1999-02-23AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 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 Citiaen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in
normal sequence.
1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
2. APPROVE AGENDA.
*CONSENT AGENDA
*A.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 9, 1999,
REGULAR MEETING ........................................ 536-558
*B.
APPROVE THE MINUTES, AS AMENDED, OF THE
JANUARY 19, 1999 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING.
(TO BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY EVENING.)
*C.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 16, 1999,
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ......................... 559-560
*D.
CASE 99-02: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK
VARIANCES, TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING ADDITION
AND ATTACHED GARAGE, STEVE JILEK, 5444 SPRUCE ROAD,
LOTS 46, 47 & 48, BLOCK 2, LAKESIDE PARK -CROCKER'S
PID # 13-117-24 32 0164 ....................................... 561-577
*E.
SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 99-03, STREET & UTILITY
EASEMENT VACATION TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF
AN ADDITION TO THE DWELLING AT 4844 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE,
JORJ AYAZ, LOTS 1 7 2, BLOCK 15, DEVON.
SUGGESTED DATE: MARCH 9, 1999 ................................ 578
*F.
RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION RE:
2217 CHATEAU LANE (VACANT LOT) ........................... 579-585
*G.
CASE 99-04: VARIANCE, CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING
ADDITION, 5189 EMERALD DRIVE, P/7 & 10, LOTS 8, 7 9 BLOCK 1,
SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT C, PID 24-117-24 24 0011 ..................... 586-606
534
fi[/~H~. APPROVAL OF MULTIPLE DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION, PELICAN POINT
(_.'.7 , HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION.. '¢c. jr.._c)i .(~O...._ .~.~. ............. 607-618
*I. ~YLICENSE RENEWALS FOR GARBAGE AND CIGARETTES ........ : ........ 619
*J. \'~APPOINTMENT TO POSC. THEY INTERVIEWED TWO PEOPLE, JOHN BEISE
AND JOHN ECCLES. THEY HAVE RECOMMENDED THE APPOINTMENT
OF JOHN BIESE ............................................ 620-623
(~*K. PAYMENT OF BILLS ........................................ 624-640
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
DEPARTMENT HEAD ANNUAL REPORTS:
JON SUTHERLAND, BUILDING OFFICIAL ......................... 641-655
JOEL KRUMM, LIQUOR STORE MANAGER ....................... 656-659
- GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR .......................... 660-673
~ LEN HARRELL, POLICE CHIEF ................................ 674-706
INFORMATION/MISCELEANEOUS:
Preliminary Financial Report for the year ended December 31, 1999 as prepared by Gino
Businaro, Finance Director ...................................... 707-708
Memorandum from Jim Fackler, Parks Director, regarding the 1998 dock payment of
of Jim Albrecht, Devon Commons .................................... 709
E-mail from Jim Strommen, Kennedy and Graven, re: Right of Way ssues at the
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Jim staffs the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA),
an organization in which we are a member ............................ 710-712
D. Economic Development Commission Minutes of January 21, 1999 ............ 713-714
Eo
Letter from Hennepin County Commissioners, announcing appointments to
the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ............................. 715-716
Information from the Hennepin County Assessor that was requested at the
February 16, 1999, Committee of the Whole Meeting ..................... 717-721
G. Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 1999 ...................... 722-733
Ho
REMINDER: March Conunittee of the Whole meeting has been rescheduled for Tuesday,
March 2, 1999, 7:30 p.m. The only agenda item will be a discussion regarding the
community center.
535
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL- FEBRUARY 9, 1999
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday,
February 9, 1999, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
present were: Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, and
Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward I. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean,
City Clerk Fran Clark, Park Director Jim Fackler, Fire Chief Greg Pederson, Public Works Superintendent
Greg Skinner, and the following interested citizens: Sandra Simar, Dotty O'Brien, Leona Peterson, Frank
& Betty Weiland, David Rahn, Stan Drahos, Mark & Gina Smith, Pat & Irene Harrington, Renee LaFortune,
Scott Mack, Jim Albrecht, Barb Casey, Mr. & Mrs. Bob Schmidt, Gene & Gretchen Smith, Becky Cherne,
Gregg Knutson, Cathy Bailey, Bob Bittle, Frank Ahrens and Audrey Ogland.
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 Ahrens stated she would like to add on an item - the upcoming COW Meeting with the
Assessor.
Ahrens also asked the January 19, 1999, COW Minutes be removed from the Consent Agenda.
*1.0
*1.1
:CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to approve the Consent Agenda, as amended.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
APPROVE THE MINUTES, AS AMENDED OF THE JANUARY 12. 1999. REGULAR
MEETING.
MOTION
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 26, 1999, REGULAR MEETING.
MOTION
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
*1.2
APPROVAL TO REDUCE THE LETTER OF CREDIT - MAPLE MANORS.
RESOLUTION//99-11 RESOLUTION RELEASING A PORTION OF
CREDIT MAPLE MANORS SUBDIVISION
LETTER OF
'1.3
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
APPROVAL OF PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT TO USE MOUND BAY PARK FOR
WEIGH-IN. FRIDAY JUNE 4, 1999, DENNY'S SUPER 30 BASS TOURNAMENT.
MOTION
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
'1.4
APPROVAL OF OPERATIONS PERMIT - ZYGROVE CORPORATION. TO BE LOCATED
IN BALBOA BUILDING.
RESOLUTION #99-12
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN OPERATIONS PERMIT TO
ALLOW MANUFACTURING, WAREHOUSING AND OFFICE
SPACE FOR THE ZYGROVE CORPORATION LOCATED AT
5302 SHORELINE DRIVE (BALBOA BUILDING)
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
'1.5
PAYMENT OF BILLS.
MOTION
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
1.6 MINUTES. OF THE JANUARY 19. 1999. COMMITTEE OF THE WI-IOLE MEETING.
Councilmember Ahrens asked to have the discussion of the dock plan that was adopted at the January 12th
Meeting, following the Council Seating discussion, verbatim, in the January 19, 1999, COW Minutes.
1.7
PUBLIC HEARING:
TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND FACILITIES, CODE
SECTION 350:1300, ET SEQ. (PLANNING COMMISSION WILL
BE HEARING THIS ON FEBRUARY $. MINUTES FROM THAT
MEETING WILL BE DISTRIBUTED TUESDAY EVENING
REGARDING THIS ITEM.
The Planner reviewed the changes that are being proposed. The Planning Commission recommended
approval with one modification. The Planner and legal counsel felt that the language proposed by the
Planning Commission was too narrow and did not offer the City the flexibility it may need for co-location.
Therefore, they are recommending the modifications as proposed. There was some discussion on safety
issues, if a tower were to fall.
The following are the proposed changes:
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 tower
is a eonditional u~c in Light Industrial (I 1) and Planned Industrial Area (PLA) districts. Tow~
1. I ight ~ fl-l) and l~nmed hidushial Area (PLA) dislfil~
Section 350:1320, Subd. 2. is arnen&xt to read as follows:
Subd. 2. Setba~ m:lU~anm~ A tower must comply with the following selt~ck nattfirenx~ts:
A towe~s setlx~ n~y be reduced ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ifthe C~ ~
reasombly clet~ it mc~ary to a~ow better ~te ~,~mtion.
Section 350:1330. is ~ to read as follows:
350:.1330. Heigla ~ A tower may not exceed thc lcs,~x of 125 feet in height, or a height cquivalmt ~o 10
morcfl~an thc~ from thc b~c of thc tmxcr tothcncarcst~t of any property linc. Measmement oftower height
Section 350:1370. Subd. 2. is amended to read as follows:
district, or the slate or federal government provided a conditional usc ~ permit has been issued by the city council and
provided further that the owner of st~ a telecommunications facility, by writen certificafim to fl~e building official, establishes
the following facts at the time plans are submitted for a building permit:
Section 350:1385., Subd. 2. is amended to ~ as follows:
Section 350:1390 is hereby added, as follows:.
Sec6on ~ Variances.
Subd. 2. Addilioml ~ In add,/on to comidrafion d' a ~/arme based ~ lhe ~ set forlh in
Sectim 3.~.q30 dlhis Code into em~&~/o~, the city cmm~ may also grant a variance by ~ the
2_ 'Ihe ~ w~ not m~____e a lhteat to lhe pub~ healh. ~ or wdfare:
,,
In lhe case d a request f~' modifieat~ d lhe maxim~ height lim~ hhat lhe ~ is mcess~ ~
(1) ~ co~ocation d~ ~ h ~to av~ ~ ~fa mw to~ ~-/l)
Section 350:1395. h hereby added as follows:
Fai~lre to ~
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999
subsiar/hi evidmce ~ined in a wren rewrd.
AN ~ AMI~D1NG ~N 350:.1300 OF THE CITY CODE
RELA~ TO ~MMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND FACIIA-Tll~
The vote was unaninx~y in favor. Motion carried.
1.8
PUBLIC HEARING:
ONE YEAR REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMYF APPLICATION RE:
EARLY CHILDHOOD FAMII~Y I~UCATK)N ~ LOCATED ATSHO~
PLAZA.
of the four stipulations for the use are operating well: 1. The drop-off point on Eden Road;
2. The parking in front of ~he building; and
3. The railings that have been ins~ed between the columns.
Theonly problem seems to be the traffic omtrol measures in front of the doorway. Thetwo stop sigm app:ar not to be a real
good traffic control measure. The Planning Commission reocnnmerded that there be additional control of traffic be installed.
Their reconanendafion was a portable two-sided stop sign be placed in ff~e crosswalk in front of the building for better visibility.
They also reco~ review of this CUP in anolt~ ymr. The Candl agreed. The student ~lafion of this facility has
I-lanus moved and Weycker seconded the following resolution:
~LUTION g99-13 RESO~ TO APPRO~ AN EXISTING GONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
AllOW AN EDUCATIONAL FACILITY (F..C.E.F.), LOCATED IN THE B-1
~ D1SqI~C~, AT ~241 SHO~ DRIVF~ LOTS 7-20 & 26-35 & ALL
VAC. ALLEY & PARKING AREA & PARK, BLOCK 1, SHIRIEY ttB. LS UNIT
'0', laiD g13-117-24 34 0072, P & Z CASE//99-01
The vole was tmanimo~y in favor. Motion carried.
5
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999
Slan Dmhos, 5430 Three Point Blvd. slaled that over thenext 6 months hewould like to accomplish two thin~
1. He spoke wilh regard to the ~ at the Hot~ of Moy. R would be a pole with an ann oflendi~ ove~
Weslonka ~ ~on (WRA) and Ihey will be bringing Ibis up a~in Io see if it can be put inlo
action a~in. He will be bringing more information ovex the nero few months.
Sandra Simar, 5910 Idlewood Road. Sheis theH_e~l_ Slart Manager of the Head Slart program lhat is housed in the
Community Serdces Building. She slaled she has voled on two mfermdums lhat assured renomion of the
RglaORT FROM JANUARY 30, 1999 ~G OF RgSIDENIS FROM THE DEVON COMMON AT
ROANOKE ACCgSS RE: DOCK PLA~.
Park Director, Jan Fackler, reported ~ a meeting of lhe ndghlxatxxxt (approximately 12 persons) was held on January 30,
1999. Heahowed an oveflx~oflheplanlhatwas~at the January 121h Cxaa~ Meeting, noting that theseare
approximale center locatiom oflhe docks as lhey exist now. He explaimd that the dock spaces are detennired by dividing half
thelineal footage ~ dther side of the dock. These may be off a little bit. Hethen showed~ ~ lhat was an allexnative
plan put together by some oflhe individnal.q in lhe area as a result ofthe January 30th~ meeting. This allemale
plan did not differ too much from what was appmvefl in January. Slaff was to go out and then mark those spots. Thiswas
done on F~mry 3rd. The orange markers showed the approved plan. The blue markers showed lhe alternative plan from
sutxavisimtoufilizeflxfirdockspace. In other words, thdrdock may not fit sgedfically in one area within lheir dock space.
They may move it over be~___use of ~y; g~e of ~ or design of fie dock.
(having to mahe Ihem ce~exed right oa the dock kxation space or so~ along that line), each dock would stay in fie
curreat spot it is, at th/s time. They would still be wilhin lheir waler s0ace. The Ca~ dock is about 9 to 11 feet east of whexe
it is shown m lie appmvext map, which puts it on the Commom in front of the Ahrens proixxty.
dock site holder in the area. If there is not clear justification to move wilhin a water space, flxm lhe txa'son would not be
allowed to do so. There is no ached in stme policy on lhis. People nom~y want to work lhis out and not infringe on
Greg Knutson, 4701 Island View Drive, gave a presenlatim on the allemale plan which would leave a minimum of 46 feet
between e~ dock. He laid the two ~s on top of each ottxx to show hhat the docks stay iaetty much hhe same but ~he
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY
Approv~ 1999plan- 48 feet on lhe west sideand 66 feeton theeast side = 114 feet.
~lterna~plan- 46 feet on the west sideand 57 feet on the east side = 103 feet.
Approved 1999plan- 66 feet on the west sideand 52 feet on theeast side = 118 feet.
Alternate plan-57 feet on the west side and 46 feet on the east side = 103 feet
1995-1998 map - 42 feet on the west side and 74 feet on the east side = ll6feet.
1995-1998 map - 42 feet on the west side and 42 feet on the east side = 84 feet Dock was not in lastyear.
CASEY DOCK SITE g421100
1995-1998 map - 44 feet on the west side and 42 feet on the east side = 86feet
~ber Brown poinled out that because of topography the Casey dock is actually 11 feet east of where it is shown on
the 1999 approved plan, which lhen gives Mr. Harrington 55 feet on the east side of his dock and leaves Ahrens with 37 feet
on the west side of lheir dock.
Councilmember Brown poinled out that under the approved plan, only 2 docks were supposed to be moved, Albrecht and
Smim and ~ are being flip-fl~. Ms. Casey would stay where she has been for 12 years and Ahrens would stay where
they have been. He asked if lifts hasn't been a problem before, why is the allernale prqx)ml to move 7 clocks?
Mr. Schmidt referred toaletter that he senttothe Cxxu~ regarding the CoamSl'slegal right to cringe fl~edock location map
without a reeomma~tion from the Dock Insixx~ or review by the DCAC. ~ber Hanus did not agree wilh this
and fdt the Cotmdl has lhe right to change the dock location map on its own.
Cx~ncilmeml~ Weyckex slated that she felt the ordinanae was not followed very closely and she would like to see the City
7
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY ~, 1999
The Park Dh~c~r
did not know if there is a spot at Pembroke Park.
Weycker slated that when the ~ w~s going l~ move the S__.~d_ dock last year,-~e Park Director staled ~ he does not
know at this point, if there is an available site at Pembroke.
Pat I-Iarrington, 4687 t~land View Drive. He asked if he could present his plan.
The Mayor slated he ctmld not tmlil this discussion was over.
Mark Smith, 4665 Island View Drive, slaled he is the one who requested lhe change in the 1999 dock location that was
approved oll Janllary 12, 1999. He slaled lhat he realized in 1998 lhat hewas sitting in the mi&tle of both walex spacesa~
so all the &x:unentation from that point fonmrd is imam:t. It has never been cxxra:axt.
The Park I)i~or slated that there was a letler of request, but it was never acled on. He explained that lhere was a stormin
May and a tree fell and fl~e inslallafion of the Smith dock went in at about his current ~t, which infringed m the Abr~t
time Albrecht had renled lhe dock spaee. At that time lhey looked inl~ where Smith's dock was and delenni~ that it was
4-6 feet into Albrecht's dock space. Then Mr. Albrecht was asked not to put in his dock even ~ he had paid the dock
fee. Mr. Abrec3t agreed to let it ride through the year. Hefurther slated lt~ Mr. Smith did request a ~e but it was never
Mr. Smith agreed with lhe plan approved on January 12th because he felt it was ~le. He felt the allernate plan would
just aggamle an alre:ady lm~ si. ration ancl mahe it worse. He commenled that is someme is ~ on ammms, they
should go by private ]akesho/e.
Pat Harring~, 4687 1.4and VLwv Drive,(new residmt in June) presented the following plan and asked lhat the Cotmdl give
the people a pmmnmt solution.
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999
"Harringtom' position on dock locatiom from footage 41437 through 42129 (January 12, 1999 dock ~ map)
do not have to revisit the placement of docks on an annual basis:
Abutting spaces equals eight (8) plus ~he fire lane eqm!s nine (9)
Non-abutting spaces not to exceed four (4):
42043 (Schmidt) - Cen~xcd at fire lane centerline
41956 (Ca~) Centered at ~ line
41790 (Albrecht)- . . . .
41477 (S~- " "" "
No further comi~ for multiple docks hetwo~ 41437 and 42129 foolagcs."
He suggested that everyone give and take a little to work this out.
Hanus passed around a n~ that shows tbe sand bar aims directly off of the point, and there is a sunken i~land to the ~
ff you were to stand on the point and face the bridge between Shady 1.4and and ~ted Island, the sand bar goes directly
toward the bridge, not toward the Mack property.
Hartingt~ t~dout that under hisplan, no onewould haveto move. They wotdd all stay where lh~ areexc~ for Casey
who could move either way to avoid having to deal with the trees if she was on center. He would not object to her moving
He would like to see a lock on the number of docks and their location that go from Forester all the way to Smith on the other
of the Roanoke firelane. Hanus s~xt that has alr~___y lxxm done and the number is 14 fromKudmtoI.atchcm.
Brown suggested that if and when a plan is adoptal, that a survey be done and ~t podtions for these docks be
daennir~ so this doesn't come up a~in.
The Park Director slaled that if these were all straight docks it might beeasier but, fl~y are not. They can beL, HofU slmped
and that can cause a problem. Would there be a centefing of the ~on on the prolx~ line? He asked if there was
going to be some sort of limitation to the dock itself. He ~ that he knows the Albrecht dock is. going to be an H dock.
Casey's dock is a straight one.
Renee LaFortune agreed with the Harfington plan because he bm'tk~ is more evenly alloco__t~. She did not want to leave the
meeting with lhe impression that if the diso~don tonight closes delermining where the sites along Roanoke Access will be at
thispoint, ffnt the ndghborhaxt is happy ~_t~sejustresolvingtheam'mtpl,xanmtdoesn't fixthings. A year ago there was
nombutting sites from peoples homes. She felt nombutting docks would be better in front of parks and open space
rather than in front of people's homes. She would like to see a better solution to the problems.
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999
aperson'smby ~ twodocks, not seven. Smilh askedifa solulion could be lodaxl in for oney~.
Jim Albrecht, 4701Aberdeen Road, statedhejustwanlsadock. I-Ie relaled his saga of trying lo get one last year. Heslaled
if he was getting the lale fees back I~ ~ of ntmabull~ and abullers is that the lake belongs ~o everytxxly.
only asking for flae la~ fees to be retmnat ($65.00).
The Can~ discussed that la~ fees and the dock fees but, did not take action girls time.
Barb Ca~, 4604 Island View Drive, slated lhat he dock has bern in the same place for 12 years and she~ the predous
owners and their dock was in this space for 20 years. She has a problem wilh the proposal if ~ ~ h ~ ~to a lot line
because the access is not good. She would want to be able to shift if necessary ~ ~ ~ve ~ ~ ~
The Mayor staled there would have to be flexibility otherwise we would not be able to use this area as a dock space.
The Mayor asked for input from lhe Camdl.
Hanus slaled that he feels the ~ was dear when lhis plan was ~ on January 121h and that they gave clear direction
Harrington's p~ ~ ~y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. He did not feel it was nece~ry to vote on the issue.
concern was hck of water space for the nombuttem.
The City A~'my suggeaext that if the only issue is the Casey dock, maybe that should be dealt wifl~ ~_,~__ of ~ up wi~
a definiti~ of center. ~ber Weycker was also conam~ about the Albrecht and S__te~_ dock.
Mack voiced cottem about fl~e Albrecht dock because it is an H shag:d dock and that will infi'inge on Mack's water space.
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999
centering? It's not where lhe dock meets the land and saying that's the centa'. If a straight ~k is put out it's not a problem
u, H or Ldock, can causeapmblem when you ~Ikatx~cm~xing. His ~ is ~hat you have to ~y in your
space regardless of what lhe shape is. He felt center needed to be defined.
The Cotmfil a~in looked at the adopted 1999 plan.
of Mr. Knutson's plan, beck__ ~t~e it gave everyone a little more room at his end.
Frank Ahrem, 4673 Island View Drive Mdmssed the Coxdl and staled Ihat Mr. Harring~'s plan is pretty much lhe same
as what was adq~. Hetaxtemrxxl what Ms. Ca~ was saying. Hedid not object to having Ms. Casey 10to 11 feet
easterly of the Ahrem lot line. He would not like to see it moved any closed fl]an it is now. IT~ mzlermnding is that the
42043 (~) - Cemal~ at fil-e lane (mdedine
4L056 (C. az, y) C_.mlza'ed at pr(Ix~ line
41'/90 (All'edit - " "" "
41477 (Stead} - " "" "
No ~ ~ for nmlliple docks bet~ 41437 and 42129 footage"
the next two years.
Weyd~ would l~e a ~ ~ to address th~ ~ about tl~ ct~ering by ~ ~~
Frank Ahrem slated this was O. K. wilh him and his dock is slaying where it has bern fc~ 23 years.
The Casey dock//41956 would remain where it is. Albrecht is on the Smith Mack prqxaty line.
1999 plan anyway.
11
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999
M_,~klmg0 feetto movc his dock. Hanus s~edlhereis40 feet~ ff~e Macksite (41750) and
the proposed Albrecht site (41790). You can take two 20 feet spaces and butt them right up next to
ev~ shows the sandbar or the lower area l~ be right off I.aForame's point. It is a line that
runs off shore that shows minimum 10 foot or less from ahat point in, but it runs the whole ~
from that point all ~he way over to the channel it doem't show any ~, according to the
ShefWs Dept.
Frank Ahrens s~ed fl~t ~ to his wpies of fl~e Dock Location Map and he ~ the
whole sand~ issue in 1977. The area wilh nodocks wasreally ~41650 0mForame) dock
site and 41477 (proposed S~_~l__ dock site).
The City Attorney suggested ~ an amendr~t which would locate the Albrecht dock on
thc ex~on of fl~e prop~ line be~c~ the Mack/Smith prope~ provided that it is pos~ble to
shift the Mack dock slightly to the east. In fl~e event that is not potable, then the Albrecht dock
would bel~ at lhelocation shown on the January 12, 1999, approved Dock Location Map which
would locate it slightly west of the Mack/Smith property line.
Mack s~t he wants to stay where he has been for 11 years and does not want to move easlerly.
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999
called this to everyone' s ammtion. She s~efl that no o~e really wants to ~ll it like it is. She s~xi that Mr. Mackhas
ag0 foot lot and he does not want any nonabum~ ~ spaee in fi'oat of his house.
The City Atltm~ asked ff~ ~d c~ ~ ~. He asked ff ~ was diso~on in the motion about the shitt
of the Mack dock location to ~ east in the event ~ that was pmdmt or pos~31e ~o do it from a water depth
slandt~t so as to allow the Albrecht dock to be localed as close to the prqx~ line as posable? Was that part of
ifBrown had aeo:pted it as lhe motion mak~ Mr. Brown slated that the way it goes is the way he slmed it.
Brown. "We are accepting Mr. Harring~'s agreement. IfMr. Mack feels he needs a little assislan~, then hecan
ask the Dock Inspector to work wilh us and we'll work with Mr. Mack, I'm sure we're not opposed lo
hdping youout Let' s put ev~ down tonight, set it in grani~e as much as you can for the next two years
and let the neighbors get along and figure it out and ifa neighbor needs ~ ~ so~, we'll work it
City Attorney.
~t between that location and ~ Mack dock at Ihe location where it is currently penni__t~__
you get to lhe lot line, it's even shorter yet. In all lhe evidence I've seen, it would indi~_te absolutely the
Hanus. "I have a couple of questions to ask the maker of the motion. First of all, I have to know what lhe difference
is bawe~ this plan and what's already in place? That's the first lhing.
Brown. "Well, this plan puts Mr. Albrecht m the lot line for one thing."
Brown. "I took 41790 to be just offflae lot line."
13
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999
Mcisel. "That was my criteria."
Ihnus. "Iflfinkit's~ The iment is to have it o~ fl~e lotline, right'? That~h~t~~m
January 12th and we were using numbcrsfl~atwehad from Slaff that if you added it upand calo~a ~d down,
what fl~e number is?"
Weycker.
"Unforamaldy, the time before that lhey were 15 feet. You know, It~ were ~ differmt again and
then last year lt~ were 15 feet different Ihan the morerecent neasummmt. The Slaffis all over wilhin 15
feet so I don't know if I can trust fl:ese n~."
Brown.
but, sheis allowed to go 11 feet to fl~eeast, whcrcit has always been; Mr. Albrccht's penmnmt spot would
beonlheSmilh/Mackprolxxtyline, and lhat would be my plan. Have John Camo'on go out and survey
these stx~ so fl~at they come out on these lines and that's where it would be."
Hanus. "O.K. Now, did you accept the ~t ~o define the cener sl~ce or ~ ~ it, exactlf.. Isuhatwhat
it was, to identify?"
Wcycl~r.
"To define cen~ting. Ynn, Ithink,~it~. Due~odock~. Youknow, aTor
H.
comes out, but ga'tetrewill beback~ fl~at they don't like the definition. It'snot good to pass a
motion ..... or lmSS a resolulion or a mo6on not knowing what lhe response h."
Weycl~.
"fun did say it. Can you repeat it Jim?"
"WtexeI~li~lqx)gra~f. I think l did that in my memo a little bit, lastparagr~, page
1. WhereI.~id,' ..... as long as lhe site holder is allowed to adjust the access point due to dock
Weycke~'. "That's good."
Hanus. "And that's by whose inierprelation, lhe individual?"
"No, basically, it's at the discretion of the Dock Inspector."
Hanus. "And soitwillbebackhere. We know lhat. They'llaPlral. It's lhe same old thing. It' s going lo be back. "
Weycker. "Wall, I think it's ~ than nothing a~ Mr. ~ said it best, I ~ it's a ~ sense
issue, ffyou can't put your dock _beco_~_~lhere'satree~re, it should beconmon smse."
14
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999
"But lhat's my point. This is O.K. I don't have a major problem with it. I have a major problem wilh
another ~ of that n~on. We'll get into that in a minme. I don't have a problem, a~lly, with whatMr.
Harrin 's prqx either but, it's n0t the lzmanent s01u and people will be he , sumn ,
most likely with more complaints beca___u~ we didn't define things right or we dkln't. .... It' s never ending and
I don't see fffis ending either. ~
Commems from unknown persons.
"I don't have a problem with it but, I think Mark said it best One year it's 15 feet one way and next
yearit's 15 feet the other way. I would like lo see it surveyed. If we're going lo go of lhe lot lines.
I want to know where my lot lines are so it's not quesfi~le and also how far up does lhe
Commonsgo. Where should the tzople be walking lt~ are nonabulle~ ..... ?"
but, I'm not crazy about spending the rnc~ to go out and survey. How many properaes ~ we have here?"
Comment from the audience about how much mom'y there is in the Dock Fund.
"That's no excuse to go out and throw the money away, eilt~er. ~ point is, we have the irons out there.
We don't have to resurvey. We've got bcn'ded~_~, licensed surveyors that have done it already. Why do it
again? We just need to find out where tht~ points are."
Fackler.
"I've bern over this area a few times in the last few months and I know where a number of lhe ....
I know where the Knutson/Smilh is, lhat coma'. I know ~bo~ sides of the Han/ng~'s is.
I know the access poims. I've found these many times over the last year or two. Iknowthe
Ahnm's. I know the Smith's."
"The c~e you have a problem with and I was just getting to that, is the one up on the Smith/Mack,
where there is a lift slafi~ there. There is too much metal. I do have a problem finding that one.
go to Kuehns. Iknowwlx~lhatoneis. I've been over this manytimes. Icanslakeit. What~
or not those irons have beea ~. I can't verify that. A surveyor will vedfy that but, Ican
prd~ly get 90% of the slakes that are out lhere."
"One otl~ point that I warned to raise about lhe maitre, fl~at I cannot mtlxm and thatis flfisideaoflocking
it in for 1 year, 2 yearsor 5 years. The Catm~ should be awarethat ifwedo lhat weare fooling tan-sflves
and we're fooling fl~e people out hexe because ~ ~'t lock us in. ff we want to go in and change
something, we go in and change ~ and to pass a motion lt~t says we're not going to, doesn't sl~p
us from doing it. SoI~*finkit'snotgoodpracficetodoflmt. The inent is fine. The immt is good but, the
result won't be there. It doem't kr.k us in and I don't want to suggest ~ anyone sitting out hexe that it would,
because it won't."
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999
Meiscl. "That's a scary ltxx~ght, Mark."
Hanus. "Wdl it's true ~.
Meisel. "I lhink B~, you came up wilh lhe two years strictly because this Council ~'t be changing for two
Hanus. "Yeah, andI~that. I'm looking atothcr things such as damage lo an area, a tree fl~ goes down.
flexible kr~k in?
Hardnglm 'A ~lamity of nature, I think would bring it back for di.ga~on and we would have to revisit that.
this to go f(gward wilhreasomble~my~~~~. That's the risk that
City Attorney. "One suggestim that is used as a sort of quasi lock-in some dries on ma _tters such as this, wrmld be
for example, to say that for fl~e two year period following the adoption of ~ ~ing, it ~n be
modified or altered only by a 4/5 vote of lhe entire City Cxamdl. In olher words requiting an
Brown. "I'll amend to lock it in for two years, wilh a 4/5ths vote of ~ to amemt it, for unforeseen ~m~.
City Atlrgr~. 'My suggestion was that the 4/5tbs vote simply be the way that you would be able break the lock-in
and that you wouldn't need to artio~hte and advance any reasom for that 4/5th's vo~e.
Hanus. "So Ihere's no lock-in. But the criteria to make a change is a 4/5th's vote?
City Attorney. "Just four mmibers of the C(amdl, to vOe in ~ situation. But it would, of crxn'se, apply in
si,_,_ti_'ons like lflat, as well. As you probably know, four ~bers voting the same way is
a difficult situation.~
O.K. Two years and a 4/5's vcle to change anylhing. Are the people in agreement?'
Hanus did not like the 4/Sths vote to required to make a dmge.
Someone in lhe audience. 'You don't even have even 5 people voting on this issue.'
The City Ammey pointed out that there are 4 peq~ voting. That's 4/Sths.
The City Clerk asked if the following was Co~:ilmeml~ Brown's motion: To accept ~~ ~ ~ ~Ms.
theHaningtm Phncalls for whichwasprettyc~~~ January 12th Plan. Allowing theStead dock to be pla:ed
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY
~he~~whatwould~withcentefi~H,U&Lshapeddoeks. Howtheeenterisde~nfined. Faclder
~{ated that would have to be detenni~. The majority of the Council ~ ~ c~tering ~ to be fle~'ole.
Hanus. "You den't have to do that. That's already there."
"Add, no furth~ ~ for tmdliple ~ Add ~ spaces mt to embed four.
Add, not lhe lock-in but, the 1 year m' 2 yems and a 4/Sth's vo~e to change it."
We3el~. '~herwi~ what I just said coukl be a mofim? Did you want to amaid what I moved."
The We3n:i~ Imtion ~ for lack of a secaxl.
2. And a om year iock-~ wilh 4/5th's ~f lhe C_zumi] v~fing to clml~ it.
The City Clerk read ~ motion back to the Cotm~.
'Ihe v~e ~n the nmtkm was 3 in ravin' with Ham~ vc~ng my. 1Vlotkm ~
MOTION made by Brown, setomled by Weyci~ lhat Mr. Al~cht g~t his ia~ fees hack fi'cra last year.
Hanus ~ he feels that is preferential treatment and we don't do that with olher folks. He ~'ated he will
oppose IMt motion, beck_ _-~ it sets a lerrible pnxedmt.
TheMayor aslaxt when Mr. Albrecht's~~last year was submitted. The Parkdireclor slated
he would have lo look that up. He thought it was sometime in early August. The Mayor slaled that was mfler
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999
The vc~ was 2 ~ favor wilh Ham~ and M~d vct~g my.
1.11
RESOLUTION 99- RESOLUTION REGARDING VARIOUS MATIERS RE~TING TO THE PROPERTY
OWNED BY ~NKA I~BLIC SCHOOLS (WHHDRAWAL FROM WEglONKA COMMUNIrY
withdrawing, formally, from ~ project. They directed the City Attorney to prepare a resolution of wiflxirawal for
~ken to withdraw.
that Westonka School Board Member and WCCB Member, Bob Bittle, is present.
The Mayor asked if lhere was anyone in the audience w~ wished to speak. Audrey Ogland, Coordimt~ for Meal On Wheets
inthearea. Shedicln'tunderslandwhyt~rmovalion~notgoingforward. Didn'tlhevotemakea~.
The Director of the H__e~_ S~rtprogram~theCamdl. She felt fl~at a political game is being phyed. Itwasher
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY
undermmding that we were moving f~. We've been ~ with architects. As the Head Slart program, weweretold
mtr3 our share of expense was going to and she budgeed for in the fi _m . H~' concern is lhat lhere
are 34 fame'es and children w~ she may have ~o ~dl the program is going ~ have to stop qxaati~ of ~ H~ S~ ~.
'she would have known six months ago, she could have s~rled looking for othex places. She would have been able Ir) start
could be passed and the~ newly elected officials can ~e what lhe people said they wan~l.
The Mayor slaled lhat it is not just newly elgaed officials. We have all lalked about it as a group and are trying to corne ~o
a consensus. This resolution has not txen passed.
"I am lart~ly fl~e only one who is sitting here that is in the tamdats posilion of saying fl~at I am one lhat's dmgat
my mind on lheproject. I ~it early on and over time, I've been loosing inlerest in it and partioflarly toward
theend offlae year, I lost interest. There have been lhings thathave~ along theway, that have~ me
but, we've moved along. One of lhe first things that hapgxa-~ was in lhe sdection of the architect. I'mnotgoing~
go lhrough lhe whole story of what ~ but, lhere were some things doing on that. ...... I'm not pointing any
fingers at anylx~ beco___use I can't but, there's ~~~~ ~ abitofan ~ ~~ ~ ~
may havebeen~ wrong going on but, the appmrance of it wascerlainlylhem. Oneofthe more recent things
in December. Thoseofyou who are famil~ with Uheproject, knowthat one of the lhings required was lhat for the
property was pm'dkqs~ by the School District. The WCCB ~ the imrchase of that property but, wilh lhree
conditions, two of which were never met and even on the night before closing, I even forewarned some members of
the board, the School Board, lflat you can buy the property if you want but, the condi~ons haven't been met. The
WCCB hasn't approved it yet. You're doing it at your own rislc Well, fl~y ~ to go ahead and do it but, now
people are going to be moving out of lhat property. It'sbeen~. They have to move and the Scbool District
has to pay to move them. The tolal sale price was about twice what lhe property was worth, when you include the
mm, ing costsand it's all for naught now. Itdidn't seemto make a lot of seme lo mebut, things went ahead anyway.
Another ltfing that's ~ me is Ih,at, as you know we have roughly $9.2 million dollars that's budgeted for
project. Recently a new budget was prepared for this project and it was over a million dollars over lie $9.2 milh'on
dollars. I've always considered this project, be it right, be it wrong. I've always considered it about a $6 or $7 million
todo? The first thing is, you start cutting and it'sbeen cutover a million dollars alre~____y and there's morecuts to
come, probably quite a few more to come. A lot of people have lhe impression that this site is going to look different
when it's done and when you drive by there isn't going to be anylhing different. Anylhing Ih,at you'd nO/ce, really.
I'm getting more citizens come aflea' me and commenting that, 'I voled for ahis plan or lifts project but, I didn't vote
for the plan that you have out there right now and I'm ~ to it.' That hits home and bolters me. I'malso
concerted by the lack of reighbor~ communities financial involvement in the project. I think uhat was kind of
necessary forit~ogo. We had hopes that we were going ~o be able ~o get them on board but,~yet. Theonly
portion of it. The amount of ~ to the City' s portion of contnbufiom is nil. It really won't make any impact at
all. Many of the currmt users in lhere, who would plan to be the future users, arechoking on thenumbers thatlhey're
hearing. Again, earlyon, Iwasoflhepercep6on, beitfight, beitwrong, that we were going to, atleast, beable
to get our lenants to pay for the heat and lights in lhebuilding. But, many of them, itis~ now, fi'om the
respomesis~~even come close to that. Oneuser, (I'm not surewhoit was right off hand) but, oneof
totha[ They're getfing a free building but, ~ey can't even pay ~he heat and lights. It' s not their fault. It's the simation
we're faced with so I'm 6~___~y afraid of completing lhe project and having the City sitting there with a bunch of
The City has levy limits. Wecan't, in oneyear, bylaw, miselhe lax levy enough, ifwe go to our lirnit, just ~pay
for our portion of that. It would lake, at least, acouple ofyears ofmaximum levy limits and I think this year it was
somewherearom'd 151o 18percent. I think if we did tha[ we would be hung. All oflhat's been going on. Ihad
19
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999
a recent nxefing at tbe Hopkins Cenler for the Arts. A brand new building. Ayearandabalfold, ~lil~
that. I had a lour of that building and it shtm~ me what can be done for 31o 5 million dollars. It's just amazing.
It's amazing what fl~ building looks like and if you get a chance, go ~ ~. I couldn't ~ ~ ~ ~
that amount of tmm'y. Now, it's ctmidembly smaller ~ this sile but, it'ssomw, hnxaeeffx:ient. NotonlyMan
an energy txxsIx~ve but, space ~, that when I walked through it, it felt like it was iaactk:ally as big as Ibis
whole site and it's way less li~anl~the space. I__aSdi_'tion to that, the lolal ~t of money that the City of ~
dmatiom, and things offl~ sort and flx~e was a ca~ofloans made. But, now that it'slxfilt, the City conmbules
new fadlity, is about $30,(~. Really, right now, and I truly believe ~, and I'm really ofthe~, li~t we L~ecl~
for the average Joe. If you're not a smior, ~ im't a lot in flx~-e for the avexage mt~yex tl~'s going ~o pay fl~e
want. But, therearerevmuegenemting sotn'o~~u~, liaat can use fl~t building, fl~at's the average Joe.
Beit meeting rooms, party rooms, conference moms, things of lhat sort tMt don't really comp~ wi~h mr local
to slart ~ my position andI feelI owe fl~at to my comtilnmts and the cilizms, since I'm sitting here and I Mve
changed my posilion."
properly and effidenfly."
Someone asked iflhe City of Mound would like ~o put up a building like that because I'm sure that the Schod Dislrict ~'t
want to have anything to do with that? I Ianus. "We haven't had lhe opportuni~ to have discussions, although I lhink everyone
today."
Sometme comn~ted that the building serves a lot of people in a ~ Audrey, from Meals tm Wheels, commenled
ltey serve meals to over 8,500 people a year.
"I don't think anyone would argue with what your saying and I don't think anyone diminishes at all fl~e functions that
happm in mt building but, from a~~ve, I don't fftink the City can afford it. Idon't seeadx~in
ffema~r. We don't have the momy ~o do it. That's only my opinion."
The Mayor asked for any offer mmments.
Weycker.
"I s~ared out not nec~_~y thrilled with the plan as it was. I would have liked to see the pods gone but, lhe way
things worked out, I felt like we did have a good ~ I feel bad that we spent so much time and met~ m it
already. There was going to be a kitchen, auseablekitc~, and a smioremler there. There~~~a
a lot of lhe things Mark is pointing out in the new cenler. I don't think I have enough suppoa on this Council Io
20
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999
project continued because I c~'t think we have another plan in mind and I lhink M~ really needs a Community
don't have the w. lxx)l ~ and I can guarantee you, people fi'om ~ and St. Boni, and Spring Park are
going I~ come and use it. So, tome, t~ havethe sclxx)l district asal~Ctna' wifl~ usin this project, was agreat
idea."
you've been involved in the disoassi~ and it's been a concem along Ihe way. And how do we account for that?.
And we were lalking about restrict~ of people who didn't live in ~ area or work in a parti~ community.
Itoo, fdt we almost had to do that and it didn't feel good. It didn't feel good. That's not conducive ~) a community
center. But, lt~at's what we were kind of forced into doing. Yet, the tact in Hopkins, for example, is completely
different and it's successful. I struggle with it, as well but."
Weycker.
"And in no way would I want to restrict it from other communities either. I think a lot of the concerns at the
Monday night meeting when we met with the Planning Commi~4on and the School District, were: Why are the
Mound dtizens having to pay double for Ih,at? Those were just some ways Ih,at we were going to address lhose
ctmtxa~ bec~___~_t~ people did have concerns about that. I I~o, think we are a community and we're very small
cities around here. If we built a ~ommunity center and Spring Park built a community center, ~ is just crazy.
We're definitely doing our taxpayers and injustice if we do things like ~ And ac~__~_~y, I don't think it was us
that came up with the plan to have to charge other people to come in. It was comerns fi'om the outside coming
in and I think you heard it at that meeting. That the City of Mound was going to have ~o pay double is what they
kept saying. Well, it wam't quite double. It was not all, though, is what we're going to have to pay if we do our
Brown. "beah, one of the things you said was that, it was a good project to have the wJxx)l ~ or district as a equal ~.
When you look at it, from the maintenance side, the school wam't an equal l~rtner. The residents of Mound were
having to pay 50% right off the bat of the maintmance costs and then because M~ was lhe biggest half of the other
half, we were responsible for anofl~ half of lhe other half. So the dtizens, laxpayers of Mound got stuck with 3/4
of lhe total maintenance cost and when you say they slxxtld be an equal ~, that doesn't sound very equal to me
when our dlizens have to come up with 3/4 of the mainlenance all the time."
Weycker. "Actually, the maintenance agreement was fifty fifty.
Brownt!
"Well lhat's not the way it went, afterwards. But, secondly, the Monday night we sat here, as a Coundl, the new
peopleand mysdf, and looked across the board and ~d tothepeqg, e. Hey folks, what wo~d it lake for usl~get
WCCB. We'll all get on board with you. We'll go wilh a new plan and we'll get rid of the pods, but we'll keep
the old school, iflhat's part what you really wanted, and they looked at us and said, no, we won't do thru. So, I
guess, when the line's drawn in the sand, and they say no, we're pretty much where we're tonight."
"I have a oommmt on the resolution, if we're to lhat point. The very last line of the very last pamgta~. I'd like to
offer a ~e to that. It mentions the distfict and a pledge to work with them and that's fine. But, really what I had
in mind was a little more global eomnmt. Here's what I would like to say, that the last sentax:e would say.'
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999
needs d lhe dlin~ ~ lVlc~umt."
"It's a little more generic slalemcnt. It allows us Io work with the dislrict or anytxxty else, or the lea,ants, or
whalL:N~."
~l. krllON~14 RESOLUTION REGARDING VARIOUS MATrgl~ RELATING TO THE
PROPERTY OWNED BY WES'YONKA ~ SCHOOLS (PID g14-117-244100109
//14-17-24 41 00119 g14-17-24 41 00529 g14.117-24 41 00589 & 14-17-24 44 0007) P & Z
CASE ~S ~64 & 9gO
The vote was 4 in favor wilh Weycker voting nay. Moticm carried.
Brown s~ed tMt fl~is is a new Coundl ar~ fley offerat to w~rk wi~ flae Sdxx/Distfia at lhat Monday ~t ~ ~
were told, no.
19~ DEPARTMENT HEAD ANNUAL REH3RTS: JIM FACKLER, PARKS DIRECIOR: GREG
PH)ERSON. FIRE CHII~: GREG SKINNER. PUBLIC WORKS SUPI~INT]~D~ and FRAN
The following Depmnxmt HeMs presented their 1998 annual reports to the City Coundl: Jun Facldex, Park Director;,
Greg Pederson, Fire Chief, Greg Skinner, Public Works Sutxa'in~t; and Fran Clark, City Clerk
1.13 ADDON ITEM: ~G WITH THE HENNEHN COUNTY ASSESSOR
INFORMATION~US:
A. ~t Head Money Repom for January 1999.
Eo
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 9, 1999
LMCD Exeo~e IYm:aogs Newsle~.
Dock and Comnx~ Advi~ Commis_6m lVfint~ of January 21, 1999.
North Saundcrs Lake developn~t trc93x:t
February 10, 1999, 6:00 P.m., Mound City Hall.
INDER: Committee of the Whole Meeting is Scheduled for Tuesday, February 16, 1999, 7:30 P.M.
~ER: City Offices will be Closed Monday, F~ 15, 1999, in ~ of President's Day.
POSC will in~:xview the Applicant on ~hursday, February 11, 1999 at 7:30 Pm. You are Invilefl
MOTION made by Aim~ , seconded by l~wn to ad~ourn at 12:25A.M. 'lhevo~ew~manl,ma~in
favor. Mo6m carried.
Ndward J. Shulde, Jr., City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
MINUTES-COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
FEBRUARY 16, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Mayor Meisel and
Councilmembers Ahrens, Hanus, Brown and Weycker (arrived 7:45 p.m.). Also Present:
Keith Rennerfeldt, Hennepin County Assessor's Office; Kim Jensen, Hennepin County Assessor's
Office; and Ed Shukle, City Manager. The following individuals were also present:
Frank Ahrens, Irene Harrington, Pat Harrington, Kimberly Krause, Leona Peterson, Mark Smith,
Gina Smith, Stephanie Brazil/Folstad, Jeffrey Brazil/Folstad, Laura Brazil and Jessica Brazil.
Property Valuation Process/Procedure - Hennepin County Assessor's Office
Keith Rennerfeldt and Kim Jensen were present from the Hennepin County Assessor's Office, to
discuss what the property valuation process/procedure is with regard to assessing property in the City
of Mound. Keith presented information with regard to the 1999 assessment and provided several
different statistics about growth, increases in value, etc.
Questions focused on value of property as it pertains to commons v. private lakeshore. Some
statistical information was shared and Keith indicated he could provide additional information as
needed.
Proposed Redevelopment of Mobile Home Park in Mound and Minnetrista
Ed Shukle indicated that a developer has a non-contingent purchase agreement to buy the mobile
home trailer park which is located in Mound and Minnetrista. The developer was supposed to attend
this meeting to present the concept of building new twinhomes in this area. He had been in the City
Hall building earlier in the evening but when the Council got to this item, he had apparently left.
More information on this development will be available at a later date.
Community Center
Ed Shukle presented a list of questions, for discussion purposes, regarding the city's interest in
building a community center. The Council expressed the need to help facilitate relocating
community tenants who currently occupy the Westonka Community Center. However, the Council
did not believe that the City had any financial obligation to these tenants with the possible exception
of the public access studio.
The Council did express the need to pursue a community center but was uncertain, at this point in
time, what the definition of a community center is. Therefore, this question must be thought about
more and further discussed. Consensus was to schedule this item for the March COW meeting.
Since a majority of the Council was going to be absent for the regular COW meeting date, the March
COW meeting was rescheduled for Tuesday, March 2. This will be the only agenda item. The City
Manager was asked to compile information that had been developed during the School District's first
task force of 5 years ago. This would include the survey information and other data developed at
that time.
COW Minutes
February 16, 1999
Page 2
Select Date for Annual Spring Cleanup/Recycling Day
Shukle suggested that Saturday, May 1, 1999 be the date for this event. The City Council agreed
but the location has not been determined. Three possibilities discussed were Lost Lake (if it is
available), behind the old Mound Bank near Lake Langdon and the public works site at Minnetrista.
Other Business
Shukle asked if the City Council did want the City Attorney to respond to a letter written by Bob
Schmidt, a resident of Island View Drive on Devon Commons. The City Council consensus was to
respond to the letter. The City Manager did provide a draft of the letter previously for the Council
to review. Some comments were made about the letter and Shukle was going to contact John Dean
with changes. A revised draft will be sent to the Council again before it is sent to Mr. Schmidt.
Discussion also focused on the need to respond to letters from citizens and to do so on a timely basis.
Discussion also focused on the need to review the City Manager's employment agreement and to
discuss goals and objectives for the City Manager to attain. Also discussed was the overall
performance of city staff. The City Manager had provided copies ofjob descriptions for department
heads and the Council indicated that they would be reviewing these descriptions as well as the city
manager's employment agreement in preparation for the April COW meeting.
Councilmember Brown asked that a coffee and donut get together with local businesses be held once
per quarter at city hall. It would give the businesses in Mound an opportunity to share their concerns
about business related issues and the city government. It was suggested that the first get together
be held on Tuesday, April 6, 1999, 7:30 a.m., Mound City Hall. Invitations will be sent to local
businesses to attend.
Upon motion by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned
at 11:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
February 23, 1999
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE IN
ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION A CONFORMING ADDITION AND ATTACHED
GARAGE,
AT 5444 SPRUCE ROAD,
LOTS 46, 47,& 48, BLOCK 2, LAKESIDE PARK A L CROCKERS IsT DIVISION,
PID# 13-117-24 32 0164
P & Z CASE #99-02
WHEREAS, the applicant, Steve Jilek, has applied for front yard and side
yard setback variances as listed below in order to allow construction of a conforming
addition and attached garage at 5444 Spruce Road; and,
WHEREAS, the following lists the requested setbacks:
Existincl/Proposed ReQuired Variance
Front yard 28.53' 30' 1.58'
Side yard 6.03' 10' 3.97'
; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of
10,000 square feet, 60 feet of lot frontage, front yard setback of 30 feet, and the balance
of setbacks as listed above for lots of record; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed addition would be built in a conforming location and
would meet all required setbacks; and,
WHEREAS, the hardcover after construction will be at approximately 18
percent for this lot of record which is allowed up to 40 percent with an approved drainage
plan; and,
WHEREAS, the owner of the fences located on the property be verified and if
needed, obtain easements for encroaching fences; and,
February 23, 1999
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE IN
ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION A CONFORMING ADDITION AND ATTACHED
GARAGE,
AT 5~.~.~. SPRUCE ROAD,
LOTS 46, 47,& 48, BLOCK 2, LAKESIDE PARK A L CROCKERS IsT DIVISION,
PID# 13-117-24 32 0164
P & Z CASE #99-02
WHEREAS, the applicant, Steve Jilek, has applied for front yard and side
yard setback variances as listed below in order to allow construction of a conforming
attached garage at 5444 Spruce Road; and,
WHEREAS, the following lists the requested setbacks:
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Front yard 28.53' 30' 1.58'
Side yard 6.03' 10' 3.97'
; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of
10,000 square feet, 60 feet of lot frontage, front yard setback of 30 feet, and the balance
of setbacks as listed above for lots of record; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed addition would be built in a conforming location and
would meet all required setbacks; and,
WHEREAS, the hardcover after construction will be at approximately 18
percent for this lot of record which is allowed up to 40 percent with an approved drainage
plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has
unanimously recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff; and,
February 23. 1999
Jilek - 5'!.44 Spruce Road
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a variance of 1.58 feet for the front yard and a 3.97 feet
for the side yard as recommended by the Planning Commission in order to construct
a conforming addition with the following conditions:
The pile of debris sitting in the proposed garage location be removed from the site
prior to building permit issuance.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth in this resolution, pursuant to Section
350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding
that the structures described in the resolution remain as lawful, nonconforming structures
subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following improvements:
Construct a conforming attached garage to the existing dwelling.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the
Hennepin County Property Information System:
LOTS 46, 47, & 48, BLOCK 2, LAKESIDE PARK AL CROCKERS 1s'r DMSlON, HENNEPIN
COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision
(1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with
Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the
subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with
the City Clerk.
February 23, 1999
Jilek - 5444 $1~ruce Road
Page £
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has
unanimously recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a variance of 1.58 feet for the front yard and a 6.03
feet for the side yard as recommended by the Planning Commission in order to
construct a conforming addition with the following conditions:
The pile of debris sitting in the proposed garage location be removed from
the site prior to building permit issuance.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth in this resolution, pursuant to
Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express
understanding that the structures described in the resolution remain as lawful,
nonconforming structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section
350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following improvements:
Construct a conforming addition and attached garage to the existing
dwelling.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the
Hennepin County Property Information System:
LOTS 46, 47, & 48, BLOCK 2, LAKESIDE PARK A L CROCKERS 1 s~ DIVISION, HENNEPIN
COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision
(1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with
Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the
subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with
the City Clerk.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 1999
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky
Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob
Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and
Secretary Deb Hawkinson.
Public Present: Mr. & Mrs. Jorj Ayaz (4844 Island View Drive) and neighbors, Mr. & Mrs. John
Smith (5189 Emerald Drive), Mr. & Mrs. Steve Jilek (5444 Spruce Road) and neighbors.
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 11, 1999 MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to accept the minutes as written.
Motion carried 9-0.
Building Official Jon Sutherland asked to add an item to the agenda. Agenda item 1C will be a
Variance request on 5189 Emerald Drive. The Chair accepted the addition.
1. BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 99-02: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK
VARIANCES, TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING ADDITION AND
ATTACHED GARAGE, STEVE JILEK, 5444 SPRUCE ROAD, LOTS 46, 47,
AND 48, BLOCK 2, LAKESIDE PARK - CROCKER'S PID # 13-117-24 32
0164.
City Planner Gordon presented this application for a variance. This applicant has
submitted a request to add a conforming two-stall attached garage to the existing
house. This is a one and one-half story house with no garage at the present time. It
is proposed to covert the existing basement into one garage stall and put an addition
on that will house the second stall. Above the second stall, the applicant has
proposed a deck.
Currently, the house sits 28.53 feet from the front road. A setback of 30 feet is
required. Therefore, the applicant is asking for a variance of 1.58' on this side. The
side of the house sits back 6.03 feet from the side property line that has a required
setback of 10 feet. Thus, an additional variance of 3.97 feet is requested here.
There is sufficient open space on the property to meet hardcover guidelines.
Additional issues consist of some fences and a retaining wall on the property; the
ownership of which is yet to be determined. The fence on the west property line and
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 1999
concrete retaining wall sections along the back side of the property appear to be the
neighbors, however, are on Mr. Jilek's property. Staff recommends that the owner
of the fences be verified. If they are the neighbors, an easement should be secured,
as it should if they belong to the property owner.
Since there are no issues with the plan other than the variances requested, once the
ownership issue on the fences is determined along with the clean up of the debris on
the property. Staff recommends approval of the variance request.
DISCUSSION
Weiland asked if once the addition would be placed if the lot is subdividable.
The answer to that question is no, the lots cannot be further subdivided.
Clapsaddle asked Gordon what the issue was in identifying the owner of the fences
and retaining walls. The owner of the property, Mr. Steve Jilek, and his neighbor
were present at the Commission's meeting. The neighbor indicated that the fences
were indeed his. However, they do not jog as shown on the survey. Also, on the
survey is noted a fence along the north lot line. This neighbor explained that the
previous owner of 5444 Spruce Road had torn this fence out and it no longer
existed. This answered Mr. Brown's question.
Voss asked why the Staff recommended bringing the fences into compliance and not
the concrete retaining wall. Gordon explained that fences are "easier" to move and
that often retaining walls are holding back earth that is of benefit to both properties
and is more difficult to move. One option would be to obtain an easement for the
concrete retaining walls.
Mueller asked about openings into the garage. He asked if the walls and ceiling of
the garage would be a 2 feet x 6 feet firewall and if the door was rated 1R for fire
protection. Additionally, there is a closet on the building design. He wanted to verify
that this indeed did face into the house. The structure of the walls and openings into
the garage are conforming according to Jon Sutherland.
At this juncture, Weiland asked Sutherland and Gordon that when a building permit is
applied for, could the applicant be asked to put house numbers up on the property so
that Commissioners, when reviewing the property, can identify it properly. Sutherland
indicated he would check into the best way to do this. He does understand Mr.
Weiland's frustration in finding the proper location to inspect.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle for the Planning Commission to
move Staff Recommendation of approving this variance request as proposed.
Motion carried 9-0.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: February 8, 1998
SUBJECT: Variance Request
OWNER: Steve Jilek- 10057 Oxborough Road, Bloomington
CASE NUMBER: 99-02
HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5b
LOCATION: 5444 Spruce Road
ZONING: Residential District R- 1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to add a conforming two-stall attached
garage to the existing house. The associated variance request is listed below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Front yard 28.53' 30' 1.58'
Side yard 6.03' 10' 3.97'
The house is located at 5444 Spruce Road in an R-1 district. The lot is conforming to district area
and frontage requirements. Current property improvements include a 1 ½ story house as shown
on the survey. There is not a garage on the property at this time. As proposed, the existing
basement will be converted into one garage stall and the addition will accommodate the second
stall. A deck is proposed over the second stall. A large pile of construction debris sits on the spot
where the garage is proposed.
Other issues on site include a wood fence on the west property line that appears to be the
neighbors. The finished side of the fence is facing towards Mr. Jilek's property. The fence starts
out at the property comer in conformance and jogs out 1.4 feet in the side yard. Also, two
concrete wall sections along the rear property line encroach 0.5 and 0.3 feet respectively onto the
property. They also appear to be the neighbors, although they serve both properties.
A hardcover calculation sheet was not submitted given the large amount of open space. Staff
made a rough calculation for the site after construction factoring in a two lane driveway and
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
#99-02 Jilek Variance Request
January 8, 1999
sidewalk to the front door and found the site to have approximately 18 percent hardcover.
COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or
practical difficulty. Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the
following circumstances exist (Section 350:530):
A. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size' or
shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since
enactment of the ordinance have no control.
B. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant
of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of
this Ordinance.
C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
D. That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege
that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the
same district.
E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship.
F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to
property in the same zone.
The proposed addition is conforming in all respects which is the aim for all new construction.
There is not currently a garage serving the house so the proposal meets a residential property
need. Given this, there is reason to find a practical difficulty exists that would warrant granting of
a variance. The existing fence and retaining walls, although encroaching on the property, do not
appear to be the applicant's. If this is true, there is little that can be done as a part of this request
to bring the encroachments into conformance. If however, the fence is the applicant's, Staff
would recommend the encroaching portion be brought into conformance or an easement be
placed on the adjacent property at the applicants expense. The retaining walls along the rear
property line also appear to be the adjoining neighbors although they do serve the property. Staff
would recommend that no action be taken and they be allowed to remain.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the variances as requested with the following conditions:
1. The pile of debris siting in the proposed garage location be removed from the site prior to
building permit issuance.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 ~AN 2' ~. 1999
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
ff~O ApplicationFee:
~-~-~ City Planner ~,~-~ DNR
~-~-~ City Engineer Other
~'~t-~ Public Works
$100. O0
B-1 B-2 B-3
Phone (H) (.t ?,. ~'5 i ~'~..~d- (W) ¢ / 2
APPLICANT Name
(IF OTHER Address
THAN Phone (H)
OWNER)
(W) (M)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
for this property? ( ) yes,~no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
procedure
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
_' - . - ~r~~ LL~J ~. /
(Re~./2-~-~ ) ~'
Variance Application, P. 2
c,s .o, qq-0oq
o
Do the existing structures comply with ~all r~c~eight, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No~ specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot ar~fa,~-c.): i F---~¢, ,~ , ,
SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
,ro,t rd: Or> ,,. 1,5 ,t.
Side Yard: N S E W _ i_~ ft. t~..~;)3 ft. --;~-~ ft.
Side Yard: N S E W ~,0 ft. "7 ~/~ ft. '- - ft.
Rear Yard: NSEW _ ,~,r--~ ft. ~ -~ft. ~ ft.
Lakeside: N S E W ----- ft. ---- ft. ft.
: N S E W ft. ft. ft.
Street Frontage: ~/f,~(~ ft. { ~}~.~ ft. ft.
Hardcover: .~q_sq- ft I ~'.qf¢ sq ft ~ sq ft
Does the present_, use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes'l~. No (). If no, specify each
non-conforming
use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of
the uses permitted in that zoning district?
Please
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) drainage ~;~existing situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
(Rev. 12-30-98)
Variance Application, P. 3
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone J~aving property interests in the
land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)7 Yes (), No~4, If yes, explain:
Was the hardship.., created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
Yes (), No~. If yes, explain:
o
Are the conditions of hardship fo.r.
)4,
described in this petition? Yes
affected?
which you request a variance peculiar only to the property
No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly
Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signature
Applicant's Signature
Date
(Rev. 12-30-98)
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME:
0/L x
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40%
= (for all lots) ..............
= (for Lots of Record*) .......
L'bl~og, ~ I
I
LOT AREA
SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) . .
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
x -
I~ x c~OD=
X =
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
x =
X =
TOTALDETACHEDBLDGS~:~..(~), X ~'~? ....... - '~'~'~'~
X =
X =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
X =
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
dica difference) ...............................
PREPARED BY, //~7--.'-'"--- ~, - DATE
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
SITE
Subject Address 5 ~'~ Y F
Business Name/Tennant
The applicant is: ~,.owner
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620
__contractor __.tenant
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION
OWNER
CONTRACTOR
Lot Block Plat
Subdivision PID#
Company Name Mcense ~
Contact Person
Address
Phone (H) (W) (M)
ARCHITECT Name
&/OR Address
ENGINEER Phone (H)
(W) (M)
CHANGE OF FROM:
USE TO:
DESCRIBE WORK: ¢~:~ ~C .
OF WORK: VALUE APPROVED:
/
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ~ECTRICAL, PLUMBING. H~TING. V~TING OR AIR CONDITIONING.
PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUC~ON A~HORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED ~THIN 180 DAYS, O~ IF CONSTRUC~ON OR WORK I~ SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED
FOR A PERIO0 OF 180 DAYS AT ANY ~ME A~ WORK IS COMMENCED.
~ME LIMITS ON BUILDING COMPL~ON. ALL WORK. TO BE PERFORM ED PUrSUiT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR N~ CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS, REMODELING, ~0 ALTERATIONS
TO FHE EXr:~IORS OF ANY BUILDING OR ~TRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL 8E C0MPL~ED ~THIN ONE (1) Y~ FROM THE OATE OF PERMIT iSSUANCE. THE PERSON
OBTAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPER~ SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FO~ COMPL~ION. A ~O~ON OF ~IS ORDIN~CE IS A MISDEME~OR OFFENSE. THE
COUNCIL MAY ~TEND THE TIME FOR COMPL~ION UPON WRI~EN ~EQUEST OF THE PE~MI~E~ ESTABLISHING TO THE R~SONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE C~ COUNCIL THAT
CIRCUMSTANCES B~OND THE CONTROL OF THE P~MI~EE PR~ENTED COMPL~ION OF THE WORK ~R ~ICH THE P~MIT WAS GRANTED. THE ~T~SION SHALL BE ~EQUESTED
NOT LESS THAN THIR~ {30} ~USINESS DAYS P~IOR TO THE ~D OF THE ONE-Y~R
I HERESY CER~ THAT I HAVE R~D AND ~AMINED ~lS APPMCATION ~D KNOW THE S~E TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL ~O~SlONS OF ~WS ~O ORDINANCES GOV~NING
THIS ~PE OF WORK ~LL BE COMPLIED ~TH ~HER SPECIFIED HER~N DE NOT. THE~R~NG OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORI~ TO VIOLATE OR C~CEL THE
PEO~SICNS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL ~W REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR~E P~FORM~CE OF CONSTRUCTION.
PRINT APPLICANT'S NAME A~LI~NT'S S~NATUR~ ' DATE
////////////////////////////////////////
( )FFIC,E. USI ONLY) SPECIAL
CONSTRUCTION TYPE:
OCCUPANCY GROUP / OlV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD COPIED APPROVED
..oGs, zE,sQ., .STOR,ES .RE SPR,..L.S REOU, REO, C,TY G,.E. I- 21-qq
.v... YES, .o PU.L, CWORKS
vm ~ ~ o~ ' :.' ::~s c"~C~ s~:.': :: ~'.~: .... ~0vm
0
Oq 0
0
r~ ~
*o~
t'-.~
o~
oF
,.-'6§
. 0
.,-,'9 _i .~
I~ _1 t-
I
,/
K
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET
SURVEY ON FILE? YES /~
~OT OF R~CORD:{ ws/ NO
HOUSE .........
FRONT N/S~E W
FRONT N~r/ E W
SIDE N S/~W
S,DE
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: EXISTING LOT SIZE:
LOT
6,000/40 B2 20,000/80
R2 14,000/80 LOT DEPTH:
R3 Slig ORD. T1 30,000/100
REQUIRED ] EXISTING/PROPOSED VARIANCE
lO/
~0'
GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACIIED BUILDINGS
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6'
SIDE N S E W 4'OR6'
REAR N S E W 4'
LAKE N S E W 50'
TOP OF BLUFF /' R ~0'
HARDCOVER ~,x, 3o% O(~'~ /
This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirementa-~utlined
Planning Department at 472-0600.
GOVT LOT S
in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound
? ~3' i00;~°
.ao.o$
5 ' '; 31
CD
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 #99-03
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A STREET AND UTILITY EASEMENT
VACATION LOCATED WITHIN THE R-lA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING
DISTRICT AT 4844 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE AND ADJACENT UNIMPROVED
DRUMMOND ROAD, BLOCK 15, LOTS 1 & 2, DEVON
PIDS # 25-117-24 11 0161
P & Z 99-03
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, March 9. 1999 to consider the approval of a street and utility
easement vacation located within the R-lA Single Family Residential zoning district
at 4844 Island View Dr and adjacent unimproved Drummond Road.
~s(lls)~,' ,..&$, ~o,~.,I ,~.7,;.~ ~ (~z)(21) ~(2o)"~,
9 u 'l -- [4UJ ~ · , ,u ~ 40
~~ ~W 40 40 40 40 40 40 I5 ~u ~ o o "=~ 5-
lo (40) ~[~) - ~ (~)(~)(~) 7(35) 5 3 4o 40 ~
All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be
~~Secretary
Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on February 17, 1999
Published in the Laker, February, 20, 1999
printed on recycled paper
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 1999
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky
Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob
Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and
Secretary Deb Hawkinson.
Public Present: Mr. & Mrs. Jorj Ayaz (4844 Island View Drive) and neighbors, Mr. & Mrs. John
Smith (5189 Emerald Drive), Mr. & Mrs. Steve Jilek (5444 Spruce Road) and neighbors.
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 11, 1999 MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to accept the minutes as written.
Motion carried 9-0.
Building Official Jon Sutherland asked to add an item to the agenda. Agenda item 1C will be a
Variance request on 5189 Emerald Drive. The Chair accepted the addition.
3. VACANT LOT AT 2217 CHATEAU LANE
The owner of this lot has offered this lot to the City for the sum of $1.00. The City can
decide how it is used. The City Council has looked at this and asked the Planning
Commission to look at it before approval. It is a 40 feet by 120 feet parcel. It would be
nonbuildable as it is.
Brown indicated that the question was asked at City Council if there is any back taxes
owed on the property prior to sending it to the Planning Commission for review.
This property is located between two nonconforming lots. Council member Weycker
stated that she felt it could be used to help make one or both of these properties a
conforming lot size. She did not want to see it restricted for "park purposes only."
(Taken from the Minutes - Mound City Council, January 12, 1999.)
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse, that after the Planning
Commission recommend that the property be purchased, but
that the use not be restricted. If it is in reasonable proximity of
one of the neighbors, it probably should be sold to make one or
the other lots conforming. Motion carried 7-0.
MINUTF3 - 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 Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J.
Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, City Clerk Fran
Clark and the following interested citizens: Garry & Marie Everson, Ric Williams, Mark
Thiede, Para Myers, Bill Pinegar, Mary Pauly, Patty Guttormson, Carol and Rick Todd, Greg
Meisel, Betsy Brown, Tom Reese, Frank & Betty Wetland, Becky Glister, Eric Meisel and Paul
Meisel.
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 Parmers Limited of Dallas, 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
$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 u~ge. 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 Commission for their review. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
MINUTES OF A MEETING
MOUND PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
DECEMBER 10, 1998
Present were: Chair: Peter Meyer; Commissioners: Tom Casey, Norman Domholt, Tom
Casey, Bev Botko; City Council Representative: Leah Weycker.
Absent was Christina Cooper (without prior notice.)
The following interested citizens were also present: Elizabeth and Jeff Bjerksett (2605
Tyrone Lane) and James Chelman (4786 Carrick Road). In addition, Tim Piepkorn from
the School District and Loren Gordon from HKG were present.
Chair Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
DISCUSS: 2217 CHATEAU LANE MEMOS
It was noted that pages 72-75 of the meeting packet contained a memorandum offering
the City of Mound a 40' x 120' lot for the sum of $1.00 by Sunshore Partners. It is
located between two small residential lots. The offered lot is not buildable, however,
should things change in the future with the adjacent lots, this situation could change.
The Park Director recommends that the City go ahead and buy the property for $1.00.
Weycker also recommended that the Park and Open Space Commission move to
obtain this land, but not specify for what park services.
Motion made by Casey, seconded by Domholt, that the City proceed with
the purchase of this lot for the sum of $1.00 and dedicate it for park land
usage. Motion carried with ayes from Domholt, Botko, and Casey. The nay
votes were Weycker and Meyer.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
MEMOI~,.ND~
NOVEMBER 18, 1998
TO: ~D SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER ~. y ....
FROM. J~M FACKLER, PARKS DIREC~.~
SUBJECT. 2217' CHATEAU LANE. ~ L/
I have inspected the vacant lot at 2217 Chateau Lane that
Sunshore Partners I is offering to the city of Mound for
for one' dollar. As you can see from the attached portion of
the plat map the lot is 40'X 120'. It is located between two
smaller older homes and is not being maintained.
It is level and appears that there are no major concerns
like trash, brush or hazardous trees on the property that
would require monies to be spent.
The size and location of the property is not conducive to
anything more then limited park improvements or a small
green space retention area.
My recommendation is to purchase this lot but not restrict
its use to the city and that only limited rough mowing and
ground repairs be preformed.
printed on recycled paper
October 6, 1998:
PARTNERS I. LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
3131 McKINNEY AVENUE
gUITE 404
DALLAs,. TEXAS 75204
(214) 220-0205
Mr. Ed Shukle, Jr,., City Manager
City of Mound :I
5341 Maywood Drive
Mound, Minnes6ib. 55364
Re: 2217 Chateau Lane, PIN 13-117-24-43-0059
Dear Mr. Shukle:
VIA FACSIMILE
I am writing in connection with our conversation today concerning the status of the referenced
property. As we discussed, the property is smaller than the minimum currently required by the
City of Mound in order' to be "buildabl¢". Therefore, there are a limited number of options
available to this partnership for the use of this property.
I would like to donate the property to the City of Mound for $I.00 for use as a park or for any
other purpose the City feels is appropriate and would appreciate your consideration in this regard.
If you should haye.,~any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
SUNSHORE PARTNERS I, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By: SUNSHOREi INC., its General Partner
"David M. Radmai~
Vice President
"1 i
· :~ (.,, ~. ~ ~, ~ " ................. ) II~J ~ .~ ~ d~ 1~
' ' ~ I C~ - , (z'(,:, i ('% ~ ~. ~ ~1 ~ ~ '~ ~ k ~%-
. G.~,. _ . ~, u . ..e,~-,~ J Il , ' J ; J" - '~:-~,.,~'.' r~ "- ,~,,~
~ u~, ~t,~11.~. ~~0:,= , ...;.'~ ;; :;'; ,;:, l ~' I~: .:.~_;.; ~?::~-/ ~
... I '"J&' ~. 0.~ .O:l :~ r~ ~ : ' . '/-." ~:-' ' ..~-,'. '-" ~ . ~ ~.' .... ~ ,~ -'
~ 9~6. ~~ ,. · o,~: ~. ~.. [" · {'~{~,~1~'~ ~'~ '~ ~'~}~'~ ~ ~ :l';'}r', ~,
~ .~ _ ~' . t ~ .... ~,~,~ ,~_ ' ::.~:,~I,,:k~.,,I~,.~-,L.I.....L.,.;,:.t' ",-I., · ;I I I -,
~) (9~,)~ Y ~ ~ n~, ' ':,. ' ' ~-- ~ r- -.,~ ...... v-..u.. '," .=.:.,:.'.(.~,. ;:,,' ;?~;-?qj~:~; ~,~'~~'~-~
68 d~ ~" ~ ~ : ~/O.,,~j I,, :~ ~ ,. Z o .',~.','... ",,', .J....,..,, .. ...... :, ~ -; . ~ ,~ ~ ~
' "' ~ ~~~ .... ~ ', '~ ' · ."::'.-::' ,:".:: '::'~ 'c':,:2-'.'..:" ' "~~, x .... ~U-~ '~ ,=.
~'~ ..... n.'~- L'L'. ..... "<' /; ' i ~' ' I~ ~X'"'..': '.'; .~ .', '('." 'r'.'i ~I~JT~) ~.. ~;
/ ~(9~1)~.~,'~:)~,0~ :-~ ~L 0,~ I ': Il~'' i ~':'.. ~ ~, ~ ~ I"
. ~t'~ ' ' ~ o:~. ' ~ ~ ~ ~ . I " ',. ~ :~f I .,
~t~' ~ '? ~_ Zl -.~ ti '~ [~ ~ ,; ~; :~J," ; ~ ~ ~ '~1 {~;'. " I ........ : ..... l"
..... :-.: ~ .... . ..... :~. ........... ~ -~.-...
,. o,, , I ,I , .
~ I ~ Oh ~) ~c ~l o- .~ ~,' c ?'~t 9r Z'~ '"2 ~:J~. . '. ................... r''
I O/ J VII · ~ ~ ~ ............ ~ '
Jo. Soo" C h-t,e-L/ / -£ I
o5(~/oL5~:9
· ouI
February 23, 1999
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR
CONSTRUCTION A CONFORMING ADDITION,
AT 5189 EMERALD DRIVE,
PART OF LOTS 7 & 10, LOTS 8 & 9, , BLOCK 1, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT C,
PID# 24-117-24 24 0011
P & Z CASE 899-04
WHEREAS, the applicant, John Smith, has applied for side yard setback
variance for an existing detached garage as listed below in order to allow construction of a
conforming addition to the dwelling at 5189 Emerald Drive; and,
WHEREAS, the following lists the requested setbacks:
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Side yard (garage) 2.8'
4' 1.2'
; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of
10,000 square feet, 60 feet of lot frontage, front yard setback of 30 feet, lakeside setback
is 50 feet and the balance of setbacks as listed above for lots of record; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed addition would be built in a conforming location and
would meet all required setbacks; and,
WHEREAS, Resolution #73-335 recognized the non-conforming side yard
setback although the 15 year time limit for "streamlining" nonconforming structures on this
property has since expired, requiring application for a variance; and,
WHEREAS, the existing garage is in reasonably good condition and it is
unlikely the nonconformance can be eliminated; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has
unanimously recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff; and,
February 23, 1999
Smith - 5189 Emerald Ddve
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a variance of 1.2 feet for the side yard as recommended
by the Planning Commission in order to construct a conforming addition.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth in this resolution, pursuant to
Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express
understanding that the structures described in the resolution remain as lawful,
nonconforming structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section
350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following improvements:
Construct a conforming addition to the dwelling.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the
Hennepin County Property Information System:
LOT 8, 9 AND THAT PART OF LOT 7 LYING WLY OF ELY 10 FT THOF ALSO THAT PART OF LOT
10 LYING ELY OF A LINE RUNNING NLY PAR WITH W LINE THOF FROM A PT N SLY LINE THOF DIS
25 FT E FROM SW COR THOF INCL PART OF EDGEWATER DRIVE VAC SUBJECT TO ROAD, BLOCK
1, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT C, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision
(1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with
Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the
subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with
the City Clerk.
February 23, [999
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW
FO'" .... ITION,
WHEREA,
variance for an existing
a conforming addition t~
WHEREA,~
Side yard (garage '.'
for side yard setback
to allow construction of
fiance
; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of
10,000 square feet, 60 feet of lot frontage, front yard setback of 30 feet, lakeside setback
is 50 feet and the balance of setbacks as listed above for lots of record; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed addition would be built in a conforming location and
would meet all required setbacks; and,
WHEREAS, Resolution #73-335 recognized the non-conforming side yard
setback and due to the 15 year time limit has since expired, requiring a new variance; and,
WHEREAS, the existing garage is in reasonably good condition and it is
unlikely the nonconformance can be eliminated; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has
unanimously recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff; and,
February 23, 1999
Smith - 5189 Emerald Drive
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a variance of 1.2 feet for the side yard as recommended
by the Planning Commission in order to construct a conforming addition.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth in this resolution, pursuant to
Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express
understanding that the structures described in the resolution remain as lawful,
nonconforming structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section
350:420.
o
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following improvements:
Construct a conforming addition to the dwelling.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the
Hennepin County Property Information System:
LOT 8, 9 AND THAT PART OF LOT 7 LYING WLY OF ELY 10 FT THOF ALSO THAT PART OF LOT
10 LYING ELY OF A LINE RUNNING NLY PAR WITH W LINE THOF FROM A PT N SLY LINE THOF DIS
25 FT E FROM SW COR THOF INCL PART OF EDGEWATER DRIVE VAC SUBJECT TO ROAD, BLOCK
1, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT C, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision
(1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with
Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the
subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with
the City Clerk.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 1999
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky
Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob
Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and
Secretary Deb Hawkinson.
Public Present: Mr. & Mrs. Jorj Ayaz (4844 Island View Drive) and neighbors, Mr. & Mrs. John
Smith (5189 Emerald Drive), Mr. & Mrs. Steve Jilek (5444 Spruce Road) and neighbors.
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MINUTES -APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 11, 1999 MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to accept the minutes as written.
Motion carried 9-0.
Building Official Jon Sutherland asked to add an item to the agenda. Agenda item 1C will be a
Variance request on 5189 Emerald Drive. The Chair accepted the addition.
1. BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 99-04: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK
VARIANCES, TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING ADDITION, MR. & MRS.
JOHN SMITH, 5189 EMERALD DRIVE, PI7 AND 10, LOTS 8 AND 9,
BLOCK 1, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT C, PID # 24-117-24 24 0011.
Sutherland presented this request to the Commissioners. He started with an
apology for not having this in the packets that went to the Commissioners last week.
However, this is a fairly "clean, straightforward" request. If the applicants had to wait
for the next meeting, it would mean being delaying construction around four months
because of road restrictions.
This applicant recently purchased this property and is requesting a building permit
and variance to allow the construction of a conforming addition. The entire building
plan is conforming in all sections. However, the existing detached garage has a
nonconforming setback of 2.8 feet. The minimum setback requirement is 4 feet that
requires a 1.2 feet variance.
The existing garage is in reasonably good condition and therefore it is unlikely the
nonconforming setback can be eliminated at this time.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 1999
For the record, it should be noted that the original subdivision approved by
Resolution #73-335 recognized the detached garage, however, because of the time
limit of 15 years as noted in Subdivision 9 of Ordinance Section 350:420, this case
could not be streamlined.
Mueller asked if there was a survey. Sutherland indicated that there was. While Mr.
Sutherland did not calculate a hardcover amount, it is a fairly open piece of property.
It easily will conform to the 40 percent ordinance. Mr. Smith indicated at this time
that the calculations for hardcover come to approximately 21 percent.
Mueller is very concerned about items coming to the Planning Commission without
being in the packets ahead of time for their review and site visit. He feels that when
that happens, applicants are not necessarily treated fairly.
Chair Michael asked why it was brought before the Commission now, who had
approved it moving forward. Sutherland indicated that any number of people could
have moved such an issue forward in such circumstances. However, per his
experience, this application is a "slam-dunk" issue and is in conformance. Again, he
reminded the Commissioners that this would have been streamlined if it weren't for
the 15-year time limit.
Burma asked about the stone wall and whether it was shared or if the applicant had
an easement. Mr. Smith indicated that this was jointly owned; and said Sutherland,
"although it crosses the property line, it is non-issue from the Staff's perspective."
Glister is also concerned that it doesn't appear to be a complete application.
asked if the Planning Commission was setting a precedent by allowing this
application to "jump" ahead of others and being "rushed" through.
She
Again, Sutherland responded that the expedition is because of pending road
restrictions and that the case is clearly in conformance.
Mueller stated that this was a burden on the Planning Commission to review this
now. If it is reviewed at the next Planning Commission, stated Sutherland, then the
Staff would potentially have a burden of a one-day turn around also. So, he
recognized that in either case, it would have been a burden.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland for the Planning
Commission to move Staff recommendation of approving this
variance request as proposed. Motion carried 9-0.
Weiland was quick to indicate with his second that he too is opposed to last minute
additions such as this to Planning Commission's agenda. However, he is very
familiar with this property personally and that is the only reason he is acting on it
tonight.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 1999
Brown will meet with anyone who wants to review the property prior to tomorrow
evening's City Council Meeting. If there are issues, perhaps the Commissioners
could come the Council Meeting also to bring these up.
Mueller did not think it was fair to ask the volunteer Planning Commissioners to
attend yet another meeting. Because this case seems "clear cut," he will act on it
tonight. However, he wanted to make it clear that the last minute addition of such a
request was a burden and imposition on the Planning Commission.
The Chair excused both Clapsaddle and Voss at 9:00 p.m. because of previous
commitments.
3
CITY OF MOUND
STAFF REPORT
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
CASE NO.
LOCATION:
ZONING:
Planning Commission Agenda of 2-8-99
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
Variance Request
John Smith, 5189 Emerald Dr
99-04
5189 Emerald Drive, PI7&10, Lots 8, & 9 Block 1 Shirley Hills Unit C, PID 24-
117-24 24 0011.
R-1 Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant, John Smith, is seeking a building permit and variance to allow
the construction of a conforming addition as noted in the attached application. All of the proposed
work is conforming to all applicable sections of the ordinance. The existing detached garage is
setback 2.8 feet to the side yard where a 4 foot setback is required. This results in an existing
nonconforming setback and recognition of a variance of 1.2 feet.
The original subdivision approved by Resolution # 73-335, recognized the location of the
detached garage, however, this case could not be streamlined (according to current provisions
of the ordinance), because of the time limit of 15 years as noted in Subd. 9 of Ordinance Section
350:420. The existing garage is in reasonably good condition and it is unlikely the
nonconformance can be eliminated at this time. The related information is attached for your
information.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the planning commission recommend approval of the variance request as
proposed.
pr~nted on recycled paper
February 4, 1999
ECENF-.9
Ed Shukle
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mr. Shukle:
Thank you for trying to help me understand the need for a variance for my detached garage when I am
applying for a building permit for an addition to the main house located at 5189 Emerald Drive, Mound.
The garage in question was, as I believe, one of the original structures placed on the property back in the
early 1940's, probably prior to the ordinance that we are now subject to. I understand the need for such
ordinances and will do my best to bring this issue into compliance, however, I am troubled with the time
associated with the variance process, as well as the $100.00 fee. I am currently under contract with
Sawhorse Design & Builders and have 50% of the project cost paid at this time, planning for completion of
this project prior to summer. The normal 60 day variance review process will be quite costly not only in
dollars, but in timing.
I would like to ask for your help in streamlining the city process so we can get on with the project. Is it
possible to have this taken care of at the February 8th planning commission meeting, or the February 23rd
city council meeting? This request I feel is fair, since the variance was apparently not an issue for
construction of an addition to the main house structure in the mid 80's, nor was it a issue at sale of the
property in July.
I hope you can help expedite the process and please excuse my tone of frustration.
~~~hn Smith'
5189 Emerald Drive
Mound, MN 55364
(612) 472-2131 HP
(612) 540-7951 WP
attch: variance application/fee
02/04/99 13:07 FAZ
CITY OF MOl.rl~
VARIAN~..~ APP! ICATIrIN
CITY OF MOUND
6341 Maywood Ra~d, Mound, MN 6E~64
Phone: 472.4~00, F~x: 472-0620
[~004
FEB 5.~999 ~.,~5
q
Appliett!;:~ Fee: $100.00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
City Planner ~-//~'~-'~9 DHRV'"'"
Public Works v/
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DE~C.
I
PROPERTY
OWNER
Address
Block
PlO, ~--li~- a4 i
ZONING DISTRICT ~ R-lA R-2 R-3 ~1 ~2
Name
Address
Phone(H}~;~-~7~-~lSI (W) ~z-~.~ . (M)
APPUCANT Name
(IF OTHER Address
THAN Phone (H)
OWNER)
{w) (M)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional u~e permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (~no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
fRe~.12-30-98)
I
02/04/99 13:07
Variance Application, P. 2
CITY OF ]01.I~
Ca~ Ne.
[~005
qq-oq
e
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulatioe~ for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No (~. If no, specify each non-coafom~ng u~e Idescriba reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ~.~ ft. I [::>,Z2% ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ~ Z~ ft. ~. ~ ft. i.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) I ['~ ft. -~t~ ft.
Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft.
Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ~ ft. ~-~T.- ft.
: (NSEW) ft. ft.
Street Frontage: ' ~1~ ft. I ~*- ft. _
Lot Size: ~O, OC~ sq ft ~ i~--~sq ft
Hardcovor: [[ i ~,~cJ.,-/ sq ft ~,35.Z. sq ft
rte
sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes (), No (~'. If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its re~nable use for any of
the uses permitted in that zoning district?
too narrow
too small
too shallow
Please describe:
topography ( } soil
drainage ( ) existing situation
shape ( -}/other: specify
,'sToo
2. o~ ~ ~oo~-. -
(P,~v.
02/04/99 23:08 FAX
Variance A.~plication, P. 3
CITY OF MOUND
Ceam
[~008
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone h~ving property i~terests in th~
land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982}? Yes (), No (~. # yea, e~plain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
Yes (), No (~. If yea, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for ,which you request a variance peculiar or~y to the property
described in this petition? Yes (~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly
affected?
Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the prm~iua described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Applicant's Signature ~//~2-~ -- ~/~/~
;
RESOLUTION WAIVING REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 22 OP THE
VILLAGE CODE REGROUPING
In Shirley H~I'ls Unit 0
Lot 1 and ~artof Lot 2, Block 2
and Dots 8 and 9 and Part e£ ? and 10,'Block 1)
_--.__~.__. 19D~REAS, an application to waive the subdivision requirement~
'-'..~.:.='--contained in Section 22100 o~ the"Vllla~e Code' has' boon'.filod wit'h":~'¥..
~.~.,-.. WHEREAS, said ~eque~t tot a ~vaiver hag"be'on reviewed by the~-. :'- ."""
' :.,, Planning Commission and the Villnge Council, and ..-.~.~-".
' .' '.~;.-.'. WHEREAS, it is hereby determined that there are spo¢lal '.';" -.:
· '"'"'" circumstances a~iocting said property such that the strict ap- .-
~-"'r'plication ct the ordinance would depriV]m the applicant o2 the reason-
· ' '~. able use oi his laudl that tho waiver is necessary 2.o.r the · '
-;' preset'ration and onJoymon~ of a substantial property right; and
;' ' that granting' tho waiver will not be detrimehtal to the public '"'"i' '
i."' 'welfare or injurious to Other property o~ners, / \ -,.
;".;.F' NOW, TH~REFORE~ iff{ IT RESOLVED BY Tiff{ YXLI~GE COUNCIL OF Tiff{ '. -
VI~-~.AGE OF MOUND.' '
--~- 1. The request of Mrs. Stanley 01son
· for a waiver from the provis~ons of Section 2~.00 of the Village
'"'"' 'Code and the request to subdivide property of. lees' thas five acres
-'...~.,is hereby granted to permit division.et the Iollo{lng property; .~... .--
..... >'-Al{ of Lot'l, DIock 2, and [hat part' Of Lo[ 2, Block 2, which
': ~: lies Easter.]y"of the ~o]]owtng described Ii'ne *eretnafter .... '..-'j.~,:2.;,i,,.~'
_,.~';".'i~eferred to' as Line A, to-wit: Commencing at a point on the ·. ,~.~.
', ....':.~ tkence Northerly. parallel w~th. the ~{est.l~ne of said Lot l0 ~o.,
"i.'.;~:~'~' to 'the North'l"tne thereof; thence Northerly on .a
."ii,.'~.;.%'Lot 2. Block ~F"also that part of Edgewater 'Drive (Vacated) ..'!,~,,:%ii';'.i,~J~ ..~
'"'fs.%'.lying £aete}'ly of t'h~ above de'Scribed ]if{e and Westerly of
.:'~'~?f'Easterly .1{ne of'Lot .1. BlOck 2,.¥here said Easterly ].1ne ~s '.'..,~',. :::~:,': '
}/,,, extended Southerly to the Sooth l~ne of. said Ed ewater Drive . -~ ......
, ..,?.<-, on file or'of record tn the office of the RegiStrar of Titles '
· ;~t,~thereof, files .of t. he Registrar:ur T.~tl'es,' Coun'ty o~.
Paroel B
;":.'-j"i,.Lot, 7, e.xcep~ the Easterly 10 feet thereof; m . ' m .. ' I ' . ' :
!'"'?~;LOts 8~.,.,.., and 9;" . ' -:~ '"' · ' ' : '' ' ' ' "~ '.". "/i'
;l,i:~!., ' · ' '. '." " - ' ' ' ' ' " ' '::'
..[:~:~[:That part' of Lot 10, ~htch l~es [asterl~ of the follo~tng des-' ' .
%',~,'crtbed line. heretnafte~ r'eferred to as Line A/to*~tt:.
~/~:~'at a point on the shore-of Lake ~llnentonka ~htch point ts g5
~;~'~Easterl~ from'the 5outhwest corner of Lot 10, O'lock 1; thence
.~ ~ I~ortherly parallel ~lth the ~est l~ne of. satd Lo~ 10 to, the tlorth,,'-..'~
,'?~;/~All :hat part .ct Edgewater ~rive (vacated), ~yin~ Easterly of.
~'~:,J~Y,the [tortheriy exLens~on(of sa~d L~neA and Southerly of a
~,l ~ · ' ' '":(~:."' :)"{.
· .k,...dra~n perpendicular to sa~d t~ortherly extension of said. Line
~?,'~ito a point In the liorth 1the of said Lot 9 distant 16.63. feet.j..::.~.:.?',~,~
f:~:%'~esterl/ of, meas'ur~d al o'n~ sa'id llof:h l~oe' from the
t;('~.~corner of said Lo: ~. , - '. .'. . '.:'~... '.' . '.'..,
~:.~V~. - ' .' ' '- . ,: '" · "' ' .":; ",
..,.
~,',R]~ ~II Block 1, Shtrley Ht.lls, Unit C, according to the plat ?;~ .,.
~,".'.thereof on file or of record tn the off.tcb of the Registrar
..).¥ ~: . , . . . , .. . ).,~....~.~,~;...
:t~,..?,T~tles, Henneptn.Count~, ~t~nnesota. Also..-. · .. · ",' .' :-.::~,,'~".,'-~.')'
~%.)-,,, , , . . ...: ~,~:-~.(, : .,....;,
~;','~'SubJect ~o an easement fo~ the discharge of surface, wate~
~,'~'~.a,d across that port,on of: Lot 7., ~lock i, 1~tn~ ~esterlyof:(~::~:~?~:~'~':~'..~.~
?.-,,.(the Easterly 10 feet,.and the liortherly 7~ fee~ of'Lot 8~.. :..;~,.-.::....-.;.,...~
~;~(~.~Block 1, and the Uortherly ~5 feet of Lot 9, Block)l,
'~.~'~[asterly 10 feet of Lot 1, 81~ck ~, Shirley tltlls,.Untt
,-.,,-: according :o the ~ecorded plat thereof,.......' .. · '. ' · -..;,:'./~::~...-.~.~
~.~,. . · ... ...... :....::: ..... .: . . . .~,,,~.?.~:
~, ~). Said easements tO.remain tn effect unt~l' such time the
~ '~ .... , , . . .......... ~ .... . ....... . ..... .~,~,~ ::
L:.v,-of Hound Instal]s storm se~e~ ~o ~ra~o [he.sut[ace.watec.'from ;.'.L:~,-.a..:.~.~:
;~r:.Emerald ~r~ve. · ".' ' , . ' ."...':...".... ': ':' i .... ""~'~' ~ .... '.: '''~
~L.?~,a.'°r th'e: ~'o~,tf0..'..o¢%~. b,~d~.'O~."t',.~,o,~ ~.,' ,'~'i ;~'~:~.':'~;
~.~," ' ' ' ' '' ' ' ':'. ',.. ' ' ' -""-.
~, en~rOaChments~ ~f a~y) from or on satd-land,.rAS surveye~ b~ ~L.~ .....
?;.. ei-,~ht~., iOth',day' or~ O~tobe.r~ 1973, ' .' ;..~', : ..' :..,.,. ',. ,,~..,'.;,,,,?./::~
. ..: ... ~,: .. , : -,",.~ . . .. . . .
, . .,...~.;.~..,::~.,..~. a desi~ble and s%able oo~it~ development and is ~ ha~o~- :::'. ,' d, . '..
: ' :'..,?..., , ' with adJaoen~ p:opertiee. . ' ~..~: ~'"'. '
, ,- .'"i .,'
The ¥illa6e Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy
thie Village.
this :eeolution to the applicant for filing in the office
the Re~leter of l~ede or the Res-refer of Titlel of
Co~ to ~h~ o~pl~;e ~th the Bubdt~t~ ~atto~ .of.'
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVFR CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS i~ [ ~
OWNER'S NAME: ..~ o k r,t ~
LOT AREA ~ ~ ~ ¢~j .~".._SQ. FT. X $0%
LOT AREA ~Q. FT. X 40%
LOT AREA ~SQ. FT. X
= (for all lots) ..............
(for Lots of Record*) .......
= {for detached buildings only) ..
I It isq'l I
I !
I I
*-Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225. Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A IRan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
LENGTH
HOUSE ~,~to,.. ~
TOTAL HOUSE
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS O~n d*=~ (114' ndn.
~pening between boards)wh~ ·
pervious audeoe under ora
not counled at hardcover
OTHER
WIDTH SO FT
x = ~-. ~
x = % ~-~.
~ x 'L'~.~ = ~4
t'?..~ X . 'L = 'Z.~"
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X =
TOTAL DECK
TOTAL OTHER
X =
A~ HA_.RDCOVER I IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~¢L'zor,. z ~.~%
OVER (indicB:e difference) ...............................
PREPARED BY'_~~/f-~~ DATE
RECEIVED
FEB - 5 1999
MOUND PLANNING & INSR
SAWHORSE DESIGNERS
F-570 T-918 P-002 FEB 05 '99 10:07
6661,
S~BNBISBO BS~OHM~S
899~££q~I9
' 'dSNI ~? -SNINNV!ci
i 666t ~ - 83J
~AI3038
899~££S~T9
668 9 - G 3.-I
SEtBNB I S~(I BSEtOHMIdS 899~££q~I9
60:0I 66, S0
6125]32668 SRWHORSE DESIGNERS F-570 T-918 P'006 FEB 05 '99 10:10
i
6125332668 SAWHORSE DESIGNERS F-570 T-918 P-007
FEB 85 '99 18:18
RECEIVED
FEB - 5 1999
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SttEET
ADDRESS: ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
SURVEY ON FILE NO R1A 6,000/40 B2 20,000/O0
R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60
R2 14,0O0JSg
LOTOPR~CORD? [Y~S~ NO R3 SEE O~. I1 30,000/100
IIOUSE .........
FRO~ N S E W
REAR N S
TOP OF BLUFF
EXISTING LOT SIZE:,
L 1t
LOT DEPTH;
VARIANCE
GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACIIED BUILDINGS
FRONT QS E W (~
FRONT N $ E W
SIDE N S E W ~4~
OR
6'
SIDE N S E W 4'OR6'
REAR N S E W 4'
LAKE N S E W 50'
TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30'
IIARDCOVER ~ ~-~R 40% ~ ~
CONFORMING? YES (NO~ ? ~"- ' IBY: '~L.,..,.' ~ DATED: ~--~q
'This 7~ning Information Sheeny summarizes a ~rtion of Otc requiremen~ outlined in fl~c Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For futd~cr info~ation, contact ~c City of Mound
0
0
~-I
~ I
,, RECEIVED. I? 1999
L KE MINNETONKA CONS.ERVATION DISTRICT
18338 MINNETONKA BLVD., DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE 612/745-0789. FAX 6121745-9085
Gregory S, Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
February 5, 1999
BOARD MEMBERS
Douglas E. Babcock
Chair, Tonka Bay
Bert Foster
Vice Chair, Deephaven
Eugene Partyka
Secretary, Minnetdsta
Craig Nelson
Treasurer, Spring Park
Andrea Ahrens
Mound
Bob Ambrose
Wayzata
Kent Dahien
Minnetonka Beach
Craig Eggers
Victoria
Tom Gilman
Excelsior
Greg Kitchak
Minnetonka
Lili McMillan
Orono
Robert Rascop
Shorewood
Herb J. Suerth
Woodland
Sheldon Wart
Greenwood
TO:
FROM:
Lakeshore Weekly News
Atto: Legal Department
(Fax # 473-0(~
Roger L.Wiflbel~, Administrative Technician
SUBJECT: Public Hearing Notice (2-11-99 Edition)
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
7:00 PM, February 24, 1999
Tonka Bay City Hall
4901 Manitou Road
Pelican Point Homeowners' Association
New Multiple Dock License Application
Spring Park/Phelps Bays, Lake Minnetonka
The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) will hold a public
hearing to consider a new Multiple Dock License Application from Pelican
Point Homeowners' Association. The proposed application is to consider
relocating 16 low water slips at the north end of the existing dock to the
south end of the property.
Details available at the LMCD office, 18338 Minnetonka Blvd., Deephavcn,
MN 55391.
50% Recycled Content
20% Post Consumer Waste
Web Page Address: http://www.winternet.conV-Imcd/
E-mail Address: Imcd@winternet.com
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENTS
~W~SOXA D~R G~aAL ~ A~PUCA~ON m~m~t:
(Note:
L.M.C.D.; 18338 Minnetonka Blvd.; Wayzata, MN S5391)
~0: DNR Area Hydrologist ~£,
Comm~ on ~ appli~tion ~e due 10 ~ys fro~ ~pt of t~ noff~. ~R~ to:
L DNR Area Fisheries Manager
Municipality
Other
PROPOSAL INFORM~ON
Name of Applicant.- ~r~z- ~ efx r~ lla-.~
~o.i~t ~dption: . ,
/~ _ ~ ~ ~,~' ."
CO~S ON PRO~SA~
Co~en~ on ~o]~ by Re~ewer (a~ ~te ~ · n~d~:
Recommendation of Reviewer:
Name of Reviewer:
LAKE MINN.ETONKA CONS.ERVATION D!STRICT
18338 MINNETONKA BLVD. DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE 612/745-0789 FAX 612/745-9085
Gregory S. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
February $, 1999
BOARD MEMBERS
Douglas E. Babcock
Chair, Tonka Bay
Bert Foster
Vice Chair, Deephaven
Eugene Partyka
Secretary, Minnetrista
Craig Nelson
Treasurer, Spring Park
Andrea Ahrens
Mound
Bob Ambrose
Wayzata
Kent Dahlen
Minnetonka Beach
Craig Eggers
Victoda
Tom Gilman
Excelsior
Greg Kitchak
Minnetonka
Lili McMillan
Orono
Robert Rascop
Shorewood
Herb J. Suerth
Woodland
Sheldon Wert
Greenwood
TO:
FROM:
Lakeshore Weekly News
Attn: Legal Department
(Fax # 473-0~
Roger L.WhVoeYg~, Administrative Technician
SURIECT: Public Hearing Notice (2-11-99 Edition)
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
7:00 PM, February 24, 1999
Tonka Bay City Hall
4901 Manitou Road
Pelican Point Homeowners' Association
New Multiple Dock License Application
Spring Park/Phelps Bays, Lake Minnetonka
The lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) will hold a public
hearing to consider a new Multiple Dock License Application from Pelican
Point Homeowners' Association. The proposed application is to consider
relocating 16 low water slips at the north end of the existing dock to the
south end of the property.
Details available at the LMCD office, 18338 Minnetonka Blvd., Deephaven,
MN 55391.
50% Recycled Content
20% Post Consumer Waste
Web Page Address: http://www.winternet.com/~lmcd/
E-mail Address: Imcd@winternet.com
NEW MULTIPLE Ig)CK, LAUNCII1NG RAMP, AND/OR Ii
,.M~,OORING LICENSE
l/ake M' ctonka Conscx~-ation D/strict
' 111338 Minuetonka Blvd.
Deephaven,MN 5:5391 .
Phone 745-0789
;;i.,,,;,,;~;:;,; .................................... ~,,,," ",,'~ ............. , ...... . ............ ',. ,~,,~,'~,,7'i". ~ 7'~ ..........
Because t&is form is to be cop~ please use black ink or typ~
Pursuant to LMCD Code Section 2.03, a new multiple dock license is requested, in accordance with all data
and other information submitted herewith and made a pan hereof.
The person completing this form is the~rized agent~jor property owner (circle one).
Applicant: Pelican Point Homeowners' Association of Lake Minnetonka
Address: 18283A Minnetonka Boulevard
City, State, Zip: Deephaven, liN 55391
Phone: 612-475-2097 Fax: 612-475-2005
Property owner (if different fi.om applicant):
Address:
City, State, Zip:
Phone: Fax:
PROPERTY LOCATION:
The property is located in the city of: Hound
The property is riparian to LMCD bay/area(s): Spring Park/Phelps Bay
LMCD Area Identification Number(s):
Classification of user per Section 2.11, Subd. 2 (please circle one):
a) commercial marina d) transient g) private residence
b) private club ~ e) outlot association, n)h) other (explain)
c) municipal f) multiple dwelling
2. Type of dock construction, describe and attach to-scale drawing: pipe and platform
3. Please submit names and mailing addresses of owners within a 350-foot radius of the property.
Such owners must be verified by checking with Hennepin County Auditors Offices, 348-3271,
(or a private abstract company) which can provide actual mailing labels at a cost of $1.25 per
Tax parcel (minimum of $25.00). This service usually takes two days, and you must have
your tax parcel identification number (PIN) ready when calling for this assistance.
New Dock License Application - 2 -
Documents listed below are required; check that they are attached:
:[llLocator Map ClScaled drawing of docks on abutting properties
l-ICounty Plat Map :l~lProposed facility site plan
:[3Certified Land Survey, Legal Description EIExisting facility site plan
Absence of significant data requested above could result in a processing delay.
All required permits, licenses, and approvals have been obtained bom the MN DNR
and from the city in which the multiple dock, ramp, and/or mooring is located, copies aRached?
Yes x No ifno explain:
6. Public liability insurance: Coverage $ 2 million ; Company: State Farm
7. Check the parking requirements of the City if you provide the following services:
Boat Storage
Launching ramps
Sales
Service
Boat Rentals
Restaurant
Other (explain)
TOTAL
8. Restroom facilities provided: Yes No x Indoor Outdoor portable (number)
9. Boat toilet pumping service provided? Yes No .X
10. Total square footage of dock area including maneuvering space = 18,368 $q. t~.
If 20,000-sq. fi. or over, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is required.
11. Boat Storage Units (BSU) computation: Lakeshore Frontage 2,857 feet divided by
50 = 53 BSIYs allowable under the one-boat °per-fifty-foot rule. If this number
is less than the total BSU's applied for in the No. 12 bdow, an application for a Special
Density License is required per Code Section 2.05.
12. Number of BSU's applied for:
LOCATION USE
Slips 40 Rent, lease, etc.
Slides Service work
Lifts Company use
Tie~ohs Private use
Moorings Transient use
OffLake Rack Storage Other
Other
TOTAL BSU's 4 o TOTAL BSIYs
40
40
New Dock License Application - 3 -
13. WatercraPt Storage Unit (WSU) computation schedule:
SLIP SIZE CATEGORIES
BSU ® 1 WSU (each slip up to 20' long and/or up to 10' wide)
BSU ~ 1.5 WSU (each slip up to 20'-24' long and/or up tol 1' wide)
BSU ~ 2 WSU (each slip up to 24-32' long and/or up to 12' wide)
BSU ~ 2.5 WSU (each slip up to 32-40' long and/or up tol4' wide)
BSU ~ 3 WSU (each slip up to 40-48' long and/or up to 16' wide
BSU ~ 4 WSU (each slip over 48' long and/or over 16' wide)
BSU and WSU Totals
14.
Fee Calculation:
Base fee>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Number of Watercraft Storage Units (WSU) ~ x $7.50 =
$500.00
Total Fee Enclosed ......................................................... $ ,//~0 ~
I certify that the information provided herein and the attachments hereto are true and correct; I understand that any
license issues may be revoked by the District for violation of the LMCD Code. I agree to reimburse the District for
any legal, surveying, engineering, inspection, maintenance or other expenses incurred by the District in excess of
the amount of the applicatioa fee. I consent to permitting officers and agents of the District to enter the premises at all
reasonable times to investigate and to determine whether or not the Code of the District is being complied with.
I agree~ su ~/bmit a certified, as-built survey upon completion of the docks.
Titi~...~
~'~/~. ~ff.d~/~Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'.3'. ,t~-'f'O e-'Return this application, attacluucnts ~d fcc to:
Relationship to Owner
Lake Minnetonka Conservation Dist.
18338 Minnetonka Blvd
Phone: 745-0789 Fax: 745-9085 Deephaven, MN 55391
q ].~oN
666L ~ 0
f ~
,f
BOARD MEMBERS
William A, Johnstone
Chai~. Minnelonka
Douglas E. Babcock
Vice Chair, Spring Park
Joseph Zwak
Secretary. Greenwood
Robed Rascop
Treasurer, Shorewood
Mike Bloom
Minnetonka Beach
Albed (Bed) Foster
Oeephaven
James N Gralhwol
Excelsior
Duane Markus
Wayzata
Ross McGlasson
Tonka Bay
Craig Mollel
Vicloria
Eugene Padyka
Minnelrisla
Tom Reese
Mound
Herb J Suedh
Woodland
Orono
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 ° WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 - TELEPHONE 612/473-7033
EUGENE R. STROMMEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
December 9, 1994
Mr. John BoTer
Boyer Building Corporation
18283A Minnetonka Boulevard
Wayzata, MN 55391
Dear Mr. Boyer,
We are pleased to confirm the LMCD board action
taken October 26, 1994, approving the Boyer
Building Corporation Pelican Point new multiple
dock license in Spring Park Bay, City of Mound.
Minutes of the October 26, 1994'board action were
approved at the board's regular December 7, 1994
meeting in which the board action to approve this
license was reported.
This license was approved subject to the adoption
of an Ordinance to Establish a Special Rule for
Continuous Shoreline of Dock Use Areas in Close
Proximity and the following six conditions:
1) An LMCD-prepared Environmental Assessment
Workshee% (EAW) will not be required.
2) Water depths for each boat storage unit (slip)
are on file as part of the application.
3) The number of docks installed cannot exceed the
number of building permits issued.
4) LMCD legal counsel and board will review and
T h e o r d i ~--a n c e '/'~Mf'~-enc'6cF~a b'~, c-~o. y e'fi'~4 os e S
amended in co~ittee and approved by the board,
passed its second reading at the Dece~er 7, ]994
board meeting.
In a subsequent clarification with the Mound city
manager~ it was learned that one city building
permit will be issued for this development. The
third condition above presumes building permits for
each townhome structure will be issued. In lieu of
the building permit being issued for each townhdme,
it will be recommended to the board that the number'
of docks installed do not exceed the number of
CITY OF MOUND
February 10, 1999
TO:
MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK
SUBEJCT: LICENSE ~WALS
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364~1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
The following licenses are up for renewal. The license period is March 1, 1999 through
February 28, 2000. Approval is contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being
submitted.
Garbare
Best Disposal
Blackowiak & Son
Randy's Sanitation
Westonka Sanitation
BFI of Minnesota (formerly Woodlake Sanitation)
Cigarette
American Legion Post//398
By the Way Snack Shop (Steve Bedell)
Jubilee Foods
Mainstreet Market (formerly Brickley's)
Minnetonka Boat Rental
PDQ//292
R & R Bait
SuperAmerica
VFW Post//5113
prinled on recycled paper
FEB-lO-99 WED 16:40 JOHN BEISE FhX NO, 612 472 2888 P, 02
2/10/99
Ed Shukle
City Of Mound
5341 Maywood Rd.
Mound, MN. 55364
Re; Park Commission opening
Dear Ed:
I am currently a resident of Mound and have been my entire life.
My father moved to Mound in 1925, so through growing up in
mound and learning his knowledge of this town along with my
own experiences here. I feel I would be a good candidate for this
position.
Thank you
John Beise
.
John Be~se
5628 Bartlett Blvd
Mound, MN. 55364
FEB-lO-99 NED 16:40
I I
JOHN BEISE F~,X NO, 612 472 2888 P, 03
Employment:
Burnet Realty Inc. / Coldwell Banker Burnet · Residential real estate sales
· New construction specialist
1995-Present
Skyline Displays Inc. · Group leader
· Customer service representative
· Vinyl graphics production
Maintenance manager
· Manufacturing engineering tech.
1989-1995
Toro Home Improvement Division · Assembler
· Maintenance
· Fork lift operator
· 18 wheel dock truck driver
Assembly line supervisor
1987-1989
Meyers Mound Service · Petroleum products distribution specialist
· Recovery unit operator
· Small engine mechanic
· In house sales of lawn & garden equipment
1983-1987
COLDI, U~A.L
BANK~.-.R ;3
Education:
High school Mound Westonka 1987
Technical Training:
.Hennepin County Technical College
· AutoCAD training (computer assisted drafting)
· Industrial Electricity (ac)
Dakota County Technical College
· Fork lift operator
National Technology Transfer, Inc.
· Mechanical drives
Toro Training Center
· Excellence In Supervision
· Toro Retail Sales
1994
1991
1992
1994
1989
1987
Real Estate Education
Pro Source
· Course I, II, and III and state sales License
· Invest~nent cash flow analysis
· Houses: from the ground up
· Houses: New Construction Sales
· Houses: An Inside Look at Mechanical Systems
· Houses: Be Your Own Remodeling Contractor / Energy Code
Burner Realty Institute
· Graduate Program (8 Weeks)
· Specializing in New Construction
· National Certified New Home Specialist Designation
· Your Home As An Investment
1995
1996
1996
1997
1998
1998
1995
1996
1997
1998
Member of:
Minneapolis Area
Association of
Realtors
.RI.. IR _N~.T
Member of
Lake Minnetonka
Area Chamber Of
Commerce ~
FEB-04-1999 11:40 ZERO-MAX 612 546 828? P.01/01
John L. Ecelcs
5038 Woodland RD.
Mound, MN. 55364
(H) 472-4293
(W) 567-4457
Dear Mr. Shukle:
My name is John L. Ecclcs 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 Spa~ Commission. Two of the
reasons I would like to be involvexl is to k~p up with the decisions and problems
concerning the natural resources of our city. I thought about joining the commission years
ago and have kegt current through the articles in the paper and of course through city
scuttlebutt on occasion! Becoming aware of a vacancy I decided to tingly write in hope
you will consider me for this position.
Yours truly,
John Eccles
TOTAL P. 01
BILLS
February 23, 1999
Batch 9019
4,299.21
Batch 9020
139,417.00
TOTAL BILLS
143,716.21
,0
m
Z r~
0
--4
0 ,0
*=4
N 0
Z
-0
,0
°
r'
0 0 oqo 000
0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
~ oo ~ ?
I n
? -~
r,o
1'5
I"
0
.-I
I--
!
Ill
nl
0
C~
;Z
0
Z
o ??
: ?
-r i
Z~
OZ ~3
o
J
c
0
C
z
r-
Z
!
! !
0
~D I ZZ
T -1' i I- -1'-'I---'-1----¥--' I",1 '
I
Z
n~
0
Z ~'
Z
0
0
~ .-4
????,, ,
~r
.-I0
C
t-
0
0
c:
Z
Z
CZ
0
(:ir
Z
I
0'-
!
= '' ' 44 4 ''
0
o Z o
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ~ ! ! ! ! ! ! I ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ~ ~! !
............... gg
0~.
Z
LU
--I
~ ,-,I
U.
44 ~
z
c
c
z
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
Februa~ 12,1999
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT: 1998 ANNUAL REPORT
PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Dear Mayor, Council, and City Manager:
It is my pleasure to present the Annual Report of the Planning and Inspections
Department. It is our hope that this report will supply management with enough data to
study and then decide and direct this department in its course of action in the years to
come.
We welcome any comments, suggestions or questions you may have.
Jon Sutherland
Building Official
JS:kl
printed on recycled paper
PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
1998 ANNUAL REPORT
CONTENTS
PERSONNEL ........................................................ 1
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ............................................ 1
PUBLIC LANDS ...................................................... 2
PLANNING & ZONING ................................................. 2
COMPLAINTS & ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS ............................... 2
ORDINANCE CHANGES .............................................. 2-3
BUILDING CODE EFFECTIVENESS GRADING SCHEDULE (BCEGS) ........... 3
INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC) ................................. 3
REVENUE/EXPENDITURES ............................................ 4
GOALS ............................................................. 4
EDUCATION AND TRAINING ........................................... 5
SUMMARY .......................................................... 5
EXHIBIT A:
EXHIBIT B:
EXHIBIT C:
EXHIBIT D:
EXHIBIT E:
EXHIBIT F:
EXHIBIT G:
EXHIBIT H:
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
NEW HOUSING UNITS (1974-1998)
TOTAL YEARLY VALUES OF NEW CONSTRUCTION
BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT, DECEMBER 1998
PLANNING & ZONING CASE STATISTICS
STORM DAMAGE REPORT FOR 1998
STREAMLINING PERMITS FOR 1998
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE (INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE)
Planning & Inspections
1998 Annual Report
PERSONNEL:
1998 was a year of growth and training for us with the personnel changes in our
secretary (Kris Linquist), and planner (Loren Gordon), positions that had occurred in the
year before. Kris Linquist, our Planning and Inspections Secretary, has proven herself
competent in her position and is gaining additional knowledge and ability as time goes
on. Loren Gordon (Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.), has done a good job with our
planning cases and work load previously done by Mark Koegler.
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY:
Construction activity is measured by the number of permits issued and the total
value of the permits. There were 781 permits issued in 1998 for a total value of
$6,247,432. Please note Exhibits A-D which illustrate our construction activity in more
detail.
The bulk of the construction activity in 1998 was in RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS
AND ALTERATIONS, 443 permits were issued for a total value of $3,410,464. There
were 14 new homes built with a construction value of $2,619,437. Our new dwellings
had an average permit value of $187,102 versus $167,418 in 1997, this average
includes units constructed at Pelican Point that had individual permit values as high as
$367,000.
In May, a terrible storm passed thru and caused a lot of property damage to
many homes in Mound, we issued 43 storm related permits with a valuation of
$228,983 and some storm related permits are still trickling in.
On the commercial side the construction year was slow but not without
highlights, a few of which are: the portable skate park which was installed during the
summer months in the Pond Arena, Our Lady of The Lake Church completed a
remodel of the cafeteria, the School District installed a Monopole on its Lynwood Blvd.
site.
Work with the Mound Visions project is continuing and the dredge is now in
progress. Redevelopment is a very important aspect in our community and will require
an appropriate amount of attention from the Planning Department in order to maintain
conformance with the comprehensive plan and protect its long-term function.
Planning & Inspections
1998 Annual Report
PUBLIC LANDS:
Over the last year, our Public Lands permit updating process has been limited to
responding to permit applications. City Code Section 320:00 was amended by adding a
section which requires a five year $75:00 permit fee for certain structures. Conditions
may be added to the permit by the Council. This requirement will help spur the
completion of the permit cycle in 1999.
PLANNING & ZONING
There were 69 total zoning cases in 1998. A complete accounting of our zoning
actions are listed in the attached Exhibit E for Zoning Case Statistics. Out of 51
variance requests, we had 40 approved, 2 denied, 4 withdrawn, 2 tabled, and 3 Held.
So looking at the 44 variance cases that were fully processed, 40 were approved for an
approval rating of 90% for 1998. I continue to be hopeful that the historically high
number of variance cases and corresponding high approval rating will eventually result
in a set of regulations that are consistent with what we end up approving anyway.
A few Zoning Issues that were challenging for the community in 1998 include the
Seton Bluff Subdivision, the Amoco Service Station and Car Wash, the Community
Center Project, the Norwood Lane Twin Home Project, the Telecommunications
Ordinance/US West's Monopole for the School District, and The Early Childhood
Education Center at 5241 Shoreline Drive.
COMPLAINTS & ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS:
Complaints and ordinance violation statistics are located within the Police
Department's monthly and annual report. The majority of our complaints are handled
by the Community Service Officers. We work with them on a regular basis, however,
they are supervised by the Police Chief. The CSO's continue to do a great job and the
appearance of the community reflects their work. Not included in our recordkeeping are
complaints related to violations of sign ordinance, building code, rental ordinance, or
issues addressed independently by the Planning and Inspections Department staff.
ORDINANCE CHANGES:
Telecommunications are now regulated and work continues on this new
Ordinance. Several issues and possible changes to the Zoning Code are in process
2
Planning & Insl)ections
1998 Annual Report
including but not limited to, Boathouses, Trellis's/Fences, Streamlining, Stormwater
Management, and work on these issues will continue well into 1999.
BUILDING CODE EFFECTIVENESS GRADING SCHEDULE (BCEGS):
The Insurance Industry and the Insurance Service Office, Inc. (ISO), evaluated
the Inspections Department and the City in April of 1998 with a process called the
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS). This process has evaluated
the effectiveness of our city's building code program from the perspective of the
insurance industries potential loss due to natural disasters. BCEGS is a measure of
local building code enfomement capabilities. The concept is that municipalities with
effective codes that are well enforced should demonstrate better loss experience and
insurance rates should reflect that. Our official rating and explanation should be
received early in 1999 and I will be reporting on this rating at that time.
INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC)
There are currently three separate Building Official organizations in the United
States known as The International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), Building
Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA), and the Southern Building
Code Conference International (SBCCI). All three organizations have now combined
there codes into one document called the International Building Code (IBC). They also
formed the coalition called the International Code Council (ICC), which has the
objective to bring national uniformity to the building codes. Our goal is to have a final
document ready for publication and adoption by the year 2000. This process has been
ongoing for some time, attached as Exhibit H is a development schedule for your
information. The IBC will likely be adopted by the State of Minnesota (and
subsequently Mound), in the year 2001.
Issues such as the Americans for Disabilities Act, environmental regulations,
energy conservation, response to disasters such as floods, earthquakes, fire, and wind,
are all national issues. It is in the best interest of the nation and our membership of
Building Officials to consolidate our documents into one. It also allows us code officials
to utilize our energies and efforts to promote wider code adoption and better code
enforcement which should in turn result in a better built environment for humanity.
Planning & Inspections
1998 Annual Report
REVENUE & EXPENDITURES:
Below is a summary of budget and revenue for construction activity:
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Actual Actual A ctua/ Actual Actual
REVENUE 114,442 105,199 128,893 154,054 129,561
EXPENDITURES 149,645 163,280 170,238 187,663 192,986
GOALS:
We have made progress towards achieving our goals that we set for 1998, and I
continue to see room for improvement. I am also looking forward to the Councils
upcoming Goal Setting Retreat and as a result we may have some further guidance, so
here they are again and lets see what we can do for 1999.
Our Goals for 1999 are:
· Continue to revise and develop procedures for effective nuisance
abatement consistent with community spirit.
· Improve staff's response to complaints, record keeping and tracking of
complaints and problem areas to provide for improved compliance.
· Complete the update and permit cycle of Public lands permits
· Improve public awareness of zoning codes and ordinances.
· Improve condition of City files
· Improve reporting of activities to the City Council.
· Update fee schedules.
· Continue evaluating the streamlining process.
· Update building/zoning handouts.
· Evaluate a new computerized permit system and, if reasonable propose
as part of budget process.
4
Planning & Inspections
1998 Annual Report
EDUCATION AND TRAINING:
Every municipality within the State of Minnesota over a certain population is
required by state statutes to adopt the State Building Code in its entirety and appoint a
qualified Building Official who is tested and certified by the Department of
Administration Building Codes and Standards Division.
Each Building Official must satisfactorily complete applicable educational
programs established or approved by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor
and Industry.
Continuing Education is imperative to maintain certification and to stay abreast of
the every changing codes and new methods of construction.
Some of my educational opportunities in 1998 were:
ICBO Annual Code Change Hearings/Conference, September 6-11 in San
Diego, California.
43na Annual Institute for Building Officials, University of Minnesota Earl
Brown Institute in January.
North Star/ICBO Chapter regular and subcommittee meetings.
1998 Spring Building Code Seminar, 12-2-98.
SUMMARY:
Much has happened in the last year. The work load was high due to the number
of permits issued and the high number of zoning cases. We have accomplished a
majority of our goals from 1998. We entertain any suggestions or comments you may
have. We will continue our endeavor to improve our efficiency and service to the public.
I am honored to be surrounded by such excellent people within this and other
departments of the City. We look forward to another exciting and challenging year.
5
0
Oz
~o
80
._~
r~
Z
0
0
s),!u fl #
C)
77
Value in Millions $
0 0 (CD 0 0 0
C) C) 0 0 C)
78_
79.
80~
81 _;
82.
83
g 85
~ 86
~' 87
~ ~0
91
93'
94
95 -
96.
97 :
98 :
m
Planning & Inspections Department
1998 Annual Report
EXHIBIT D
CITY OF MOUND
BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT
MONTH: DECEMBER
YEAR: 1998
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
IANON-RESlDENTIAL
DDITIONS I ALTERATIONS
COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT)
OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL
INDUSTRIAL
PUBLIC / SCHOOLS
DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
SUBTOTAL
IDEMOLITIONS
RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS
NON-RESiDENTiAL DWELLINGS
TOTAL DEMOLITIONS
TOTAL
THIS MONTH YEAR TO DATE
II#PERMITSll #UNITS II VALUATION II #UNITS II VALUATION
2 2 315,250 10 1,269,634
4 1,349,803
2
J~ PERMITS
315,250 14 2,619,437
VALUATION I~ PERMITS I VALUATION
0
I~ PERMITS
1
1
22
1
25
J~ PERMITS
0
IF PERMITSI
# PERMITS # UNITS
27 2
41,000 33 1,365,509
5,000 29 362,849
61 216,046
3 23,717
145,354 315 1,442,343
1,500' 2 10,076
192,854 443 3,410,464
3 50,670
3 6,7OO
1 500
6 156,161
13 214,031
IVALUATION IF PERMITS I VALUATION I
2 2300
2 1200
4 3,500
# UNITS
VALUATION # PERMITS VALUATION
27
508,104 474 6,247,432
IPERMIT COUNT
* BUILDING
FENCES & RETAINING WALLS
SIGNS
PLUMBING
MECHANICAL
GRADING
S & W. STREET EXCAV., FIRE, ETC.
ITOTAL
THIS
DATEI
27 474
1 23
1 9
8 128
7 110
0 3
3 34
I 47 I 761 I
Planning & Inspection Department
1998 Annual Report
Exhibit E
PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF APPEALS
Case Statistics
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW
PLATS/PDA'S/MAJOR SUB
SUBDIVISIONS, MINOR
'~INOR SUBDIVISION EXTENSION '
ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
REzoN.i~i~
0
3
0
0
3
- 5 .... 48
6 69
VACATtON~ ............... 3 .............
MOVING BUILDING
WAIVER OF PLATTING
VARIANCE EXTENSIONS ; 3
VARIANCES ~ 37 ; 2 4
TOTAL ~ 57 ; 2 i 4
~:'::~~';~
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW
PLATSiPDA;s-
SUBDiglSIONS, MINOR
ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
REZONING
VACATIONS
MOVING BUILDING
WAWER OF PLATTING
VARIANCE-EXTENSIONS
1 39
3 55
VARIANCES 34 1 3
TOTAL 46 3 3
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 5 5
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW
PLATS/PDA'S/MAJOR SUB
SUBDIVISIONS, MINOR
ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
RE;ZONiNG-
vACATI(~N~
MOVING BUILDING
WAIVER OF PLATTING
VARIANCE EXTENSIONS
VARIANCES
~-TOTAL
(N/A)
1
8
1
1
2
3
1
39
62
4 46
4 72
Planning & Inspection Department
1998 Annual Report
MONTH YR DAY
MAY 98 15
STORM DAMAGE REPORTED IN 1998
ADDRESS OWNER
MAY 98 15 1735 CANARY LANE
MAY 98 20 4687 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
MAY 98 21 4665 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
MAY 98 22 4686 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
MAY 98 22 4701 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
MAY 98 26 3225 GLADSTONE LANE
MAY 98 28 4725 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
MAY 98 29 4848 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
JUNE 98 4 5017WILSHIRE BLVD
JUNE 98 4 2901 HAZELWOOD LANE
JUNE 98 5 4673 ISLANDVIEW DRIVE
JUNE 98 12 4435 DORCHESTER RD
JUNE 98 23 4738 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
JUNE 98 23 1863 SHOREWOOD LANE
JUNE 98 26 4723 BEACHSIDE RD
JUNE 98 25 1741 RESTHAVEN LN
JUNE 98 24 4711 ISLAND VIEW DR
JUNE 98 30 4844 ISLAND VIEW DR
JUNE 98 30 1963 LAKESIDE LANE
JULY 98 6 3006 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
JULY 98 10 4771 ISLAND VIEW DR
JULY 98 13 1676 CANARY LANE
JULY 98 14 4665 ISLAND VIEW DR
JULY 98 15 4609 ISLAND VIEW DR
JULY 98 23 4870 ISLAND VIEW DR
JULY 98 23 3135AYR LANE
JULY 98 28 4832 DONALD DR
JULY 98 29 4801 ISLAND VIEW DR
JULY 98 31 1890 SHOREWOOD LANE
AUG 98 14 5070 BAY PORT RD
AUG 98 10 3213 DEVON LN
AUG 98 17 4767 ISLAND VIEW DR
AUG 98 18 5869 IDLEWOOD RD
SEPT 98 15 3025 ISLAND VIEW DR
SEPT 98 18 4649 ISLAND VIEW DR
SEPT 98 28 4817 HANOVER RD
SEPT 98 24 1920 SHOREWOOD LN
SEPT 98 29 1871 SHOREWOOD LN
OCT 98 9 2149 CARDINAL LN
OCT 98 21 5116 TUXEDO BLVD
OCT 98 26 4925 BRUNSWICK RD
NOV 98 3 5079 BARTLETT BLVD
NOV 98 12 5174 TUXEDO BLVD
E LEO BULLOCK
JOHN GABOS
MARK & GINA SMITH
HAROLD IVERSON
GREG KNUTSON
NElL FINNICUM
DAVE ALEXANDER
JOHNSON
RICHARD DEVENY
MIKE GERLICHER
FRANK AHRENS II
CRAIG HENDERSON
RANDALL MEYER
TOM SCHAMMEL
JOE STIBAL
MIKE SHEARER
TOM LATCHAM
JORJ AYAZ
LORETTA MERCHANT
THOMAS RODEN
JOHN VERKENNES
ROBERT SHANLEY
MARK SMITH
ALI TOUBA
VERNON TAPELT
TIM WILLIAMS
RICHARD BENIKE
CURTIS OLSON
DOUG MOLUMBY
JEFF MCMURRY
IGOR KAZANIUK
RONALD MCCOMBS
HELEN CARLSON
DAN MYERS
WES LAFORTUNE
ROBERT RATZ
GREG KELLER
BRAD BLAZEVIC
WILLARD BOTKO
JIM MERCHANT
DAVID UMBEHACKER
JOHN O'BRIEN
NICK TANCHEFF
TYPE OF CONST,
DECK REPLACEMENT
BOATHOUSE REPAIRS
REROOF
REPAIR & REROOF
REPAIRS DUE TO STORM
REPAIR ROOF
DECK REPLACEMENT
REROOF
REROOF, SIDING
ROOF REPAIRS, INTERIOR
REPAIRS TO DECK
REROOF
ROOF REPAIRS
REROOF
3 SEASON PORCH
GARAGE ATTACHED
ROOF DAMAGE, MlSC
REROOF, ROOF REPAIRS
REROOF
REROOF, REPAIR ROOF
REROOF
REROOF
DECK, WINDOW, DOOR
REROOF, RESIDE
REROOF
REROOF
REROOF
DECK
REROOF
INTERIOR REMODEL, ROOF
TIMBER WALL REPLACE
REROOF
ROOF REPAIRS
REROOF
REROOF
DECK
GARAGE ROOF
PJR WOOD SHAKES
SUNROOM
REPAIR GARAGE, REROOF
REPAIR RAFTERS, REROOF
REROOF, REPLACE WINDOWS
ROOF REPAIR
TOTAL VALUATION
Exhibit F
VALUATION
2,600
3,300
2,300
7,500
8,500
600
5,280
1,000
8,000
26,573
125
3,975
4,500
2,336
8,755
12,000
9,167
4,000
3,100
1,800
3,000
4,250
15,0O0
4,200
3,100
2,000
6OO
3,135
3,390
12,853
12,000
5,700
2,500
1,300
2,000
1,344
6,000
5OO
16,000
7,200
2,500
4,000
1,000
228,983
Planning & Inspection Department
1998 Annual Report
Exhibit
G
1998 STREAMLINING PERMITS
ADDRESS
1881 Commerce Blvd
4705 Island View Dr
1928 Shorewood Ln
2162 Cardinal Ln
2149 Cardinal Ln
APPLICANT
TYPE OF PERMIT
D~a~idTaylor ...................§-s-~a~-p~-~/r-~-sid~' garage
Grandview Middle School
Gene Smith
Dennis Johnson
Ron Lopergalo
Willard Botko
Sign
Deck & Sidewalk
Single Family Dwelling
Deck
Sunroom
Planning & Inspections
1998 Annual Report
Date
May 96
Jun 96
Aug 96
Apr 97
May 97
Aug 97
Sep 97
Nov 97
Jan 98
Feb 98
Apr 98
Jun 98
Jul 98
Oct 12'
Jan 22
Mar 15-26'
May 17
Jun 28
Jul 30
Sep 99
Apr 00
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE
Activity
Steering Committee - First meeting
Steering Committee - Second meeting
First Draft Development
Technical Subcommittees - First meeting
Technical Subcommittees - Last meeting
Publish Working Draft
(3-month review)
Public Comments on Working Draft
Subcommittee Revisions to Steering Committee
Publish International Building Code, First Draft
Final Draft Development
Deadline for public submittals to First Draft
Publish First Public Hearing Agenda
(2-month review)
Public Hearing on First Draft
Revisions to Steering Committee
Publish International Building Code, Final Draft
Final Document Development
Deadline for public submittals to Final Draft
Editorial Revisions to Steering Committee
Publish Second Public Hearing Agenda
(6-week review)
Public Hearing on Final Draft
Publish report on Public Hearing
Deadline for Public Comments
Publish Consent Agenda for Annual Meetings
Membership Action
Publish 2000 International Building COde®
Int.
0
+1
+3
+11
+12
+15
+16
+18
+20
+21
+23
+25
+26
+28.5
+31.5
+33.5
+35.5
+37
+38
+39.5
+47
EXHIBIT H
Remarks
Performance
Committee meets in
this period. Steering
Committee meets as
necessary to review all
committee progress.
Proposed changes
considered in
accordance with
Sections 3.0 thru 5.0 of
the IBC First Draft
Development Process
Proposed changes
considered in
accordance with
Sections 3.0 through
5.0 of the IBC First
Draft Development
Process and 6.0 and 7.0
of the ICC Code
Development Process
for the International
Codes.
* Approved May 10, 1998, by ICC Board of Directors
2000 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE~- FINAL DRAFT
7198
CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA
LIQUOR FUND
,MPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENSES
AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS
YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 3t, 1998 AND t997
Exhibit E-5
OPERATING REVENUE
Sales
Cost of goods sold
GROSS PROFIT
OPERATING EXPENSES
Personal services
Supplies
Professional services
Communications
Insurance
Utilities
Repairs and maintenance
Rent
Other contractual services
Depreciation
Other
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES
OPERATING INCOME
NONOPERATING REVENUE
Interest on investment
INCOME BEFORE TRANSFERS
OPERATING TRANSFERS TO OTHER FUNDS
NET INCOME
RETAINED EARNINGS, JANUARY 1
RETAINED EARNINGS, DECEMBER 31
1998
Amount
$1,671,288
1.258.919
412.367
143,606
3,855
2,400
1,883
13,700
6,895
2,423
31,843
4,090
1,411
4.335
216,441
195,926
19.682
215.608
(78.500)
137,108
369.131
$506.239
Percent
of Sales
100.00%
75.33
24.67
8.59
0.23
0.14
0.11
0.82
0.41
0.14
1.91
0.24
0.08
0.26
12,95
11.72
1.18
12,90
~.70)
1997
Amount
$1,533,378
1.1 63.745
369.633
137,231
3,725
2,440
2,593
18,367
7,650
929
30,418
3,109
3,548
4,310
214.320
155,313
13,365
168.678
(75.500)
93,178
275.953
$369,131
Percent
of Sales
100.00%
7~.89
24.11
8.95
0.24
0.16
0.17
1.20
0.50
0.06
1.98
0.20
0.23
0.28
13.98
10.13
0.87
11.00
(4.92)
§,08%
CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA
LIQUOR FUND
COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEETS
DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND 1997
Exhibit
E-4
ASSETS
CURRENT ASSETS
Cash and temporary investments
Change funds
Inventories, at cost
Prepaid items
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS
FIXED ASSETS, AT COST
LESS ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION
NET FIXED ASSETS
TOTAL ASSETS
1998
$479,329
925
125,900
606.154
52,750
(47.548)
5.202
$611,356
1997
$287,243
925
116,095
404.263
53,250
(46.637)
6.613
$410,876
LIABILITIES AND RETAINED EARNINGS
CURRENT LIABILITIES
Accounts payable
Accrued salaries and compensated absences payable
TOTALCURRENTLIABILITIES
RETAINED EARNINGS
Unreserved
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND RETAINED
EARNINGS
$75,888
29.229
105,117
506.239
$611,356
$15,801
25.944
41,745
369.131
$410,876
February 18, 1999
MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER
I have enclosed the 1998 Annual Report of the Finance Department.
The purpose of the report is to point out the financial condition
of the City of Mound to the City Council, which sets the policies
that direct the future of the City. The financial recaps included
in this report provide you with a preliminary summary of the City
of Mound's financial position for 1998.
The year 1998 was a productive one in the Finance Department. I
would like to thank the staff of the department for their hard work
during this challenging year. I look forward to a productive year
in 1999.
Respectfully,
Gino Businaro
Finance Director
My first responsibility is the supervision of the Finance Staff.
The current personnel in the Finance Department is as follows:
NAME TITLE
STARTING DATE
Kathleen Hoff
Gayle Bethke
Joyce Nelson
Gino Businaro
Accounts Payable Clerk
Accounting Clerk
Utility Billing Clerk
Finance Director
09-28-98
12-21-77
05-31-77
11-23-92
The finance staff should be commended for the teamwork and
cooperation they have demonstrated in 1998.
JO¥CE NELSON
Joyce handles the water and sewer billing process. We have
approximately 3,300 residential accounts that are billed quarterly
on a cyclical basis (the City is divided into three billing
districts). In addition, there are 126 commercial accounts that
receive a bill every month. With this many customers to serve
Joyce is kept quite busy.
At the same time Joyce coordinates the various recycling programs.
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 materials collected for the year was
1,163 tons.
Joyce also continues to assist Greg Skinner in public works with
some of the paperwork and computer data entry as time allows.
Katie Hoff
Katie does the special assessment searches of properties as
requested by Realtors, title companies or residents when a house in
Mound is purchased.
Katie receipts any prepayments of special assessments and she
notifies the County of the prepayment. Any money collected is
invested to pay off the special assessment bonds when they become
due.
Katie's major responsibility is the processing of payments to city
vendors (the accounts payable function). She codes and enters into
the computer all the invoices and pays city vendors for purchases
of goods or services. In 1998 over 3,000 checks were issued for a
total of $5,937,870.
~AYLE BET~L~E
Gayle, as the Payroll Clerk, is responsible for all functions
related to payments and benefits to city employees. She maintains
and processes payroll every two weeks. In 1998 over 1,500 payroll
checks were issued to employees and over 300 checks were issued for
other payroll related purposes for a total of over 1.9 million
dollars. Some of these payments are made by phone with a direct
debit to the city bank account. She works with and maintains all
documentation for each employee from the hiring date to termination
and post retirement.
As the General Ledger Clerk, Gayle works in the following areas:
Data entry for the computerized financial system and monthly
reports' distribution to departments
Computer back up's and year end closing of Finance and payroll
applications
Miscellaneous receipts and receivables
Employees benefit enrollment, changes to benefits and related
requirements
Miscellaneous billing and reports to other agencies
Reports for the Liquor Store: monthly sales tax reports, NSF
checks
Preparation of monthly, quarterly, and yearly reports to
various federal and state agencies
Bank reconciliation
Issuance of merchant and dog licenses and assistance at the
main counter when needed.
Depot Rental
The Depot rental income over the last five years was as follows:
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
$1,800 $2,100 $2,450 $1,825 $2,322 $2,550
INVESTMENTS
Cash management and investment of City funds are an important
aspect of my job. The first objective in investing City funds is
safety, legal constraints, and liquidity. Taking safety and
liquidity into account, I look for the best market rate of return,
normally within a 3-6 month range. I continue to follow a policy
of investing only with broker/dealers in this state from the list
approved by the City Council at their first meeting in January.
The following is a breakdown of investments as of December 31,
1998:
Commercial Paper
Money Market
3,268,187
1,109,857
TOTAL $ 4,378,044
A comparison of interest earned for the City on all funds is as
follows:
1993 335,667
1994 318,235
1995 249,700
1996 214,868
1997 219,401
1998 207,285
Interest income in 1995-98 is down from 1993-94. This is due
primarily to the decrease of cash balances available for investment
and the interest fluctuation in the financial markets.
Ail interest income is accumulated in the Investment Trust Account
and distributed to the funds in proportion to the average balance
during the year. For example, during 1998, the General Fund was
allocated $50,965 in interest (24.6% of all interest earned) while
the Capital Improvements Fund was allocated $40,861 in interest
(19.7% of total interest).
BUDGET
Preparing the data for the annual budget document that is submitted
to the Council is another important function of my job. During
June, I estimate the revenues for the current year and also work on
an estimate of the expenditures for the current year. I work
closely with the City Manager in budgeting revenue amounts and
salary projections for the following year.
The Finance Department budget is my responsibility, along with the
City Property, the Special Revenue Funds and the debt service
requirements.
Once the City Manager reviews the expenditure budgets with each of
the department heads, the budget is compiled, analyzed and
adjustments are made. The document is then prepared and presented
to the Council for approval. The Water and Sewer Funds are
examined during the budget process. The projected revenues and
expenses are used to determine the adequacy of the rates. The
Enterprise Funds (Liquor, Water, Sewer, and Recycling) are
presented to the Council along with the General Fund for Council
approval.
4
OUTSTANDING DEBT
The total outstanding debt as of 12-31-9@ is $2,590,000, with
$1,155,000 in refunding bonds. The following details the
outstanding debt:
COMMERCE PLACE DEBT SERVICE BONDS
This fund accounts for principal and interest payments on the 20
years' bonds sold in 1985. The bonds will be paid for from the tax
increment from the Commerce Place Development. The increment from
the development is sufficient to make the principal and interest
payments. With the developers' letter of credit and the Mound
Clinic and Thrifty White as corner stores, Commerce Place is
meeting all of its financial obligations. The City made principal
payments of $140,000 during 1998, and has an outstanding balance of
$1,110,000 at December 31, 1998. In 1993 TIF Refunding Bonds in
the amount of $795,000 were issued and are outstanding as of
December 31, 1998.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS
Special Assessment Funds are used to account for the construction
and financing of certain public improvements such as streets,
sidewalks, street lighting and storm sewers. Bonds are issued and
are paid for in full or in part from the special assessments levied
against benefitted properties. No new bonds were issued during
1998. The City made principal payments of $35,000 during 1998, and
has a zero outstanding balance of special assessments bonds
payable.
WATER/SEWER REVENUE BONDS
The principal and interest on water revenue bonds are paid out of
the revenue generated from the water and sewer bills. The City
made principal payments of $95,000 during 1998, and has an
outstanding balance of $1,120,000 at December 31, 1998.
In 1993 bonds were issued in the amount of $1,350,000 with 45%
allocated to the Water Fund and 55% to the Sewer Fund.
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY DEBT SERVICE
This fund accounts for the principal and interest on bonds issued
in 1988. The principal revenue source is a property tax levy. The
City made principal payments of $60,000 during 1998 and has an
outstanding balance in building refunding bonds of $360,000 at
December 31, 1998.
The following shows the total outstanding debt for the City of
Mound over the past 10 years:
Year G.O.
G.O. Refunding
1989 9,040,000
1990 7,680,000
1991 6,790,000
1992 5,835,000
1993 5,500,000
1994 4,845,000
1995 4,270,000
1996 3,570,000
1997 2,920,000
1998 2,590,000
$ 1,335,000
1,335,000
1,335,000
1,275,000
1,215,000
1,155,000
Using the 1990 census population of 9,634, the total debt per
capita decreased from $938 in 1989 to $269 in 1998.
This decrease in total outstanding debt illustrates the fact that
Mound is a mature suburb and has not had to issue debt to develop
new streets and new water mains.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIES
The general property tax levy is discussed every year during the
budget process. The other significant item on the tax statement
for Mound residents are the various special assessment levies. The
following is the annual special assessments levied on Mound
taxpayers during the past ten years and for 199'9:
1990 633,593
1991 544,000
1992 513,000
1993 482,500
1994 413,177
1995 330,903
1996 213,644
1997 74,844
1998 81,972
1999 65,000 (Estimate)
The major street projects were completed in 1978-1980. The total
assessments on the taxpayers increased dramatically once these
projects were assessed. Since 1982, the annual assessments have
consistently declined.
The corresponding Special Assessment bonds payable has decreased
from $8,450,000 in 1986 to zero in 1998.
6
AUDIT
Preparing for the annual audit is another important responsibility
of my job. I DreDare all the statements, ~ehedule~ and notes to
the financial statements for the annual audit. Our audit costs are
reduced since all the statements and notes are done in house.
The 1997 audit report received the National GFOA award "Certificate
of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting" The
certificate program judges an audit report on various criteria,
including clarity, comparability and completeness. This is the
tenth consecutive year the City of Mound has received this award.
I plan on updating the audit report annually and submit future
years' reports for this award.
INSURANCE
We have the majority of our insurance coverage with the League of
Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. They have provided the City with
good coverage and the costs for insurance have stabilized in the
last few years. Our agent of record is Carl Bennetsen of R.L.
Youngdahl & Associates, Inc.
I have the responsibility of coordinating the City's insurance
activity. I file all claims that are made against our insurance
policies for the City automobiles, property damage, general
liability, and workers compensation.
COMPUTER OPERATIONS
It is my job to supervise the overall computer operation. We have
an on-site mini-computer processor with software purchased from
National Independent Billing, Inc. The following software programs
are currently operating on our system: utility billing, financial,
accounts payable, payroll, special assessments and water meter
reading. The finance staff does an excellent job working on the
computer operations. We are confident that these systems are or
will be year 2000 compliant by the end of the year.
The finance department has available three personal computers. The
use of the PC enables me to work efficiently with many
spreadsheets for cash flow analysis, investment need projections,
fixed assets inventory, budget projections and various other
applications. At the same time both Gayle and Joyce have the
opportunity to use the PC and maintain various files in the payroll
area and the utility services area.
City employees have a strong interest in learning to work with PCs,
which help them to become more efficient with their tasks.
%%%
FUND STRUCTURE
The following is a description of the funds of the City of Mound:
GENERAL FUND
The General Fund accounts for the Revenues and Expenditures to
carry out the basic governmental activities of the City, such as
administration, police, inspections, streets and parks. General
Fund expenditures are made primarily for current day to day
operating expenses. Major sources of revenue are the property tax
and local government aid.
FUND BALANCE
The total fund balance of the General Fund is projected to be
$1,380,581 for the year ended 1998, which would represent a
decrease of $33,409 during the year. It is important for the City
to maintain the current fund balance. This reserve is necessary to
meet expenses in the General Fund until tax money and local
government aid are remitted to the City in June/July. For cash flow
purposes the city would be required to issue tax anticipation
bonds if the fund balance is reduced considerably or eliminated.
The following table shows previous year end General Fund balances,
compared to adopted expenditures budget for the past ten years:
GENERAL FUND TOTAL FUND BALANCE
BUDGET BEGINNING OF YEAR %
1990 2,327,090 629,326
1991 2,264,150 642,934
1992 2,249,350 593,155
1993 2,325,780 626,361
1994 2,366,950 644,522
1995 2,418,030 843,561
1996 2,443,830 934,470
1997 2,591,760 1,173,651
1998 2,776,950 1,413,993
1999 2,893,580 1,380,581
27.0
28 4
26 4
26 9
27 2
34 9
38 2
45 3
50 9
47 7
REVENUES
Revenues received for general governmental operations are
$2,836,909. The following is an analysis of the major revenue
sources of the General Fund - budget to actual - for 1998:
TAXES
LICENSES & PERMITS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
COURT FINES
MISCELLANEOUS
BUDGET ACTUAL VARIANCE
1,271,520 1,304,056 32,536
110,080 133,864 24,381
950,850 1,079,725 128,875
85,000 85,133 133
177,150 234,131 56,384
%
RECEIVED
102.56
123.15
113.55
100.16
132.17
TOTAL 2,594,600 2,836,909 242,309 109.34
The increase in licenses and permits of $24,381 is attributable to
the increase in number of construction permits issued in 1998. The
increase in miscellaneous of $56,384 is due primarily to the return
on investments and the dividend received from the League of Cities
Insurance Trust for last year and this year. The intergovernmental
revenues increase of $128,875 consists of the State and federal
grant (FEMA) to help with the May and June, 1998 storm damage.
Property taxes, including delinquent property taxes, came in at
$32,536 above estimate. Delinquent taxes for the last six years
stand at a total of approximately $34,000.
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures for general government operations were $2,870,321 in
1998. The following is a budget to actual comparison by department:
DEPARTMENTS
BUDGET ACTUAL VARIANCE EXPENDED
Council 71,610 74,446 (2,836)
Promotions 4,000 4,000 -
Cable TV 3,000 4,454 (1,454)
City Manager/Clerk 210,970 209,411 1,559
Elections 13,200 10,379 2,821
Assessing 62,450 62,290 160
Finance 172,710 177,179 (4,469)
Computer 18,550 20,843 (2,293)
Legal 86,460 137,622 (51,162)
Police 990,170 931,304 58,866
Civil Defense 4,250 5,940 (1,690)
Planning & Insp. 173,280 206,557 (33,277)
Streets 420,820 438,939 (18,119)
City Property 103,380 93,639 9,741
Parks 192,380 201,460 (9,080)
Summer Recreation 37,290 36,200 1,090
Contingencies 45,000 88,228 (43,228)
Transfers 161,430 167,430 -
103 96
100 00
148 47
99 26
78 63
99 74
102 59
112 36
159 17
94 05
139 76
119 20
104 31
90 58
104 72
97 08
196 06
100 00
TOTAL
2,776,950 2,870,321 (93,371) 103.36
The variance of $18,119 in the street department is due primarily
9
to salaries. The budget did not reflect the negotiated increases.
The contingencies' variance of $43,228 represents the expenditures
incurred by the city for its commitment with the renovation of the
community center, potential salaries increases not yet negotiated,
and costs related to the May and June storms. The variance for
legal fees of $51,162 reflects increase in services for prosecution
and other litigation.
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Special Revenue Funds are used to account for certain tax levies
and other earmarked revenue. The following is a list of the City's
Special Revenue Funds and Fund balances as of 12-31-98:
Cemetery 5,941
Area Fire Serv. 122,075
Dock 210,877
The Dock fund balance does not include the FEMA reimbursement for
tree removal for costs incurred in May and June of 1998. That
amount will be recorded when received from the federal and state
governments.
CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS
Capital project funds have been established to segregate funds to
be used for various types of capital outlay expenditures.
The following is the 1998 activity of this fund':
Balance 1-1-98
Revenues
1,097,918
107,575
Total Available
1,205,493
Expenditures
Professional Services
Fire Capital Reserve
Capital Outlay
130,641
15,210
787,401
Total Expenditures
933,252
Balance Remaining
272,241
The Capital Improvements Fund has been an important one-time
revenue source for the City of Mound. It has allowed the City to
undertake projects that benefitted the City without having to issue
debt to finance them. The remaining balance of $272,241 was
obtained with equity transfers from debt service funds that were
l0
used to account for bonds that have been recalled or that have
expired. No additional debt service funds are left to replenish
this fund.
SEALCOAT
This fund is used to account for the five-year rotation to sealcoat
the streets in Mound. The total cost of the project for 1998 was
$71,712, which was financed by the Liquor Store profits.
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Enterprise Funds are used to account for the financing of services
to the general public in which all or most of the revenues are
generated from user charges.
LIOUOR FUND
The year 1998 was again an excellent one for the Liquor Store. A
condensed summary for the liquor operations for the years ended
December 31, 1996, 1997 and 1998 is presented below:
1996 1997
Sales
Cost of Sales
GROSS PROFIT
Expenses
OPERATING INCOME
Other Income
Transfers Out
NET INCOME
1998
1,523,897 1,533,378 1,671,286
1,145,974 1,163,745 1,258,919
377,923 369,633 412,367
213,867 214,320 216,441
164,056 155,313 195,926
13,495 13,365 19,682
173,850 75,500 78,500
3,701 93,178 137,108
WATER FUND
A condensed summary of the Water Fund operations for the years
ended December 31, 1996, 1997, and 1998 is presented below:
1996 1997 1998
Revenues
Expenses
Operating Income
Other Income/Expenses
Income
Transfer to/from City
424,085 440,308 446,526
384,379 377,634 375,389
39,706 62,674 71,137
(578) 6,283 8,656
39,128 68,957 79,793
5,054 17,000 17,000
In 1998 revenues were slightly up from 1997. The cash balance in
the water fund increased from $664,345 to $729,884.
SEWER FUND
A condensed summary of the Sewer Fund operations for the years
ended December 31, 1996, 1997 and 1998 is presented below:
1996 1997 1998
Revenues
Expenses
Operating Loss
Other Income/Expenses
Loss
Transfers to City
826,308 959,110 918,204
938,555 1,013,287 1,011,423
(112,247) (54,177) (93,219)
(6,085) (7,802) (9,736)
(118,332) (61,979) (102,955)
17,000 17,000 17,000
The cash balance in the Sewer Fund stands at $486,612 at the end of
1998. The charge from the Metropolitan Council Wastewater Services
(MCWS)was $624,513 in 1998 and $595,212 in 1997. Again this year
the expenses exceeded the revenues by $119,955.
RECYCLING
The following are the revenues and expenses for recycling in 1998:
Revenues
Hennepin County
Utility Billing Charges
Recyclable/Other
31,172
70,034
12,668
Total Revenue
113,874
Expenses
Salaries
Pickup/Disposal
Recycling Hauler
13,234
13,042
81,977
Other
Total Expenses
Balance 1-1-98
Balance 12-31-98
3,919
112,172
56,510
58,212
In 1994 Hennepin County reduced the reimbursement to $.80 per
household from the $1.75 reimbursement in 1993. The estimated
grant from the County in 1999 will be $30,800 and the City
household charge $76,800.
ORGANIZATIONS
I am a member of the Minnesota Government Finance Officers
Association (MGFOA) . There are currently 550/600 members. Monthly
meetings are held in the metro area, with an annual conference held
in the fall of the year.
One of the requirements for keeping current my CPA certificate is
that I maintain a continuing education program each year.
Continuing education and training is a high priority in my
professional development. I obtain the vast majority of my
education credits through MGFOA.
As an ex-officio member of the Economic Development Commission I
attend all their meetings.
I am also Treasurer of the Mound Crime Prevention Association.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR 1998
Specific accomplishments are as follows:
Accounts Payable Clerk
As you know, Deloris Schwalbe retired earlier in 1998. We are
very happy that Katie Hoff accepted the position to replace her.
The transition time was somewhat difficult, but Katie has been able
to learn fast and to pay our vendors in a timely manner.
Issuance of the 1997 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
The report received an unqualified opinion from the
independent auditor and the Certificate of Excellence in
Financial Reporting from the GFOA.
Insurance Claims Activity
In 1998 we had again a number of claims in the general
liability, auto, and workers compensation areas. We also
13
reviewed the present insurance coverage.
Pre-Tax Plans
The City employees were offered a Pre-Tax Plan in May of 1993.
The plan was set up, maintained and extended into 1999. Almost
all employees joined the plan, which benefits both the
employees and the City in reducing Social Security, Federal
and State tax payments.
ComDuter suDDort and Year 2000 Readiness
City employees are using the computer for many applications.
I enjoy helping, time permitting, with the inevitable problems that
arise. Most of the time we deal with software issues, but at times
the hardware needs repairs or upgrades. A major effort this year is
being channeled toward the year 2000 issues. At this time we do not
foresee any relevant problem. But then we know that the bug is out
there and we will continue to keep ourselves informed, we will
inventory our systems and equipment, and we continue to test as we
go along.
GOALS FOR 1998
Work in the Finance Department will continue at a steady pace in
1999. The normal cycle calls for the staff to meet their deadlines
in the payroll, accounts payable, and utility billing areas. The
Finance Director will continue to cover the investments, the audit,
the insurance claims, the preparation of reports, and all the other
responsibilities in the financial, insurance, data processing, and
supervision areas.
Special challenges in 1999 will be related to the construction of
Auditor's Road and the Lost Lake Canal, the year 2000 issue in the
computerized areas, and the reporting of the COPS MORE and FEMA
Federal Grants.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for having given me the opportunity to point out the
areas of special note in the operation of the Finance Department.
The year 1998 was a productive one for the City in the financial
area. The direction provided by you, the City Council and the City
Manager, made it happen.
I will be attending the February 23rd Council meeting to answer any
questions that you have regarding my annual report.
14
LEN HARRELL
Chief of Police
MOUND POLICE
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Telephone 472-0621
Dispatch 525-6210
Fax 472-0656
February8,1999
EMERGENCY 911
Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager
City of Mound
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mr. Shukle:
Contained within the following pages is the annual report for the police department. The
report addresses the budget, personnel, mining, equipment, community education,
statistics, and emergency preparedness.
We again experienced some personnel changes within the deparanent. Officer Troy
Denneson left in April to join the Minnetonka Police Department. Officer Tyler Maas
was hired in July. CSO's James Packard and Ryan Piper left in 1998 for other
opportunities. Officer Bobby Donahue completed his probation in 1998 and has been
doing a good job in learning his duties.
The department continues to emphasize dedication to the community through the highest
standards of service and through quality training for its employees. We continue to
present the D.A.R.E. Program in the elementary schools and Grandview Middle School,
with excellent community support. Other community partnerships include our very
successful Citizens Academy, Youth Citizens Academy, and Triad. In 1998, the
department implemented a Juvenile Conferencing Program for youthful offenders and
developed an Offensive Behavior Modification Program in partnership with Grandview
Middle School. We also sponsored several D.A.R.E. gym nights for kids and a youth
safety camp.
The department continues the "Citizen Comment Card" feedback survey. The cards are
randomly sent to our service "customers".
Part I and Part II Offenses accounted for 1,109 calls for service, down 5% from 1998.
Total contacts were down 3% from the 1998 all time high. The police budget for 1998
was approximately 5.9% under budget projections; saving $58,000. This was due to the
changes in personnel and decreased insurance costs.
Sincerely,
Len Harrell
Chief of Police
VII.
VIII.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction
II. Budget Administration
III.Organizational Chart
IV. Personnel
V. Training
VI. Equipment
Community Education
Statistics
IX. Emergency Preparedness
X. Southwest Metro Drag Task Force
PAGE
2
3
4
9
11
12
15
25
26
I. INTRODUCTION
The mission of the Mound Police Department is to provide protection and
service to the people of Mound. Many of the activities of the police
department are described and summarized in this report for 1998.
MOUND POLICE MISSION STATEMENT:
The Mound Police Department, through teamwork and cooperation,
will be responsive to our citizens' needs with a professional level of
dedicated service. Officers will display the highest integrity, and
regard each citizen with a focused and unbiased attitude. Our citizens
will determine our success.
Much of how a police department is evaluated is based on statistics, as
found in this report. Information for these statistics comes from internal
record-keeping and also from participation in the Minnesota Criminal
Justice System (CJIS).
In analyzing the crime statistics, several factors need to be considered:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Population density
Proximity to metropolitan area
Population composition
Population stability
Number, sophistication, and development of police
personnel
The only area the police department has control in is the fifth category.
The police deparlment is consistently looking at ways to better utilize and
train personnel to provide better service.
This report is provided to highlight the most important area of police
department activity and to be used as a gauge for evaluating service. The
report includes some comparisons to past years and provides a tool for
planning and activities in the years to come.
II.
BUDGET ADMINISTRATION
The 1998 police budget will close out significantly under budget
projections, 5.9%. The largest amount of the savings is in the area of
officer salaries and insurance. The final expenditures for the police
department will amount to approximately $934,000.00. The percentage of
expenditures breaks out as follows:
Personnel $747,713.00 80.3
Insurance 20,035.00 2.0
Training/Travel 10,419.00 1.1
(includes P.O.S.T.)
Fuel / Repairs 19,565.00 2.0
Capital Outlay 67,000.00 7.2
Ail Other 69,268.00 7.4
TOTAL 934,000.00 100.00
Our personnel costs were down significantly because of the changes and
the "lag" in hiring replacements. Salaries were down $48,000 because of
the changes. We continued to receive COPS MORE money in 1998 for the
secretarial position. The department continues to run efficiently from a
cost per capita comparison with other communities. Training costs remain
fairly consistent at 1% and two officers have submitted for college
reimbursement.
The police department generated revenues of $85,134.00 from court fines
and violations. Animal licenses and pick-ups accounted for $8,008.00 of
revenue. Accident reports generated $1,777.00.
Minnesota Police Pension and P.O.S.T. Board reimbursements totaled
$70,061.00 and $4,114.00 respectively. The COPSMORE program
reimbursed the department $23,838.00 for the added secretarial position.
We also received $27,106.00 from the school's crime levy for the
D.A.R.E. Program. The SWMDTF reimburses $58,578.00 for the services
of Sergeant Grand.
Revenues totaled $278,616.00 for 1998.
2
PERSONNEL
Sworn Personnel:
Chief of Police
Sergeants
Investigators
D.A.R.E. Officer
Patrol Officers
Total Sworn Personnel
Non-Sworn Personnel:
Police Secretary
Part-time Personnel:
CSO
Total Police Personnel
1.0
3.0
2.0
.5
6~5.
13.0
2.0
2.0
( 1.3 FTE )*
17.0_ .( 16.3 FTE)*
*FTE = Full Time Equivalent
4
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
PERSONNEL ROSTER
1998
Chief of Police
Leonard Harrell
Patrol Sergeant
John McKinley
Todd Truax
Steve Grand (Assigned to SWMDTF)
Investigator / Liaison
Jason Swensen
Dan Niccum
Patrol Officers John Ewald
Troy Denneson ( Resigned 4-98)
Amy Christenson
Sam Nelson
Allen Ringate
Michelle Alexander
Bobby Donahue
Tyler Maas (7-98)
Police
Secretary
Shirley Hawks
Sandi Effertz
Community Service Officers
James Packard (Resigned 4-98)
Ryan Piper (Resigned 12-98)
Bradley Holzerland (7-98 to 12-98)
Police Reserves
Jesse Husby
Tom Berent
Sue Schebler
Rick Maki
Patrick Hart
Mike Bruckner
Jessica Tamillo
Jeffrey Van Auken
Chuck Fradella (Resigned in 98)
5
In 1998, the police department continued the additional secretary position
through the COPS MORE grant. This position is to help with
administrative duties and to free up officers from routine paper work.
Officer Maas was hired in 1998 to replace Officer Denneson. Community
Service Officer (C.S.O.) Bradley Holzerland was hired to fill the position
vacated by Packard. Both CSO's left in December to pursue other
interests.
The department continued with regular evaluations of the police
employees. In general, the officers have been doing a fine job in serving
the community. Officers Swensen scored "Officer of the Year" honors.
There were two internal investigations initiated in 1998; one was found to
not have merited and the complainant withdrew the second. The grievance
issue from 1997 was resolved in 1998 with the officer withdrawing the
grievance and accepting the discipline.
Citizen Comment Cards
In February of 1992, the department initiated a feedback system to solicit
input from our citizens on how the police department is serving the
community. The cards are randomly sent to citizens who have had a" call
for service" contact. The rating system is on a four point basis, poor = 0
and excellent = 4. The department average for our overall service is rated
at 3.63 based on over 166 responses. The rate of return is about 19%. The
Mound Crime Prevention Association continues to pay for the mailings.
Psychological re-evaluations were again given to two officers in 1998.
The process, psychological testing for each officer every five years,
continues.
The department has maintained its involvement in the Southwest Metro
Drug Task Force during 1998. Sergeant Grand has served as the
coordinator for the Task Force for the last three years and will continue in
that capacity through 1999. Sergeant Grand has been doing an excellent
job. The communities involved in the task force are Chanhassen, Carver
County, South Lake Minnetonka, St. Boni/Minnetrista, Scott County,
Shakopee, Chaska, and McLeod County. See section X for the annual
report of the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force.
The Mound Police Reserves continue to do an excellent job for the
community and the department. Sgt. Truax has served as the liaison for the
reserves. The unit strength has been fairly stable with six to eight
volunteers. The Mound Police Reserves combined to donate a total of
1,400 hours.
6
Child Protection cases accounted for 59 investigations in 1998. There
were 16 criminal sexual contact cases reported. Combined Part I and Part
II contacts were down slightly. Part I offenses were up almost 22% in
1998 but Part II offenses were down 12%.
The homicide in June of 1997 was finally completed in the courts in 1998
through a plea arrangement. Other significant cases included the
investigation of criminal sexual conduct at a daycare facility, an assault
case involving the holding of a female victim against her will, several
check cases involving multiple suspects and victims that encompassed
several metro communities, the burglary at an apartment complex and the
arrest of suspects, and the fraudulent use of money orders in the sale of
vehicles across several states. Charges were also filed in the theft of mail
from mailboxes affecting over 25 of our citizens. The investigators
recovered several guns and narcotics in other cases under investigation.
Inv. Swensen has been involved in liaisoning at the high school and
Grandview Middle School.
There were 138 (up 35%) formal complaints signed in 1998 charging
individuals with a variety of crimes. Some of the most severe cases
involved criminal sexual conduct, assault, false imprisonment, narcotics
possession and sales, forgery, felony theft, terroristic threats, fleeing a
police officer, Gross misdemeanor DWI, possession of stolen property,
and procuring alcohol for minors.
Other complaints include DWI, no insurance, disorderly conduct,
possession of marijuana and paraphernalia, minor consumption, harassing
communications, assorted driving violations, worthless checks, violation
of orders for protection, dumping, hit and run accidents, cruelty to
animals, barking dog, loud parties, discharging a weapon, and criminal
damage to property; to name a few.
Officers and staff used a total of 531 days of benefit time during 1998.
The time off included approximately 183 vacation days, 150 holidays, 119
comp days, and 79 sick days. Officers eamed 566 hours of comp time and
778 hours of overtime during the year.
7
MOUND POLICE RESERVES
ANNUAL REPORT
The Mound Police Reserves donated 1,740 hours to the City of Mound in
1998. The unit continues to operate with 6 to 8 members. The police
reserves assisted in providing the following security services and/ or
police back-up at:
Emergency call outs
Winterfest
D. A. R. E. assists
Reserve squad - house checks
High school dances
Hockey and football games
Mound City Days
EFCE Public Safety Days
Rotary Dinner for 100
Officer Friendly assists
Westonka Homecoming parade
Westonka senior overnight party
Halloween and "Kiddie" parades
Christmas Tree lighting
Our Lady of the Lake Marathon
Memorial Day Parade
Mound Westonka High School Graduation
Fish Fry
Traffic Direction (emergencies)
Transports
Recycling Drop Off
Crime Prevention
Incredible Festival
The Mound Police Reserves received training in first aid and CPR,
defensive tactics, and new officers attended the Hennepin County Reserve
Officers courses.
Finances:
The reserves continue to raise their own funds and are predominantly self-
sufficient. The Emergency Preparedness budget also contributes funds to
the maintenance of training and equipment for the police reserves.
The police reserve account has about $7,213 in balance. Again, in 1998,
the severance fund encumbrance is relatively low due to the change made
in the disbursement of those funds. The reserve officers now receive a
check in December to cover any expenses that they incur during the year.
8
The police department attempts to provide mining on a continual basis to
maintain its effectiveness and efficiency. Modem law enfomement is an
ever-changing environment that requires the development of special skills
and necessitates officers keep abreast of recent changes in job relevant
statutes and procedures. The police department accomplishes high
standards of excellence when extensive training can be offered to both
officers and staff.
Police personnel attended the equivalent of 169 days of training in 1998 in
addition to our in-house firearms training.
Courses Attended
Firearms Training / F.A.T.S.
Use of Force
Emergency Medical Technician
ASP Baton
Chemical Agents
IACP National Conference
Intoxilyzer Refresher
Pursuit Driving
Executive Training Institute
Defensive Tactics - PPCT
Criminal Information System
Emergency Preparedness
Minnesota Sex Investigators Conference
Sexual Harassment
Community Orientated Policing
Legislative Update
Cultural Sensitivity
Govemor's Conference for Emergency Preparedness
Drug Interdiction through Traffic
Standardized Filed Sobriety
Standard Investigations
Community Oriented Policing/Problem Solving
Ethics
Intoxilyzer Certification
Covey Leadership
CAN-AM Drug Conference
Undercover Officer Survival
Arial Observation/Marijuana Grows
Interview/Interrogation
Constitutional Law
9
Courses Attended - cont.
Crisis Management
Blood-borne pathogens
Bicycle Patrol for Police
Background Investigations
OSHA
Scale/Weight Enforcement
Drags, Guns, & Gangs in Schools
Police Accountability Conferencing
Juvenile Crime and Violence
National DARE Officer Conference
Juvenile Officers Institute
Advanced Field Sobriety
SPIAA Conference
Computer Crimes
Commercial Vehicle Accident Investigation
Drag Interdiction through Traffic Enforcement
Y2K Issues for Law Enforcement
GREAT School Instructor
School Violence Prevention
Conflict Resolution
Executive Session on Terrorism
Wilson Leadership & Supervision Course
Use of Force Instructor
Internal Investigations
10
VI. EOUIPMENT
Two new vehicles were purchased in 1998. The department purchased a
new squad and a new utility vehicle. The vehicles were purchased
through the county bid process and include a Chewolet Lumina police
package and Dodge Durango. We have a total of one Tams, six Luminas,
the Dodge, and the CSO Chevrolet van in normal service. In 1995, we
converted a forfeited Buick Electra for utilization as a D.A.R.E. vehicle
with the support of the Rotary Club of Mound/Westonka and the Mound
Crime Prevention Assn. The vehicle is being used by our D.A.R.E. officer
and has made a great impression on the kids.
A new radar was purchased to replace an older model. The department
also upgraded our computer capabilities in 1998. In addition, the
department purchased a new laptop computer with power point and a LCD
projector. The copy machine was replaced as well as one of the video car
cameras.
Several new recording devices were purchased to replace the portables
that had worn out or broken. Maintenance of video and audiotapes
continues to be an ongoing expense, but has been very productive in the
resolution of cases.
11
VII. COMMUNITY EDUCATION / SERVICE
The department has stayed involved with the community in a variety of
activities in 1998. The following is a brief description of the activities.
Crime Prevention
Officer Christenson did an excellent job of organizing the National
Night Out celebration. This year we again focused our celebration
around our neighborhood parks and provided frozen novelties and
crime prevention materials to those in attendance. The Mound
Crime Prevention Association and the Rotary Club of
Mound/Westonka funded the event. Officer Christenson has been
conducting neighborhood meetings and developing block watches.
Presentations and security evaluations have been done for local
banks and businesses.
Citizens Academy
The police department conducted the first citizens' academy in the
fall of 1995. Individuals attended classes two hours a night for ten
weeks in order to learn, first hand, the operations of the Mound
Police Department. The attendee reviews continue to be excellent
and two academies were held in 1998. One was presented at
Grandview Middle School as a Youth Academy and one for adults.
Triad
Initiative to organize senior citizens and to meet on a regular basis
to discuss issues of interest and concern. Officer Ewald has
organized a SALT group and is meeting with them on a monthly
basis in order to meet the concerns of our seniors.
House Checks
The police reserves and CSO's provide a service of checking
periodically on out-of-town resident's homes when notification has
been provided to the police department.
Youth Academy
A variation on
Middle School.
the Citizens Academy presented at Grandview
12
Department Tours
The police department has conducted a number of tours of our
facility for Cub Scouts, Brownies, and on special requests by
schools, etc.
Demonstrations / Presentations
The police department has been involved in a number of public
presentations ranging from canine demonstrations to talks about
safety with day-care students. The police department has talked to
groups concerning drags, gun safety, vehicle safety, DWI, and
personal safety.
Mound City Days
The department was very involved in this year's celebrations.
Security was provided for the parade and the weekend activities.
Fingerprinting
The department provides a service of fingerprinting individuals as
may be requested. This includes both children and adults.
D.A.R.E Program
Drug Awareness Resistance Education has been implemented at
Shirley Hills Elementary School, Grandview Middle School, and
Our Lady of the Lake school. The 17-week program is taught to all
5th grade students and we have expanded into the I st and 3rd
grades with a 5-week program.
Westonka Community Action Network
The department has been actively involved in assisting the task
force in defining area problems and developing a network for
assisting needy individuals. The department has been designated as
a resource for emergency "vouchers" for the County. I still serve
on the Board.
Homecoming Parade
The department assisted the high school with setting up a parade
route and then provided security for the parade.
Halloween Parade
Provided security for children during the parade.
Officer Friendly
Elementary school presentations for child safety.
13
Advisory Councils
Members of the department are involved in several different
advisory councils that meet periodically. They include the
Guidance Advisory Council, Mound Business & Professional
Council, and Co-curricular Advisory to name a few.
Westonka Healthy Families Collaborative
Collaborative group of social service providers and community
representatives to build assets for youth and families.
Juvenile Conferencing
First offender program for youthful offenders.
Offensive Behavior Program
Partnership with Grandview Middle School to modify offensive
behavior of youthful students.
Summer Safety Camp
Program for youth held at Mound Bay Park to familiarize with
safety issues for kids.
14
VIII.
STATISTICS
This section of the report analyzes the statistical portion of the annual
report. Most of the statistics comes from tabulating the information from
Initial Call Reports (ICR'S), informational reports, and traffic citations.
The total number of ICR's in a year is useful for comparing the level of
activity of the department relative to previous years. It also allows for
comparison between personnel changes and activity levels. Some
reporting changes were made in 1986 to alleviate statistical duplication
that was found in the previous system.
TOTAL INCIDENTS PER YEAR
1987 THROUGH 1998
YEAR TOTAL INCIDENTS / MONTH
1987 13,445 1,120
1988 15,582 1,298
1989 14,559 1,213
1990 13,680 1,140
1991 13,207 1,101
1992 13,578 1,130
1993 16,897 1,408
1994 16,239 1,353
1995 14,515 1,210
1996 16,680 1,390
1997 17,635 1,470
1998 17,089 1,424
The serious incidents of crime reported to the police department are
categorized into Part I and Part II Offenses.
Part I Offenses:
Part I Offenses include major crimes such as homicide,
criminal sexual conduct, robbery, assault, burglary, larceny,
vehicle theft, and arson. Although Part I Offenses are a
small percentage of reported crimes, it is these crimes that
demand the most attention from the police department in
terms of investigation and commitment of resources.
Part II Offenses:
Part II Offenses include the crimes of forgery, child abuse /
neglect, vandalism, stolen property, sexual misconduct,
weapons violations, narcotics violations, liquor violations,
DWI, simple assault, domestic assault, embezzlement,
harassment, public peace, juvenile status offenses, and
other violations.
15
Part I crimes rose by 66 contacts in 1998, 21.6%. 1998 was higher
than our five-year average for Part I crimes which are the most
significant violent crimes. Part II crimes were down significantly
from our high in 1997. The clearance rate for combined Part I and
Part II Offenses was 56%. Criminal sexual conduct rose by 60%,
burglaries rose 94%, and larcenies increased by 14%. Child
protection issues rose by 33%.
Part I and Part II Offenses are the incidents that necessitate the most time
and effort from the police department. Initial call time is greater in
gathering pertinent information at the scene and the greatest amount of
investigation and follow-up is dedicated to these types of crimes.
Traffic
Offenses:
Traffic Offenses include both moving and non-moving
violations. An examination of the number and percentage
of traffic stops, as part of the total number of incidents,
allows one to determine the degree to which vehicular
traffic and pedestrian movement affects the department's
workload. It should also be noted that the more visible that
patrols are maintained, the more likely is the positive
impact in deterring serious crimes.
In 1998, traffic citations accounted for 1,694 police
contacts, down significantly from 1997. Property damage
and personal injury accidents were down slightly for the
third straight year.
There were 67 DWI arrests and of those, approximately 25% were
repeat offenders for gross misdemeanor or aggravated violations.
The average test was .137 blood alcohol content (BAC). The
highest reading was .24; the legal limit is. 10.
Property:
Property loses were valued at $228,904.00 in 1997,
the first year in three.
up for
Child Protection:
The department investigated 59 (up 37%) child protection
issues and 16 criminal sexual conduct cases for the year.
These cases continue to be the single most time-consuming
cases we handle.
16
Domestic Dispute Cases:
The department responded to 64 domestic situations, 33
with assaults. These numbers reflect a decrease of 20% in
assaults and 40% overall.
Arrests:
The department processed and booked 198 adults in 1998,
down 29%. There were 30 adults charged for felonies, 340
adults charged with misdemeanors, 69 juveniles taken into
custody for felonies, and 230 juveniles taken into custody
for misdemeanors.
Animal Complaints:
The department responded to 1,106 animal and inspections
complaint issues during 1998. This is an increase from
1997.
17
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
1998 YEARLY REPORT
PART I CRIMES
OFFENSES t'T.~/~ED EXCEPT- CLEA~,ED BY A~/~ESTED
I~EPORTED UNFOUNDED CLEARF~ AP~EST ADULT JUV
Homicide 0 0 0 0
Criminal Sexual Conduct 16 2 0 7
Robbery 3 0 1 0
Aggravated Assault 8 0 1 5
Burglary 66 2 0 8
Larceny 251 7 13 36
Vehicle Theft 21 0 3 3
Arson 6 0 1 0
TOTAL
371 11 19 59
0 0
4 3
0 0
4 5
1 12
20 44
1 5
0 0
30 69
PART II CRIMES
Child Abuse/Neglect 39 18 1 7 5
Forgery/NSF Checks 23 0 10 3 4
Criminal Damage to Property 84 0 9 10 11
Weapons 5 1 1 2 2
Narcotic Laws 49 0 0 48 44
Liquor Laws 94 1 0 110 105
DWI 67 0 0 67 67
Simple Assault 60 0 15 25 12
Domestic Assault 33 0 6 21 36
Domestic (No Assault) 31 0 0 0 0
Harassment 45 0 4 3 4
Juvenile Status Offenses 98 0 7 86 0
Public Peace 23 1 2 16 26
Trespassing 10 0 1 6 0
All Other Offenses 77 5 5 39 24
2
0
11
0
12
28
0
10
3
0
0
141
4
7
12
TOTAL 738 26 61 443
340 230
PART II & PART IV
Property Damage Accidents 87
Personal Injury Accidents 34
Fatal Accidents 0
Medicals 344
Animal Complaints 638
Mutual Aid 211
Other General Investigations 10,277
TOTAL 11,591
HCCP 59
Inspections 468
TOTAL 13,227 37 80 502 370
299
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
POLICE/CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT
Hazardous Citation
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
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
702 672 833 1,053 988 664
702 535 655 680 839 577
171 194 216 330 260 205
307 379 740 832 768 553
1,263 734 727 1,106 988 922
346 341 346 739 636 338
73 87 52 86 93 67
58 75 50 67 75 48
78 103 98 75 88 87
25 39 32 35 37 34
0 0 0 1 0 0
61 33 26 36 57 45
328 425 377 457 438 403
45 89 49 75 61 71
86 117 173 203 193 239
Part I Offenses
Reported 338 385 283 307 305 371
Cleared 122 120 91 94 95 89
Arrests Made 92 114 65 94 103 99
Part II Offenses
Reported
Cleared
Arrests Made
Medicals
Animal Complaints
Ordinance Violations
Other Public Contacts
Total
Assists
Follow-ups
Mutual Aid
732 782 841 784 843 738
441 473 515 502 582 530
441 324 451 458 537 570
300 399 342 350 317 344
896 1,518 1,007 669 701 638
- - 501 539 351 468
6,983 9,564 9,340 7,516 9,597 10,277
13,420 16,846 16,239 14,515 17,635 17,089
896 538 543 877 727 611
299 328 462 377 696 898
148 177 177 193 206 211
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT YEARLY REPORT o 1998
CITATIONS
DWI
More Than .10% BAC
Careless/Reckless Driving
Driving After Susp. or Rev.
Open Bottle
Speeding
No DL or Expired DL
Restriction on DL
Improper, Expired or No Plates
Stop 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
67 0
48 0
5 3
52 1
5 1
515 28
25 0
3 0
206 4
6 0
30 2
3 1
51 2
3 0
96 5
6 0
7 1
338 0
9 0
31 0
17 0
24 3
20 0
75 1
1,642 52
W~NINGS
Insurance
Traffic
Equipment
Crosswalk
Animals
Trash/Derelict Autos
Seat Belt
Trespassing
Window Tint
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
WARRANT ARRESTS
Felony
Misdemeanor
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
YI~ARLYRI~PORT 1998
366
245
251
0
6
127
0
0
10
139
1,144
15
63
Juveniles
36
25
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
88
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
CRISfE ACTIVITY REPORT
1998
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 Misdemeeanor Arrests
Juvenile Felony Arrests
Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests
Part I Offenses
Part II Offenses
Medicals
Animal Complaints
Ordinance Violations
Other Public Contacts
YEAR TO
DATE
664
577
205
553
922
338
67
48
87
34
0
45
403
71
239
371
738
344
638
468
10,277
LAST YEAR
TO DATE
988
839
260
768
988
636
93
75
88
37
0
57
438
61
193
3O5
843
317
701
351
9,597
TOTAL
Assists
Follow-Ups
HCCP
Mutual Aid Given
Mutal Aid Requested
17,089
611
898
59
211
69
17,635
727
696
43
206
107
Run: 2-Feb-99 10:30 PRO03
Primary ISN~s only: No
Date Reported range: 01/01/98 - 12/31/98
Activity codes: All
Property Status: All
Property Types: All
Property Descs: Al/
Brands: All
Models: All
Officers/Badges: All
Prop Prop Inc no ISN Pr Prop Date Rptd Stolen
Tp Desc SN Stat Stolen Value
MOUND ~OLXCE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Property Report
STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED
Date Reco¥'d
Recov'd Value
Page
Quantity Act Brand Model Off-1 Off-2
Code Assnd Assnd
Prop type Totals:
Prop type Totals: 500
Prop type Totals: 25
Prop type Totals: 61,800
Prop type Totals: 6,744
Prop type Totals: 3,894
Prop type Totals: 939
Prop type Totals: 644
Prop type Totals: 4,529
Prop type Totals: 200
Prop type Totals: 22,200
Prop type Totals: 11,841
Prop type Totals: 1,051
Prop type Totals: 13,034
Prop type Totals: 2,630
Prop type Totals: 100
Prop type Totals: 23,670
Prop type Totals: 28,328
Prop type Totals: 11,112
Prop type Totals: 6,974
Prop type Totals: 735
0
0
0
27,000
1,810
1,100
60
76
400
0
9,200
633
0
1,751
980
0
2,475
928
208
6,974
0
1.000
1.000
2.000
6.000
28.000
6.000
10.000
33.000
13.000
1.000
5.000
15.000
3.000
30.000
32.000
1.000
48.000
18.000
66.000
2.000
4.000
Run: 2-Feb-99 10:30 PR003 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 2
Primary ISN's 0nly: NO
Date Reported range: 01/01/98 - 12/31/98
Activity codes: All
Status: All
Property Types: All
Property Descs: All
Brands: All
Models: All
Officers/Badges: All
Enf0rs Property Report
STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED
Prop Prop Inc no ISN Pr Prop Date Rptd Stolen Date Recov'd Quantity Act Brand Model Off-1 Off-2
Tp Desc SN Stat Stolen Value Recov'd Value Code Assnd Assnd
W Prop type Totals: 375 5 8.000
x Prop type Totals: 19,465 75 16.000
Y Prop type Totals: 8,113 525 84.000
**** Report Totals: 228,904 54,200 433.000
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ( CIVIL DEFENSE )
The Emergency Preparedness budget came in slightly over budget this
year due to a joint effort by the Lake area departments to produce a
uniform manual for reacting to large-scale incidents. A grant was secured
to cover much of the additional costs but the revenue is not reflected in the
Emergency Preparedness budget.
Again, this year, hazardous materials continue to be a major concern for
Emergency Preparedness. The city receives approximately $4,000 from
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Association) in the form of a
grant. We spent $5,712.39 for emergency preparedness in addition to
salaries that are accounted for in the police budget.
Most of the money allocated to Emergency Preparedness is used by, and
for, the reserve unit. The reserve unit uses a portion of the money for
training and uniforms. The reserves are also reimbursed for their expenses
from this fund.
25
X. SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE
Attached is the annual report of the drag task force in which we are
a member. We believe the task force is doing an excellem job and
deserves our continued support. The major drugs of use in our area
continue to be marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamines, and LSD.
26
FEB- 1-99 MON tO'B8 AM SW MEIRO DTF FAX NO, 613_ 361 6901 P,
SOUTtiWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE
ANNUAL REPORT / 1998
1998 Tuned out to be another record breaking year for the ta~k force. The task force did mor~ cases than
ever before and quantities of controlled substances were up considerably,
This report will give statistical information from 1998 and there will be s~,eral notable changes from the
s~adstics gemcra~ed in 1997.
Cases not adexluately represellted in this report include a federal case which was worked in concert with
Homepin County nar~,'otics and the I~S / CiD unit. This case involved large forfeitures as well as
significant seizures of controlled subsLanccs. The forfeited items taken in tiffs case were rcportexi ~'
Hcnncpin Coun~ so our task force did not report them. However, we were a significant part of thc
investigation and viii share in seized assets when they are disposed of and th~ proceeds are dispersed.
The follov, ing is a breakdown of cases and where thcs, occurred. Types of substances seize'el and financial
information is also included:
199~7 1998
CASES
SEARCH WARRANTS
ARRESTS
CASES BY DRUG TYPE
Cocaine 24
Methamphetamine 23
Marijuana 45
Psilocybin (Mushrooms) 5
LSD 1
Paraphernalia 10
Methamphetamine labs 2
Other (Prescription) 2
105 1.12
74 95
118 134
CASES
BY COUNTY:
Scott Count)'
Carver County
Hcnnepin Count'
Mcl~od County.
Kicc County
Dakota Count)'
Mocker County
46
28
24
11
2
1
1
~B- i-~S 1~0~ iO'~S AM SVi i~EY'RO D'T~ ~AX NO, 612 B6t 6~01 P. ~
Breakdown of cities:
~¢ott Count~
Shakopr~
Jordan
Prior Lake
Jack,on Township
Spring Lake Town,ship
Belle Plainc
Nc~' Market
Total 46
Carver County
Chaska
Cologne
Chanhassen
WatertOWll
Waconia
Norwood
Total
20
1
2
I
1
1
28
Honneoin County
Maple Plain
Minn~.polis
Mound
St. Bonifa¢ius
Minnecrism
h~¢pendcnc¢
Spring Park
Plymouth
Excelsior
'Hopkins
Eden Prarie
Richfield
Total
1
3
7
1
2
1
4
1
!
1
1
!
24
McLeod County
Silver Lake
Glcncoc
Hutchinson
Winsted
Total
1
2
11
FEB- 1-99 MON 10'39 AM SW METRO DTF FAX NO, 612 361 6901 P, 4
Dakota County
-La]o.-vill¢
Mae 'k~r
Dass¢l
Rice
North~cld
Total
(non-member counties)
Dru~$
Marijuana
Mi. Plains
Mcthamphetamin¢
Cocaine
Mushrooms
LSD
Ouantities
2,367.78 Ounces
40,659.0 Plants
2,498.01 Grams
71.05 Grams
2,489.40 Grams
1.0 D.U.
Total value
Street Value
$ 236,778.00
$ 700,000.00
$ 249.801.00
$ 7,105.00
$ 24,894.00
$ 5.00
$ 1,218.583.00
Seized assets
Current'
Vahiclas
Waapons
33,364.36
14.000.00
800.00
Total Seizures $ 48,164.~6
FEB- 1-89MON I0'40 AM SWMETRO D?F FAX NO. 612 361 6901 P, 5
Budaet Information
199~ Budget proposed:
1998 Budget utilized
Difference
$ '173.055.00
$ 253.630.74
$ 19,424.26 (Under Budget).
*Plcas¢ note the task force did pa)' overtime but did also rm~ short an agent for most of 1998.
Preliminary
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET REVENUE REPORT
Dec. 1998
100.00%
GENERAL FUND
Taxes
Business Licenses
Non-Business
Licenses and
Permits
Intergovernmental
Charges for
Services
Court Fines
Other Revenue
Transfers
from Other Funds
Charges to Other
Departments
Dec. 1998 Y'r'D PERCENT
BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED
1,271,520 665,577 1,304,056 32,536 102.56%
4,780 10 4,183 (597) 87.51%
105,300 6,811 129,681 24,381 123.15%
950,850 411,287 1,079,725 128,875 113.55%
50,650 13,389 64,128 13,478 126.61%
85,000 13,632 85,133 133 100.16%
71,000 83,696 113,055 42,055 159.23%
43,500 43,500 43,500 0 100.00%
12.000 1.043 13.448 1,44~ 112.07%
TOTAL REVENUE
2,594,600 628,813 2,836,909 242.309 109.34%
FIRE FUND
RECYCLING FUND
LIQUOR FUND
WATER FUND
SEWER FUND
CEMETERY FUND
DOCK FUND
360,220 (6,877) 370,206 9,986 102.77%
118,920 3,589 113,874 (5,046) 95.76%
1,530,000 186,036 1,690,968 160,968 110.52%
451,000 73,899 483,021 32,021 107.10%
924,000 17,223 938,583 14,583 101.58%
5,100 256 8,806 3,706 172.67%
77,300 12,901 86,590 9,290 112.02%
0211611999
rev98
G.B.
Preliminary
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT
Dec. 1998
100.00%
GENERAL FUND
Council
Promotions
Cable TV
City Manager/Clerk
Elections
Assessing
Finance
Computer
Legal
Police
Civil Defense
Planning/Inspections
Streets
City Property
Parks
Summer Recreation
Contingencies
Transfers
Dec. 1998 YTD
BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE
71 610
4 000
3 000
210 970
13 200
62 450
172 710
18 550
86 460
990 170
4.250
173,280
420,820
103,380
192,380
37,290
45,O00
167.430
PERCENT
VARIANCE EXPENDED
3,610 74,446 (2,836) 103.96%
0 4,000 0 100.00%
93 4,454 (1,454) 148.47%
21,914 209,411 1,559 99.26%
97 10,379 2,821 78.63%
3 62,290 160 99.74%
t 5,806 177,179 (4,469) 102.59%
3,588 20,843 (2,293) 112.36%
35,691 137,622 (51,162) 159.17%
94,659 931,304 58,866 94.05%
540 5,940 (1,690) 139.76%
37,723 206,557 (33,277) 119.20%
36,027 438,939 (18,119) 104.31%
4,100 93,639 9,741 90.58%
11,692 201,460 (9,080) 104.72%
36,200 36,200 1,090 97.08%
46,025 88,228 (43,228) 196.06%
13.952 167.430 0 100.00%
GENERAL FUND TOTAL ~,776,950
361,7;20 :~,870,391 (93,371) 103.36%
Area Fire
Service Fund 360,220
Recycling Fund 126,830
Liquor Fund 215,200
Water Fund 445,400
Sewer Fund 981,020
Cemetery Fund 6,710
Dock Fund 76,660
28,358 292,461 67,759 81.19%
(19,408) 112,172 14,658 88.44%
100,905 294,942 (79,742) 137.05%
30,678 403,228 42,172 90.53%
93,018 1,041,538 (60,518) 106.17%
187 5,900 810 87.93%
1,557 89,285 (12,625) 116.47%
Exp-98
02116/1999
G.B.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
February 10, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ~/
FROM: JIM FACKLER, PARKS DIRECTOR' ~) ~
/
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON JIM ALBRECHT 1~ DOCK PAYMENT
As requested I have looked up the payment receipt for Mr.
Albrecht for the 1998 dock site $41866. The payment was
received on August 13, 1998.
The amount paid was $150.00 for a straight dock and $70.00
in late fees.
If you have any further questions please feel free to
contact me.
cc: Ed Shukle, City Manager
Jim Albrecht
4701 Aberdeen Road
Mound, MN. 55364
pr~nted on recycled paper
Page 1 of 3
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Strommen, James M. <jstrommen@Kennedy-Graven.com>
'contacts@cl. plymouth, m n. us' <contacts~ci. plymouth, mn. us>;
'jwallin@ci.edina.mn.us' <jwallin@ci.edina.mn.us>; 'edwardshuklejr@MSN.com'
<edwardshuklejr@MSN .com>; 'postmaster@shoreviewmn.com'
<postmaster@shoreviewmn.com>; 'steve.sarkozy@ci.roseville.mn. us'
<steve.sarkozy@ci.roseville.mn.us>; 'dosberg@ci.hastings.mn.us'
<dosberg@ci.hastings.mn.us>; 'alo@wayzata.org' <alo@wayzata.org>;
'omalleys@ci.burnsville.mn.us' <omalleys@ci.burnsville.mn.us>;
'fmoore@ci. plymouth.m n. us' <fmoore@ci. plymouth, mn. us>;
'smielke@hopkinsmn.com' <smielke@hopkinsmn.com>; 'mmcneill@logis.com'
<mmcneill@logis.com>; 'jmccarthy@northstarcounselors.com'
<jmccarthy@northstarcounselors.com>; 'jlynch@ci.long-lake. mn. us'
<j lynch@cl, long-lake, mn. us>; 'cityhall@maplepla in. com'
<cityhall@mapleplain.com>; 'dkraft@ci.robbinsdale.mn.us'
<dkraft@ci.robbinsdale.mn.us>; 'kings@logis.org' <kings@logis,org>;
'jkeinath@compuserve.com' <jkeinath@compuserve.com>;
'karl.keel@cl. roseville.mn, us' <karl.keel@cl. roseville.mn, us>;
'bjoynes@ci.golden-valley. mn. us' < bjoynes@ci, golden~val ley. mn. us>;
'djoh nson@ci, plymouth, mn. us' <d johnson@cl, plymouth, mn. us>;
'bjohnson@ci.woodbury.mn.us' <bjohnson@ci.woodbury.mn.us>;
'chonchell@ci. bloomington, mn. us' <chonchell@ci. bloomington, m n. us>;
'haukaasj@ci.fridley.mn.us' <haukaasj@ci.fridley.mn.us>; 'mhanus@pclink.com'
<mhanus@pclink.com>; 'RickG@rcmnet.org' <RickG@rcmnet.org>;
'rvhill@hopkinsmn.com' <rvhill@hopkinsmn.com>; 'jgates@ci.bloomington.mn.us'
<jg ates@ci, bloomington, mn. us>; 'mfulto@ci. new-brig hton. mn. us'
<mfu Ito@ci. new-brig hton. mn. us>; 'flora j@ ci.frid ley. m n. us'
<floraj@ci.fridley.mn.us>; 'crichtonc@aol.com' <crichtonc@aol.com>;
'doran@ci. brooklyn-park, mn. us' <doran@ci. brooklyn-park, m n. us>;
'lakeland@lsd.net' <lakeland@lsd.net>; 'jclancy@ci.golden-valley.mn.us'
<jclancy@ci.golden-valley.mn.us>; 'dchilds@ci.minnetonka.mn.us'
<dchilds@ci.minnetonka.mn.us>; 'drowland@edenprairie.org'
<drowland@edenprairie.org>; 'dcallister@aol.com' <dcallister@aol.com>;
'g b utcher@ci, maple-g rove. m n. us' <g butcher@cl, maple-g rove. mn. us>;
'ed.burrell@ci.roseville.mn.us' <ed.burrell@ci.roseville.mn.us>;
'Bu rnsW@ci.frid ley. mn. us' <Bu rnsW@ci.frid ley. mn. us>; 'lakeland@lsd. net'
<lakeland@lsd.net>; 'curtb@ci.brooklyn-park.mn.us' <curtb@ci.brooklyn-
park. mn. us>; 'citymanager@ci. bloomington, mn. us'
<citymanager@ci.bloomington.mn.us>; 'jandre@ci.golden-valley.mn. us'
<jandre@ci.golden-valley.mn.us>
Wednesday, February 10, 1999 9:47 AM
Cost of PUC Proceedings---Cities
This an important memo for SPA and cities individually regarding
legislation passed in 1998 now before the PUC that I believe will have a
chilling effect on participation by cities and other local government
units ("LGUs") in PUC proceedings, unless amended. There is no action
item for the SPA from this report but this matter will probably be
pursued by the League of Cities, the Associations of Townships and of
Counties. It involves a potential new cost to cities when they appear
before the PUC.
BACKGROUND AND POTENTIAL PROBLEM FOR CITIES
2/10/1999
Page 2 of 3
Late last summer the executive committee gave me authority to comment to
the PUC on a new law allocating a portion of the cost of PUC proceedings
to LGUs, among other potential parties to certain PUC proceedings. The
law is found in Mn St. 237.295. It is clearly an attempt by the
utility industry to shift some of the cost of proceedings before the PUC
(which will now be much more frequent) to LGUs. Now such costs are
billed to utilities, who pass them on to ratepayers.
Yesterday a hearing was held at the PUC on the issue of this statute as
it relates to the PUC cost for the ROW rulemaking hearings and its
preceding task forces. The PUC "bill" at this point is approximately
$175K. It will be higher before the proceeding is completed. In the
past of course neither LGUs nor other non-utilities have been billed by
the PUC (which must recover its cost of operation).
The interpretation given to this statute by a majority of the PUC
(Garvey, Koppendrayer and Johnson) is that LGUs are responsible for a
pro rata share of the ROW rulemaking cost. There is a late effective
date of August 1, 1998 for the statute that will reduce the total bill
to LGUs. So the amount at issue will be approximately $60K, half of
which the industry would pay and the other half the PUC is looking for
contribution from LGUs. Moreover, the clear intent of the PUC and
certainly the industry is that future proceedings under the telephone
statute (ch. 237) involve the spector of added cost to LGUs upon
participation as a party. The worst of all possible scenarios would be
if the PUC becomes the reviewer of ROW user-LGU disputes by virtue of a
broad interpretation of M.S. 237.163 subd. 8(b) where Telecoms can go to
the PUC if a statewide construction standard is allegedly violated.
In that case an LGU would become an unwilling participant in a
proceeding before the PUC---and must pay (potentially, at the PUC's
discretion) part of the PUC cost of the proceeding.
SRA POSITION AND EXEMPTION
I argued that the statute is ambiguous (which it is) in its
applicability the ROW proceeding at all, that there was no notice that
participation in this process may result in receiving a bill from the
PUC and that any law imposing costs on non-utilities is very bad public
policy because it chills participation in an already expensive process.
Commissioner Scott was very receptive to those arguments, as was Comm.
Jacobs I believe.
It is important to know that in the midst of this negative development
for LGUs, the SRA benefits from a "safe haven." That is, the SPA and
other not for profit "mutual help" organizations have been exempted from
paying for PUC proceeding costs. Therefore, the SPA can continue to
participate as it has in the past and not be subject to being billed by
the PUC. The incentive under the language of the law then would be for
LGUs to participate through joint powers organizations like the SRA.
That does not solve the problem for LGUs, however, either now or going
forward. There may be issues when an individual city has a unique
issue and would only represent itself. Further if city by city
statewide construction standard disputes come under this law, LGUs
necessarily must go it alone.
PUC ACTION AND LGU ISSUES
2/1 O/1999
Page 3 of 3
A majority of the PUC simply wanted to bill LGUs directly for the $30K
bill the PUC wants LGUs to pay lot"using the Commission" and "causing
this whole thing at the legislature in the first place." Those
statements are rough quotes from Koppendrayer and yet the general
attitude is shared by at least Garvey and Johnson. I and others
appearing for LGUs explained that the LGUs were not direct parties to
the proceeding and have been represented through the League, the
Associations and the SRA. As a result, these cities will not pay a PUC
bill and have no obligation to do so. The PUC eventually recognized
this problem. Any bill to any of the LGUs or its representatives would
probably result in nonpayment, successfully. The PUC could bill the
cost of the entire proceeding to the industry but will not do that.
There is some merit to the argument that none of the parties should be
responsible for a legislatively required proceeding that could have
included a legislative appropriation for the PUC cost of the rulemaking.
After some motions made and withdrawn, the PUC agreed to table this
issue until after the legislative session. The intent is to see if the
legislature can appropriate the disputed $30K to pay the PUC's bill and
move on. The League will investigate the feasibility of that plan.
Otherwise the PUC may bill cities directly just to "test" the statute.
No PUC action will be taken until June 1.
The bigger issue is what additional costs cities face going forward
under a law that makes the city help pay costs of a proceeding it may
or may not voluntarily participate in. This law should be repealed or
amended to be more limited than it can be interpretted by the PUC.
If you have any reactions, thoughts or ideas on this matter please email
or call me at 337-9233. This has broad implications for cities and ROW
management and other PUC issues.
2/10/1999
MINUTES-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION-
JANUARY 21, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 a.m. Members Present: Meisel, Pietrowski,
Drahos, Longpre and Brown. Absent and excused: Brewer and Weber. Also Present: Cook,
Businaro and Shukle.
Upon motion by Longpre, seconded by Drahos, and carried unanimously, the minutes of the
December 17, 1998 were approved.
Lost Lake Improvement Project
Ed Shukle reported on the status of the project. He indicated that Ames was constructing a road on
both sides of the canal for purposes of hauling the dredge material out of the canal. Due to the warm
weather conditions, work was progressing slowly. There is still some question as to whether Ames
will be able to dredge the canal using the "cofferdam" method. Ames is optimistic about this method
but it will be dependent upon the weather. ~
Buy a Brick Program
A meeting was held of the subcommittee with a representative from Excelsior who has had a brick
program in their downtown area. More meetings will be held by the subcommittee as they are
generating information for this project.
Auditor's Road Improvement Project
Shukle indicated that the bidding process is underway again with bids to be opened in late February.
Update on Westonka Community Center
Shukle reported on the status. He indicated that the City Council, School Board, Planning
Commission and Westonka Community Center Board (WCCB) are holding a joint meeting on
Monday, January 25, 1999 regarding the status of the project. More information will be available
at a later date.
Other Business
The next meeting is scheduled for February 18, 1999, 7 a.m., Mound City Hall. Stan Drahos is
scheduled to bring the rolls.
Upon motion by Longpre, seconded by Brown and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned
at 7:55 a.m.
EDC Minutes
January 21, 1999
Page 2
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
KAY ~ITCHELL A~5'~ PHON~.
BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A-2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487-0240
February 9, 1999
TO: Various Municipalities
RE: HENNEPIN COUNTY APPOINTMENTS TO MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED
DISTRICT BOARD
Enclosed please find a copy of an extract from the minutes of the
February 9, 1999 meeting of the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners.
Please note, that Pamela Blixt of Minneapolis, and Malcolm Reid of Shorewood
were reappointed for a term expiring March 8, 2002.
Yours truly,
Enc.l.
Tuesday, February 09, 1999
Item 11 on the Agenda was for two appointments to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board.
Applications had been solicited, interviews held at the February 2nd committee meeting and the selection
- progressed to today's Board meeting.
Applicant Robert Rascop, who was unable to attend the committee meetings, appeared before the Board
today in support of his application. Other applicants were incumbents Pamela Blixt and Malcolm Reid and
also Patrick Maloney, Warren McNeil, Stephen Platisha, John Senior and Charles Thomas
A vote was taken on the Blixt vacancy and Pamela Blixt was unanimously reappointed.
A vote was then taken on the Reid vacancy, as follows:
Commissioner
McLaughlin
Tambornino
Steele
Opat
Stenglein
Johnson
Nomination
Reid
Thomas
Reid
Accordingly, Malcolm Reid was reappointed.
Clerk of t~-ounty Board
RECEIVEEI ,-~:~; 18
1998 MOUND LAND - LAKESHORE SCHEDULE
RATINGS
I -19
20 - 39
50 - 59
60 - 69
70 - 89
PRIVATE LAKESHORE
LAKESHORE COMMONS
PRIVATE CHANNEL
CHANNEL COMMONS
PARCEL VViTH ACCESS VIA SEPARATE LOT,
COMMONS LOT, ETC.
EAST SIDE PHELP'S BAY - ISLANDVIEW DRIVE
50 $2,200
50 $1,150
BALANCE $900
22
21
WEST SIDE PHELP'S BAY - ISLANDVIEW DRIVE
50 $2,200
50 $1,150
BALANCE $900
22
7O
EAST SHORE DRIVE - ACCESS LOT TO LAKE
$47,000
22
71 EAST SHORE DRIVE - ACCESS LOT TO LAKE
$47,000
$110,000
$57,500
$110,000
$57,500
28
I iPPr::R I A. KI= t:::A.~T
"PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST"- ISLANDVlEW DRIVE
NORTH OF ABERDEEN ROAD
50 $2,100
50 $1,300
BALANCE $900
$105,000
$65,000
28
2O
"DEVON" - COMMON - ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
50 $2,100
50 $1,300
BALANCE $900
$105,000
$65,000
28
7O
19-117-23-34-0071 & 0091
OFF ISLANDVIEW DRIVE BETVVEEN RADNOR &
MANCHESTER W1TH ACCESS LOT
50 $2,000
50 $1,400
BALANCE $900
LESS $28,000 FOR ACCESS LOT
MUST COMPARE TO VALUES IN 1-28-1
$100,000
$70,000
1999
RATINGS
I -19
20 - 39
50 - 59
60 - 69
70 - 89
22
22
22
RECEIVED ,~2_3 1 8 1999
MOUND LAND - LAKESHORE SCHEDULE
PRIVATE LAKESHORE
LAKESHORE COMMONS
PRIVATE CHANNEL
CHANNEL COMMONS
PARCEL VVITH A*CCESS VIA SEPARATE LOT,
COMMONS LOT, ETC.
EAST SIDE PHELP'S BAY - ISLANDVIEVV DRIVE
5O $2,600
BALANCE $1,600
21
7O
VVEST SIDE PHELP'S BAY - ISLANDVIEW DRIVE
40 $2,500
40 $1,600
BALANCE $1,000
EAST SHORE DRIVE - ACCESS LOT TO LAKE
$52,000
71
EAST SHORE DRIVE - ACCESS LOT TO LAKE
$52,00O
$130,000
$100,000
$64,000
UPPFR I AKF FAST
28
"PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST" - ISLANDVIEW DRIVE
NORTH OF ABERDEEN ROAD
50 $2,700
50 $1,700
BALANCE $1,000
$135,000
$85,000
28
2O
"DEVON" - COMMON - ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
50 $2,700
50 $1,700
BALANCE $1,000
$135,000
$85,000
28
7O
19-117-23-34-0071 & 0091
OFF ISLANDVIEW DRIVE BETWEEN RADNOR &
MANCHESTER WITH ACCESS LOT
50 $2,700
50 $1,600
BALANCE $1,000
LESS $32,000 FOR ACCESS LOT
MUST COMPARE TO VALUES IN 1-28-1
$135,000
$80,000
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 1999 DRAFT
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky
Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Council Liaison Bob
Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and
Secretary Deb Hawkinson.
Public Present: Mr. & Mrs. Jorj Ayaz (4844 Island View Drive) and neighbors, Mr. & Mrs. John
Smith (5189 Emerald Drive), Mr. & Mrs. Steve Jilek (5444 Spruce Road) and neighbors.
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MINUTES -APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 11, 1999 MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to accept the minutes as written.
Motion carried 9-0.
Building Official Jon Sutherland asked to add an item to the agenda. Agenda item 1C will be a
Variance request on 5189 Emerald Drive. The Chair accepted the addition.
1. BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE Ct 99-02: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK
VARIANCES, TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING ADDITION AND
ATTACHED GARAGE, STEVE JILEK, 5444 SPRUCE ROAD, LOTS 46, 47,
AND 48, BLOCK 2, LAKESIDE PARK- CROCKER'S PID Ct 13-117-24 32
0164.
City Planner Gordon presented this application for a variance. This applicant has
submitted a request to add a conforming two-stall attached garage to the existing
house. This is a one and one-half story house with no garage at the present time. It
is proposed to covert the existing basement into one garage stall and put an addition
on that will house the second stall. Above the second stall, the applicant has
proposed a deck.
Currently, the house sits 28.53 feet from the front road. A setback of 30 feet is
required. Therefore, the applicant is asking for a variance of 1.58' on this side. The
side of the house sits back 6.03 feet from the side property line that has a required
setback of 10 feet. Thus, an additional variance of 3.97 feet is requested here.
There is sufficient open space on the property to meet hardcover guidelines.
Additional issues consist of some fences and a retaining wall on the property; the
ownership of which is yet to be determined. The fence on the west property line and
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 1999
concrete retaining wall sections along the back side of the property appear to be the
neighbors, however, are on Mr. Jilek's property. Staff recommends that the owner
of the fences be verified. If they are the neighbors, an easement should be secured,
as it should if they belong to the property owner.
Since there are no issues with the plan other than the variances requested, once the
ownership issue on the fences is determined along with the clean up of the debris on
the property. Staff recommends approval of the variance request.
DISCUSSION
Weiland asked if once the addition would be placed if the lot is subdividable.
The answer to that question is no, the lots cannot be further subdivided.
Clapsaddle asked Gordon what the issue was in identifying the owner of the fences
and retaining walls. The owner of the property, Mr. Steve Jilek, and his neighbor
were present at the Commission's meeting. The neighbor indicated that the fences
were indeed his. However, they do not jog as shown on the survey. Also, on the
survey is noted a fence along the north lot line. This neighbor explained that the
previous owner of 5444 Spruce Road had torn this fence out and it no longer
existed. This answered Mr. Brown's question.
Voss asked why the Staff recommended bringing the fences into compliance and not
the concrete retaining wall. Gordon explained that fences are "easier" to move and
that often retaining walls are holding back earth that is of benefit to both properties
and is more difficult to move. One option would be to obtain an easement for the
concrete retaining walls.
Mueller asked about openings into the garage. He asked if the walls and ceiling of
the garage would be a 2 feet x 6 feet firewall and if the door was rated 1R for fire
protection. Additionally, there is a closet on the building design. He wanted to verify
that this indeed did face into the house. The structure of the walls and openings into
the garage are conforming according to Jon Sutherland.
At this juncture, Weiland asked Sutherland and Gordon that when a building permit is
applied for, could the applicant be asked to put house numbers up on the property so
that Commissioners, when reviewing the property, can identify it properly. Sutherland
indicated he would check into the best way to do this. He does understand Mr.
Weiland's frustration in finding the proper location to inspect.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle for the Planning Commission to
move Staff Recommendation of approving this variance request as proposed.
Motion carried 9-0.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 1999
PUI~LIC HEARING: CASE ~§-03: ~TREET AND UTILITY EAgEMENT
VACATION, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO THE
DWELLING AT 4844 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, JORJ AYAZ, LOTS 1 & 2,
BLOCK '15, DEVON, PID # 25-'1 '17-24 t I 0161.
Chair Michael opened the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m. after an introduction to the
public of the format of this type of meeting. The purpose of this Public Hearing is to
review the application of Jori Ayaz to construct an addition to the existing dwelling at
4844 Island View Drive. In order for this dwelling to be in conformance with zoning
and building regulations, the vacation of part of the street right-of-way and utility
easements is required.
Gordon reported that today 4844 Island View Drive is a one and one-half story and
the applicant desires to expand this to two story and add a two-stall garage. In order
to accomplish this and be in compliance with codes, the applicant has submitted a
request for the vacation of one-half of Drummond Road adjacent to his property and
the vacation of a utility easement which runs along the front of the property as
contained in Document # 779757.
Currently Drummond Road is an unimproved street with water and sewage lines
running through it from Amhurst Lane to Dexter Lane. As there are still utilities,
easements will still be required.
Vacation of Drummond Road is needed in order to attempt to meet the hardcover
conditions stipulated in the approved Resolution #98-43. This limits hardcover to 40
percent. The current application still has an overage of 364 square feet even with
street vacation.
There are three options to look at:
1. If the Planning Commission determines the vacation is in the public's interest,
the hardcover would be limited to what is shown on the original site plan
submitted with the variance request (1998 plan).
2. The request could be modified to vacate all of Drummond Road which would
then be incorporated in to the property. This assumes the abutting property
owner north of Drummond does not wish to receive the north one-half. Total
allowable hardcover would be 4480 square feet.
3. The third option would be to modify the previously approved resolution to
allow driveway hardcover as shown. This would be a hardcover variance of
364 square feet.
Staff makes the following recommendation: That the Planning Commission
recommend Council approval street and utility easement vacations as requested
with the following conditions:
1. Limit the hardcover to 40 percent as stated in Resolution #98-43.
3
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 1999
2. Vacate the south half of Drummond Road right-of-way adjacent to Lots 1 and
2, Block 15, Devon, retaining a permanent easement for utility and drainage
purposes.
3. Vacate the north 10 feet of the easement as originally described in Document
# 890740,
4. Upon recording of vacation documents, a revised survey is to be furnished
which shows all easements and City utilities, including the watermain in the
north one-half of unvacated Drummond Road.
Weiland asked if this plan would block Lots 18, 19, and 20 by vacating the street. If any
one of these lots is unowned, the City needs to provide street frontage. Sutherland
responded that while it is possible to subdivide the subdivision, Hanover Road would
more appropriately serve these lots.
The City Engineer has looked at this site and does not see any land-lock issues. The
topography is too steep to justify improving Drummond Road for street purposes. The
Staff does not see any public interest in retaining this right-of-way for street purposes.
However, utility and drainage easements should be retained.
Mueller reiterated that only the south half of Drummond is requested to be vacated and
that the north half would remain available. Councilman Brown indicated that Lots 18,
19, and 20 were "odd" lots and would be non-conforming for anyone to build on.
Brown asked if the applicant has considered buying all of Drummond Road in order to
give him sufficient hardcover space. If all of Drummond Road were to be vacated, half
would go to the lot owner on the north side. This applicant would need to make
arrangements with his neighbor to obtain that half. That is not a City decision.
Mueller asked about precedents of vacating only one-half of a street before. Weiland
indicated two locations, one by Union Cemetery and one by Owens. Mueller does not
believe the application by Union Cemetery was passed. Owens has gone through,
however. Mueller's concern is that there are "little jogs" of 15 feet wide by "whatever"
length of City-owned property that there is little or no access to and is unusable.
Gordon indicated that by vacating one-half of Drummond Road, a precedent will indeed
by set. It was asked if all of Drummond Road should be vacated. Mueller asked
Sutherland who initiates this, the City or the property owners. Sutherland explored
another option which is to give this applicant a variance on hardcover.
Mueller is concerned that this leads to "piecemeal" planning and is not the direction the
Planning Commission should go. He asked if the owner of the north side of Drummond
had been notified. Sutherland replied that yes, that owner had been.
Sutherland further spelled out the frustration of this application for both the applicant and
the Staff. Everyone is held up if we seek the entire neighborhood to vacate all of
Drummond Road.
4
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 1999
Mueller is uncomfortable with a hardcover variance. Clapsaddle asked if the City could
just vacate and give Drummond to the adjacent property owners. This would require a
Public Hearing.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Jorj Ayaz asked what the City's plans were for the road. He is trying to improve his
property and that of the roads. Today it is green space and while used for a utility
easement, there is no building on it nor proposed to be on this area. He does not think
the neighbors would object to getting extra land if all of Drummond Road was vacated.
Brown indicated "walking" the property today and does not see how it can possibly be an
improved road. It would have to be a "tunnel."
Weiland continued to express his concern that any one of the lots could be land-locked
and that is unacceptable. Gordon reiterated that improved roads serve all the current
homes and nothing will change as far as access for these owners. Mueller clarified this
by stating: "There are no land-locked parcels."
Chair Michael closed the Public Comment period at 8:20 p.m.
DISCUSSION
Chair Michael asked if this road could be recognized much like you would "commons"
and if that designation would help the applicant.
Clapsaddle and Mueller suggested that the Planning Commission recommend to the
City Council that a Public Hearing be called for purposes of vacating the entire
Drummond Road.
Weiland asked if this could be.called "green space" and unusable and thus, grant a
variance for one-half of the street. Then when and if the whole street is vacated, the
variance could be removed.
Burma pointed out that even with this plan, the hardcover condition is still an issue. Do
we give a variance on the hardcover condition of 40 percent was his next question.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland for a variance for hard
cover limits not to exceed 40 percent (4000 square feet) with the
addition of the extra 1200 square feet (Drummond Road 80 feetx 15
feet). Motion carried 9-0.
DISCUSSION
Clapsaddle asked why a Public Hearing was called to vacate only one-half of the street.
He expressed frustration over "patchwork" planning. Brown asked what it would take to
vacate all of Drummond Road. This would require another Public Hearing and thus
delay this applicant.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 1999
Sutherland asked what it would take to make this application work.
Discussion ensued as to how to build driveway that would satisfy the 40 percent
hardcover limitation.
A call for a vote on the motion was made. The variance was granted and the road
vacation was not approved.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle that the Vacation
Request #99-03 be denied as it provides a "piecemeal" planning
process and that the Island View utility easements be maintained
with the three conditions per the City Engineer's report. Motion
carried 9-0.
The Chair suggested that Mr. Ayaz check with his neighbors and get them together to
come in to vacate the entire unimproved portion of Drummond Road. If vacated, this
would become additional property and the Variance could be rescinded.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle for the Planning
Commission to request that the Council have Staff prepare
recommendation to vacate all of the unimproved Drummond Road.
Motion carried 9-0.
DISCUSSION
Chair Michael pointed out that this would require another Public Hearing.
CASE # 99-04: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK
VARIANCES, TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING ADDITION, MR. & MRS.
JOHN SMITH, 5189 EMERALD DRIVE, PI7 AND 10, LOTS 8 AND 9,
BLOCK 1, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT C, PID # 24-117-24 24 0011.
Sutherland presented this request to the Commissioners. He started with an
apology for not having this in the packets that went to the Commissioners last week.
However, this is a fairly "clean, straightforward" request. If the applicants had to wait
for the next meeting, it would mean being delaying construction around four months
because of road restrictions.
This applicant recently purchased this property and is requesting a building permit
and variance to allow the construction of a conforming addition. The entire building
plan is conforming in all sections. However, the existing detached garage has a
nonconforming setback of 2.8 feet. The minimum setback requirement is 4 feet that
requires a 1.2 feet variance.
The existing garage is in reasonably good condition and therefore it is unlikely the
nonconforming setback can be eliminated at this time.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 1999
For the record, it should be noted that the original subdivision approved by
Resolution #73-335 recognized the detached garage, however, because of the time
limit of 15 years as noted in Subdivision 9 of Ordinance Section 350:420, this case
could not be streamlined.
Mueller asked if there was a survey. Sutherland indicated that there was. While Mr.
Sutherland did not calculate a hardcover amount, it is a fairly open piece of property.
It easily will conform to the 40 percent ordinance. Mr. Smith indicated at this time
that the calculations for hardcover come to approximately 21 percent.
Mueller is very concerned about items coming to the Planning Commission without
being in the packets ahead of time for their review and site visit. He feels that when
that happens, applicants are not necessarily treated fairly.
Chair Michael asked why it was brought before the Commission now, who had
approved it moving forward. Sutherland indicated that any number of people could
have moved such an issue forward in such circumstances. However, per his
experience, this application is a "slam-dunk" issue and is in conformance. Again, he
reminded the Commissioners that this would have been streamlined if it weren't for
the 15-year time limit.
Burma asked about the stone wall and whether it was shared or if the applicant had
an easement. Mr. Smith indicated that this was jointly owned; and said Sutherland,
"although it crosses the property line, it is non-issue from the Staff's perspective."
Glister is also concerned that it doesn't appear to be a complete application. She
asked if the Planning Commission was setting a precedent by allowing this
application to "jump" ahead of others and being "rushed" through.
Again, Sutherland responded that the expedition is because of pending road
restrictions and that the case is clearly in conformance.
Mueller stated that this was a burden on the Planning Commission to review this
now. If it is reviewed at the next Planning Commission, stated Sutherland, then the
Staff would potentially have a burden of a one-day turn around also. So, he
recognized that in either case, it would have been a burden.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland for the Planning
Commission to move Staff recommendation of approving this
variance request as proposed. Motion carried 9-0.
Weiland was quick to indicate with his second that he too is opposed to last minute
additions such as this to Planning Commission's agenda. However, he is very
familiar with this property personally and that is the only reason he is acting on it
tonight.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 1999
Brown will meet with anyone who wants to review the property prior to tomorrow
evening's City Council Meeting. If there are issues, perhaps the Commissioners
could come the Council Meeting also to bring these up.
Mueller did not think it was fair to ask the volunteer Planning Commissioners to
attend yet another meeting. Because this case seems "clear cut," he will act on it
tonight. However, he wanted to make it clear that the last minute addition of such a
request was a burden and imposition on the Planning Commission.
The Chair excused both Clapsaddle and Voss at 9:00 p.m. because of previous
commitments.
2. 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, in actuality, 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 subdivision 5 to include
provisions that address this item. By definition, public land includes "land
owned or operated by municipal, school district, county, state or 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.
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.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 1999
This approach allows the tower within the property's buildable area.
Modifications to Section 350:1320 subdivision 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."
"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 the City Engineer was to leave this more broad than
narrow. Several types of engineers work on this type of project. To limit it to a
telecommunications engineer does not make sense..Projects 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 design by qualified persons.
Therefore, checks and balances are already in place regarding an engineer's
credentials.
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 structures are regulated via a Conditional Use
Permit, any changes would be subject to 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 subdivision 2, item 3:
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 1999
"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:
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.
3. VACANT LOT AT 2217 CHATEAU LANE
The owner of this lot has offered this lot to the City for the sum of $1.00. The City can
decide how it is used. The City Council has looked at this and asked the Planning
Commission to look at it before approval. It is a 40 feet by 120 feet parcel. It would be
nonbuildable as it is.
10
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA
7:00 PM, Wednesday, February 24, 1999
Tonka Bay City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Vice-Chair Foster
READING OF MINUTES o 2/10/99 LMCD Regular Board Meeting
PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
· Pelican Point HOA, Consideration of new multiple dock license application to relocate 16
Iow water slips from the north end of the dock to the south end of the property.
· Excel Marina, Consideration of a new multiple dock license application to reconfigure a
non-conforming structure under LMCD Code Section 2.015.
WATER STRUCTURES
A) City of Minnetonka Beach, Consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of
new multiple dock license and variance applications to approve a dock length and width
variance at dock sites 8 and 9;
B)
1999 Multiple Dock/District Mooring Area (DMA) Licenses, staff recommends
approval of 1999 multiple dock/DMA license applications as outlined in 2/18/99 staff
memo;
C) Additional Business;
2. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE
A) Staff update on draft 1999 Zebra Mussel Work Plan;
B) Additional Business;
3. LAKE USE & RECREATION
4. FINANCIAL
A) Audit of vouchers for payment (2/15/99 - 2/28/99);
B) Additional Business;
5. ADMINISTRATION
6. SAVE THE LAKE
7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
8. OLD BUSINESS
9. NEW BUSINESS
10. ADJOURNMENT
DRAFT
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSER VA T/ON D/STRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
7:00 PM, Wednesday, February 10, 1999
Tonka Bay City Hall
CAIJ. TO ORDER
Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista;
Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Greg Kitchak,
Minnetonka; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Lili McMillan, Orono; Bob
Rascop, Shorewood; Herb Suerth, Woodland. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel;
Gregory Nybeck, Executive Director; Roger Winberg, Administrative Technician.
Members absent: Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Sheldon Wert, Greenwood.
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock
Chair Babcock reminded the Board of the "Save the Lake" Recognition Banquet planned for Thursday,
2/11/99, at Lord Fletcher's of the Lake. He noted social hour begins at 6:15 P.M.
READING OF MINUTES - 1/27/99 LMCD Regular Board Meeting
MOTION: McMillan moved, Partyka seconded to approve the minutes of the 1/27/99 Regular Board
meeting as submitted.
VOTE: Ayes (8), Abstained (1, Babcock); 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.
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.
Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. He asked the applicant if they had any comments or
would like to provide background at this time.
Ms. Jo Ellen Hurt, Minnetonka Beach Planning and Zoning Administrator, spoke on behalf of the
applicant. She made the following comments:
· The city has submitted a new multiple dock license application to re-configure a non-
conforming structure and a variance application to amend a previously approved dock length
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
February 10, 1999
Page 2
variance.
· There is a slight reconfiguration proposed at dock sites 2 and 2A with a U-shaped dock
rather than two separate docks.
· There is a proposed length adjustment at dock sites 5, 6, 6A, 7, and 7A from 50' to 70' to
gain sufficient water depth. She noted the City concurs with District staff that boat lengths
should be restricted to 20', with the 4' overhang allowance.
· A dock length variance is requested at dock site 8 and 9 to extend dock lengths from 88' to
98'. She added the City has documented water depth measurements that she believed
qualify as a hardship. The length request has been made because when the dock length was
previously approved, the City assumed the docking sections were a standard length of 8'
rather than the 10' sections that have been installed.
· A dock width variance is requested for dock site 9 to accommodate a handicap platform.
She entertained questions from the Board.
Rascop arrived at 7:04 p.m.
Kitchak asked for clarification at dock sites 2 and 2A from what point is the 80' in length is measured
from.
Hurt stated the 80' in length is measured from the 929.4' lake elevation.
Babcock asked if the City is aware of LMCD Ordinance 156 that prohibits greater than a 4' overhang
for attachments and equipment at normal operating position.
Hurt stated the City of Minnetonka Beach is aware of this ordinance and that the City would comply
with it.
Babcock questioned whether the handicap platform could be located on the dock near shore rather than
at the end of the dock. He suggested from a safety standpoint it might make more sense to have it in
shallower water.
Hurr stated the handicap platform at the end of the dock is preferred because the adjacent lift makes it
more stable and because the handicap individual can sit at the end of the dock.
Gilman arrived at 7:08 p.m.
Babcock asked LeFevere if a side setback variance should be required in addition to a dock length
variance for extending the dock length to 98' on a site with 50' of lakeshore frontage.
LeFevere stated in this case, he is unsure whether more restrictive side setbacks are merited when you
are extending beyond the original dock use area for a specific configuration.
Hurr stated this dock site was grandfathered at a 5' side setback requirement.
There being no further comments, Babcock closed the public heating at 7:10 p.m.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
February 10, 1999
Page
Ambrose arrived at 7:10 p.m.
1. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE
A. Review of draft 1999 Zebra Mussel Work Plan.
Suerth reviewed the draft 1999 Zebra Mussel work plan and related budget. He stated the
goals and objectives established in the work plan are quite aggressive and will take the efforts of
the Board and District staff, in addition to encouraging the commercial facilities to buy into the
program. He made the following comments:
· The proposed work plan will get the public to either buy into the program or it
will not. He noted the details of the program were worked out with staff and
Gene Strommen, EWM Project Manager. He emphasized the bounty award
element of the work plan, as previously discussed by the Board.
· Kickoff for this program should be targeted for the Holiday Crappie Fishing
Tournament time in late April. Cooperation of the commercial facilities and
local advertising should be begun by around the first of May.
· A working group should be established because this is an ambitious task.
· A hotline at the District office should be established to assist the public on what
todo.
· The proposed budget for this project is $35,800, but can be reduced by around
$10,000 by reducing the advertisements in the local newspapers from 20 to 10
weeks.
He asked for Board feedback on the work plan.
Foster questioned where the funds for this project would come from.
Nybeck stated in 1999, $15,000 has been budgeted for the zebra mussel program. He added it
is possible to work with the "Save the Lake" Advisory Committee to leverage any additional
funds beyond the $15,000.
Suerth stated he believed this program has strong merits to be partially funded with Save the
Lake funds.
Babcock expressed general support for the work done on the draft work plan and budget for the
1999 zebra mussel program. He questioned whether it is appropriate for the District to provide
a bounty award for people to comply with existing state laws. He stated he recalled previous
Board conversations were to offer a bounty for catching other watercraft rather than their own.
McMillan stated she would like to see more emphasis on the program on voluntary participation
rather than on a financial award.
Foster stated he has trouble with the District using the bounty system as proposed. He noted he
is favorable of the program and would prefer the District offer a reward system, such as a hat,
when a boat with zebra mussels is reported.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
February 10, 1999
Page4
Suerth stated he had no trouble dropping the bounty system as proposed in the work plan.
Nybeck clarified when the work plan was prepared at staff level, the cash bounty award was
incorporated to gain maximum voluntary participation in the program. He suggested this might
not be the best means of achieving the goals of the program; however, it was included to
provide incentive to the public for the inconvenience of getting the boat washed and/or
inspected.
McMillan stated she believed it would be better to get the marinas involved and reward
cooperating individuals at the end of the year.
Kitchak expressed concern with the term bounty and how it is structured in the proposed work
plan. He stated he believed if watercraft are observed with zebra mussels, they will be caught
by the crew manning the docks. He suggested the $25 bounty award should be offered to this
group rather than the public.
Foster concurred with Kitchak that the staff at the commercial docks would be the most likely to
find watercraft with zebra mussels. He added the hats he previously discussed should be
provided to the docking staff because they are the first line of defense.
Babcock stated local civic groups, such as Rotary, might be able to assist in some aspects of this
program.
McMillan stated she liked the slogan "Let's Be Zebra Mussel Free".
Suerth stated execution of this program is vital. He noted an individual has not been found to
mastermind this program; however, District staff has informed him that current staff can
execute a good portion of the details.
Nybeck stated he believed staff could accomplish some of the projects on the work plan. He
noted District staff could be trained by the MN DNR on how to clean and inspect a boat with
zebra mussels on it. He added District staff could then in turn pass this information on to the
docking staff at the commercial marinas.
Foster stated he believed the public launch ramps around the lake need to be covered in addition
to the commercial marinas. He suggested that retired volunteers could assist in this effort,
specifically in the distribution of literature.
Babcock questioned whether local advertising is one area the District should address. He
suggestec gional advertising might be more appropriate because this is a regional problem
rather than just a local one. He noted outside marketing help should be secured to assist in
identifying the target audience and how best to reach them.
Gilman stated it might be appropriate to check into whether a professional advertising agency
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeti
February 10, 1999
Page
would assist in this effort on a pro-bono basis. He noted the first question an agency would
probably ask is what budget they have to work with.
Kitchak suggested another means to reach the target audience might be through direct mailing.
Babcock stated it might be appropriate to check into an advertising agency and find out how to
reach our target audience.
MOTION:
Foster moved, Rascop seconded to establish a budget of $35,000 for the 1999
Zebra Mussel program, to direct EWM/Exotics Task Force Chair Suerth and
staff to re-work the draft work plan, to direct staff to make contact with a
professional agency in the near future to establish a work plan with a targeted
audience, to complement the budget with "Save the Lake" funds, and to bring this
back to the Board in the near future for review.
Suerth stated the MN DNR is looking for some direction to do some joint advertising via
billboards with the District this summer. He noted he would like the Board to authorize a set
amount of funds for billboard signage.
Foster stated this could be done as part of the motion or as a separate one.
Kitchak expressed concern with the motion because it is lacking details. He noted the Board
should have another opportunity to further review the plan suggested by an agency.
Ambrose stated he would prefer to receive professional advice from an advertising agency prior
to proceeding with a commitment with the MN DNR.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Babcock asked if the District participates in a joint billboard signage program with the MN
DNR, will the billboards be Lake Minnetonka specific or generic.
Nybeck stated he believed that could be negotiated; however, they generally use a more generic
slogan.
MOTION: Suerth moved, Babcock seconded to authorize up to $5,000 to allow the Executive
Director to negotiate with the MN DNR on a joint billboard signage program.
Gilman stated he believed this should wait until a campaign has been defined by the advertising
agency.
Ambrose stated he would like the MN DNR to be part of the discussions with the professional
advertising agency.
Kitchak stated it would be beneficial to get the MN DNR's position on this joint billboard
Lake bfinnetonka Conservation District
Feb~_ary 10, 1999
signage program, specifically how much money they are willing to contribute.
Fage 6
Suerth and Babcock withdrew their motion.
B. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
2. WATER STRUCTURES
Babcock noted he would like to amend the agenda on this section of the meeting. He stated he
would like to first discuss the Minnetonka Beach public hearing, then discuss current LMCD Boat
Density Regulations, and then discuss a 1998 renewal without change multiple dock license
application for Big Island Veterans Camp.
A. Discussion of Minnetooka Beach new multiple dock license and variance applications public
heating.
Foster asked for feedback on the proposed applications.
Nybeck made the following comments:
· Staff recommends approval at dock sites 2 and 2A, subject to the six BSU's being
stored in the authorized dock use area.
· Staff recommends approval at dock site 5, 6, 6A, 7, and 7A, with a boat length
restriction of 20', in addition to the 4' overhang allowance.
· Staff recommends approval of the dock width variance at dock site 9 for the
handicap platform, subject to a sunset clause when the need for the handicap
platform ceases.
· Staff believes the Board needs to discuss whether a physical hardship exists at
dock sites 8 and 9 that merits a dock length variance from 88' to 98'.
MOTION:
Foster moved, Gilman seconded to direct attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and
Order for approval of the new multiple dock license and variance applications for
the City of Minnetonka Beach.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
B. Discussion of current LMCD Boat Density Regulations.
Babcock stated LeFevere has prepared a memo that summarizes current LMCD boat density
regulations to assist the Board in this discussion. He questioned what was the exact rate of
conversion for slides to slips.
LeFevere stated he could not recall the exact conversion rate of the slides to slips; however, he
noted it applies to the reconfiguration of non-conforming structures.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meetin~
February 10,
Page 7
Babcock stated as the current Code pertains to lots without a primary structure, the General
Rule of one restricted watercraft for each 50' of continuous shoreline applies in most cases.
LeFevere stated one exception to the General Rule is for smaller plats of land in existence on
August 30, 1978. He noted in this exception, they are allowed to have two restricted
watercraft without regard to ownership or up to four restricted watercraft, provided all the
watercraft are owned and registered to residents of the site.
Foster stated a concern he has with the outlot concept is that unusable land is counted towards
continuous shore and then a facility is constructed on usable land where a facility is constructed
to provide dockage fights for properties that do not abut the lake.
LeFevere stated as time has gone on, he questioned whether there is any unusable lakeshore
frontage on the lake. He noted docks have been constructed significant distances across
wetlands and swamps to reach useable water.
Kitchak stated it might be appropriate to distinguish between swamps and high lands and
restrict dockage based on that.
The consensus of the Board was to leave this up to the member cities because it is out of the
District's jurisdiction.
Babcock stated he believed he is in favor of some form of wetlands protection for multiple
dock licenses. He suggested counting less of the shoreline towards the multiple dock
calculations or having more restrictive General Rule in these cases.
LeFevere stated he believed there is some benefit to allowing density transferring from a
wetland area or in other instances. He reviewed the ordinance that was adopted to address the
Pelican Point HOA multiple dock license application for non-continuous shoreline for the
island. He noted in this case, they were allowed to transfer density from the island to the main
land on the condition it is transferred at 1:100, provided the island was left in its natural state
with no boat storage, and the overall density at the main land site cannot exce~ 1:35.
Foster asked for clarification of how the Code would be impacted if a primary residence were
required to have a secondary structure.
LeFevere stated he assumed that would not take place for existing facilities and stated he is
unaware of what impact that would have for the lake.
Kitchak asked for clarification on how this would apply for residences that have dockage fights
across a public fight-of-way.
Foster stated in these instances, the residences would be grandfathered. He added it would be
prohibited in new construction.
Lake ~Vllnnatonka Conservation District
Regulnr Board Meeting
February 10, 1999
Page8
LeFevere stated current Code allows four restricted watercraft subject to there being a
residence on site. He added there is some flexibility in interpretation in situations as described
by Kitchak. He noted if a Code changed did not have this flexibility, it would have some
impact on such situations.
Babcock stated the Board has considered applications in recent years where the developer has
proposed as many boats as they can for properties off the lake on a narrow lot. He added there
have been other instances where there is significant shoreline with the docking structure located
on one end or in a concentrated area in the shoreline. He noted neither scenario has been
attractive to the Board because it substantially adds to active boat density during peak periods
of the lake.
Partyka stated the Carlson property is an example of a development that used a large amount of
shoreline and has allocated it towards a multiple dock license with an outlot. He noted
although this would be permissible because it would be grandfathered in, it would not be in
future developments if the Code were amended as was being discussed.
Kitchak stated it might be more appropriate to the lake to have these outlots because developers
would propose bottleneck shaped lots to the lake to maximize lakeshore frontage.
LeFevere discussed Planned Unit Developments (PUD's) and how an ordinance change might
relate to them. He noted the current Board discussion would prohibit the placement of a dock
unless it is a platted piece of property. He suggested the Board might want to consider a more
restrictive General Rule, such as one restricted watercraft for every 100 feet of continuous
shoreline rather than an absolute prohibition.
McMillan stated it might make some sense to have clustered docking for higher density
situations such as PUD's.
Babcock stated lake zoning might be an appropriate means to evaluate PUD's with limitations.
LeFevere stated some of the conditions placed on land, with environmental and clustering
restrictions, could be placed on docking at PUD's.
Babcock stated larger side setbacks could also be required in a PUD situation.
Eggers left at 8:30 p.m.
Rascop stated the most objectionable point he has against outlots is non-riparian lots gaining
docking access to the lake that profits the developer.
LeFevere suggested the Board discussion on possible ordinance changes re-focus on situations
where there is a lot without a primary structure on site. He noted there might be some
additional criteria for PUD's, such as a General Rule change to 1:100.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regalar Board Meetin
February 10, 1999
Page 9
McMillan stated if there is a General Rule change, she suggested the Board communicate this
back to their cities prior to amending the Code.
Rascop stated he has been directexl by his city to make these ordinance changes.
LeFevere stated a change of the General Rule to 1:100 does not necessarily need to be made
tonight. He noted if there are other controls in place, the General Rule could be less
restrictive, such as 1:75.
Babcock stated if the General Rule becomes more restrictive, there are several existing licensed
outlots that conform to the 1:50 General Rule that would become legal, non-conforming
structures. He noted he would prefer to zone the lake rather than create more grandfathered
structures.
McMillan suggested LeFevere talk to Mike Gaffron, Senior Planner at the City of Orono, to
discuss this issue because of some of his background.
The Board discussed the Sweat property in Wayzata and how the possible development of it
might be impacted by ordinance amendment. Ambrose noted the Wayzata City Council has
had limited discussion On this property and stated he believed more affordable housing on this
property might be desired.
The Board directed LeFevere to prepare an ordinance amendment to incorporate the options
and alternatives discussed.
C. 1998 Big Island Veterans Camp Renewal Without Change Multiple Dock License Application.
MOTION: Foster moved, Gilman seconded to approve the 1998 renewal without change
multiple dock license application for Big Island Veterans Camp.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
D. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
3. LAKE USE & RECREATION
There was no discussion
4. FINANCIAL
A. Audit of vouchers for payment (2/1/99 - 2/15/99).
Nelson reviewed the audit of vouchers for payment, noting payroll checks 2509-2512 in the
amount of $3,096.57, need to be added to the voucher list.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
February 10, 1999
Page 10
MOTION: Foster moved, Gilman seconded to approve the audit of vouchers as amended.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
B. December financial summary and balance sheet.
Nelson reviewed the December financial summary and balance sheet as submitted.
MOTION: Gilman moved, Babcock seconded to approve the December financial summary and
balance sheet as submitted.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
C. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
ADMINISTRATION
A. Update on LMCD Office moving expenses.
Nybeck summarized the breakdown of LMCD office moving expenses. He made the following
comments:
· Expenses paid to date on the moving of the office are $20,815.54. Additional
moving expenses to be incurred in the near future are a new sign above the entrance
($520) and new mini-blinds for the front windows ($208).
· A check was received recently from the Freshwater Foundation for $42,068.53 to
pay for the move and the increase in monthly rent. He noted the balance of these
funds was agreed to by the Freshwater Foundation to offset increased rent costs for
the next four to five years.
B. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
6. SAVE THE LAKE
e
McMillan reported the Winter-Ice Cleanup project done in past years has been expanded to the
Spring Park Bay area for 1999. She circulated a tag that will be placed on fishing houses in the
Wayzata area this year to see if it has any impact on cleaning the lake prior to the houses being
taken off the lake.
EXF~~ DIRECTOR REPORT
Nybeck reported on the following:
· He stated Board feedback is needed on how the WeedRoller should be evaluated with
Lake Minnetonka Conservation Distrid
Regular Board Meeting
February 10, 1999
Page 11
regards to District ordinances for structures. He reviewed the literature noting a MN DNR
permit is necessary to operate one. He noted current Code is not clear and staff could use
Board feedback.
The consensus of the Board was to not treat a WeedRoller as part of the dock structure.
He questioned when the Board would like staff to facilitate discussion at a future Board
meeting on the use of Sonar in Carsons Bay. He noted SePro is involved in the triclopyr
research on Lake Minnetonka this summer and it might make sense to coordinate it when
they are in town.
The consensus of the Board was for staff to gather literature for Board review in the near
future and to target the second meeting in March to discuss Sonar.
Rascop stated he had recently talked to a local fisherman who has fished Lake Minnetonka for
many years. He noted based on his discussion with this individual, he reported fish size has
decreased, the number of fish caught has decreased, and several of those fish caught had worms.
He suggested staff follow-up on this by requesting copies of the creel reports from the MN DNR
in recent years.
8. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business.
9. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned thc meeting at 9:30 P.M.
Douglas Babcock, Chair
Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary