay at #41866. The following persons spoke: 1. Mack 2. Anderson/Smith The above persons spoke of the conflict in the neighborhood because of the dock situation. They also do not want to move their docks. The neighbors exp~ a desire to work this out in the neighborhood by winter. There was considerable discussion on centering the docks and installing the docks according to the ordinance. The residents asked about the action that was taken at the August 18th Special Meeting. Councilmember Weycker stated the following: 'I want to clarify that the motion made at the August 18, 1998, Special Meeting is null and void. Site 2 technically does not exist now.' Councilmember I-Ianus stated, 'I don't know that I agree with that.' The Council a~,ed if the neighbors need additional time to work out a solution that will make the neighborhood happy. MOUND CITY COUNC~ MINII'IF~- ,~rlF. MBF. R 8, 1998 MOTION made byPoiston, seconded by Hanus to do the following: 1. leave the docks where they currently are this year; 2. apply the 1998 fees that have been paid by Albrecht to the 1999 season; and 3. next year the applicants for this area will have to put their docks in on center and according to the ordinance. There was discussion on the neighborhood working this out by consensus. The Mayor withdrew his motion. The Council suggested that the neighborhood work this situation out by consensus. No action was taken. PROPOSED RESOLUTION//99- RESOLUTION REGARDING VARIOUS MATTERS RELATING TO THE PROPERTY OWNED BY WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS (PID//14-117-24 41 0010,//14-17-24 41 0011, #14-17-24 41 0052, #14-117-24 41 0058, & 14-17- 24 44 0007) WHEREAS, the above described property ("Property") has been under consideration for joint development between the City of Mound ("City") and the Westonka School District (lSD #277) (the "District") for a considerable period of time; and WHEREAS, during such consideration recommendations concerning the future design and use of the Property have been received by the District, the City, the community, consultants retained to study and report on the various development options which were under consideration from time to time; and WHEREAS, as a result of such discussions the District and the City formed a joint powers entity known as The Westonka Community Center Board ("WCCB"), and vested it with certain powers and authority, all as described in the joint powers agreement ("Agreement"); and WHEREAS, in late 1998, the District applied to the City for a number of land use approvals which were necessary for the implementation of the development of the Property as the development was envisioned at that time including a conditional use permit, certain variances and a minor subdivision of land; and WHEREAS, on December 22, 1998, the City approved the requested conditional use permit and variances, but conditioned issuance of the same upon certain matters all as fully set forth in Resolution #98-137; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 1999, a public meeting was held, at which a quorum of the school board, the city council, the Mound advisory planning commission, and WCCB were present, to discuss the status of development of the Property and whether there was a consensus to proceed with the current plans; and WHEREAS, the city council of the City of Mound believes it is necessary, by this resolution to set forth the position of the City regarding the various matters relating to the Property which are within the City's authority so the future conduct of the parties regarding the Property can be governed accordingly. JBD- 157442 MU200-64 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: Withdrawal From WCCB. In accordance With the provisions of Section 11.1 of the Joint Powers Agreement, the City hereby notifies the Board of its intent to withdraw from WCCB effective on the earliest date on which such withdrawal is permitted. The City Manager is directed to notify WCCB of this action. The City also by this resolution recommends that the District adopt a resolution dissolving WCCB in accordance with the provisions of Section 11.2 of the Joint Powers Agreement. In the event of such resolution by the District, this resolution shall be deemed to be made as well under Section 11.2. e Denial of Minor Subdivision. Minnesota Statutes Section 462.358 provides that, unless denied within 120 days following submittal, applications for subdivision will be deemed approved. The City views it as important in any subdivision decision to have an understanding of the proposed use to which the subdivided land will be put. Because the City, by this resolution has withdrawn from the entity which was intended to operate the development for which the subdivision was needed, it no longer is appropriate for the City to approve the subdivision until more is known concerning the layout, design and use of any development which might be proposed for the Property in the future. Consequently, the application for minor subdivision is hereby denied. Conditional Use Permit Voided. Issuance of the conditional use permit for the development was conditioned on the approval of the minor subdivision which has now been denied. Due to the impossibility of performance of the condition precedent, the conditional use permit is hereby declared to be null and void. City Support of Current Development Withdrawn. The City finds it necessary to withdraw its support for the development as it is currently proposed. The City pledges to continue working with thc Dishict in the effort to find a mutually desirable and publicly supported development. JBD-157442 MU200-64 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99- RESOLUTION REGARDING VARIOUS MATTERS RELATING TO THE PROPERTY OWNED BY WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS (PID #14-117-24 41 0010, #14-17-24 41 0011, #14-17-24 41 0052, #14-117-24 41 0058, & 14-17- 24 44 0007) WHEREAS, the above described property ("Property") has been under consideration for joint development between the City of Mound ("City") and the Westonka School District (ISD #277) (the "District") for a considerable period of time; and WHEREAS, during such consideration recommendations concerning the future design and use of the Property have been received by the District, the City, the community, consultants retained to study and report on the various development options which were under consideration from time to time; and WHEREAS, as a result of such discussions the District and the City formed a joint powers entity known as The Westonka Community Center Board ("WCCB"), and vested it with certain powers and authority, all as described in the joint powers agreement ("Agreement"); and WHEREAS, in late 1998, the District applied to the City for a number of land use approvals which were necessary for the implementation of the development of the Property as the development was envisioned at that time including a conditional use permit, certain variances and a minor subdivision of land; and WHEREAS, on December 22, 1998, the City approved the requested conditional use permit and variances, but conditioned issuance of the same upon certain matters all as fully set forth in Resolution #98-137; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 1999, a public meeting was held, at which a quorum of the school board, the city council, the Mound advisory planning commission, and WCCB were present, to discuss the status of development of the Property and whether there was a consensus to proceed with the current plans; and WHEREAS, the city council of the City of Mound believes it is necessary, by this resolution to set forth the position of the City regarding the various matters relating to the Property which are within the City's authority so the future conduct of the parties regarding the Property can be governed accordingly. JBD-157442 MU200-64 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: Withdrawal From WCCB. In accordance with the provisions of Section 11.1 of the Joint Powers Agreement, the City hereby notifies the Board of its intent to withdraw from WCCB effective on the earliest date on which such withdrawal is permitted. The City Manager is directed to notify WCCB of this action. The City also by this resolution recommends that the District adopt a resolution dissolving WCCB in accordance with the provisions of Section 11.2 of the Joint Powers Agreement. In the event of such resolution by the District, this resolution shall be deemed to be made as well under Section 11.2. Denial of Minor Subdivision. Minnesota Statutes Section 462.358 provides that, unless denied within 120 days following submittal, applications for subdivision will be deemed approved. The City views it as important in any subdivision decision to have an understanding of the proposed use to which the subdivided land will be put. Because the City, by this resolution has withdrawn from the entity which was intended to operate the development for which the subdivision was needed, it no longer is appropriate for the City to approve the subdivision until more is known concerning the layout, design and use of any development which might be proposed for the Property in the future. Consequently, the application for minor subdivision is hereby denied. Conditional Use Permit Voided. Issuance of the conditional use permit for the development was conditioned on the approval of the minor subdivision which has now been denied. Due to the impossibility of performance of the condition precedent, the conditional use permit is hereby declared to be null and void. e City Support of Current Development Withdrawn. The City finds it necessary to withdraw its support for the development as it is currently proposed. The City pledges to continue working ',~,,h d,, Di~ul~t in the effort;.~..:il~.tl~2.t~. ~} publicly supported development. JBD-157442 MU200-64 WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS ~D~F_.NDEJ~ SCHOOL DISTRICT NO, 277 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD - MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 RECEIVEO 4 igg§ 2/3/99 TO: FROM: Ed Shulde, City Manager, City of Mound eam Myers, Superintendent "'~' Westonka Public Schools Your request for information for the City Council At the Westonka School Board meeting last night, the Board Chair updated the School Board members and the public, summarizing the joint meeting of the Mound City Council, the Mound Planning Commission, and the Westonka School Board with the Westonka Community Center Board on Monday, 1/25, and the subsequent Mound City Council meeting which I viewed via cable on Thursday, 1/28. In his summary, Bill Pinegar explained that at the meeting on 1/25, a number of City Council members expressed their lack of support for the community center renovation project, as it is currently designed, and that at the meeting on 1/26, the City Council voted to direct staff to draft a motion for action at their meeting on 2/9 to consider withdrawing from the project. Also, Mr. Pinegar announced that, should the Mound City Council not actually vote to withdraw from the project prior to March 1, 1999, that the School Board would proceed as if they had voted to do so, since City Council members have publicly indicated that they intend to do so. In response to your letter of January 28, 1999, I can tell you that the Westonka School District is operating under the Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Mound to jointly own and operate the Old Mound High School building as a community center. As long as the City of Mound and the Westonka Schools are partners in this joint venture, the school district would not be making alternative plans. 445 Should the Mound City Council vote to withdraw from the renovation project, as you indicate in your letter that they may do at their February 9 regular meeting, then the School Board would proceed to consider next steps, and to make alternative plans for school space needs. Following the Mound City Council's vote on February 9, if their vote is to withdraw from the project, then I would work with administrative staff to develop some alternatives for space for school staff and programs which currently occupy the Old Mound High School site, for the School Board's consideration. I would ask that the School Board consider alternatives as soon as possible, so that school staff could implement them in a timely manner. The Westonka School Board has a Special/Study session scheduled for Tuesday, February 16 (since its regular Monday meeting day falls on President's Day Holiday). The agenda for this meeting is budget planning for the July 1, 1999-June 30, 2000 school year. This would be the earliest opportunity after the City withdraws that the School Board members would have an opportunity to discuss their space needs, and options for the Old Mound High School site, even though the budget topic by itself would certainly fill an evening's study session discussion. The questions which City Council raised, as listed in your letter, are certainly some of the issues which the School Board must consider. After the City Council vote, as soon as the School Board can discuss its alternatives, I will let you know the School District's plans. c. Bill Pinegar, Chair, Westonka School Board City of Mound 2/2/99 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 january 28, 1999 Dr. Pam Myers Superintendent of Schools Westonka Public Schools 5600 Lynwood Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 Re: Westonka Community Center Renovation Project Dear Pam: Pursuant to our telephone conversation of January 27, 1999, the City of Mound, at its regular City Council meeting of January 26, 1999, discussed the formal withdrawal of the City of Mound from the above project. As I indicated to you, the City Council asked the City Attorney to prepare a resolution for consideration at the February 9, 1999 regular meeting to formally withdraw from the renovation project. In further discussion, the City Council asked that I contact you regarding what the School District is planning to do now that the project appears to have stopped. Is the School District intending to ask the tenants in the building to move out of the building within a certain time period? If so, how much notice will they be given? Is the School District intending to sell the property? If so, at what price is the School District willing to sell? Any information that you can provide with regard to the School District's planning process would be appreciated. On February 16, the City Council will hold a Committee of the Whole Meeting (work session) to discuss the direction they would like to pursue regarding the development of a community center. A response to the above questions will assist the Council in their decision-making process as to what steps they want to take with regard to creating a community center project. Pam, I have enjoyed working with you on this project since its initiation in April, 1997. We have spent many hours developing agendas, responding to questions, researching information, working with architects and construction managers, serving on the joint board, serving on the building committee, etc. Although this particular project has not proceeded as we anticipated, I have learned a great deal from you and the School Board; I trust our friendship will continue. printed on recycled paper Letter to Dr. Para Myers January 28, 1999 Page 2 I look forward to hearing from you regarding the questions above. ly, Edward J. Shulde, Jr. City Manager CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 January 28, 1999 Mayor and City Council City of Mound Mound, Minnesota In an overlook of the 1998 year for the Parks Department, the enclosed annual report will point out accomplishmems met, and will provide direction for the future. These accomplishments were arrived at through a cooperation of efforts from the City Council, City Manager, Park and Open Space Commission, Dock and Commons Advisory Commission and the City staff. The benefits of these efforts are enjoyed by the citizens of Mound, they have seen improved recreational opportunities that will last into the future, assuring them a quality neighborhood park and dock program. ~-~i~acerely, ,: ~' , ~~arkFs~r printed on recycled paper PERSONNEL ROSTER Parks Department 1998 Annual Report The Parks Department has only one full-time employee, the Park Director. The rest of the staff is made up of seasonal employees. During the busy spring, summer, and early fall, there are as many as seven full-time seasonal employees, between eight and ten part-time seasonal recreational program leaders, twenty-one lifeguards, and one contracted cleaning service. 1998 Employees Date Hired Park Director Park Maintenance Commons Maintenance Mowing Crew Mowing Crew Dock Inspector Summer Recreation Cemetery Maintenance Janitorial Service Beach Supervisor Jim Fackler John Taffe Brad Jayko Thomas Skinner Steve Erickson Jr. Tom McCaffrey Jennifer Garza Phil Haugen West Metro Bldg. Mmc. Bridget Schultz July 1, 1985 May 12, 1983 May 14, 1996 May 26, 1998 June 2, 1997 November 1, 1990 May 15, 1997 May, 1990 November 1, 1994 May 15, 1997 1997 Non-Returning Employee Chris Benz, Mowing Crew. GENERAL COMMENTS During 1998 the Parks Department was involved mainly with maintaining current playground equipment and lands. In the past few years, we have seen improvements to the following parks: Pembroke, Philbrook, Langdon, Belmont, Chester, Tyrone, Seton, Three Points and Dundee. In 1998 one new play structure was installed at Avalon Park. A plan has been developed by the City Planner for Veterans Park to create an open sitting area. We still are looking forward to doing this plan and other parks that are in need of alterations. They are, Highland, Edgewater, and Crescent Parks. Of these parks, Crescent and Edgewater have no equipment. Highland, like Swenson, has equipment reaching need for replacement. Not all parks require a play structure, Crescent and Doone could be left as open green space in order to keep the areas natural. Along with development, maintenance for the parks must be planned. Maintenance and upkeep of the parks is a major ingredient for their success. Regular mowing, leaf removal, litter pick up and periodic repairs are unavoidable aspects of these Parks and generally take up the most hours over the year. These improvements and maintenance will provide a visual commitment that the City of Mound has a dedication towards community development. Having moved into the Island Park Garage in 1989, we began to make improvements to the building by following the improvements recommended in a 1987 engineering report for remodeling and repairing the garage. In 1990 a new roof was put on, in 1991 the electrical was updated, new garage doors were added, and the exterior of the building was painted. The major repairs for 1994, 1995, 1996 were taken out of the budget due to budget restraints and were not asked for in 1999, but are still needed. The repairs needed, are: replacing of the concrete driveway in front of the building, grounds repair around the back side of the building which would include a retaining wall, and a drain system to keep water out of the building. SUMMER RECREATION PROGRAM Currently, the City of Mound is sponsoring a summer recreation program that lasts seven weeks, from mid-June through mid August. The seven week program schedule provides more recreational opportunity to youths. During 1998 a Program Supervisor oversaw a schedule of events at five parks; Belmont, Swenson, Philbrook, Highland, and Three Points, where there is a Park Leader and an assistant to carry out the daily program. The 1998 program continued its arts and crafts, games, and special events for a broad age of children, and saw smaller parks receiving visits from the recreation staff to provide an opportunity for them to get involved in the program. This program is accomplished by co-sponsoring a program with Westonka Community Services. The basic concept is a program, still offered in the neighborhood park, but utilizing the Community Services special facilities, such as the indoor pool or gym, and co-offering events or field trips. This type of approach will offer a great deal of flexibility to a wide variety of age groups. The programming will represent their special interests and allow for expansion over the years. An great attraction has been "Music in the Parks" that was organized in 1993 and will continue in 1999, and the Parks staff has also assisted in special events, including Mound City Days, and Winterfest. PARKS PROGRAM LABOR Staff Wages Community Education Support Staff EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES (Softball, Parachute, Games, Craft Supplies, Snacks, Etc.) MILEAGE MISCELLANEOUS (Training) TOTAL CITY BEACHES 1996 1997 1998 $9,223 $11,661 $11,868 $2,100 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 548 $ 1,318 $ 1,554 $ 133 $ 125 $ 80 $ 230 $ 150 $ 150 $12,235 $15,654 $16,052 The beaches are operated under a comract with Westonka Community Services, the costs are as follows: BEACH PROGRAM 1996 1997 1998 LABOR Lifeguard Wages $15,540 Community Education $ 2,100 Support Staff MILEAGE $ 132 EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES $ 132 REGISTRATION .......... TOTAL $17,846 $14,347 $17,443 $ 2,100 $ 2,100 $ 719 $ 605 $17,060 $20,148 These costs cover expenses incurred by Westonka Community Services in supplying lifeguards. They do not, however, reflect the cost of maintenance, weed removal, buoys, portable toilets and life saving equipment. These costs come out of the park fund. In past years we have seen this budget item under projections due to cool weather. 1998 was a warm summer, because of additional funding we were able to keep the beaches open and not cut back hours as in prior years. In 1999 these additional monies will allow for keeping the beaches open through Labor day. MUNICIPAL CEMETERY The Mound Cemetery was established in 1884 and operated under an association until 1944, when the cemetery was turned over to the City of Mound. There are three divisions, A and B are the old sections to the west and the new section C, to the east. Currently, the grounds are maintained by a seasonal employee. He supplies his own equipment and is paid for time and machinery. The Park Crew helps when requested for projects that are larger in nature than the daily upkeep. The fertilization and weed control is done though a contract with a lawn care company. A 1990 a survey comparing plot fees at the Mound Cemetery with other municipal and private cemeteries was updated in 1995. A new fee schedule was adopted for 1998 as listed below and remains the same for 1999. 1999 Adult, resident $400 Adult, nonresident $800 Baby, resident $175 Baby, nonresident $325 Ash Burial * * No additional charge if plot is purchased as a single grave, $50 charge if ash burial is placed on top of a casket burial. A "resident" for the plot fee is defined as, "An individual to be interred is a current resident of the City of Mound at the time of his/her death, or at the time of purchasing his/her grave site." In 1998 there were 21 burials, 13 casket and 8 ashes, along with the sale Of 19 plots. The operation of the cemetery is at a break even with income from the sale of plots. The current level of maintenance at the cemetery needs to be upgraded to aid in providing a more attractive setting. This could be done through irrigation, and additional planting of trees. HAZARDOUS TREE REMOVAL As of December 31, 1998, the yearly total of hazardous tree removals from City property were 81 trees removed,2 stumps chipped, 16 trees trimmed that posed a hazard, and 20 sites had removed brush. From private property 6 trees were marked for owner removal due to hazardous conditions. Diseased and hazardous trees are removed on a complaint basis. When a complaint is received an inspection of the tree is done to determine the need of removal and the ownership. City owned trees are removed by a contractor as soon as possible, while private trees are removed in accordance with City Ordinances. Private trees not removed in the grace period allowed, are forced removed. The cost of a forced removed tree is billed to the property owner. If this bill is not paid, it is then attached to their property taxes. Combining the Parks and the Dock expenses for the summer storm damage the costs come to $27,913.00 of this Federal and State Aid will cover 90 % of the expenses or $25,121.70. WEED NOTICES In 1998, approximately 24 weed notices were issued by the Community Service Officer for unkept grounds. Of these 24, all owners did comply and a contractor did not have to be hired to perform the work. The cost of mowing incurred by the City for private property would be billed to the owner. If the owner does not pay, the cost is assessed to their taxes. MUNICIPAL DOCK SITES The Municipal dock system is made up of approximately 4.5 miles of lake shore, providing 460 dock sites. The Dock Inspector works under the direction of the Park Director. His main duties are the processing of dock applications, inspections of the dock sites, notification of the discrepancies to permit holders, and an informational source for the general public and City. In 1998 the dock fund showed a approximate balance of $211,000 on 12-31-98. This balance will allow for future improvements to the dock program where we have seen cost of dredging and shoreline repairs increase dramatically over the past years. In 1998 in working with the Dock and Commons Advisory Community (DCAC) the city's installed one multiple slip dock at the Avalon Park accesses The concept in general is to allow for current accessibility to non-abutting dock site holders while allowing for less congestion in front of homes abutting the commons. Although there are some details that need to be worked through, the multiple slip dock site is a success. Currently there are funds in the 1999 Dock Fund budget that will allow for the installation of up to three more multiple slip docks, the DCAC is looking into possible sites. DEPOT AND ISLAND PARK BUILDINGS The Depot building had improvements in 1998, work was done to the interior of the building, which included carpet, painting, cabinets, fans and lighting. This greatly improves the aesthetics of the building. Currently the facility is being used for meetings of local organizations and for rental by private individuals for parties. Response from these users has been positive. The current improvements to the Depot will reinforce the building as an asset to our City. DEPOT RENTAL RATES $400 Damage and Clean-up Deposit $200 per day Non-Mound Residents. Peddlers License.) (sample sales, plus the purchase of a $100 per day Civic and Non-Profit Charitable Organization from other Communities. $150 per day Non-Mound Residents. (private use, parties, rummage sales, craft sales, etc.) $75 per day Mound Resident. FREE Mound Westonka Community Civic and Non-Profic Charitable Organizations. The Island Park building is not being used and has had the water, heat and electricity turned off. Vandalism was a problem again last summer, the windows were broken which lead to boarding up rather then replacing the glass. This facility is currently being used as a storage area for Police Department supplies, and the main hall is no longer opened during elections for voting. Only minimum maintenance is being performed on this building. The Park and Open Space Commission is currently looking into the possibility of different uses to see if there is a need to improve the building. CITY HALL MAINTENANCE/JANITORIAL The Parks Department is responsible for some areas concerning city hall maintenance and janitorial services. The grounds, lawn care and snow removal are seasonal, while responsibilities for heating/air conditioning are year round. All projects within the capabilities of the park staff are performed. This has been in the areas of repairs to plumbing, heating and related equipment. Major repairs or cleaning services are contracted out through the direction of the Parks Department. Currently, we have a contract service for janitorial, carpet cleaning and the heating and air conditioning systems. Other projects have been assigned to the Parks Department as instructed by the City Manager. CITY OWNED RETAINING WALLS The replacement and repairs to retaining walls on street right-of-ways continue to be a expense that does not seem to have a end. The original walls constructed of flat stone or wood timber continue to deteriorate faster than the budget will allow replacement. At this time I have a list of work to do that has a two to three year wait for replacement walls. The cost of work done in 1996, 1997 and 1998 projected costs for 1999 is as follows (note Exhibit C): Actual Actual Actual Est. 1996 1997 1998 1999 Repairs 0 400 490 500 Replacements 8,085 9,551 5,695 10,000 Insurance 0 0 0 0 The walls that have received work are only a reaction to immediate problems, and generally from a complaint or hazard. All of the replacement walls have been composed of concrete block. This type of construction has been done at a comparable cost to that of wood or stone and will last much longer. In 1998 the budget for wall replacement was $10,000, as it's been in previous years, and $5,695.00 was spent because funds were needed for sidewalk and curb repair. Currently, there are existing walls that should have been replaced in 1998, and have been delayed to 1999 and beyond. The budget could have easily been $50,000 if all current work needed would have been addressed in 1999, this does not allow for any emergency repairs or replacements due to storm damage. PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION The Park Commission is made up of nine members and a Council Representative. The Park and Open Space Commission received two new member in 1998,Christina Cooper and Norman Domholt. The Commission's activities are: Parks/wetlands and related concerns. Cemetery. Island Park Hall and Depot buildings. Nature Conservation Areas Swimming beaches and lifeguards. Hazardous tree removal. Summer Recreation Program. Budget preparation. Some of the · · · · topics reviewed by the Park Commission in 1998 were: Distribution of funds allotted for park improvements. Inventory of City owned property for potential nature areas. Overseeing summer recreation/lifeguard programs. Outdoor skating facilities. DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION The City Council, on February 11, 1997 established the Dock and Common Advisory Commission. The objective of the Commission is to identify problems and frustrations that the current dock program has. They have had a very aggressive schedule of items for discussion at their meetings, below is a review of some of the activities. · Commons maintenance permits. · Commons dock fees. · Dock location map update. · Review of LMCD rules and regulations. · Establishing of possible sites for city multiple slip dock. 3/,57 Some of the topics reviewed by the Dock Commission in 1998 were: · Public lands encroachment fees. · Maintenance responsibilities of encroachment owners. · Procedure manual for Public Lands Permits. · Future maintenance needed on Commons shoreline. · City Multiple Slip Docks. In 1998 one new member was appointed to the DCAC, Orvin Burma and the council representative was changed to Mark Hanus. EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT Preventive, daily, and unplanned maintenance of all related equipment is the responsibility of the Parks Department. Please note Equipment Inventory on the attached Exhibit A. An Equipment Replacement Schedule is maintained to allow for updating of major capital outlays, see Exhibit A. This schedule when observed, will allow the Parks Department to operate efficiently and provide safety for the general public and the park crew. The Equipment Inventory, Exhibit B, allows you to see all of the Park Department equipment, its projected service years, and replacement costs. ESTIMATED BUDGET EXPENDITURES AS OF DECEMBER 1998 YTD PERCENT GENERAL FUND BUDGET EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED Parks 192,380 201,527 (9,147) *104.75% Summer Recreation 37,290 36,200 1,090 97.08 % Cemetery Fund 6,710 5,713 997 85.14% Docks Fund 76,660 88,843 (12,183) *115.89% *These over runs were due to storm damage in May and June. These funds were covered by Federal and State monies but the refunds went into general fund and do not replenish individual funds. EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE EXHIBIT A REC~ IYEAR IEQUIPMENT ICOST IREPLACES PURCHASED 1 1990 BRUSH CUTTER 3/4 TON 4X4/PLOW 1 TON DUMP 4X4 CHEMICAL SPRAYER 55O 14,990 24,000 95O 1980 3/4 TON PICKUP 1976 3/4 TON 4X4 YES YES YES YES 2 1991 PUSHMOWER GROUND AIRATOR FLAIL MOWER WATER SPRINKLER WEEDWHIP (2) 400 2,000 24,000 4,000 600 1987 PUSHMOWER 1974 FORD TRACTOR 1987 WEEDWHIP (2) YES NO NO NO YES 3 4 1992 1993 PUSH MOWER GROUND AIRATOR WATER SPRINKLER BOBCAT BUCKET 72" FRONT MOWER METAL LOCATOR 6000 lb TRAILER FLAIL MOWER (USED) 1 TON DUMP 4X2 PUSH MOWER (propel) WEEDWHIP (2) METAL DETECTOR 400 2,900 4,000 1,000 15,000 700 2,000 15,000 24,300 450 750 800 1989 PUSH MOWER 1987 BOBCAT BUCKET 1984 72" MOWER 1982 TRAILER 1974 FORD SICKLE 1978 1 TON DUMP 4X2 1991 PUSH MOWER 1991 WEEDWHIP (2) 1985 METAL DETECTOR YES NO NO NO YES NO YES NO YES YES YES NO 5 1994 POWER WASHER BEACH BOUYS 3/4 TON 4X4 PLOW PLAY STRUCTURE METAL DETECTOR 1,200 1,950 24,250 19,600 850 WORN OUT BOUYS 1982 3/4 TON 4X4 PL. OLD STRUCTURE YES YES YES YES YES 6 1995 WEEDWHIP (2) GRASS CATCHER (6) PICNIC TABLES 775 3,730 1,800 1993 WEEDWHIP (2) NONE YES YES YES 7 1996 WATER FOUNTAINS (3) BASKETBALL GOALS COMPUTOR / LAP TOP FLAMABLE LOCKER RESURFACE COURTS ICOST 8,000 1,500 1,400 1,000 10,500 IREPLACES IPURCHASED 1987 FOUNTAINS YES UNKNOWN YES 1988 COMPUTOR YES NONE YES UNKNOWN YES 8 1997 9 1998 PUSH MOWER / Propel FLAIL MOWER 72" BOBCAT TRACKS BOBCAT GRAPPLE FORKS DOCK/MOUNDBAY BASKETBALL GOALS MULTIP. DOCKS BACKPACK BLOWER 72" FRONT MOWER BRUSH CUTTER PUSH MOWER WEEDWHIPS (2) 650 30,000 5,000 2,900 2,350 1,700 22,000 450 27,000 750 7OO 850 1992 PUSH MOWER JD YES NONE YES NONE YES 1988 GRAPPLE FORKS YES UNKNOWN YES UNKNOWN YES NONE YES 1988 BACKPACK BLOWER YES 1988 72" MOWER J D YES 1990 STHIL BRUSH CUT NO 1993 PUSH MOWER JD YES 1995 WEEDWHIPS (2) YES 10 1999 ONE TON 4X4 W/PLOW BASKETBALL GOALS DEPOT TABLE / CHAIR 35,000 1,900 3,500 1990 3/4 TON 4X4 THREE POINTS PARK NO YES YES 11 2000 ONE TON 4X4 W/PLOW OUTBOARD MOTOR 14' ALUMA. BOAT BRUSH CUTTER BASKETBALL GOAL WEEDWHIPS (2) 38,000 1,500 900 90O 1,000 1,500 1990 3/4 TON 4X4 1961 14' ALUMA BOAT 1961 10 HP JOHONSON 1990 STHIL BRUSH CUT SETON PARK 1998 WEEDWHIPS (2) 12 2001 ONE TON 4X4 DUMP 40,000 1990 1 TON DUMP 4X4 REC# IYEAR IEQUIPMENT ICOST REPLACES PURCHASED 13 2002 14 2003 i TON 4X2 DUMP 7,000 LB TRAILER 72" FRONT MOWER WEEDWHIPS (2) PUSH MOWER 60" BROOM 47" SNOWBLOWER 10,000 LB TRAILER SKIDSTEER LOADER 48" RIDING MOWER ROTORY BROOM PUSH MOWER ONE TON 4X4 / PLOW 35,000 2,500 19,000 1,500 950 4,000 5,000 3,500 40,000 9,000 8OO 900 40,000 1993 I TON 4X2 DUMP 1988 7,000 LB TRL. 1992 72" FRONT MOWE 1998 WEEDWHIPS (2) 1997 PUSH MOWER 1988 60" JD BROOM 1988 47" JD BLOWER 1987 10,000 LB TRL. 1987 BOBCAT (ATTACH) 1993 48" RIDER 1998 SHINDAIWA 1998 PUSH MOWER JD 1994 3/4 TON 4X4 15 2004 METAL DETECTOR 1,000 1994 METAL DETECTOR 16 2005 CHEMICAL SPRAYER 3,500 1990 CHEM. SPRAYER 17 2006 WEEDWHIPS (2) 1,700 2004 WEEDWHIPS (2) 18 2007 6,000 LB TRAILER PUSH MOWER 5,000 1,200 1992 6,000 LB TRL. 2002 PUSH MOWER REC# I YEAR I EQUIPMENT + 2008 PUSH MOWER BACKPACK BLOWER 72" FRONT MOWER ICOST 1~000 750 25,000 IREPLACES IPURCHASED 2003 PUSH MOWER 1998 BACKPACK BLOWER 1998 72" FRONT MOWER EQUIPMENT INVENTORY EXHIBIT B REC# ICurr_Equip 1 Ton Chev 4X4 Dump 2 3/4 Ton 4X4 W/Plow 3 1 Ton Ford 4x2 Dump 4 3/4 Ton Chev 4X4 W/Plow I M0del_YearlReplace_Yearl Service_YearslReplace_C0st 1990 2000 10 $ 38,000 1994 2003 9 40,000 1993 2002 9 37,000 1990 1999 9 35,000 5 48" Mower John Deere 1993 2003 10 9,000 6 7 72" Mower John Deere 1992 & Cab 72" Mower John Deere 1998 & Cab 8 John Deere 60" Broom 1988 2002 10 19,000 2008 10 25,000 2002 14 4,000 9 John Deere 47" Snow 1988 Blower 10 55 HP Mower / Flail 1997 John Deere 11 Weedwhips (2) 1998 2002 14 5,000 2017 20 42,000 2000 2 1,500 12 Brush Cutter 1990 2000 10 825 13 14 Pushmower John Deere 1998 21" self propel Pushmower John Deere 1997 21" self propel 15 Metal Detector 1994 2003 5 1,000 2002 5 950 2004 10 1,000 16 Blower Sthil 1998 Backpack 17 Blower John Deere 1988 Backpack 2008 10 1,000 SPARE ONLY 18 Rotory Broom Shindaiwa IModel_YearlReplace_YearlService_YearslReplace_Cost 1998 2003 5 800 19 Skidsteer Bobcat 843 1987 Planer, P.Forks, G.Forks, Bucket 20 Utility Trailer 1987 10,000 LB 2003 16 40,000 2003 16 3,500 21 Utility Trailer 7,000 LB 1988 2002 14 2,500 22 Utility Trailer 6,000 LB 1992 2007 15 2,500 23 Outboard 10 HP 1961 Johnson 2000 39 1,500 24 Boat 14' Aluma Craft 1970 2000 30 3,500 25 Chemical Sprayer 1990 2005 15 3,500 RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE EXHIBIT C REC# [hATE I LOCATION I 7-27-94 4872 Leslie Rd 1-22-98 I TYPE I REPLACE_TYPEI COST I REPATR_DATEI CONTR Wood Replace 5580.00 estimate 200 In ft 4/97 Block 2 7-31-95 5960 Sunset Road Wood Replace with 4350.00 estimate Block 4/97 3 12-27-95 4814 Northern Road Wood Remove and grade 1800.00 estimate 4/97 4 4-10-96 4864 Monmouth Road Stone Repair Drive 250.00 estimate way Corners 4/97 5 4-22-96 4738 Galway Road Rock Repair rock 200.00 estimate 4/97 6 5-3-96 4705 Bedford Road Rock Repair rock 200.00 next to step estimate 4/97 7 5-20-96 1610 Finch Lane Wood Replace curb 2750.00 estimate side only 4/97 8 8-8-96 3051 Long Fellow Ln Rock Repair next 400.00 estimate to driveway 4/97 and street 1-22-98 REC~ I D~T~. I LOCAtiON 9 11-22-96 3340 Warner Ln Rock Repair on 400.00 the CO.Her {REPAIR_DATEICONTR ~stimate 4/97 10 3-20-97 4704 Islandview Dr Block Repair on the corner 400.00 estimate 4/97 11 3-26-97 6279 Linden Lane Wood Replace with 3410.00 estimate Block 4/97 12 4-28-97 4701 Aberdeen Road Wood Repair 13 5-19-97 4660 Bedford Road Stone Repair Corner by drivrway 14 6-10-97 3152 Alexander Ln. Stone Repair where buldging 15 7-31-97 3072 Dundee Ln. Stone Buldging ? if repair 16 10-7-97 4613 Hanover Road Wood Replace with block R~.C~ 17 3-30-98 2649 Wilshire Blvd 1-22-98 I T~. I R~u~c~._T~sl cost Wood Repair 18 4-9-98 1791 Shorewood Ln. Rock Repair 19 5-6-98 1591 Eagle Ln. Rock Replace 20 7-13-98 4955 Donald Drive Rock Repair or replace 21 8-17-98 3143 Devon Lane Rock Repair corner 22 10-9-98 4442 Dorchester Road Wood Replace 10,250 estimate 10/98 Conce 23 10-9-98 4434 Dorchester Road Wood Replace 20,350 estimate Conce 10/98 j70 2415 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, Minnesota 55364 February 1,1999 TO: Mayor Pat Meisel Mound City Council City Manager, Ed Shukle FROM: Greg Pederson, Mound Fire Chief 1998 MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT ANNUAL REPORT Total Fire Calls were up 746 calls, (storms added calls, total 807 calls) This represents an increase of 11% from last year. (The fire dept. counted each call dudng the STORMS BUT DID NOT, pay the firefighters the plus 61 calls.) Total Fire Hours were 7,510 total Emergency Hours were 7095 for a total of 14,605 hours. (Again this did not represent the "storms" hours). ! can't give you an exact count with the storm hours, not knowing who went where (fimfighter hours). Just the Cities were spared on this years calls. A break down for each City we serve is: MOUND 162 FIRE CALLS, DOWN 29% 243 RESCUE CALLS, UP 14% VALUATION LOSS OF $155,000 MINNETONKA BEACH-- 22 FIRE CALLS, UP 10% 10 RESCUE CALLS, UP 42% NO VALUATION LOSS MINNETRISTA ......... 43 FIRE CALLS, DOWN 4% 43 RESCUE CALLS, UP 10% VALUATION LOSS OF $11,000 ORONO 66 FIRE CALLS, UP 13% 38 RESCUE CALLS, UP 15% VALUATION LOSS OF $40,000. SHOREWOOD- - 3 FIRE CALLS, DOWN 45% 3 RESCUE CALLS, SAME NO VALUATION LOSS SPRING PARK 43 FIRE CALLS, UP 95% 59 RESCUE CALLS, DOWN 8% VALUATION LOSS OF $6,000. 47/ PAGE 2 CONT. MUTUAL AID GAVE 11 TIMES RECEIVED 3 TIMES OVERVIEW The Mound Fire Department completed its 75th year of service to the community in 1998. Since being established in 1923, the activity level of MFD has continued to increase every year. Reaching a record high response total in 1998 of 807 calls. Training hours for personnel as well as station and truck maintenance hours has also increased. The current membership level of (37) members represents a full roster of fireflghters per the attached roster. Although all 1998 expenses for MFD may not yet be totaled, it appears as though we will be well within the department budgeted goals. PERSONNEL As stated earlier, Mound Fire Department is proud to have a full and very competent staff of firefighters totaling (37). MFD is also very fortunate to have several applications on file of other potential members. Some significant changes in the department membership for 1998 are as follows: RetirinQ Membem · Steve Erickson (22) years of service · Craig Henderson (21) year of service · Steve Collins (20) years of service New Members · Pat Hanley · Tony Myers · Darren Poikonen Our Annual election of Officers and Board Members was held in December 98. The election results for Fire Dept., Relief Association, and Auxiliary are shown on attached election results page. The Mound Fire Department "Firefighter of the Year" (as selected by department members) is Tim Palm. Congratulation! Tim. page 3 cont. Trainin~ and Conferences · (6) Members attended the State Conference and School. · (4) Members attended the State Chiefs Conference and School. · (2) Members attended State Fire School. · (1 O) Members attended Regional Schools. Station and E=uipment A major remodeling project of the radio communications room and office area was completed in 1998. This area was in dire need of a faceliff and expansion. The results were excellent. Most of the work on this project was done by the fireflghters themselves at no cost to the City. The remodeled area is now much more professional and effective. Our 1981 Sutphen Aerial Ladder Truck was inspected professionally in 1998 and found to be unsafe and in need of major repairs. These problems have been repaired and the truck is now fully and safely operational. Cost to repair was approximately $18,000. The Department continued its policy of replacement of several self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) and Fire "Turnout Gear" (5-6 sets) this year. Kev issues in 1998 Numerous important issues were addressed in 1998. Of these issues, several were fire department initiated while others were OSHA mandates. They are as follows: MFD Initiated · Several Department "Standard Operating Guidelines" S.O.G. · Department Physical Agility Test · New Member Orientation Package · Department Office Qualifications OSHA Mandated · Fire Fighters Two-in/Two-out regulation. · Respiratory Protection Standards which includes "Mask fit testing" and annual "Healthy Survey" for all department members. page 4 cont. Kev Issues and Goals - 1999 and Bevond · Mounds Fire Station needs some major repairs and general upkeep maintenance in 1999. Many of these needs have been budgeted for in 1999 department budget. · The time commitment and dedication required being a volunteer fireflghter continue to increase. This high level of activity allows less time for family activities, normal job activities, home projects, and most important to the fire service, training! Retaining and attracting members will definitely become a problem in the future! For now, Mound is doing much better than other neighboring communities. Hopefully this will continue! · The City of Mound and the other surrounding communities that the Mound Fire Department serves must move forward by hiring a part-time Fire Marshal. · Training of the entire Mound Fire Department staff must continue to improve by utilizing precious training time wisely. More training resources and budget resources must be applied in this area. Summary The members of the Mound Fire Department are a dedicated, well trained, and proud Uteam" that will continue to provide the highest possible quality service to the City of Mound and the other surrounding communities we serve. We look forward to serving (101) new parcels in Minnetrista starting in 1999 but also know that this will add to our fire/rescue activity. Even though over the last several years the Mound Fire Department has made somewhat of a transition to a younger, less experienced fire department, we feel the youthfulness and enthusiasm help make out team as good or better than ever! I am very proud to be the leader and Chief of the Mound Fire Department. Lastly, on behalf of all the members of the Mound Fire Department, I would like to thank the City Manager, Mayor, City Council, and citizens for there continued support. Your support is greatly appreciated! See ya at the MFD FISH FRY 99! Respectfully Submitted, Gregory S. Pederson Mound Fire Chief 1998 BOYD BRYCE CASEY CRAWFORD ENGEIHA_RT GRADY GRADY GUSTAFSON HANELY I-~Y t~ENTGES JAKUBIK k'i~YCK LARSON ~E~S NAFUS NELSON NiCCUM PALM PALM PAI~.~ PEDE,~SON PO1XONEN POUNDER ROGERS SAVAGE SIPPRELL STAL~ ~.ikN SVOBODA VANECEK WILLIA~ WOYTCKE 2415 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, Minnesota 55364 ADDRESS PHONE DOB JEFF 2221 SOUTH VIEW LN MOUND 472-7564 07/10/57 GREG 4924 PLYMOLrlM RD MOUMD 11/18/60 PAUL 5259 EDEN RD MOUND 472-1768 03/30/68 DAVID 5460 BARTLETT BLVD MOUND 472-4515 01/30'52 SCOTT 5955 IDLEWOOD RD MOUND 472-3622 01/09/57 JIM 4968 AFTON RD MOUND 472-1750 09/25/55 BOB 5093 BARTLETT BLVD ~.K)UbID 472-2955 11/29/66 RANDY 3415 W~ LN MOUND 472-7615 03/15/61 DAN 2535 MONTCLAIR RD MOUND 472-3410 05/07/56 KEVIN' 760 APPLEGARDEN RD MOUND 472-4058 07/30/61 BRUCE 1743 SHOREWOOD LN MOUND 472-6392 11/30/54 PAT 1723 CANARY LN MOUND 472-5027 06/15/73 PAUL 5056 SLri~ROVE LN MOUND 472-5306 11/24/53 MA%T 5941 HA~'TCHOP~IE RD. MOUND 472-2769 04/23/62 MATT 4379 WILSHIRE ~C 204 MOUND 472-6726 08/10/70 ROGER 2350 KINGS Pd) SP PK ~471-7568 09/21/70 JOHN 4397 WILSHIRE I~E 204 MOUND 472-1293 07/19/71 JASON 4609 SHORELINE ~309 S? PK 471-8021 11/22/69 TONY 5500 EASTVIEW AVE MOUND 472-5958 08/04/76 JOP2q 2580 DUb~[OODY LN WAYZATA 471-7432 05/10/54 JAMES 2185 FAIRVIEW LN MOUND 472-0449 01/21/71 BRET 2449 O~-J<I~WN LN MOUND 472-1983 12/09/65 GREG 1160 MARINA DR. MOUND 472-1233 04/17/61 MIKE 2695 WESTEDGE BLVD. MOUND 472-1972 07/14/59 TIM 5942 HA~CfHOPaNE RD MOUND 472-7140 07/16/65 GREG 6087 ASPEN RD MOUND 472-5785 02/22/53 DARREN 5967 HILLCREST ROAD MOUND 472-7931 11/13/70 CI~RIS 2042 GRANDVIE~,~ BLVD. MOUND 472-6644 03/15/63 RICHARD 6023 LYNWOOD BLVD MOUND 472-6377 11/16/65 MIKE 3125 HI~D BLVD MOUND 472-3591 03/08/50 KEVIN 5551 SPRUCE ROAD MOUND 472-1014 08/31/65 RON 2201 C~NTERVIEW LN MOUND 472-7904 03/18/64 BRUCE 4994 BARTLET% BLVD. MOUND 472-2712 06/20/62 ED 2345 FAIRVIE~ LANE MOUb~) 472-3178 12/08/66 R_~CK 2121 GRANDVI~W BLVD MOUND 472-7170 07/08/60 TIM 3135 AYR LANE MOUND 472-6716 02/03/62 DENNIS 4842 DALE ROAD MOUND 472-7906- 06/01/71 ENTRY 09/22/80 12/03/79 09/13/93 02/03/75 01/09/78 02/12/88 03/21/94 04/02/90 12/03/90 06/06/88 02/05/96 05/04/98 05/01/89 05/06/96 11/17/97 12/04/95 03/06/95 05/02/95 05/04/98 06/02/80 12/03/90 07/10/89 02/06/84 06/04/79 05/01/89 02/03/75 12/19/98 09/13/93 10/16/95 09/15/80 03/05/90 01/05/87 05/02/94 11/04/91 11/07/83 11/07/83 03/02/92 d75 2415 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, Minnesota 55364 ACTIVE SENIORITY ROSTER FIREFIGHTER 1. DAVE BOYD 2. GREG PEDERSON 3. SCOTT BRYCE 4. MIKE PALM 5. GREG ANDERSON 6. JOHN NAFUS 7. MIKE SAVAGE 8. JEFF ANDERSEN 9. RICK WILLIAMS 10. TIM WILLIAMS 11. GREG PALM 12. RON STALLMAN 13. KEVIN GRADY 14. JIM CASEY 1S. PAUL HENRY 16. TIMP~ 17. BRET NICCUM 18. KEVIN SIPPRELL 19. RANDY ENGELHART 2O. DAN GRADY 21. JAM~S NELSON 22. ED VANECEK 23. DENNIS WOYTCKE 24. PAUL BABB 25. CHRIS POUNDER 26. BOB CRAWFORD 27. JASON MAAS 28. BRUCE SVOBODA 29. JOHN LARSON 30. RICHARD ROGERS 31. ROGER KRYCK 32. BRUCE GUSTAFSON 33. MATT HENTGES 34. MATT JAKUBIK 35. PAT HANLEY 36. TONY MYERS 37. DARREN POIKONEN ENTRY DATE 02/03/75 02/03/75 0i/09/78 06104/79 12/03/79 06/03/80 09/15/80 09122/80 11/07/83 11/07/83 02/06/84 01/05/87 06/06/88 09112/88 05/01/89 05/01/89 O7/O 1/89 O3/O5/9O 04/02/90 12/03/90 12103/90 11/04/91 03/02/92 09/13/93 09/13/93 03/21/93 05/02/94 05/02/94 03/06/95 10/16/95 12/04/95 02/05/96 05106/96 1 I/17/97 05104198 05104/98 12/19/98 2415 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, Minnesota 55364 MFb Election foe 1999 Fire Chief Asst. Chief 5ecretoW Treasurer Board Member Board Member · Board Member Greg Pederson bavid Boyd Greg Palm ,Taft Andersen Tim Palm Bret Niccum ban Grady Relief Association Election 1999 President Vice President Secretory Treasurer Board Member Booed Member Board Member ,Taft 'Andersen Gene Garvais Mike Savage Randy Engelhart Kevin GradY Paul Babb Greg Pederson AAFb Auxiliary Election 1999 President Vice President Secretary Treasurer Carrie Palm Vickie Pederson Lisa Williams Liz Engelhort 2415 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, Minnesota 55364 Chain Of Command Chief ! Chief 2 Captain 12 Captain 22 Captain 24 Captain l§ Lieutenant 22 Lieutenant 22 LJeutenant 24 Lieutenant 2§ Trai nj ng Officer Highest Ranking Firefighter Greg Pederson bavid Boyd ,Tell Andersen Greg Palm Greg Anderson Rick Williams ,Tohn Nafus Kevin Grady Kevin 5ipprell ban Grady Tim Palm Fire Marshall Fire Marshall Mike Palm Tim Palm 2415 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, Minnesota 55364 Officers & Companies Engine Co. 1 Capt. !4 LT. 1! Greg Anderson ~Tohn Nafus Scott Bryce `Tim Casey Bret Niccum Paul Henry Ran 5tallman Mike Savage Tim Williams Engine Co. 2 Capt. 15 LT. 15 Rick Williams ban Grady Randy Engelhart Bob Crawford Mike Palm % Chris Pounder Matt Hentges Dennis Woytcke · Bruce 5voboda Rescue Co. 1 Ladder Co. ! Capt. 11 LT. 14 ,Teff Andersen Kevin $ipprell Capt. 12 LT. 12 Grog Palm Kevin Grady Paul Babb Tim Palm * Rich Rogers Ed Vanecek `Tason Moas Matt ,Takubik ,Tames Nelson Chief. 1: Grog Pederson m Chief 2: David Boyd Training Officer: Tim Palm (*maintenance group only) Bruce Gustafson Roger Kryck ~[ohn Larson Tony Myers Pat Hanley barren Poikonen 2415 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, Minnesota 55364 Weekly Maintenance ,Ton. 2 (:1) Feb. 6 (2) Mar. 6 (2) Apr. 3 (2) ~Tan. 9 (2) Feb. :13 (3) Mar. :13 (3) Apr. 10 (3) ,Ton. ~6 (3) Feb. ~0 (4) Mar. 20 (4) ~pr. 17 (4) ~Tan. 23 (~) Feb. 27 (:1) Mar. 27 (1) Apr. 24 (1) ~Tan. 30 (1) May 1 (2) ,Tun. 5 (3) `Tul. 3 (3) Aug. 7 (4) May 8 (3) ,Tun. 12 (4) ~Tul. lO (4} Aug. 14 (1) May 1§ (4) ~un. ~9 Mcy 29 (2) Jul. 31 (3) Sept. 4 (4) Oct. 2 (4) Nov. 6 (1) Dec. 4 (1) Sept. 11 (1) Oct. 9 (1) Nov. 13 (2) Dec. 11 (2) Sept118 (2) Oct: 16 (2) Nov. 20 (3) bec. 18 (3) ,Sept. 25 (3) OCt. 23 (3) Nov. 27 (4) Dec. 25 (4) oct. 30 (~) &~oup l_ Units 19, 22, 23 Rescue Co. 1 Capt..11 ,Tell Andersen Maintenance Groups 6roup 2 Units 18, 25 Engine Co. 2 ~pt. 15 Rick Williams 6roup 3 Units 11, 17 Ladder Co. 1 Capt. l~ ,Greg Palm &roup 4 Units 16,24 Engine Co. ! C~pt. !4 Mechanical Maintenance &roup Randy Engelhart Mike Savage Rick Williams Ran 5tallman &rag Anderson CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 February 2, 1999 TO; FROM; SUBJECT; Ed ShukIe City Manager & Mound City Council Greg Skinner Public Works 1998 Annual Report Street Department. The street departments primary function is to maintain and repair the Cities streets and storm sewers. The city has 4 full time employee's in the street department. I have listed the names of the personnel below. NAME TITLE 'STARTING DATE Don Heitz Equip. Operator 5-1-73 Tim Johnson Equip. Operator 6-17-83 Dan Grady Equip. Operator 2-13-96 Frank Heitz Equip. Operator 5-20-96 The Street Maintenance Supervision is handled mostly by myself. I delegate certain projects or task to each employee. Examples would be, sealcoating, sign repair, maintenance, etc. I handle all of the complaints and questions and try to resolve them. Some of my other duties include reports (monthly and annual), budget preparations, supervising personnel, evaluation report, emergency call out, construction meetings, monthly meetings, project inspections, purchasing of road material and etc. On the following page ic~ a list of the duties for the department. Keep in mind that this covers repair and maintenance for 50 miles of streets, 12 parking lots and 27 cul-de-sacs. printed on recycled paper plowing and sanding sweeping clearing street right- of way of brush and trees and guardrails bituminous street patching preparing streets for sealcoating repair & maint, of storm sewer street sign repairing and installation of new ones Curb & sidewalk street lights retaining walls maintenance of equip. Christmas decorations .GFNFRRI Let me go through the schedule of the Street Department for year just touching on the main duties starting with Winter. SNOW.~ ICE CONTROl It's my job to determine when the snow equipment is called out. I depend on the National Weather Service for information concerning any weather systems moving in our direction, also the Police Dept. Most of the time I'm out and about to determine what has to be done. When it's icy we sand as soon as possible but when it snows we like to wait until it's over if at all possible. When we plow everyone is out, 4 from the Street Department, 4 from the Water & Sewer Department, 3im from the Parks and myself. The equipment used is 5 -2 1/2 ton dump trucks equipped with plow, wing and sanders, 4 -4X4 pickup trucks equipped with 8' plows, 1-4x4 Blazer with a 6'6" plow to do the sidewalks. We have 11 miles of sidewalks that we haul the snow away. We use the snow blower, 2 dump trucks and 2 4x4 for the job. The second half of winter was rather nice. Temperatures were mild and snow fall was little. Salt and sand tonnage was down along with equipment repairs. SPRTNR.WORK The early part-of Spring is when we do our street right-of- way work, that means we cut brush and trim trees that are hanging in the street, and sweep streets. The Spring clean-up is a big job, 2 street sweepers, 1 sidewaik broom, 2 trucks and 1 tanker. Ne sweep everything in town, 50 miles of streets, 12 parking lots, 11 miles of sidewalks and 26 cul-de-sacs. You're looking at 3 to 4 weeks of work. From our Spring clean-up work we move into our street patching. There were no big repairs this year. As I mentioned at the beginning, Spring is patching and water main break repair time. We patch all of our main breaks unless it is so big that a paver needed. The big r~ews for the year were the storms again. The May 15th storm was big. Major damage and power outage. We spent most of the n~xt 3 months cleaning up from this storm and the two storms in 3une. .... STORM.$FWFR iSYSTFM... We have a very large storm sewer system to maintain, and I do not know bow many miles of pipe we have. I do know we have 370 catchbasins and 81 sump catchbasins. The 370 catchbasins are cleaned after every heavy rain and the sumps are cleaned in the Spring and Fall. The City crew maintains and repairs the catchbasins, but when it comes to repairing the pipe itself we have a contractor come in for the work. We do not have the equipment or people power to do it. We repaired the catchbasin on Bartlett Blvd. between Fernside and Norwood. This has been a problem for some time for the residents. The existing design did not allow the runoff to get into the main catchbasin on the southside. We redesigned and added one more structure. We have two major projects that need to be taken care of. One is at the south end of Cotton Ln. and the other at Swensen Park. Each of these will be in the five figures for r,~pair. ..$FAICOATING Astech was awarded the bid for this year project. The Tonkawood and Shirley Hill Areas were completed. .~J~Ca~...DFP~RTMENT.'' In 1996 we installed some 3M reflective crosswalk tape on all of our sites. Some areas did well and some not so well. I have received some new tape from 3M that we will use on the crosswalks that failed. We tied a new method of installing this reflective tape this year. So far this has shown better results. Listed below are the signs that were replaced or installed for 1998. 15 - Stop 2 -School Zone 3 -Dead End 2 - 4 ton axle 7 - No Parking Here to Corner 5 - Slow Children 8 - Two Hour Parking 48 -No Parking 67 -Street sign names 6- Children at play 2 - Crime Watch 2 - No Motorized Vehicles 3 - No Dumping 5 - Public Parking We straightened 70 posts, installed 48 complete tops and bottoms. The Street crew also puts up the Mound City Days Banners and puts up and takes down the Flags through out the year. This year there were enough summer banners for every other pole and we were short 11 holiday banners. .RITUMINOU$.ROAD WORK'.. There was no major repairs this year. We did ~ut down some extra in some trouble spots. ,CFM~NT,WORK' We repaired 5 sections of sidewalks on Commerce Blvd. We had to replace 110 feet of curb this year. ~MISC. In the fall we started to hauling some of our own street materials. This includes Class 5, sand fill, 3/4 rock, wash sand, etc. The new jet-vac has been working well for us. We have cleaned over half of our catch basins last year. . STRFFT.BUDGFT., , The Street Department had a budget of $420,820.00. We were $16,778,00 over budget for 98. Public Utilities Water and Sewer Public Utilities for the City Of Mound consists of 2 departments. One being Water Distribution and the other being Sanitary Sewer. First I would like to start with the Water Distribution system. The Water Department has 2 1/2 full time employees, which consists of a supervisor and 2 maintenance employees. We sell water to approximately 3250 customers within the City from 4 city owned wells, one booster station, a combined storage of 575,000 gallons in 3 water towers and approximately 45 miles of watermain. We are also interconnected with tj]e City of Spring Park and Minnetrista for emergencies if needed. ~MPLOY~$, I have been with the City of Mound since 1977. I started out in the Water Department as a maintenance worker. In 1982 I became the Utilities Superintendent. I am responsible for maintaining the annual budget of approximately $445,300.00 for 1998, purchases, scheduling work loads, complaints, employee evaluations, water inspections for new construction, sight plan review for new construction and development, watermain and shut off location, monthly report to State agencies and safety. In addition to my administration responsibilities, I also have the same duties as the maintenance personal do in the Water & Sewer Department. Bob Shanley works full time in maintenance. Bob has been with the City since 1967. Bob's job consists of repairs, water testing and meter reading. In addition, he handles service calls that consists of turn-ons, turn-offs, final readings, valve maintenance and repair, watermain breaks and snow plowing. 3erry Henke has been with the City for over 30 years. 3erry does all the meter installations, meter repair, helps with locates and inspection. PUB~ IC.UTIIITI£S' The Public Utilities are operated as a business. Revenues are generated from the sale of water, meter sales and service charges. Salaries and benefits are paid out of the revenue we receive. The Utility Departments work closely with the Building Inspector and the City Engineer on new construction, new development, utility upgrades or new installation. This includes site and plan review and inspections along with discussions with developers. There are 2 budgets prepared for Public Utilities, 1 for Water and 1 for Sewer. The Water Department had a budget of approximately $445,300.00 for 1998. The Sewer Department had a budget of approximately $981,020.00 for 1998. The percent of increase from year to year is small in both budgets as far as day to day operations are concerned. History has shown that Workman's Compensation, General Liability Insurance and MCWS have been the big reason for budget increases. Budgets are prepared by the Utility Superintendent. The budget then goes to the City Manager for review and approval. Each budget is then presented to the City Council by the Superintendent, so the Council may ask any questions in regard to certain expenditures. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requires that the City of Mound to have at least ! full time employee with a Class C certificate in Water Supply System Operations. The City is required by the PCA to have 1 person with a Class D certificate in Wastewater Treatment. Each person in the Water & Sewer Department hat: a certificate in either water or sewer or in both. The certilicates have to be renewed every 3 years. Each employee ~r, public works and 3oyce who handles the billing is sent to schools every year, in addition they are sent to various 1 day schools, conferences and conventions. The purpose of this is to learn new up to date methods of maintenance, safety procedures, and billing. WATER DEPARTMENT WATERMAINSR~AKS This year we had 11 main breaks. ,WATERTOWFR. MAINTFNANCF We had our annual inspection and there were a couple of anodes replaced that were damaged from the ice that builds up in the tanks through the winter. 'pUMPHOUSF.,MAINTENANCE This year was a good year. We had no major problems with the wells. This year we chose not to implement the EPA mandate for copper treatment. The cost for this would have been $6,000 for set-up and $15,000 per year for chemicals. We are border line for exceeding the copper levels required by the EPA. We will be having more discussions with the Mn. Health Dept. on this issue thru out this year. At this time there is no health threat to the customer. .HATFR MFTFSS The new system is working well. ,HYDRANT. MA~NTFNANCE This year we use the same approaches as last year for our hydrant flushing program. Instead of flushing during normal work hours I rearranged the shift times, so two maintenance workers would work from 9:00 p.m. to 5:30 a.m. for one week in May and one week in October. This worked very well, with very few complaints from the employee's or the customers. ,~ENERAI..~NFORMATION., We pumped 298,092,000 gallons of water in 1998. The Water Department budget was $29,079.00 under budget for 1998. ~EWER.pFPARTMENT . The Sewer Department has 2 1/2 full time employees. Damon Hardina has been with the City Sewer Department since 1974. Scott Kivisto I]as been with the City since 1985. Their duties consist of maintaining 28 lift stations and approximately 60 miles of sanitary sewer lines throughout the City. Stations are checked at least 2 times a week. It takes 4 hours per day to perform these checks. We perform minor maintenance, such as pump removal, seal replacement and electrical repairs. Any major pump repair is sent out. The Sewer Department has a truck with a crane so we can pull the pumps. We also clean the sewer lines in the summer. We have 1 water tanker with a 3et cleaner and 1 sewer fodder to perform this cleaning. The men also help on watermain breaks and with snow plowing. My responsibilities for the Sewer Department are pretty much the same as for the Water Department, except the budget was approximately $981,020.00 for 1998. SEWER,J.~,MAINTFNANCE, We cleaned 30,000 feet of sewer line in 1998. We have finished all of our major projects so we will be putting more time in cleaning and preventive maintenance of our sewer lines. With the new jet-vac we will been able to clean quite a bit more line than we use to. We had a outside contractor come in an televise and repair some sewer lines that were found to have some I/I. The new technology for making these repairs with out digging is great. It looks like our sewage flow for the year will be down about 7 million gallon over last year. This is due to our sump program. This year we had 2 sewer force main breaks. The Sewer Departments budget was $13,430.00 over for 1998. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 January 25, 1999 TO: MAYOR CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER FROM: CITY CLERK SUBJECT: 1998 ANNUAL REPORT Personnel Roster: Francene C. Clark/Leisinger, City Clerk - 8-10-81 - Present - 18 years Jodi Rahn, Secretary/Receptionist - 10-8-97- Present Jodi and I report directly to the City Manager. The City Manager and I share Jodi's time. She is the receptionist first. I have her helping me in various areas, lodi Rahn is doing a fine job. RECORDING OF COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS There were 22 regular City Council Meetings in 1998. In addition, there was a Budget Hearing and an Election Canvassing Meeting. That totals 24 meetings. From these meetings 704 pages of minutes were generated for Council review and approval. Agendas are prepared by the City Manager. The Agenda material is then put in order, attached, and numbered. Jodi then runs the packets on the Xerox and directs the packets to the proper pe~le. We send agendas to all people who have items on the agenda, highlighting the item pertaining to them. After the Council Meetings there are items that need to be followed up, such as contracts signed and sent to the proper people, directives from the Council that need to be attended to and routine items that need to be resolved. These items many times are 4 to 6 hours of work after a meeting. That does not include preparation of the minutes and the resolutions. I input all the Council Meetings into the Clerk's Index Program. I have all of years from 1989 through 1998 on the computer. This has eliminated the need to index all the City Council printed o~.recycled paper actions on 3 x 5 cards manually. It sure is handy when someone is looking for something in the past. MAINTENANCE OF ORDINANCE BOOK An ordinance is a law of local application, enacted by the City Council, which prescribes a general and permanent rule for persons or things within the City. This is distinguished from other types of regulations or actions which are undertaken by resolution or motion. Resolutions or motions generally regulate administrative or temporary actions as opposed to a permanent law. An ordinance becomes effective upon its adoption by the City Council and publication in the official newspaper. Therefore, as soon after a Council meeting as possible, ordinances are published. After publishing, the new ordinance has to be integrated into the ordinance book in the correct area. There were 8 ordinances adopted in 1998. 94-1998 An Ordinance Amending Section 437:10, Subd. 12 of the City Code Relating to Docking of Non-owned Watercraft by Adding a Sentence at the Beginning of Subd. 12. 95-1998 An Ordinance Extending the Moratorium for Transmission and Reception Facilities of Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Services. 96-1998 An Ordinance Relating to Zoning: Telecommunications Towers and Facilities; Amending Section 350:00 by Adding a New Section 350:1300, Entitled, "Telecommunications Towers and Facilities". 97-1998 An Ordinance Rezoning Certain Lands as Described from R-la Single Family Residential to R-2 Two Family Residential 98-1998 An Ordinance Amending Chapter VI of the City Code, Municipal Services and Public Utilities, by Adding Section 650 Relating to Storm Sewer System 99-1998 An Ordinance Adding Chapter 11 to the City Code Entitled Cable Television Regulatory Ordinance 100-1998 An Ordinance Amending Section 220 of He City Code Relating to Emergency Management 101-1998 An Ordinance Amending Section 320:05 of the City Code Relating to Encroachments on Public Lakeshore Commons 2 As Chapters in the City Code are amended, I put these on the computer, a disk for each Chapter. This makes revisions much faster than typing whole pages. This project was completed in 1994 so the entire City Code is in the computer. In 1992, I started and completed a project that I have wanted to do for a long time. I took all the ordinances and amendments that have ever been adopted by the City of Mound since its incorporation and cross referenced them to the current code where possible. This was all done on my Rapid File Program. Now we have a history for each section of the Code. This will help when someone wants to know when a particular part of an ordinance was adopted. I have continued to update this project with new ordinances as they are adopted or amended. MAINTENANCE OF RESOLUTION BOOK A resolution is somewhere between a motion and an ordinance. A resolution deals with matters of a special, administrative or temporary nature and is put in resolution form because of its importance or length. In 1998, the City Council adopted 137 resolutions. These are all composed, typed, signed and kept in resolution books. Each resolution is then categorized and indexed by subject and number in order to make them easier to find at a later date. This categorizing is now done with the Clerk's Index. Copies of the resolutions are given to the various departments when they pertain to their area. I also certify resolutions to be recorded at Hennepin County if required. PUBLIC NOTICES This office arranges for the publication of official and legal notices for such things as public hearings, changes in meeting dates for the City Council, ordinances, and any other items that are required by State Statutes or that the Council or City Manager feel should be in the official newspaper. Some public notices (vacating of streets, etc.) must also be posted in 3 public places. The Park Dept. handles the posting and fills out the posting affidavit. Some bids come through my office and are advertised according to State Statute. Some of the specifications for bids for equipment are laid out and prepared by me with input from the specific department head requesting the item. LICENSES & PERMITS The City of Mound issued 63 licenses or permits for different purposes in 1998. This accounted for approximately $4,137 in revenues. I do all licensing duties. I spend a considerable amount of time in the administration of the licenses and permits, i.e. notices and renewal forms are sent before they expire; when the renewal application is received it and the insurance papers must be gone over to be sure they are correct; the payment receipt is made out; the names submitted to the Council for review and approval; the license issued and sent to the applicant. Then there are always the applicants who wait until the last minute or have to be coaxed to get their applications and fees in before expiration. I have inputted a lot of the license information into the computer. I am also generating the licenses on the computer which saves money on the forms and time by not having to redo all of them every year, just changing dates, license numbers, etc. PUBLIC INFORMATION I have found being City Clerk that people expect me to be the local expert in everything from utility costs to the legality of the latest zoning fracas. In attending State and International conferences I find that most city clerks are used as an information source by local citizens. I try to stay informed as to what is going on in all aspects and departments of the City so that if I cannot answer a question for a citizen at least I can direct them to the proper person for an answer. What comes along with public information is research into various items that people have concerns about. RECORDS MANAGEMENT Records Management is a function concerned with the creation, processing, maintenance, protection, retrieval, retention, preservation and disposition of records required in the operation and continuance of city operations. The objective is to save space, money and time. TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY In 1998, I dealt with one tax forfeit parcel of land and this parcel may be sold to an adjoining property owner when she has all her information together. The following is the procedure we USe. Hennepin County notifies us of property within the City that has gone tax forfeit because of nonpayment of real estate taxes. They also periodically ask about property we have taken for a public purpose to insure that we are using it for that public purpose. The County asks that we inform them of what we would like done with the property i.e., allow the parcels to the sold at public auction; require that they be sold only to adjoining property owners if they are undersized or do not meet the zoning and building codes; or retain them for some public purpose. There is a considerable amount of research that must be done to determine what should be done with the property. The first step is to go to the tax books and get a property description. Then the property jacket is pulled and its contents examined to see if the property was taken for a public purpose or is a new tax forfeit parcel. The next step is to figure the square footage of the property and look at the current zoning district to determine if it is a buildable lot or not. After all this information is determined, it 4 is all put on a sheet, a plat map showing the property is made and sent to the City Engineer, Park Director, Public Works Superintendent, Building Inspection and Finance Director for their comments and recommendations. Occasionally, an easement is needed for utility purposes; a survey may be needed to determine if part of the property is in the wetlands; or there may be reasons for the City to retain the property. The Special Assessment Clerk in the Finance Dept. determines if there are any assessments from before forfeiture or since forfeiture that need to be put back on the property. We no longer have a full-time Special Assessment Clerk so I look up the information myself. The reason we need to know assessments before and since forfeiture is that the City gets 90 % of the purchase price to apply to assessments from before forfeiture. The assessments since forfeiture are added in their entirety to the appraised value (determined by the Hennepin County Assessor) of the property. In 1984, the City Council adopted a resolution (//84-94, copy attached) setting a policy on assessments placed on undersized tax forfeit property before forfeiture. This has helped to encourage adjoining property owners to purchase undersized parcels and combine them with their property. In 1987 I completed a card index by Property Identification Number for the following: City owned property; Tax forfeit property that has been retained by the City for a public purpose; Tax forfeit property that falls into the following categories: a. Property released for public sale; b. Property for sale only to and combined with adjoining property. Each card has a PID (property identification number), plat and parcel, legal description, status (what it is, park, wetlands, tax forfeit, etc.), whose name it is in (State Land Dept. or City of Mound or both), any resolutions dealing with the parcel (resolution number and disposition). I have now completed coordinating the Certificates of Titles, State Deeds, easements, etc. and recorded that type of information on each card also. This card file, is now complete and is being kept up-to-date. It has already proved to be a very valuable tool when someone calls in to check on a parcel of land. Since we started dealing with tax forfeit property in 1982: 39 parcels have been put up to public auction; 37 parcels were retained for a public purpose; and 83 parcels have been authorized to be sold to and combined with adjoining properties; 5 temporary construction easements were reconveyed. Of the above, 34 parcels of the 39 have been sold at public auction and 48 of the 79 parcels have been sold to adjoining property owners to be combine with their property. I think this shows how this process is working to the city's advantage to get parcels back on the tax rolls and increase conformance to the zoning ordinance. We now have a computer program called Rapid File and all the information on the cards has been inputted into the computer. OTHER DUTIES/RF_~PONSIBILITIES CEMETERY In 1988, I officially took over the Mound Union Cemetery records. In 1998, there were 13 casket burials, 8 ash burials. 19 graves were sold. In 1989, I used the Rapid File program in my computer and inputted all the information from each division of the cemetery. All the information came off the cemetery cards which were checked and cross-checked. This now allows us to instantly locate people by name, owner of the grave, or lot and grave number. There are three divisions and each is separate on the computer. I have a book that I update every few months. It took a considerable amount of time to do this but I feel it has really cut down on the paper work. We had new cemetery maps made up at the end of 1998 to include all new information for the year. FIRE CONTRACTS The Fire Department keeps track of all fire reports for each contracting city. The fire reports are all listed according to the City and the number of fire/rescue hours. In 1998, there were 438 mutual aid hours which are divided equally between the contracting cities. The Fire Contract Material is figured on a combination percentage of assessed value and a 3 year average of fire/rescue hours for each contracting city. That percentage is then used on: B. C. D. Operating Costs Capital Outlay Fireman's Relief Fund Fire Track Payments In 1998, the fire hours breakdown is as follows: ACTUAL CONTRACTING FIRE/RESCUE CITY HOURS +__. EQUAL MUTUAL AID HOURS = TOTAL Minnetonka Beach 630 + 65 = 695 Minnetrista 1880 + 65 = 1945 Orono 2172 + 65 = 2237 Shorewood 106 + 65 = 171 Spring Park 1897 + 65 = 1962 Mound 7530 + 65 = 7595 390 = TOTAL 15144 + 12637 PIlILYNrAGE 4.76% 13.32% 15.32% 1.17% 13.43% 52.00% 100.00% 6 These hours will be integrated into the 3 year average when the 2000 contract material is figured. Part of the formula for figuring the fire contracts was to use the total assessed value of the fire area in a community. This changed a few years ago from assessed value to market value, which did not change the percentages much but required some language change in the original fire contracts and at the same time this was done some other changes were made to update the contract for each fire contracting city. EMPLOYEE SUPERVISION The City Manager and I supervise the Secretary/Receptionist, Jodi Rahn. As I stated in the beginning of this report, Ed and I share Jodi's time. Jodi is first and foremost the receptionist who answers the phone anywhere from 60 to 80 times a day, fielding calls to the proper people, taking messages when people are out of the office and directing people when they come into City Hall. She is sometimes the only contact a citizen has with City Hall and she is excellent in giving people a positive and helpful image of the City of Mound. She does a lot of typing for departments who do not have secretarial help, i.e. Finance, Liquor, Parks and the Dock Inspector. She is also in charge of handling all incoming and outgoing mail; copying for various departments; office supply ordering; as well as the duties that were mentioned before. We are lucky to have someone who is versatile, talented and friendly. ELECTIONS The City Clerk must administer all elections for national, state and county as well as city offices and special city elections. The State Statutes governing the election process are Chapter 200 through 210 and Chapter 412. On the surface these statutes describe the procedural steps, however, they do not describe the election process in logical step sequence. Election laws are constantly being revised by the state legislature and through court rulings so it is necessary to stay on top of all changes. I am one of 11 City Clerks chosen to serve on the Hennepin County Elections and Voter Registration Coordinating Committee. It is comprised of clerks giving good city representation of the county based on experience, the size of the municipalities and the types of election system used. This Committee deals with new legislation affecting elections and voter registration. We have used the Optec III-P equipment since 1988. The City had two elections in 1998, State Primary and State General Election. The following is a synopsis of some of the procedures that were done for the Primary and General elections that were held September 15th and November 3rd. Preparation of an election calendar is essential giving actual dates when duties must be performed to meet legal requirements. Legal notices must be drafted in preparation for timely publication and posting. Making sure there are absentee voting materials, voter registration supplies, election day supplies, ballots, and ascertaining whether election day equipment, such as voting booths and ballot boxes are in a good state of repair. Polling places must be designated by the City Council. I make all necessary arrangements for the use of these facilities. Each polling place must meet the standards of accessibility for the elderly and the physically handicapped. This year we moved the Island Park Polling place from I.P. Hall to City Hall. Island Park Hall is just too shabby. The bathrooms are not handicapped accessible. Election judges have to be located. This can be a very trying task because the pay is so low and the hours so long. There must be 'party balance" in each precinct and this sometimes becomes a problem because some judges do not want to be moved from their home precinct. The law states that there must be a minimum of 1 judge for every 150 registered voters in a precinct. The count in each precinct, at 7:00 A.M. on the day of the General Election was as follows: Precinct #1 - Mount Olive - 624 voters Precinct #2 - Indian Knoll Manor - 517 voters Precinct #3 - City Hall - 1,707 voters Precinct #4 - Seahorse Rec. Bldg. - 1,021 voters Precinct//5 - The Depot - 1,070 voters Precinct #6 - Library - 753 voters The rule of 1 judge for each 150 registered voters is not applicable because there must be a judge for each of the following procedures: One judge to act as a greeter (determine if the voter is registered or not and directs voter to the proper line). b. Two judges to handle the computer print-out of registered voters. c. A demonstration judge. d. A judge to hand out the ballots. A judge to be near the vote tabulator to watch for error messages and assist voters. f. One or two judges to be in charge of new voter registrations. The law requires that election judges for all elections be trained by a City Clerk, this also includes school elections. We have a basic course, a review course and an emergency 8 e 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. course. The judges have to be trained to have some working knowledge of the vote tabulators, problems that might arise, error messages given by the tabulator, and ways to correct problems. A video tape was produced to help in training the judges on the changes in procedures and workings of the new equipment. Hennepin County does the programming for the prom pack (memory pack) that is inserted in each machine. We have two for each machine. One is for back-up in case there are problems with the other. Both prom packs for each machine are tested in each machine with a test deck of official ballots marked so that it appears there were different situations in voting, i.e. undervotes, overvotes, blank ballots, crossovers (primary only), etc. A master sheet showing the variations in votes must be done. The results are then compared with the machine count to determine if the machine is counting accurately. This is very time consuming. Applications for Absentee Ballots are obtained from City Hall or the County and sent to the City or the County to be filled. The ballots are then sent from City Hall or the County to the applicant or are picked up at City Hall or the County. The voter then casts his/her ballot and returns the sealed envelope either in person or by mailing it. These ballots are then held unopened until election day. City Hall is open for absentee balloting the Saturday before an election from 1:00 P.M. to 3:00 P.M. and on the Monday before election until 7:30 P.M. The Monday before the Tuesday election is when each precinct must be set up (all voting booths and miscellaneous supplies) and keys must be obtained for the various precincts. The locked ballot boxes with the vote tabulators (the memory packs are sealed in the tabulators to insure they have not been tampered with) and blank ballots inside (these are also sealed in boxes) are delivered to the precincts. The Election Precinct Chairperson picks up the remaining precinct supplies (forms to be filled out, envelopes each form must be in, etc.) on Monday night. Election day arrives for Jodi and I at 5:30 A.M. I spend most of the morning monitoring each precinct to be sure everything is running smoothly, answering any questions that come up and straightening out any problems that arise. Linda takes care of any phone questions from the public on precinct locations, etc. All absentee ballots are counted on the equipment in the precincts. This not being a normal General Election the Absentee Ballots for the Governor's race were counted by hand. During the primary there were 26 absentee ballots and during the general there were 195 absentee ballots. We had a team of judges at City Hall trained to review the applications and ballot envelopes to determine if the ballot was rejected or accepted based on the completeness of the required information. After that process was complete, the ballots in the ballot envelopes were sent out to each precinct to be opened and run thru the machine at the close of the polls. After the polls close, the judges check and verify the seal numbers on the memory pack to be sure it is the same as it was opening the polls. They then take the ~A' (answer key) key, insert it in the vote tabulator and turn it. The vote tabulator will not accept any more ballots. A printout of vote totals will then begin. This is the Official Results Tape. It contains the zero tape from the beginning of the day, any messages, and the total votes for each candidate or question. Mound historically has a good turn-out to vote. In this years General Election 85 % of the registered voters voted. SEE ATTACHED BREAKDOWN OF VOTING AND DIAGNOSTICS. This year all precincts reported back to City Hall by 10:00 P.M. That, though, is not the end of the day because the judges must bring certain supplies and items back to City Hall some of which goes to Hennepin County that night. There are many more clerical tasks than mentioned above that have to be done for an election, but as you can see it is a very time consuming job that requires accuracy and efficiency to run properly. By the time election day is over, Jodi and I usually have put in 16-20 hours each. The day after the election is getting the resolution and forms ready for the Canvassing Meeting. The City Canvassing Board (City Council) only canvasses city elections and special city elections. We had a number of meetings before the elections completing the above. We will be having more meetings early in 1999 to identify equipment and programming changes that will allow the overall operation to function more efficiently. This work will continue in 1999. The last six years I have been on the League of Minnesota Cities Elections and Ethics Committee. MISCELLANEOUS POSC & DCAC MEETING AGENDAS AND PACKETS Jodi has been trained to handle the agendas and packets. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS In September assessment hearing notices were prepared, the tax books checked to verify names and addresses and notices were written, published and sent to all parties concerned regarding the following: CBD (Central Business District) Parking Maintenance Delinquent Water & Sewer Charges Unpaid Mowing Charges The CBD Assessment Roll is a very involved procedure. The expenses are figured from June 1 of a given year until May 31 of the year being assessed. This figure includes expenses for 10 railroad lease, special assessments, maintenance materials, crosswalks striping, blacktopping of lots, Christmas decorations, lighting of lots, parking lot leases, salaries for maintenance. This figure is sent to each business in the CBD District. There is a very complicated formula for spreading these expenses between the businesses in the Central Business District. The formula is based on the following: 0 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Customer parking spaces required (this is determined by the CBD Parking Committee based on the business). Employee parking spaces required. The number of spaces provided by the business. The first 2 items are added together and the third is subtracted. A percentage of the total is then figured on item//4. The business front footage is then taken. A percentage of the total is then figured on item//6. The present market value is then taken. A percentage of the total is then figured on item//8. Next the total costs (expenses) are multiplied by the factor .7 and that result is multiplied by item//5. Next the total costs (expenses) are multiplied by the factor. 15 and that result is multiplied by item//7. Next the total costs (expenses) are multiplied by factor .15 and that result is multiplied by item//9. Items 10, 11 and 12 are then added together and that is what is proposed to be assessed to each business in the CBD. At the end of August we are taking all delinquent sewer and water bills and preparing them for certification and assessment against the benefiting property. With the initial list, we sent out 375 notices. We actually certified 251 for collection with 1999 taxes. Resolutions were prepared for all the above assessments. Levy sheets were prepared for Hennepin County, resolutions certified and all sent to the County to appear on the 1999 tax statements. OTHER MEETINGS ATTENDED MCFOA (Minnesota Clerks' & Finance Officers' Association) Annual Meeting I have been a member of this organization since 1982. I was Regional Vice President for Region IV in 1984; Treasurer in 1985; Secretary in 1986; Vice President in 1987; and became the President in 1988; and a Director at Large (Immediate Past President) 1989 and 1990. This state organization has one annual conference in March which is put on by Government Training Services and the University of Minnesota Department of Professional Development and Conference Services. It is designed to meet the needs of Minnesota clerks from large, small and medium size cities, with different responsibilities, and with varying years of experience. The technical sessions provide practical information and an opportunity for discussion with other clerks. I received the title of MCMC (Minnesota Certified Municipal Clerk) in March 1985 after completing the required courses and extra seminars offered by the University of Minnesota Continuing Education. Out of the 855 cities in Minnesota there are over 550 members in MCFOA. IIMC (International ln.qtitute of Municipal Clerks) Conference I have been a (CMC) Certified Municipal Clerk since November 1985. The State of Minnesota presently has over 326 member cities in the IIMC. We are 8th out of 77 (including the 50 states, 12 Canadian provinces, and 15 other countries such as Australia, Bosnia, New Zealand, Israel, United Kingdom, South Africa in membership to IIMC. Total IIMC membership is 9,582. I attended the annual IIMC Conference in May. There are a variety of topics covered in the educational sessions, presentations and the extensive exhibits. This was a very interesting and beneficial conference with over 40 different workshops in topics such as, records management, local government productivity, elections, professional development, personnel management, communications, supervising, to name a few. The following is the mission statement that was developed during my last year on the Board, "The International Institute of Municipal Clerks prepares its membership to meet the challenge of the diverse roles of the municipal clerk by providing services and continuing professional development opportunities to benefit members and the government entities they serve." OTHER MEETINGS OR COMMITTEES Some of the other meetings attended were: League of Minnesota Cities Elections & Ethics Committee. Advisory Committee on Voter Registration. I have tried to highlight some of the activities in 1998. In summation, the City Clerk's position encompasses many areas that require time, effort and knowledge beyond that of a clerk in a larger city with a full staff to do the elementary tasks. I find the work very challenging and personally rewarding and I am happy I can contribute to Mound and its citizens. I feel continuing education, working on various committees with affiliated organizations, receiving and sharing information with other cities makes me more effective in my position and I want to thank the Council for their support. 12 132 June 12, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 84-9~ RESOLUTION SETTING A POLICY ON ASSESSMENTS PLACED ON TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY BEFORE FORFEITURE WHEREAS, Hennepin County has begun to notify adjacent property owners that they will be conducting "private sales" on undersized or unbuildable lots; and WHEREAS, some of these properties had assessments against them before forfeiture which were cancelled at the time of forefeiture; and WHEREAS, when the City releases these parcels for private sale, it certifies these assessments from before forfeiture to Hennepin County because the City receives 80% of the value of the property (selling price) to apply to the old assessments; and WHEREAS, the assessments since forfeiture are added to the appraised value so the City receives all the funds for those assessments; and WHEREAS, some of the assessments from before forfeiture are higher than the property is valued at and thus does not make the property very attractive to adjoining property owners unless we make a committment to them that we will not reassess the remaining balance of the assessments after they purchase the property; and. WHEREAS, the goal is to get the property back on the tax role and help a number of people make their property conforming. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby adopt the following policy which will apply only to undersized tax forfeit lots which are sold thru Hennepin County and combined with adjoining property: On undersized tax forfeit lots which had assessments before forfeiture, the City will certify these assessments to Hennepin County when the lots are released for private sale to adjoining property owners. This will be done only so that the City will receive 80% of the value of the lot to be applied against these before forfeiture assessments. After certain undersized tax forfeit lots are sold and combined with adjoining property, the owner may petition the City Council to pass a resolution stating that the balance of the assessments from before forfeiture will not be recertified to 133 June 12, 1984 Hennepin County for collection. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Charon and seconded by Councilmember ?aulsen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Charon, Jessen, Faulsen and ?olston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Coun¢ilmember Peterson was absent and excused. ~ayor Attest: City Clerk 5ol B - FIRE & RESCUE CALL HOURS 1998 1997 1996 MINNETONKA BEACH 695 * MINNETRISTA 1945 * ORONO 2237 * SHOREWOOD 171 * SPRING PARK 1962 * MOUND 7595 * 4.76% 562 3.69% 660 4.04% 13.32% 2058 13.50% 2020 12.36% 15.32% 2017 13.23% 2224 13.60% 1.17% 219 1.44% 106 0.65% 13.43% 1661 10.90% 2036 12.45% 52.00% 8724 57.24% 9303 56.90% 15241 100.00% 16349 100.00% 14605 * 100.00% * The total Mutual Aid hours in 1998 was 390 (down 47 from 1997). Each city was allocated 65 hours for Mutual Aid calls. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999 Brown suggested the Council go ahead and approve the motion as presented on the condition that Staff speaks to the two people involved and if they have no legitimate objections to moving the two docks, it will be resolved. The City Manager suggested giving these people some time to respond to Staff since the letters just went out in their dock packets. The Mayor stated she would like to see the neighborhood notified before a decision is made. The Council discussed moving ahead with the proposed motion. Having Staff notify the affected people and if the neighborhood comes up with a different solution, it can be changed. Councilmember Weycker did not agree. A vote on the motion was 4 in favor with Weycker voting nay. Motion carried. TO: FROM: RE: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR JANUARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT Investment Activity Bought: Money Market 4M Plus 3,813 Money Market US Bank 476 Money Market Salomon Smith Barney 638 CP Salomon Smith Barney 4.994% 316,364 CP Salomon Smith Barney 4.905% 583,513 Matured: Money Market US Bank (131,292) Money Market Salomon Smith Barney (513) CP Salomon Smith Barney 5.344% (575,168) CP Salomon Smith Bamey 5.457% (314,508) CP Salomon Smith Barney 5.578% Closing of the Year 1998 January was, as usual, a very busy month for the Finance Department. The new year cycle and the closing of the past year cycle are falling in place. The year 2000 upgrades have been installed. With the issuance of the W-2 and the 1099 forms, numerous reports were submitted to Federal and State departments. Other reports were submitted to the independent auditor, the insurance agent, and Hennepin county. Recycling Joyce has submitted to Hennepin County the 1998 Municipal Recycling Final Report. The total expenditures for the program were $110,685 and the revenues from miscellaneous recyclable fees were $12,669. The county entitlement for the year was $31,172. The City collected $68,410 in household charges. As an example of participation, for the month of October, out of 13,384 households 6,218 had their recyclable set out. That is a 47% participation. The total of materials collected for the year was 1,163 tons. Countywide Meeting on Year 2000 Issues On January 28 I attended a meeting at the Hennepin County Public Works Facility dealing with the year 2000 issues. The meeting was well attended. We had presentations on the Year 2000 Readiness from the County Departments, US West, GTE, NSP, Minnegasco, the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and the League of Minnesota Cities. They were all confident that their respective organizations are or will be year 2000 compliant by the end of the year. All cities ~represented are worklng to deal with the issue. City of Mound Monthly Report Utilities Month of: January 1999 Residential Commercial No. of Customers: Water Sewer Water Used: (in 1,000 gallons) Billing: Water Sewer Recycle Payments: Water Sewer Recycle 02/03/1999 Utility-99 Total 1,103 126 1,229 1,112 126 1,238 20,394 2,976 Total 23,370 $33,291 $6,326 $39,617 $73,299 $17,391 $90,690 $6.838 $142 $6.980 $113.428 $23.859 $137.287 $23,689 $4,546 $28,235 $42,449 $12,478 $54,927 $4.513 $116 $4.629 $70.651 $17.140 $87.791 Total 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 January, 1999 I. STATISTICS The police department responded to 581 calls for service during the month of January. There were 9 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included 1 aggravated assault, 6 larcenies, and 2 vehicle theft. There were 21 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 4 child abuse/neglect, 3 damage to property, 2 narcotics violations, 5 liquor law violations,3 DUI's, 1 domestic assault, 1 harassment, and 2 other offenses. The patrol division issued 48 adult and 6 juvenile citations. Parking violations accounted for an additional 28 tickets. Warnings were issued to 54 individuals for a variety of violations. There was 1 adult arrested for felonies. juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. misdemeanor warrant arrests. There were 14 adults and 3 There were 3 additional The department assisted in 11 vehicle accidents, 2 with injuries. There were 28 medical emergencies and 16 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 14 occasions in January and requested assistance 5 times. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - January, 1999 INVESTIGATIONS The investigators worked on 1 criminal sexual conduct case and 5 child protection issues accounting for 48 hours in January. Other cases included assault, robbery, damage to property, forgery, theft, trespassing, and harassment. Formal complaints were issued for disorderly conduct, deprivation of parental rights, and assault. Personnel/Staffing The department used approximately 32 hours of overtime during the month of January. Officers used 34 hours of comp-time, 77 hours of vacation, 22 hours of sick time, and 28 holidays. Officers earned 37 hours of comp time and 70 hours at double time. There were 5 standby hours used. Officer Allen Ringate resigned to take a similar position with the Minnetonka Police Department; returning to his home community. Officer Swensen continued to attend the Wilson Supervisory Leadership course. Chief Harrell attended a course on Internal Complaint procedures. V. COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICERS Replacement has not been hired as of yet. VI. RESERVES The reserves donated 126 hours of community service in the month of January. The unit currently has eight members. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT JANUARY 1999 OFFENSES ~m-M~ED EXCEPT- CLEA~ED BY AP~E STED REPORTED UNFOUNDED CLEARED ARREST ADULT JUV PART I CRIMES Homicide 0 0 0 0 0 Criminal Sexual Conduct 0 0 0 0 0 Robbery 0 0 0 0 0 Aggravated Assault 1 0 0 0 0 Burglary 0 0 0 0 0 Larceny 6 0 0 1 1 Vehicle Theft 2 0 0 0 0 Arson 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL PART II CRIMES 9 0 0 I I Child Abuse/Neglect 4 0 0 0 0 Forgery/NSF Checks 0 0 0 0 0 Criminal Damage to Property 3 0 0 1 2 Weapons 0 0 0 0 0 Narcotic Laws 2 0 0 2 2 Liquor Laws 5 0 0 5 6 DWI 3 0 0 3 3 Simple Assault 0 0 0 0 0 Domestic Assault 1 0 1 0 0 Domestic (No Assault) 0 0 0 0 0 Harassment 1 0 1 0 0 Juvenile Status Offenses 0 0 0 0 0 Public Peace 1 0 0 0 0 Trespassing 0 0 0 0 0 All Other Offenses 1 0 0 1 1 TOTAL 21 0 2 12 14 3 PART II & PART IV Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Medicals Animal Complaints Mutual Aid Other General Investigations TOTAL 11 2 0 28 16 14 472 543 HCCP Inspections TOTAL 581 13 15 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT JANUARY 1999 GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY Hazardous Citations Non-Hazardous Citations Hazardous Warnings Non-Hazardous Warnings Verbal Warnings Parking Citations DWI Over .10 Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Adult Felony Arrests Adult Misdemeanor Arrests Juvenile Felony Arrests Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests Part I Offenses Part II Offenses Medicals Animal Complaints Ordinance Violations Other Public Contacts THIS YEAR TO LAST YEAR MONTH DATE TO DATE 16 16 33 31 31 61 5 5 14 41 41 53 78 78 51 28 28 39 3 3 2 2 2 1 11 11 12 2 2 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 17 17 24 0 0 1 3 3 5 9 9 14 21 21 41 28 28 31 16 16 35 4 '4 12 472 472 920 TOTAL 788 788 1,352 Assists 37 37 60 Follow-Ups 20 20 82 HCCP 4 4 4 Mutual Aid Given 14 14 18 Mutal Aid Requested 5 5 5 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT JANUARY 1999 CITATIONS DWI More Than .10% BAC Careless/Reckless Driving Driving After Susp. or Rev. Open Bottle Speeding No DL or Expired DL Restriction on DL Improper, Expired or No Plates Stop Arm Violations Stop Sign Violations Failure to Yield Equipment Violations H&R Leaving the Scene No Insurance Illegal or Unsafe Turn Over the Centerline Parking Violations Crosswalk Dog Ordinances Code Enforcement Seat Belt Overweight Vehicles Miscellaneous Tags TOTAL AD~T 3 2 0 3 0 8 1 0 10 0 1 2 5 0 5 0 0 28 0 1 0 0 0 7 76 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT JANUARY 1999 W~RNINGS Insurance Traffic Equipment Crosswalk Animals Trash/Derelict Autos Seat Belt Trespassing Window Tint Miscellaneous TOTAL WARRANT ARRRSTS Felony Misdemeanor 16 9 17 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 48 0 3 Juveniles 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Run: 29-Jan-99 10:36 PRO03 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMEA~ Primary ISN's only: Date Reported range: Activity codes: Property Status: Property Types: Property Descs: Brands: Models: Officers/Badges: No 01/01/99 - 01/25/99 All All All All Ail All All Enfors Property Report STOLEN/P~COVERED BY DATE REPORTED Prop Prop Inc no ISN Pr TR DeSc SN Prop Date Rptd Stolen Date Recov'd Quantity Act Stat Stolen Value Recov'd Value Code Brand Model Pape 1 I Off-1 Off-2 Assnd Assnd A Prop type Totals: E Prop type Totals: I Prop type Totals: O Prop type Totals: S Prop type Totals: Y Prop type Totals: **** Report Totals: 14,000 14,000 1.000 14 0 1.000 12,000 0 2.000 230 0 2.000 120 0 1.000 0 0 2.000 26,364 14,000 9.000 Run: 29-Jan-99 11:20 CFS08 Primary XSN's only: No Date Reported range: 01/01/99 - 01/25/99 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: Ail MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS 9000 SPEEDING 8 9002 NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L 1 9003 J-NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L 2 9014 STOP SIGN 1 9016 FAILURE TO YIELD 2 9018 EQUIPMENT VIOLATION 5 9021 J-CARELESS/RECKLESS 1 9022 EXHIBITION DRIVING 2 9100 PARKING/ALL OTHER 2 9140 NO PARKING/WINTER HOURS 26 9200 DAS/DAR/DAC 3 9210 PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED 10 9220 NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF 5 9221 J-NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF 1 9240 CHANGE OF DOMICILE 3 9252 WARNING TAGS 1 9300 LOST ARTICLES/OTHER 1 9301 LOST PERSONS 1 9312 FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS 1 9313 FOUND PROPERTY 2 9314 FOUND VEHICLES/IMPOUNDED 2 9430 PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS 2 Page Run: 29-Jan-99 11:20 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 01/01/99 - 00:00 - 23:59 All All All All All All All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS 11 H/R PROPERTY DAMAGE ACC. 3 DOG BITE 2 ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS 1 DANGEROUS DOG 1 MEDICAL/DOA 1 MEDICALS 26 MEDICALS/CI 1 FIRES 1 ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED 5 PUBLIC ASSIST 2 ALL HCCP CASES 4 OPEN DOOR/ALARMS 5 HA/~DGUN APPLICATION 5 OFP VIO. CRIME CON"~ROL & LAW ENF ACT OF '94 1 SUSPICIOUS PERSON 1 INFO/INT 1 WARRANTS 3 MUTUAL AID/8100 7 MUTUAL AID/6500 2 MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER 5 ASLT 2-FEAR W NO INJURY FIP~ A/)U STRANGER i 9450 9451 9561 9566 9567 9720 3O 732 9750 9800 9802 9900 9904 9930 9932 9945 9950 9980 9992 )3 9994 A2423 Page Run: 29-Jan-99 11:20 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: NO Date Reported range: 01/01/99 - 01/25/99 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: Ail Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS AL351 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-AD-FAM 1 AL354 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-CH-FAM 3 DA540 DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UNK 1 DC500 DRUGS-DRUG PARAPH-POSSESS-UNK-UNK 1 I3060 CRIM AGNST FAR-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD 1 J2501 TRAFF-GM-DUI LIQUOR-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 1 J2E01 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV 1 J3501 TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE 1 J3E01 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV 1 J3T01 TRAF-ACC-MS-UND AGE DRINK DRIVE-UNK-MOTOR VEH 1 J6501 ENq{ANCED/DWI W/IN 10 YRS OF FIRST 2 PRI/ALCOHO 1 J6R01 EN]~ GMD DWI - REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO TEST - MV 1 M4140 LIQUOR-UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION 18-21 1 N3070 DIS773RB PEACE-MS-PUBLIC NUISA/4CE 1 N3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING CO~JNIC2%TIONS 1 N3370 VIOLATION OF ORDER FOR PROTECTION 1 P2110 PROP DAMAGE-GM-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 1 P3110 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 2 TF159 THEFT-201-500-GM-MOTOR VEH-OT}{ PROP 1 TG009 "/7{EFT-LESS 200-MS-U~q(NOWN-OTH PROP 1 TG059 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-YARDS-OTHR PROP 2 TG159 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-OTHER i Page Run: 29-Jan-99 11:20 CFS08 MOUND POLICE DEPA~THENT Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 01/01/99 - 01/25/99 range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: Ail ~ctivity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS U3288 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS i VA021 THEFT-FE-AUTO-MORE THAN 2500 I VA024 VEH-MORE THAN 2500-FE-THEFT-SNOW I Page 4 I **** Report Totals: 200 Run: 29- Jan- 99 10.'23 OFF01 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 01/01/99 - 01/25/99 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: All Activity codes: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All ACT ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION A2423 ASLT 2-SUBSTANTIAJ~ INJURY-POS FIRF2%RM-UNBR~ AL351 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-AD-FAM AL354 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-CH-FAM DA540 DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UNK DC500 DRUGS-DRUG PARAPH - POSSESS- UNK- UNK I3060 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD J2501 TRAFF-GM-DUI LIQUOR-UNK INJ-UNK VEH J2E01 TRAF-ACC-OM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV 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 %;EH J6501 ENHANCED/DWI W/IN 10 YRS OF FIRST 2 PRI/ALCOHO J6R01 ENH GMD DWI - REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO TEST - MV M4140 LIQUOR-UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION 18-21 N3070 DISTURB PEACE-MS-PUBLIC NUISANCE N3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-PJkRRASSING COMMUNICATIONS N3370 VIOLATION OF ORDER FOR PROTECTION P2110 PROP DAMAGE-GM-PRIVATE-UNK INStaNT P3110 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT TF159 THEFT-201-500-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP TG009 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-UNKNOWN-OTH PROP TG059 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-YARDS-OTHR PROP TG159 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-OTHER MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page 1 ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... OFFENSES UN- AC~I~3AL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED 0 i i 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100 . 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 i 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 0 i 0 I 0 0 I 100.0 0 i i 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 0 i 0 0 1 100.0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 lC 0 I 0 i 0 0 1 100.0 0 I 0 I 0 0 1 100.0 0 1 0 0 i 0 i 100.0 0 1 0 1 0 0 I 100.0 0 i 0 i 0 0 I 100.0 0 i 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 0 i i 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0 0 i 0 i 0 0 i 100 · 0 0 I i 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 2 1 i 0 0 I 50.0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 i 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 0.0 Run: 29-Jan-99 10:23 OFF01 Primary ISN's only: Date Reported range: Time range each day: Dispositions: iActivity codes: Officers/Badges: Grids: NO 01/01/99 - 0Z/25/99 00:00 - 23:S9 All All All All MOUN~ POLIC~ DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page ..... OFFENSES CLEAR-ED ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED U3288 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS 1 0 i 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 VA021 THEFT-FE-AUTO-MORE THAN 2500 1 0 i 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 VA024 VEH-MORE THAN 2500-FE-THEFT-SNOW 1 0 I 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 Report Totals: 30 0 30 15 11 2 2 15 50.0 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 February 4, 1999 January Monthly Report The beginning of the new year found plenty of work and expenses. The first day we had a main break on Bradford Rd. and a gatevalve that broke on Bradford and Monmouth that cause us to shut down all of Island Park. This took 17 hfs to repair. Day two brought snow that was plowed and one more main break. Day three, more plowing and sanding. Day four the motor at liftstation B3 (westedge and sinclair) exploded. This was a total loss. Cost of repair is $10,700. This will be covered under our insurance. Day six, more plowing and sanding. Day seven, main break. /he next four days allowed us time to reload. The next four days we plowed each day and had one main break. On Martin Luther King Day we ~lowed snow for six hours. On the 20th we had a main break at Commerce and Grandview. We had to replace 13' of 10" watermain. While we were waiting for these parts we repair another main break in the 2100 block of Grandview. lhe upcoming weekend brought two main breaks Bartlett Blvd. On the 26th we received freezing rain and had to sand. During this time we had to have our salt that we mix with sand delivered for us. ~ pr~nted on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: February 1, 1999 City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~. JANUARY 1999 MONTHLY REPORT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY There were 7 building permits issued in December for a construction value of $ 85,126. we issued 31 plumbing, mechanical, and miscellaneous permits for a total of :58 permits this month, and 38 permits year-to-date. Total valuation now stands at $ 85,126. PLANNING & ZONING The Planning Commission reviewed One (1) case and sent One (1) Conditional Use Permit one year review to the City Council. kl printed on recycled paper MONTH: RESIDENTIAL NEW CONSTRUCTION SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (CONDOS) TWO FAMILY / DUPLEX MULTIPLE FAMILY (3 OR MORE UNITS) TRANSIENT HSG. (HOTELS / MOTELS) SUBTOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL NEW CONSTRUCTION COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC ! SCHOOLS SUBTOTAL ESlDENTIAL DDITIONS I ALTERATIONS ADDITIONS TO PRINCIPAL BUILDING DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS DECKS SWIMMING POOLS REMODEL - MISC. RESIDENTIAL REMODEL - MULTIPLE DWELLINGS SUBTOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) OFFICE ! PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC / SCHOOLS DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS SUBTOTAL IDEMOLITIONS RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS NON-RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS TOTAL DEMOLITIONS TOTAL IPERMIT COUNT * BUILDING FENCES & RETAINING WALLS SIGNS PLUMBING MECHANICAL GRADING S & W, STREET EXCAV., FIRE, ETC. ITOTAL CITY Of MOUND BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT JAN UARY YEAR: THIS MONTH II#PERMITSll #UNITS II VALUATION 1999 YEAR TO DATE #UNITS II VALUATION 0 0 VALUATION I~ PERMITS I VALUATIONj 0 35,000 1 35,000 10,600 4 10,600 500 1 500 46,100 6 46,100 3~,026 1 3~,026 1 JJ~ PERMITS I 39,026 1 39,026 IVALUATION IF PERMITS I VALUATION I # PERMITS # UNITS 7 0 THIS MONTH IYEARDATEI 'TO'I 7 7 0 0 0 0 19 19 12 12 0 0 0 0 38 I 38 I 0 # UNITS VALUATION # PERMITS VALUATION 0 85,126 7 85,126 u. 0 Z 0 uJ 0 u. 0 Q. I,U LU Z ._1 0 ~ ~0 ~ ~ O~ 0 ~z UJ MONTH JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN YR 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 · 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 GENERAL PERMIT REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY 1999 DAY PERMIT# ADDRESS CONTRACTOR 4166 4167 4168 4169 4170 4171 4172 4173 4174 4175 4176 4177 4178 4179 4180 4181 4182 4183 4184 4185 4186 4187 4188 4189 4190 4191 4192 4193 4194 4195 4196 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 8 8 8 8 13 13 13 13 13 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 VOID 21 25 25 26 26 28 29 PERMIT TYPE 6709 1/2 1768 4709 2324 3016 4980 1670 2888 3065 4837 4574 5O79 3167 2610 3015 5251 2300-2304 2858 5858 4945 3048 2110 4321 VOID 4966 4932 3000 2964 2146 6000 2200 HALSTEAD AVE LAFAYETTE LN GORDON RD WILSHIRE BL VD HIGHVIEW LN NORTHERN RD MAPLE MANORS CT PELICAN POINT CIR BRIGHTON BLVD BRUNSWICK RD DENBIGH D BARTLETT BLVD DRURY LN GRANGER LN DRURY LN BARTLETT BLVD COMMERCE BLVD PELICAN POINT CIR GLENWOOD RD ISLAND VIEW DR PELICAN POINT CIR NOBLE LN WlLSHIRE BLVD VOID BRUNSWICK RD NORTHERN RD HIGHLAND BLVD PELICAN POINT CIR FOREST LN HILLCREST RD COMMERCE BL VD LARRY OLSON PLUMBING PLUMB NORBLOM PLUMBING PLUMB NORBLOM PLUMBING PLUMB WENCL SERVICES MECH DEL MAR FURNACE EXCH MECH DEPENDABLE INDOOR AIR MECH GENERAL P & H PLUMB SURGE WATER PLUMB WESTONKA MECHANICAL PLUMB CULLIGAN WATER COND PLUMB COUNTRYSIDE HTG & CLG MECH HELLAND HEATING MECH K & K HEATING & PLUMBING P & M CUSTOM PLUMBING PLUMB SUPERIOR CONTRACTORS MECH SUPERIOR PLUMB & HEAT PLUMB LEGEND HTG & CLG MECH STEINKRAUS PLUMBING PLUMB CUSTOM PLUMBING PLUMB CUSTOM PLUMBING PLUMB STEINKRAUS PLUMBING PLUMB RON'S MECHANICAL MECH DAVID HOLM PLUMB VOID VOID HEATING & COOLING TVVO MECH CULLIGAN WATER COND PLUMB CULLIGAN WATER COND PLUMB SURGE WATER PLUMB PRACTICAL SYSTEMS MECH STEVE KING PLUMB OWENS SERVICES GROUP MECH 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: February 2, 1999 Re: January 1999, Monthly Report The new year certainly got offto a nice start. Gross sales for January amounted to $128,414.00. Customers totaled 8,490. In January of 1998 gross sales were, $121,006 and the customer count was 8,411. This accomplishment is even more noteworthy when you take into consideration that we had one less Friday in January of 1999 than we had in January of 1998. This year we were closed on Friday, January 1, 1999. Last year New Years day fell on a Thursday, thus enabling us to be open on Friday. A significant factor contributing to our success was the run of the Minnesota Vikings in the Playoffs. During the week our sales were normal but come Saturdays, sales were phenomenal. I've never seen anything quite like it, except maybe in 1987 and 1991 when the Twins went to the World Series. But alas, our home team struck out, so to speak, and never made it to the big dance. I cannot imagine what it would have been like around here had they made it to the Super Bowl. I honestly think it would have been our biggest day the Saturday before the game. Oh well, like everyone else is thinking and saying, "wait til next year." printed on recycled paper · RECEIVED LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 18338 Minnetonka Blvd. Deephaven, MN 55391 745-0789 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S NEWSLETTER Gregory $. Nybeck January 27, 1999 Office Relocation: The LMCD office was relocated to 18338 Minnetonka Blvd, Deephaven, MN 55391 on 9/25/98. Our new telephone and fax numbers are 745-0789 and 745-9085 respectively. An Open House was held on 11/19/98 for District member communities and the ~ub~c to b~ome .~quminted .wJ.'.th the new location. Thor who could not attend the .Open House are encouraged to visit the new office when in the vicinity. E,,otics Management: The LMCD Board awarded at its 8/12/98 meeting a contract with Minnesota Bearing Co./Air Hydraulics Systems, Inc. and Cummins Diesel Service to conduct a major overhaul of the four District harvesters. The current fleet is ten years old and has not had overhaul work conducted on it. At the 1/13/99 Board meeting, EWM Project Manager Gene Strommen reported the vast majority of the work to be completed on the refurbishing of the equipment was completed in the fall. Some of the work completed included evaluation of the diesel engines, rebuilding of the hydraulic systems including the power systems and thrusters, inspection and replacement of all hosing (when needed), and the rebuilding or replacing of the front-end rollers or cutters. To date, $60,983.70 has been spent on this project, with an additional $4,000 estimated in the spring to complete it. This work is being funded with Equipment Depreciation funds. The Board has expressed continued concern regarding the introduction of zebra mussels into Lake Minnetonka. The Board at its 1/13/99 meeting adopted an amendment to Code relating to this. With the adoption of LMCD Ordinance 160, no person may introduce into or operate on the lake any vehicle, watercraft, trailer, or other object which has had affixed or attached zebra mussels until they have been cleaned of all visible or discoverable mussels, in addition, the public would also need to either secure an opinion from the MN DNR, or the District, that there are no viable zebra mussels, or allow for a 15-day drying period, prior to launching into the lake. This Board is currently considering complementing this effort with a proactive Work Plan for 1999 on educating the public on zebra mussels. "Save the Lake" Recooaition Banquet: The 32'~ anniversary "Save the Lake" Recognition Banquet is scheduled for Thursday, February 11, 1999 at Lord Fletchers of the Lake. The program includes a featured presentation by Lake Minnetonka Historians Darrel and Lavem Leipold, recognition of the Special Deputy Award recipient, and 1999 LMCD Program Priorities. For those interested in attending, reservations need to be received in the District office by 2/4/99. On-going, Licenses: District staff has recently inspected all licensed deicing installations on the lake. Results of these inspections, with related correspondence, have been forwarded to EXECUTIVE DH~ECTOR'S NEWSI~TTER, 1/27/99, PAGE 2 tho licensees and tho affected municipality. District slaff is currently processing all new and renewal without change applications for licensed multiple do6k facilities on the lake. N~~v and renewal applications for charter boats and associ~ liquor, wine, and beer licenses have been sent out and are due in the District office in the near future. Related correspondence to these on-going licenses will be forwarded to the member cities at our earliest convenience. Bil Hawks Boathouse: The civil lawsuit filed by Mr. Hawks against the LMCD challenging LMCD Code Section 2.12, Subd. 2 was dismis~'cl in Hennepin County District court on 5/26/98. Also, the Court ruled favorably for the countersuit filed by the LMCD seeking an injunction requiring the storage boat to be removed from Lake Minnetonka. Mr. Hawks was d/rected to either remove the storage boat from IAke Minnetonka or to convert it into a houseboat. Mr. Hawks has appealed the 5/26/98 Hennepin County District court ruling and the case was heard by the Court of Appeals on 12/16t98. The Court of Appeals has 90 days to decide on the matter.· Further details will be provided when available. · WebP~ge: The LMCD WebPage address is: http:llwww.wintemet, com/-lmcd/ CITY OF MOUND DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 1999 Present were: Chair Mark Goldberg, Commissioners Frank Ahrens, Orvin Burma, Jim Funk, and Greg Eurich, and Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present were Park Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey and Secretary Kristine Kitzman. Chair Goldberg called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. MINUTES Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Burma, to approve the minutes of the December 17, 1998 DCAC meeting as presented. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES Discussion on non-conforming structures and encroachment will be added as agenda item #8A. Agenda approved as amended. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 1999 Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Burma, to elect Jim Funk as Chair, and Mark Goldberg as Vice Chair. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSS: DOCK LOCATIONS THAT REQUIRE LMCD SETBACKS Fackler reported on all dock locations that require setbacks. Some already conform, but most do not. There are 67 total locations. Fackler stated that in May and June, Staff can check each location for more specific information. Hanus stated a desire to find out if a case can be made to the LMCD that even though some docks are licensed as commercial, the use is private. He asked if some of those docks could be included in some sort of variance. Specifically, if there is a non-conforming grandfather clause. More information is needed on this request. REVIEW: DOCK LOCATION SURVEY Ahrens reported on two survey drafts that were distributed, and highlighted some areas for discussion. Discussion on the issue of a person having a second boat at a dock followed. All agreed that space is the largest factor in this since some docks would not have enough room for any additional boats. Eurich pointed out that if there is space for a second boat, the Dock Program may be better served to make that space available to another participant. Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission January 21, 1999 Burma questioned the legalities in the area of timing for putting docks in and removing them. He wondered if participants could put their own docks in if they're not satisfied with the City's dates. Fackler answered that the legalities would be a problem, as well as the quality of work. He noted that having professionals do this work is safer and more timely. In removing the docks, the professionals need time to do this in a safe manner. This is the only area that anyone thought there are some dissatisfied participants, as they feel the docks are removed too early. The question regarding rules on the docks was discussed. Fackler will obtain a copy of rules from Wayzata to provide a starting point for Mound. Goldberg would like the survey to go to private property owners who abut the Commons with multiple slip docks. Ahrens asked for any suggestions or additions regarding the benefits of the multiple dock program. After some discussion, language and format changes were suggested, and taken note of by Ahrens, who has the information on PC at his home. Ahrens will make the changes, a copy of both of the surveys will be attached to the minutes, and any changes can be brought up at the next meeting. DISCUSS: ADDITIONAL MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK LOCATIONS Responses to the survey that was taken in 1993 were studied as far as satisfaction of people on individual docks. Fackler reported on locations that'were pinpointed where setback problems exist and a multiple dock could ease the situation. The Kenmore location had many dissatisfied dock owners, and there is a large number of individual docks. This may be an area to concentrate on at first. To be able to work out details in the time allotted and stay withing budget, Hanus suggested a maximum of two locations at a time. All agreed that timing is a main concern, as indications are very strong that the LMCD will be much more active in enforcing setback and encroachment rules soon. Funk wondered when a decision is needed on which sites to continue with this season. Ahrens asked if there were any sites that could add slips, to expand the dock program. Fackler stated that the exact setbacks would have to be individually checked for each location. Hanus indicated that one problem seems to be that strangers are using private docks. A multiple slip dock may look public so a fence or gate may need to be installed to create some security. 2 Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission January 21, 1999 The Carlson site and Kenmore site were deemed the best choices for places to start. Fackler will proceed to gather more specific information on these sites. The Highland End site was then added as an alternate site. It was agreed that configuration of multiple docks will need to be examined for each site. Kenmore, for example, has no site for a large multiple dock without being in front of someone's house. In this case, small docks set to straddle lot lines to hold two boats each, may be a better option. This and other options will need to be considered and discussed. REVIEW: 1999 AGENDA CALENDAR Motion made by Goldberg, seconded by Ahrens, to approve the 1999 Agenda Calendar as presented. Motion carried unanimously. REVIEW: WORK RULES Hanus stated that he had found some changes he would like to make and would feel comfortable reviewing the entire work rules for any more changes. Motion made by Burma, seconded by Goldberg, to table the Review of the Work Rules and bring this agenda item back in February. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSS: NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND ENCROACHMENT INFORMATION Building Official Jon Sullivan is requested to be in attendance at the next meeting to discuss issuance of encroachment permits, and the Commissioners can discuss the intent and purpose of this program. DISCUSS:FEBRUARY DCAC AGENDA Add: Add: Add: Review Work Rules Review dock configuration on Carlson, Kenmore and Highland End Encroachment Permit discussion FYI A) B) c) D) E) F) G) H) J) LMCD INFORMATION POSC MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES MINUTES-SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC LANDS ALTERATION 4679 VVILSHIRE LETTER ON STORAGE ON PUBLIC LANDS MINNEH^HA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT INFORMATION DOCK PLACEMENT ALONG DEVON COMMONS MONTHLY EVENTS CALENDAR Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission January 21, 1999 REPORTS A) B) C) CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE Hanus asked about the situation concerning Mr. Rod Plaza. Fackler reported that he had not heard if Mr. Plaza has contacted the City regarding an insurance claim, but he will check. PARK DIRECTOR Fackler pointed out the letter in the FYI section regarding the Storage on Public Lands and asked that the Commissioners take note of this letter in particular. DOCK INSPECTOR No report at this time. Before calling for a motion to adjourn, ChairAhrens thanked Commissioner Mark Goldberg for his last two years of service as Chair. ADJOURN Motion was made by Ahrens, seconded by Goldberg, to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 4 RECEIVEO" 2 i§§§ To: City of Minnetrista County of Hennepin State of Minnesota From: Pat and Lila Driscoll 6565 Bartlett Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 Subject: South Saunders Development Elected official: This is a letter to voice our opinion on how many units are being allowed in the South Saunders Development. The size and number of lots in this development are concerning to us. Many of the lots are at or just above 15000 square feet. These seem very small and are allowing the developer to put way too many units in this development. This brings me to the next concern. Hennipen County made the developer add another exit/entrance in and out of the project. Many of the existing homes on the other side of the street (Mound residents) have driveways close to each other. If the developer needs two exits then they should be put between two driveways with the greatest distances between them. With two South Saunder's exits there will be more congestion problems on ll0/Bartlett Blvd. Ninety percent or more of the new traffic will be coming and going east from the new exit(s). This is another reason to reduce the number of units on the South Saunders Development. I suggest you check with Hennepin County for the acceptable number of units for one exit from the project. Then you could grant this amount of units to keep ll0/Bartlett as safe as possible. What will you do with the future developments that will add even more pressure on the traffic in this area (110 and 44). This seems like a good opportunity to reduce the numbers before it gets even more out of control. I do not see any reason why the city of Minnetrista is allowing the developer to put units on the property that can not be handled by one exit/entrance. Sincerely yours Pat Driscoll, Lila Driscoll Mound Residents cc. City of Mound (H) 4724293 (w) 567-4457 Dear Mr. Shuk]e: My name is 3ohn L. Eccles and a resident of Mound for over 40 years. I would like to submit my name to fill the vacancy on the Park and Open Space Commission. Two of the reasons I would like to be involved is to keep up with the decisions and problems concerning the natural resources of our city. I thought about joining the commission years ago and have kept current through the articles in the paper and of course through city scuttlebutt on occasion! Becoming aware ora vacancy I decided to finally write in hope you will consider me for this position. Yours truly, John Eccles TOTAL P. 01 P,,ECEIvEE] LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, February 10, 1999 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock · "Save the Lake" Recognition Banquet, Thursday, February 11. READING OF I~iINUTES - 1i27/99 LMCD Regular Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) PUBLIC HEARING · City of Minnetonka Beach, Consideration of new multiple dock license and variance applications to reconfigure a non-conforming structure and for dock length and width; 1. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE A) Review of draft 1999 Zebra Mussel Work Plan; B) Additional Business; 2. WATER STRUCTURES A) Discussion of current LMCD Boat Density Regulations; B) Additional Business; LAKE USE & RECREATION FINANCIAL A) Audit of vouchers for payment (2/1/99 - 2/15/99) B) December financial summary and balance sheet; C) Additional Business; ADMINISTRATION A) Update on LMCD Office moving expenses; B) Additional Business; 6. SAVE THE LAKE 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. ADJOURNMENT REGEJ'v'E; .... L..; 1999 LAKE MINNETO~ CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:00 PM, Wednesday, January 27, 1999 Tonka Bay City Hall DRAFT CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Foster called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Members present: Bert Foster, Deephaven; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Greg Kitchak, Miv. netonka; Li!i McMA!ia~., Orono; Bob Rascop, Shoreweod; Herb Suerth, Woodl~'~d; Andrea Ahems, Mound. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director; Roger Winberg, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Douglas Babcock, Tonka Bay; Sheldon Weft, Greenwood; Tom Gilman, Excelsior. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Vice-Chair Foster Foster announced the Save the Lake Recognition Banquet is scheduled for February 11, 1999 at Lord Fletchers of the Lake. He added social hour begins at 6:15 p.m. READING OF MINUII, S- 1/13/99 LMCD Regular Board Meeting MOTION: Partyka moved, Dahlen seconded to approve the minutes of the 1/13/99 Regular Board Meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes (8), Abstained (1, Ahems); motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) There were no comments from the public on subjects not on the agenda. 1. SAVE THE LAKE B. Mr. John Batten, Review of 1998 Water Quality of Lake Minnetonka Report. Batten prOvided an overview of the 1998 Water Quality of Lake Minnetonka Report. He made the following comments: · Hennepin Parks has worked on water quality testing on Lake Minnetonka for the past four years. He noted 18 bays are sampled 13 times each year. He added the main factors that are sampled include phosphorous levels, Chlorophyll A levels and secchi disk water clarity. · In general, the water quality on Lake Minnetonka, including phosphorous levels, has remained the same as previous years, with bays on the north and west-ends of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting January 27, 1999 Page 2 He asked lake having poorer water quality. He noted more algae was present on the lake in 1999. Water quality testing is planned for the fifth consecutive year in 1999. He noted after the sampling is complete in 1999, he would be able to run more statistical analysis to evaluate trend analysis of water quality on Lake Minnetonka. the Board if they had questions or feedback on the Report. Ambrose arrived at 7:05 p.m. Foster asked Barren to provide a status update to the Board on the progress of the use of fertilizer without phosphorous in it. Barren responded there has been limited progress in this effort with some cities investigating the banning of the use of fertilizer with phosphorous in it. He noted currently the City of Plymouth has an ordinance that prohibits the commercial application of fertilizer with phosphorous in it unless a soil test verifies a need. He added ?lymouth is currently investigating the idea of expanding the ban of phosphorous fertilizer to private applicators. He stated there is some interest with the Minnesota Lake Association to consider a statewide ban of fertilizer with phosphorous in it. He concluded Cenex Land 0 Lakes is making a concerted effort to produce and market a phosphorous-free fertilizer product that would be available at some of the retail chain stores. Suerth questioned whether the District could assist Barten in a public education and marketing campaign in a small municipality relating to the use of phosphorous-free fertilizer. Batten stated he believed public education alone is not enough. He noted years ago he worked in the City of Waseca where a local club sold phosphorous-free fertilizer and delivered it door to door. He added the local club used it as their annual fundraiser and made a significant amount of money on this effort. He concluded when he left the City of Waseca, about 75 % of the fertilizer used in that community was phosphorous-free. Rascop arrived at 7:15 p.m: McMillan asked Barten for an explanation of the poor water quality in Stubbs Bay. Barren stated some reasons that might contribute to the poor water quality in Stubbs Bay include inflows and the possibility of sewage dumped either into the bay or into wetlands that run into the bay. Ambrose questioned why the water quality on east-end of the lake, including Wayzata Bay, is better than the west-end of the lake. Barren stated the bays on the west and north-ends of the lake essentially serve as sediment basins, or NURP ponds, to settle the phosphorous levels. He noted one of the main reasons for Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting January 27, 1999 Page ~ this sampling program is (o track whether the poor water quality on the west and north-ends of the lake is mOving to the east with water movement. He further reported that he does not know how internal loading cycle occurs and that Hennepin Parks has received a grant application from the EPA for two Remote Underwater Sampling Stations (RUSS) on Lake Minnetonka. He noted Hennepin Parks is working in cooperation with the science museum, the U of M, MN Sea Grant, Apprise Technology, and the MCWD on this project. He concluded the purpose of these two RUSS units would be to determine water quality in a poor bay, Halsteds, and a good bay, Upper Lake and to make this data collected available on "Water on the Web". Foster thanked Barten for his Report and noted the Save the Lake Committee has recommended continued funding for 1999. A. Minutes from the 1/20/99 meeting. C. Review of draft 1999 "Save the Lake" Budget. McMillan stated discussion at the 1/20/99 meeting generally related to the funding of projects in the 1999 Save the Lake budget. She made the following comments regarding the meeting: · There was discussion regarding expanding the Winter Ice-Cleanup project beyond the Wayzata Bay area. She noted there was consensus of the Committee to recommend expanding the project to clean in the Spring Park Bay area in 1999. · There was discussion with Michelle Bratager from MN DNR Inspections regarding the MN Conservation Corps Program and whether they could assist in spraying boats down at the public accesses. · The Committee recommended approval of the Hennepin Parks request for $2,500 to assist in conducting the 1999 Water Quality of Lake Minnetonka Report. · The Committee recommended approval of the Water Patrol requests to increase court testimony reimbursement from $25 to $40, and to fund two decibel meters and three cold-water emersion suits. · New projects to be considered for funding arc still under consideration and will be brought back to the Board for review. MOTION: McMillan moved, Rascop seconded to accept the minutes from the 1/20/99 Save the Lake Advisory Committee as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously MOTION: McMillan moved, Rascop seconded to accept the 1999 Save the Lake Budget as recommended by the Advisory Committee. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. D. Additional Business. There was no additional business. Lake Minnetonkn Conservation District Regular Board Meeting January 27, 1999 Page4 2. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE A. Review of draft 1999 Zebra Mussel Work Plan Suerth stated a draft zebra mussel work plan and position description is included in the packet for review by the Board. He suggested the Board review this material and be prepared to discuss and make comments at the 2/10/99 Board meeting. He noted in the meantime that he would work with staff to identify related costs outlined in the work plan. B. Additional Business There was no additional business. 3. LAKE USE & RECREATION There was no discussion. 4. WATER STRUCTURES There was no discussion. ' A. Audit of vouchers for payment (1/16/99-01/31/99) Nelson reviewed the audit of vouchers for payment as submitted. MOTION: Dahlen moved, Partyka seconded to approve the vouchers for payment as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. December financial summary and balance sheet Nelson stated staff has recommended that the December financial summary and balance sheet be tabled to the February 10, 1999 meeting. MOTION: Foster moved, Ahems seconded to table the December financial summary and balance sheet to the 2/10/99 Board meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Additional Business There was no additional business. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting January 27, 1999 6. ADMINISTRATION Page 5 Kitchak stated he recently viewed an educational tape regarding zebra mussels on the public service channel on Paragon Cable. He suggested staff check into locating this tape. 7. EXECUTIVE DIRF~TOR REPORT Nybeck reported on the following: · A quarterly Executive Director Newsletter, which was forwarded to the member communities, was included in the handout folder. · A Personnel Policy Subcommittee meeting has been scheduled for 8:30 a.m. in the District office on Friday, 2/5/99. · An overview of current LMCD Boat Density Regulations from LeFevere has been circulated for Board review. He noted this would be discussed at the 2/10/99 Board meeting. 8. OLD BUSINESS Foster stated he recently attended the boat show and talked to a dock manufacturer regarding the floating snowmobile bridge concept in the Coffee Cove Channel area. He reported one has currently been done over a creek in the Wabasha area. He noted more details need to be gathered regarding this. Nelson stated he believed the Spring Park City Council recently discussed this issue and had liability questions regarding a floating bridge that goes from ice to ice. He added they believe a land bridge might be possible as an alternative. Nybeck stated it might be appropriate to meet with the mayors of Spring Park and Orono, in addition to Sgt. Schilling, to continue discussion on the various options. 9. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Vice-Chair Foster adjourned the meeting at 8:10 P.M. Bert Foster, Vice-Chair Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 February 5, 1999 MEMORANDUM FROM: JIM FACKLER, PARKS DIRECTOR----~ SUBJECT: ROANOKE ACCESS DOCKS ON DE%:~N COMMON. On January 30, 1999 I met with the dock site holders that had been invited by the City Council during the September 8, 1998 City Council meeting to work to a consensus on the dock locations at the Roanoke access (See attached Sept. 8, 1998 CC minutes). All were in attendance except Todd Stead and Barb Casey. At this meeting the plan that was adopted by the City Council was presented by staff (See attached 1999 Dock Location Plan Approved January 12, 1999 CC). The direction given by the City Council was for this meeting was: "If the affected people come up with another alternative that they can reach agreement on, that would be acceptable." An alternative plan was presented by Greg Knutson that had input of other dock site holders that were present (See attached 1999 Alternate Dock Location Plan). The discussion evolved to the recommendation that both plans needed to have their location staked out on the commons so the site holders may view the actual center of each site and with this done they would provide their input at the City Council meeting on February 8, 1999. The staking of locations was done on February 3, 1999 and staff noted that either plan will not significantly change the current dock locations as long as the site holder is allowed to adjust the access point due to dock configuration, boat size or topography. The only change is printed on recycled paper the one requested by Mark Smith (See attached letter from Mr. Smith and CC minutes Special Meeting, August 18, 1998) which would shift two sites locations and designation as abutting and non-abutting. Both plans meet Mr. Smith's request to remain centered on the light as he states in his letter. A concern that I can see is if it is required that the site holders are required to center their dock within their allotted water space. This has come up in discussions but could place two dock sites to most westerly end of their property as you extend their property lines over the Commons (Greg Knutson & Gene Smith) affecting neighboring docks, place one dock on or near a sand bar (Scott Mack) and one in the middle of a large tree (Barb Casey). I have provided the dock location map that was in existence in 1998 for background information (See attached 1995-1998 Dock Locations). If you have any questions prior to the upcoming City Council meeting on February 8, 1999 I will be happy to assist you. 1999 DOCK LOCATION PLAN APPROVED JANUARY 12, 1999 CITY COUNCIL 41437 Forester 41477 Stead Light Pole, located on Devon Commons, 37' from westerly property line "NOT TO SCALE" 1999ALTERNATEDOCK ~ [ LOCATION PLAN SUBMITTED 1-30-99 41437 FORESTER 40 41477 STEAD Light Pole, located on Devon Commons, 37' from westerly property line "NOT TO SCALE" 1995-1998 DOCK LOCATIONS ~~~ F O ~ E s T E f~ 40' 41437 Forester 41477 Stead Light Pole, located on Devon Commons, 37' from westerly property line "NOT TO SCALE" MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JANUARY 12, 1999 '1.12 APPROVAL OF 1999 DOCK LOCATION MAP. The DCAC held a public hearing in on November 19, 1998, for the 1999 Dock Location Map. Their recommendation iS as follows: 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, g00155, #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. In addition, Hanus brought up an issue that was raised last summer, a request from Mark Smith on Island View Drive. Mr. Smith discovered last year that his dock was not centered in his dock location. He is now asking to have a new number assigned to his dock where it currently is located and has been for many years. The dock is located next to a light pole that has underground wiring. He would like a new number assigned to his current location. Because of that small shift, it would also require the next dock (the Albrecht dock) to the east to be shifted. Albrecht leased the site last year, but never put in a dock. This would allow Smith to be where he has always been. It would also allow him to use the light pole. Hanus stated it wouldn't deprive anyone of anything. It is very flat and accessible along there. Smith currently has two water spaces in front of his house and will continue to have two water spaces. Hanus stated that nothing is really changing and it is a valid and honest request. Smith requested this about 6 or 7 months ago and the City still hasn't taken any action on it. The neighborhood was going to get together before winter and try to come to a consensus. There has not even been a meeting on it. Staff has not resolved the issue. Hanus stated it is time to set the dock location map and he suggested this change be made as well, to clean up the area. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999 Councilmember Hanus suggested the following: Move the Smith site (Dock//41866) to #41842 and then moving the next dock site to the east, which is currently #41824 up to #41790. This would also complete the pattern that's in the neighborhood, where you have the abutter docks, more or less toward the center of their lots and the inland docks that are in there tend to be closer to the lot lines. It spreads them out a little more evenly and it's less intrusion on the people that are there because the neighbors that are coming into the neighborhood are more toward your lot lines rather than down toward the center of your lot. MOTION made by Hanus to approve the 1999 dock location map as recommended by the DCAC; moving the Smith site (Dock #41866) to #41842 and then moving the next dock site to the east, which is currently #41824 up to #41790; and directing Staff to resolve this by the fwst Council Meeting in February,( February 9). If the affected people come up with another alternative that they can reach agreement on, that would be acceptable. Councilmember Weycker stated that the last time this was before the Council, it was decided that that neighborhood would get together and work this out. She stated that notices did go out in their dock packets encouraging them to get together with Staff and work this problem out. Brown seconded the motion. Hanus stated that this was to be taken care of before winter. Last Fall at a DCAC Meeting when it was discussed, he told the Park Director to do it then. He stated it is merely shifting 2 docks over a few feet. Weycker disagreed and encouraged the Council to delay action on shifting these particular docks until the neighborhood is notified of the possible shift and a meeting with them can be arranged. Hanus does not feel the neighborhood will be able to reach an agreement and that is why he is proposing this shift. He stated it will only affect the two docks in front of Mr. Smith's home. The Mayor stated she would rather see Staff work with these people and reach an agreement. Councilmember Ahrens stated that Mr. Smith has two dock locations in front of his house. The Park Director sent letters to 12 people asking them to agree on where the docks should be located in front of Mr. Smith's home. She did not feel this was appropriate. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINgflE$- IAlVTJARY 12, 1999 Brown suggested the Council go ahead and approve the motion as presented on the condition that Staff spe~lc~ to the two people involved and if they have no legitimate objections to moving the two docks, it will be resolved. The City Manager suggested giving these people some time to respond to Staff since the letters just went out in their dock packets. The Mayor stated she would like to see the neighborhood notified before a decision is made. The Council discussed moving ahead with the proposed motion. Having Staff notify the affected people and if the neighborhood comes up with a different solution, it can be changed. Councilmember Weycker did not agree. A vote on the motion was 4 in favor with Weycker voting nay. Motion carried. 21~ P02 J~M 20 '99 10:07 9~9-9072 VERSATIL Anderson/Smith Residence 4665 Island View Drive Hound, Hinnesota 55364 City of Mound City Dock Inspector 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 This note is to inform you of our desire to re-locate the placement of our existing dock site from #41824 to #41866. ! believe this can occur pursuant to Mound Dock Licensing Procedure Manual, Section 437:05, Subd. 7- a. "F/rst Pr/ority, An abutting owner has Erst priority for a city designated location within his or her lot lines extended to the shoreline, Docks shall be located in accordance with the dock location map. x (ORD. 4S-1990 - 12-29-90) ..If you have any questions or concerns please give me a call (612) 472-3703. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. ! look forward to seeing you this summer. Best Wishes, Gina Anderson & Mark Smith MINUTES- SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING-AUGUST 18, 1998 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Polston. Members Present: Mayor Polston; Councilmembers Ahrens, Hanus and Weycker. Absent and Excused: Jensen. Also Present: Qino Businaro, Finance Director; Para Galanter, Frank Madden & Associates; Jim Fackler, Parks Director; and Ed Shukle, City Manager. Ed Shukle, City Manager indicated that the purpose of the special meeting was to move into Executive Session regarding labor relations issues and strategies. Following this discussion, the City Council would then return and adjourn the special meeting and then move into the Committee of the Whole meeting. The Mayor then called the City Council into Executive Session with the City Council, Ms. Galanter Gino Businaro and Ed Shukle present in the Executive Session. The City Council returned to the Council Chambers approximately ½ hour later following the Executive Session and the Mayor indicated that the Council was now back in session reporting that the Executive Session was held to discuss labor relations strategies and issues. Another item was on the special meeting agenda. Councilmember Ahrens asked to address the City Council regarding the City's Dock Location map. Ahrens indicated that City staff'has issued a dock permit to a non-abutting property owner in the Roanoke area. Ab_rens indicated that the subject dock is in front of an abutter's house. She further stated that there are two locations in front of this abutter's house. She stated that it came to the abutter's attention that they had their dock and their boat in both locations. The abutter's have requested to adjust their locations so that they are not "straddling" the line. Circumstances regarding a light and boat lift make it difficult for Mark Smith and Gina Anderson (abutter's), to move their dock location. Ahrens asked if'the non-abutting dock could be shifted down toward Scott and Linda Mack so that Smith/Anderson could utilize the light pole that is in this dock area and not to be straddling the lot line. The Mayor asked if the staff has the authority to adjust the dock sites under city ordinances or if it has to go tl'u'ough City Council. Jim Fackler, Parks Director, responded by saying that these issues go through the City Council under the approval of the Dock Location map. Ahrens moved that the center of the Smith/Anderson location be located where their dock currently is with their light pole and that the center of the non-abutting dock site be placed on the lot line on their easterly lot line. The motion was seconded by Hanus. Further discussion was held on the matter. Ahrens then indicated she would amend her motion that the Mack's continue to have their 40' of water space through this suggested dock location adjustment. Hanus accepted the amendment to the motion. Weycker wanted to be assured that the Mack's do not have to move their dock. Polston wanted to be assured that neither the Mack's or the Smith/Anderson's would have to move their docks. Special Meeting Minutes of August 18, 1998 Page 2 Ahrens added that if the non-abutter does not like this adjustment, that the City is prepared to give the non-abutter a refund. Hanus agreed to this amendment. The motion was now clarified by Ahrens: The center of the Smith/Anderson dock space is moved to where their light pole and dock currently exists; the center of the non-abutting dock is centered on the lot line between the Mack and the Smith/Anderson property provided that neither dock has to be moved; and that the non-abutting dock site holder is given a refund if they do not like the shift in the non-abutting dock site location. The Council then voted unanimously to approve the motion. There was no further business in the special meeting. Upon motion by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. a~est: cityManage Mayor MOUND CITY COUNCJ. MINI.]TES- SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 1.11 RECONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL'S PREVIOUS ACTION RE: RELOCATION OF DOCK SITE//41866. The City Manager explained that at the Special Council Meeting, August 18, 1998, an item was added to the Agenda, relative to a dock site tlmt had l:een applied for by a nonabutting property owner on Devon Common. The Park Director has submitted a memo to the Council outlining the result of trying to implement the Council's action. It was Faclder's understanding that the action was based upon no one having to move their docks and as it turns out, docks would have to be moved. The City Manager stated that it is the Staff's opinion that the action taken at that meeting is no longer in sink with what the system has. Staff is asking for direction from the City Council on whether the Council wants this dock within the system and if so, is it to remain in that location? The Park Director advised the Council that he has contacted Mr. Albrecht and at this time he wants to retain the site that he originally had which is closer to his house..His only suggestion is that due to the constraints on the site during this season, he would like to see the fees from 1998 go toward his 1999 permit. The Park Director explained that Albrecht was originally assigned to Dock Site//41866, which is the site he would like to keep. At the August 18th Special Meeting, there was an attempt to move Mr. Albrecht to Dock Site//41775. Mr. Albrecht does not want to be moved. Because of damage to the Commons from a storm this Spring, Mr. Albrecht has not been able to put in his dock. The Park Director stated that all the docks in this area are somewhat off center and have been put in at different angles. Mr. Albrecht was not present, but has submitted a letter asking that Greg Knutson speak for him at this meeting. The Council asked if Mr. Albrecht wants to put in a dock this year. Mr. Knutson stated that Albrecht has paid for site, including late fees and would like to stay at//41866. The following persons spoke: 1. Mack 2. Anderson/Smith The above persons spoke of the conflict in the neighborhood because of the dock situation. They also do not want to move their docks. The neighbors expressed a desire to work this out in the neighborhood by winter. There was considerable discussion on centering the docks and installing the docks according to the ordinance. The residents asked about the action that was taken at the August 18th Special Meeting. Councilmember Weycker stated the following: 'I want to clarify that the motion made at the August 18, 1998, Special Meeting is null and void. Site 2 technically does not exist now." Councilmembcr Hanus stated, "I don't know that I agree with that." The Council asked if the neighbors need additional time to work out a solution that will make the neighborhood happy. -I MOUND CI'IT COUNCJL MINIITES- SEPTZMBER 8. MOTION made byPolston, seconded by Hanus to do the following: 1. leave the docks where they currently are this year; 2. apply the 1998 fees that have been paid by Albrecht to the 1999 season; and 3. next year the applicants for this area will have to put their docks in on center and according to the ordinance. There was discussion on the neighborhood working this out by consensus. The Mayor withdrew his motion. The Council suggested that the neighborhood work this situation out by consensus. No action was taken. 9~9-907~ UERS~TIL ~1~ PO~ jT~N ~0 '99 10:07 · ~ ~- ~f~ Anderson/Smith Residence 4665 Zsland View Drive Hound, Minnesota 55364 City of Mound Oty Dock Inspector 5341 Heywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 This note is to inform you of our des/re to re-locate the placement of our existing dock site from #41824 to #41866. I believe this can occur pursuant to Hound Dock Licensing Procedure Manual, Section 437:05, Subd. 7- a. "F#~tPr/or#y. /in abutting owner has t~rst priority for a city designated Ioceflon w/thin his or her lot lines ex~ended to the shore#ne, Docks shall be located in accordance with the dock location map." (ORD. 45-i990 - ~2-29.~0) ,,If you have any questions or concerns please give me a call (612) 472-3703, Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. ! look forward to seeing you this summer. Best Wishes, Gina Anderson & Mark Smith 9~9-907~ UERSATIL ~1~ PO1 ~AN 20 '99 ASSOCIATES, INC 18400 W'cst 37th Street Cha~hassen, Minnesota 553 i 7 Phone (6 i2) 94%2400 Fax (6) 2) 949-907?, VIA FACSIMILE 472-0620 Date: 1/20/99 To: City of Mound Attn: Jim Fackler Re: Smith/Anderson dock site Jim, Here is the written request that was submitted twice last year as you requested. I have been informed that Mr. Smith dropped this off, during the day, at the reception desk on 4-14-98. (That was a council night. I suspect that it might have been on the agenda.) Thc second time was in the fall at either a council or dock commission meeting. As I indicated yesterday, he requested it a third time, verbally at a dock commission meeting. This request was included in the minutes. (It was most likely the October meeting.) Even without any prior requests he could make the request today and it would be valid. The ordinances must be honored, even if you don't agree with them. The requests have been made, the council has taken action, and the ordinances are clear. Proceed with your meeting with the affected parties as planned. In the event no solution can be reached the council's wishes are clear. ,lira, please make your life, the neighbors lives, and the council's lives as painless as possible and bring closure to this issue according to the directives of the council as swiftly as possible so we can get this behind us. Thank you. If you have other questions, feel free to call. H-¢72-5480 B-906-3707 Mark Hanu~ cc: Mark Smith MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JANU~Y 12. 1999 · 1.12 APPROVAL OF 1999 DOCK LOCATION MAP. The DCAC held a public hearing in on November 19, 1998, for the 1999 Dock Location Map. Their recommendation is as follows: 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, g00115,//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. In addition, Hanus brought up an issue that was raised last summer, a request from Mark Smith on Island View Drive. Mr. Smith discovered last year that his dock was not centered in his dock location. He is now asking to have a new number assigned to his dock where it currently is located and has been for many years. The dock is located next to a light pole that has underground wiring. He would like a new number assigned to his current location. Because of that small shift, it would also require the next dock (the Albrecht dock) to the east to be shifted. Albrecht leased the site last year, but never put in a dock. This would allow Smith to be where he has always been. It would also allow him to use the light pole. Hanus stated it wouldn't deprive anyone of anything. It is very flat and accessible along there. Smith currently has two water spaces in front of his house and will continue to have two water spaces. Hanus stated that nothing is really changing and it is a valid and honest request. Smith requested this about 6 or 7 months ago and the City still hasn't taken any action on it. The neighborhood was going to get together before winter and try to come to a consensus. There has not even been a meeting on it. Staff has not resolved the issue. Hanus stated it is time to set the dock location map and he suggested this change be made as well, to clean up the area. 6 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY Councilmember Hanus suggested the following: Move the Smith site (Dock//41866) to//41842 and then moving the next dock site to the east, which is currently//41824 up to//41790. This would also complete the pattern that's in the neighborhood, where you have the abutter docks, more or less toward the center of their lots and the inland docks that are in there tend to be closer to the lot lines. It spreads them out a little more evenly and it's less intrusion on the people that are there because the neighbors that are coming into the neighborhood are more toward your lot lines rather than down toward the center of your lot. MOTION made by Hanus to approve the 1999 dock location map as recommended by the DCAC; moving the Smith site (Dock//41866) to #41842 and then moving the next dock site to the east, which is currently//41824 up to//41790; and directing Staff to resolve this by the in'st Council Meeting in February,( February 9). If the affected people come up with another alternative that they can reach agreement on, that would be acceptable. Councilmember Weycker stated that the last time this was before th~ Council, it was decided that that neighborhood would get together and work this out. She stated that notices did go out in their dock packets encouraging them to get together with Staff and work this problem out. Brown seconded the motion. Hanus stated that this was to be taken care of before winter. Last Fall at a DCAC Meeting when it was discussed, he told the Park Director to do it then. He stated it is merely shifting 2 docks over a few feet. Weycker disagreed and encouraged the Council to delay action on shifting these particular docks until the neighborhood is notified of the possible shift and a meeting with them can be arranged. Hanus does not feel the neighborhood will be able to reach an agreement and that is why he is proposing this shift. He stated it will only affect the two docks in front of Mr. Smith's home. The Mayor stated she would rather see Staff work with these people and reach an agreement. Councilmember Ahrens stated that Mr. Smith has two dock locations in front of his house. The Park Director sent letters to 12 people asking them to agree on where the docks should be located in front of Mr. Smith's home. She did not feel this was appropriate. 7 MOUhrD CITY COUN~_.IL MINUTES- JANUARY 12, 1999 Brown suggested the Council go ahead and approve the motion as presented on the condition that Staff speaks to the two people involved and if they have no legitimate objections to moving the two docks, it will be resolved. The City Manager suggested giving these people some time to respond to Staff since the letters just went out in their dock packets. The Mayor stated she would like to see the neighborhood notified before a decision is made. The Council discussed moving ahead with the proposed motion. Having Staff notify the affected people and if the neighborhood comes up with a different solution, it can be changed. Councilmember Weycker did not agree. A vote on the motion was 4 in favor with Weycker voting nay. Motion carried. 8 MOUND CITY COUNCIl_. MINUTES - JANUARY 12. 1999 '1.12 APPROVAL OF 1999 DOCK LOCATION MAP. The DCAC held a public hearing in on November 19, 1998, for the 1999 Dock Location Map. Their recommendation is as follows: 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, g00115,//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. In addition, Hanus brought up an issue that was raised last summer, a request from Mark Smith on Island View Drive. Mr. Smith discovered last year that his dock was not centered in his dock location. He is now asking to have a new number assigned to his dock where it currently is located and has been for many years. The dock is located next to a light pole that has underground wiring. He would like a new number assigned to his current location. Because of that small shift, it would also require the next dock (the Albrecht dock) to the east to be shifted. Albrecht leased the site last year, but never put in a dock. This would allow Smith to be where he has always been. It would also allow him to use the light pole. Hanus stated it wouldn't deprive anyone of anything. It is very flat and accessible along there. Smith currently has two water spaces in front of his house and will continue to have two water spaces. Hanus stated that nothing is really changing and it is a valid and honest request. Smith requested this about 6 or 7 months ago and the City still hasn't taken any action on it. The neighborhood was going to get together before winter and try to come to a consensus. There has not even been a meeting on it. Staff has not resolved the issue. Hanus stated it is time to set the dock location map and he suggested this change be made as well, to clean up the area. 6 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINU~.$- JANUARY 12, Councilmember Hanus suggested the following: Move the Smith site (Dock//41866) to//41842 and then moving the next dock site to the east, which is currently//41824 up to//41790. This would also complete the pattern that's in the neighborhood, where you have the abutter docks, more or less toward the center of their lots and the inland docks that are in there tend to be closer to the lot lines. It spreads them out a little more evenly and it's less intrusion on the people that are there because the neighbors that are coming into the neighborhood are more toward your lot lines rather than down toward the center of your lot. MOTION made by Hanus to approve the 1999 dock location map as recommended by the DCAC; moving the Smith site (Dock//41866) to//41842 and then moving the next dock site to the east, which is currently//41824 up to #41790; and directing Staff to resolve this by the f'wst Council Meeting in February,( February 9). If the affected people come up with another alternative that they can reach agreement on, that would be acceptable. Councilmember Weycker stated that the last time this was before the Council, it was decided that that neighborhood would get together and work this out. She stated that notices did go out in their dock packets encouraging them to get together with Staff and work this problem out. Brown seconded the motion. Hanus stated that this was to be taken care of before winter. Last Fall at a DCAC Meeting when it was discussed, he told the Park Director to do it then. He stated it is merely shifting 2 docks over a few feet. Weycker disagreed and encouraged the Council to delay action on shifting these particular docks until the neighborhood is notified of the possible shift and a meeting with them can be arranged. Hanus does not feel the neighborhood will be able to reach an agreement and that is why he is proposing this shift. He stated it will only affect the two docks in front of Mr. Smith's home. The Mayor stated she would rather see Staff work with these people and reach an agreement. Councilmember Ahrens stated that Mr. Smith has two dock locations in front of his house. The Park Director sent letters to 12 people asking them to agree on where the docks should be located in front of Mr. Smith's home. She did not feel this was appropriate. 7 MOUND CITY COUNCII, MINUTES - JANUARY I~, 1900 Brown suggested the Council go ahead and approve the motion as presented on the condition that Staff speaks to the two people involved and if they have no legitimate objections to moving the two docks, it will be resolved. The City Manager suggested giving these people some time to respond to Staff since the letters just went out in their dock packets. The Mayor stated she would like to see the neighborhood notified before a decision is made. The Council discussed moving ahead with the proposed motion. Having Staff notify the affected people and if the neighborhood comes up with a different solution, it can be changed. Councilmember Weycker did not agree. A vote on the motion was 4 in favor with Weycker voting nay. Motion carried. 8 TO: FROM: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Council, City of Mound City Attorney January 26, 1999 Pending Litigation - Netka Property at 2313 Commerce Boulevard Our File No. BE295-53 This is an update for the City Council to our memo of October 14, 1998. At that time, the Netkas, through Attorney Tim Sullivan, were threatening litigation against the City for certain actions which the Netkas claimed to constitute interference with the use of their property at 2313 Commerce Boulevard. Since that time, the Netkas have commenced litigation. On November 24, 1998, the Netkas, through their attorney, commenced two lawsuits against the City of Mound. One action is a Petition for Mandamus in which they claim that the City interfered with the use of their property and they request that the Court order the City to purchase their property. In the mandamus action, they allege that the City has engaged in a pattern of conduct which not only interferes with their use of the property, but is not justified in law and which constitutes a taking of their property. Based on a contention that they have been denied all economically beneficial use of their property, they seek a Writ of Mandamus ordering the City to acquire the property. In the second action, they claim damages for tortious interference with their property based on some of the same facts. They allege interference with prospective business relations, that is, a lease they hoped to have with a prospective tenant. They allege that they have been unable to rent or sell their property because of this interference. They claim that City actions have chilled any potential tenant interest. In that action, they seek compensatory damages, specifically lost rental income, as well as costs and attorneys' fees. The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust ("LMCIT') has accepted the defense of this matter and has assigned Attorney John M. LeFevre, Jr., Kennedy & Graven, to defend these matters. The League is therefore paying to defend both actions, but their defense of the City does not include payment for the property if the City is required to purchase it. At this time, we are developing the facts by seeking information from the Netkas to support their claims. We will report back to the City Council when we have a more complete picture of the facts. Once again, we recommend that you refer any inquiry concerning this.matter to us, or confer with us before responding. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or John M. LeFevre of our office. JML