Loading...
1999-03-09AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL ~DAY, MARCH 9, 1999 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: All items listed utwler the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There w3l be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE AGENDA. *CONSENT AGENDA *A. *B. *C. *D. *E. *F. *G. *I. PUBLIC HEARING: (a) PAGE APPROVE THE MINUTF_~', OF THE FEBRUARY 23, 1999, REGULAR MEETING ..................................... 736-751 APPROVE THE MINUT-~;, AS AMENDED, OF THE JANUARY 19, 1999, COMMI'ITEE OF THE Wt;OLE MEETING ........................ 752-775 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 2, 1999, COMMITFEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ........................ 776-777 SET PUBLIC ttEARING FOR NORWOOD LANE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT (SUGGESTED DATE: MARCII ~3, 1999)(~ ~l~ i~.z~, J(~7~) ACCEPT RECOMMENDATION FROM PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY ....................... 778-779 ACCEPT RECOMMENDATION FROM DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION RE: PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR WILLIAM DAHLEN, 4555 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE... ................. 780-781 BID AWARD: AUDITOR'S ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ........ 782-789 APPROVE QUASI-PUBLIC SIGN PERMIT FOR A PORTABLE SIGN, UPPER TONKA LIT'FLE LEAGUE ..................................... 790 PAYMENT OF BILLS ........................... . ........... 791-813 1999 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM .......................... 814-844 734 o PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 99-03: STREET & UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION TO AI,,LOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO THE DWELLING AT 4844 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, JORI AYAZ, LOTS I & 2, BLOCK 15, DEVON, PID#25-117-24 11 0161. 845-873 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. AREA CODE UPDATE ........................................... 874 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. Department Head Monthly P, eports for February 1999 ................... 875-898 B. Letter from the office of the Governor regarding applications for the Metropolitan Council ....................................... 899-900 C. Dock and Commons Advisory Commission Minutes of February 18, 1999 ...... 901-905 D. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of February 11, 1999 ............ 906-914 E. Letters from Jay Peterson, 2667 Halstead Lane RE: Wara Development in Minn,~trista ............................... 915-916 F. Letter from Triax Cablevisit~n regarding some changes in cable television programming and a rate increase on the b,~sic rate .............................. 917-918 G. Memorandum on the surveying of Devon Common near Roanoke access ......... 919 H. Notice regarding the neighborhood meeting on the proposed development of the mobile home park in Mound and Minnetrista. Please note that there will be a joint meeting of the Planning Commissions from both cities on March 29 at Minnetrista ....................................... 920 I. Notice from the League of Minnesota Cities regarding the annual legislative conference to be held on Thursday, March 25, St. Paul. Gino and I have attended in the past and it is a good way to learn about some of the key legislative issues facing cities during the 1999 legislative session. If you are interested in attending, please let me know ASAP ................. 921 J. Planning Commission minutes of February 22, 1999 .................... 922-929 K. Sales data books on 1998 in preparation for the 1999 Open Book meetings scheduled for April 20-21. (Separate in Green Books) L. REMINDER: THERE WILL NOT BE A COMMIT'FEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ON TUESDAY, MARCH 16. M. Letter from John Dean RE: Bob Schmidt letter of January 19, 1999 .......... 930-931 735 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 23, 1999 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session on Tuesday, February 23, 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 Attorneys John Dean, Acting City Clerk Jodi Rahn and the following interested citizens: John Boyer, Trude Turnquist, Ron Johnson, Marvel Johnson, John Beise, Kristin Hage and Jim Ostman. 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 listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. not Councilmember Hanus stated he would like to remove items A, D, J. Councilmember Ahrens stated she would like to remove item H. Councilmember Weycker stated she would like to remove item I. City Manager Ed Shukle stated that item B be removed because they are not completed at this time. They will be completed by the next City Council Meeting. Councilmember Hanus stated he would like to add from the handout received the SPA issue. Councilmember Ahrens stated she would like to add on the newest franchise fee for Triax cable. She also asked to add-on the letter from the Three Points resident regarding the Community Center. *CONSENT AGENDA MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus, to recommend approval of the remainder of the Consent Agenda. Motion carried unanimously. *1.0 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 16. 1999, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. MOTION Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously. *1.1 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- FEBRUARY 23, 1999 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, JORI AYAZ. LOTS I 7 2. BLOCK 15. DEVON. SUGGESTED DATE: MARCH 9. 1999. MOTION Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously. .1.2 RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION RE: 2217 CHATEAU LANE (VACANT LOT}. Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION 99-16 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF LOT 18, BLOCK 1, CREVIER'S SUBD. LOT 36, LAFAYETTE PARK (2217 CHATEAU LANE FROM SUNSHINE PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AT A COST OF $1.00 (ONE DOLLAR), PID//13-117-24 43 0059 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. *1.3 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. Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g99-17 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SH)E YARD SETBACK VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THE 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//99-04 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- FEBRUARY 23, 1999 .1.4 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were none. 1.5 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 9, 1999 REGULAR MEETING. Hanus stated on page 552 he would like to change the line: "In fact, you find yourself in a situation to regulate." The correct statement should read: "In fact, you remove your ability to regulate." Weycker stated on page 543 she would like to change the line: "Weycker stated that when the Council was going to move the Stead dock last year, the Park Director stated that he does not know at this point, if there is an available site at Pembroke." The correct statement should read: "Weycker stated that when the Council was going to move the Stead dock last year we asked the affected people in the Pembroke Park area to add more sites and they overwhelming voted, no. The Park Director stated that he does not know at this point, if there is an available site at Pembroke." Councilmember Ahrens stated that she did not want to change the minutes from February 9, 1999, but she would like to make a statement for this evening's minutes. "We could be here all night. There are numerous errors in the minutes with respect to numbers and statements missing. I would just like to have the minutes tonight reflect that for example, some of the new numbers are used in place of old numbers. There are all kinds of things in here are wrong. So, I just want the record to reflect that... You have to put down what people say, I understand that, and even if they say something wrong, the Minutes are an accurate record of what was said but, there are numerous inaccuracies in their statements." Councilmember Ahrens stated that there are numerous errors in the minutes in respect to numbers and statements missing and asked the recorded reflect the errors. MOTION to approve, as amended. Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- FEBRUARY 2.9, 1999 1.6 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. Hanus asked staff to explain the differences between the proposed resolution and the revised. Building Official Jori Sutherland stated the case is the City Planner's and will try to answer any questions. He stated it is a variance case and the Planning Commission and Staff recommended approval. Hanus explained to Sutherland that a resolution was in the council packet and that council received a revised copy as a handout. Hanus stated his concerns about the whereas in the packet on page 561 regarding the retaining wall and the fence. Hanus stated what business is it of the City to know who owns the fence. It is a private issue between the two people and felt if the guy who has the fence on his property does not have a problem with it who cares who owns it. He asked staff if that is what was changed on the revised copy. Sutherland stated the fence could be handled independently if there would be a complaint he would take care of it independently in this variance request. Hanus stated the city should play a role in where the fence goes when they are issuing a permit. This is an existing fence. Brown stated that the Planning Commission agreed it was a dispute between the neighbors and that they would handle it on their own and if it did come up as a dispute, Sutherland could take care of it. It would not need to be in the resolution. Ahrens stated she has a concern regarding number 1 on page 562, removal of debris sitting in the proposed garage location. She feels this should be removed under the nuisance ordinance and not a variance. She stated that these kind of things get filed with the county and feels the city is being awful elaborative in the variance that the debris should have been handled on its own merits and not be part the variance. Weycker also voiced concerns regarding the debris. Sutherland stated that he will bring up the items with staff and clean them up in the future. Weycker asked if on page 562 of the revised proposed resolution the item regarding the pile of debris be removed. Sutherland stated that yes it could be removed. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- FEBRUARY 23, 1999 Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution, as amended: RESOLUTION//99-18 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD AND SlDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION A CONFORMING ADDITION AND ATTACHED GARAGE, AT 5~.a.a. SPRUCE ROAD, LOTS 46, 47,& 48, BLOCK 2, LAKESIDE PARK A L CROCKERS 1~r DIVISION, PID# 13-117-24 32 0164, P & Z CASE//99-02 1.7 MULTIPLE DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION, PELICAN POINT HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION Ahrens stated that when she was going through her council packet she observed the fact that the council did not have was the recommendation from the LMCD with regard to the applicant's proposal to move the dock structure. Part of the recommendation from the LMCD is that approval needs to be garnered by the applicant from the DNR and from the City of Mound prior to the LMCD considering the case and, she stated that she feels it is not appropriate to be on the consent agenda. She also stated she had received telephone calls from residents in the area who have a concern with the proposal. At this time Mayor Meisel addressed the residents at the meeting who there here regarding the Multiple Dock license application at Pelican Point and stated, that at this time, there are two more items on the consent agenda and she is going to move into them at this time and then will come back to Pelican Point. '1.8 LICENSE RENEWALS FOR GARBAGE AND CIGARETTES. Weycker had a question about the renewals and asked about how that plays with the conditions on the sting operation and asked if we ever decide on that. City Manager Ed Shukle stated that Hennepin County was notified and told that the city was not interested in doing this and his understanding is that Hennepin County never developed a plan. He also stated it is still in the hands of the County as to whether a county wide program will be done. Hanus stated the licensing is still in the City's hands without the mandated checks until further notice. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker to approve the License Renewal. unanimously. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- FEBRUARY 23, 1999 '1.9 APPOINTMENT TO POSC. THEY INTERVIEWED TWO PEOPLE. JOHN BEISE AND JOHN ECCLES. THEY HAVE RECOMMENDED THE APPOINTMENT OF JOHN BEISE Hanus stated he pulled this item because the minutes of the meeting were not in the packet and asked it to be tabled until the minutes were provided for review. City Manger Ed Shukle explained to Hanus that the minutes from that meeting were just faxed over today and asked if he would like copies ran off at this time. Hanus stated that at this time he would like to wait so he could have time to look them over. Weycker stated we could get them on another agenda before the next Park and Open Space meeting. Hanus agreed. Weycker explained the weather was bad the night of the Park meeting and the minute taker did not show up so a copy of the tape was mailed out to her to do the minutes and that it why they are late. MOTION made by Hanus to table this item until the next Council meeting when the minutes will be available, seconded by Ahrens. unanimously. 1.7 CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON THE APPROVAL OF MULTIPLE DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION, PELICAN POINT HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION Mayor Meisel stated at this time that the council will return to the Pelican Point Homeowner's Association and asked if Ahrens had anything else to say. Ahrens stated she would like to hear from anyone who would like to speak on the issue. John Boyer, representative of Pelican Point Homeowner's Association at Pelican Point, stated he just got notice of this meeting today and is not clear with what information the council has regarding this proposal and asked if the council has a plan and a recommendation on specifics from the LMCD. Hanus stated they didn't have a recommendation but had the current 1998 approved plan and the proposed plan. Boyer explained the plan with the dockage at Pelican Point. It represents 28 boat slips to the north and 12 slips to the south totaling 40 boat slips. The plan this represents has to be approved based on the shallow water condition at Pelican Point on Lake Minnetonka. When this approval was obtained in 1994 there was no stipulation made as to what shallow water constituted. It was merely stated as shallow water relief. In a situation when the lake water is already a foot low and it is anticipated for shallow water for next year, it's difficult to plan the dock structure and you can't take the docks out in the middle of the year and move them. It has to be done on a plan basis at the beginning of the year. Their goal is to create a permanent situation with the docks on the south side. Boyer stated even in a normal water situation, the back slips on 6 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTE8- FEBRUARY 23, 1~ the north structure are not accessible. It is just too shallow, to get boats in there even in a normal water situation so they are asking that the 16 slips in the back be brought to the south which adds four to the previous 12 and makes that a permanent condition. Boyer then explained they are contained to 100 feet from shore for the distance of the docks. He explained that was part of the stipulation that the LMCD put on them. With that there is not an option other than to add another structure to the south for the inside slips. Boyer pointed out some water depths on the north side of the point. It currently holds 40 slips and explained the water level dropped 8 inches between July and September. Brown asked what the average size of the boats are in the slips and asked if most of the boats are inboard/ outboard. Boyer stated 24 feet or less and most are inboard/outboard and explained they have just reached the point at Pelican Point where the outside slips have been used up and inside slips are now being requested beyond the 24 on the outside. Boyer stated as they fill up the inside, they are finding out that in any water condition the boats can not get in there. Hanus stated not with the 24 foot boat but with a bass boat or a small run about you could get in. Boyer stated there is a bass boat at the end. Brown explained most inboard/outboard props come out of the water to where you would not be drawing more than about 16 to 18 inches of water. Boyer agreed but stated it does not work, the water depth is 16 to 18 inches in normal water conditions but is not unusual for the lake to drop a half of a foot. Brown questioned he thought it was 44 at one end and 6 at the other. Boyer stated it's 44 at the slip but to get into the slip its half that deep because the slip is only 40 feet from shore. Brown stated that's 30 inches. Boyer stated half of 40 is 20. Brown said half of 60 is 30. Boyer said if your talking about the end slip yes. Boyer at this time showed a picture of the dock. At this time he explained it is difficult to take the dock in and out and very expensive to move the dock in mid-summer. Hanus asked of the people that live in the subdivision have built all the units that are directly adjacent to the lakeside or are some of them still open? Boyer explained 18 of them are built and two are under construction but are sold. The two are located on the south side. Hanus asked Boyer what the consensus was and if everyone is in favor of the plan? Boyer stated yes, and he has not had any feed back saying that they weren't. However, the people that have docks commented on keeping the dock structure the way it is yet the people who come in that are expecting docks and can't get into the dock, then they're in favor of having it changed. All but three of the homes on the southside overlooking the docks, which is about seven, are all going to be used in this structure because they are all fairly new residents. Boyer then stated he is representing the Pelican Point Homeowner's and they are the ones that insisted that I provide these docks and have commissioned me to come talk with the City Council. The president of the boat club is out of town and so I am filling in for him. I am not coming to you as a developer I am coming to you as a association member. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1~) Hanus asked what kind of work has been done as far as alternative design and keeping it to the north where it has been or previous been approved and where it's closer to adjacent multiple docks. Hanus asked if they could continue towards the point and he understands there is a sandbar between the point and the island. Boyer stated the slips are very shallow. Hanus ask if they had considered side way entrances rather than straight out the end. Boyer stated they had and it just does not work if you cannot get anywhere near 40 slips in there. He also explained they have to keep within 15 feet of the north property line and they are about 20 feet at this time. Brown questioned if they thought about angling the back docks to a 45 degree angle so you do not have to make such a big swing to get in. Boyer stated the benefit is very negligible because you would still need to back out somehow and this makes it more difficult to get out of the stall. Hanus referred back to the 1998 or the current proposed plan and asked if there is one boat slip or two boat slips between the dock sections. Boyer answered one boat slip. Hanus stated there are 3 foot sections so every other section could conceivably be wasting 3 feet between the boats because you do not need a dock between every boat. You could have one dock share two boats and no dock between those. Boyer stated you could maybe pick up 2 feet per slip if you went with double wide slips. Boyer stated that the homeowners have already bought canopies for most of the slips and a lot of them have lifts and it doesn't work if you have a double wide slip. Hanus went back to the design issue on the north side to state that if you took those last two slips out and replace them with four slips that face the north, you sacrifice two and I think you can get four back. The end four would end up exiting to the north. Boyer stated instead of getting one slip you could pick up three which is a possibility but it does not allow an access to the back side at all. Hanus stated assuming they're gone you do not need access. The other option would be if you took out the internal sections as you proposed and replaced them with parallel parking on the lakeside again you will not need all the depth to get toward shore to get backed out. In a distance of 184 feet you could put quite a few boats in along the dock if they were nose to bow, nose to bow with a reasonable space between them. You could even put a short section that go towards shore and I am not saying it would cover all of them but you could get some deeper dockage with that configuration. Boyer explained he has tried all of that and would be happy to entertain, on paper, if you wanted to work it out but stated he has tried all the different kinds of scenarios you are talking about but, this plan is the most efficient given the 100 foot setback. I can't go closer to the point because it's to shallow and I can't go closer to the north because of the setback distance. Mayor Pat Meisel asked if there was anyone else who had any comments. Ron Johnson, 4416 Dorchester Road, stated he lives south of the project and appreciates what Mr. Boyer has done for the City of Mound. I was all for this project when it first started. The original sketches showed 40 slips but now I found out he is short 16 slips. I think the only answer is why he goes out MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- FEBRUARY 23, 1999 another 50 feet with the dock. I heard the LMCD has rules against that but why couldn't a variance be given. If he puts the docks on the south side where I live he will be out more in the channel but, on the north side the bay goes in further. He stated that there are a lot of spawning beds for the fish and his location has been in the family since 1917 and it has always been a good fishing spot. Johnson also mentioned his neighbor has a lot of wood duck houses in his yard which means a lot of wood ducks in the water. He stated he is all for alternate uses and does not want to see it spread out on his side of the lake and feels all the neighbors to the south feel the same way. Johnson stated he wants to keep Mr. Boyer happy. Mr Boyer stated it is not a question of keeping him happy it's a question of keeping all the homeowners happy. Johnson mentioned that one homeowner will not be happy because he has no boat docks there now and they have a nice look of the lake but to put up 16 slips with canopies will be in there line of sight of a beautiful point. Mayor Meisel asked Mr. Boyer at this time if he had looked at the idea of a variance from LMCD. Mr. Boyer stated, yes. It was said to us that water relief will go to the southside and that was it no question and at a number of the informal conversations I had previous to that were to that effect and they would never give us a variance. So I never attempted to go after one. The fact is that everyone of the homes have up to 4 boats on their docks. In 4 lots 300 feet they got 16 boats. We are talking an area 600 feet with 16 boats. Our density is half of what the rest of the residents have along the lakeshore there. The spawning beds are the same on Mr. Johnson's side as on my side. The fact that they developed their property and have gotten rid of the weeds and have run the boats in and out destroyed once was spawning beds should not exclude any one else from doing it and I am not saying putting up docks destroys fishing. I believe fish love docks. The kind of traffic young families have is a lot different than the kind of traffic my residents have. We have more casual and bigger bc, ats that come and go quietly and we have very stringent rules in our association in the way they use the docks. As far as the north expansion, I think moving them out another 50 feet might solve it. I can't tell you for sure because I don't know what the water depths are but I would love to do that. It would save me money as a developer and make the homeowners equally happy to just be able to move the structure out. Mayor Meisel asked Mr. Boyer if he was taking this to the LMCD tomorrow night. He stated he was. Brown asked if there would be a possibility that Mr. Boyer could talk with the water patrol and see if they would have a preference because of what Mr. Johnson mentioned about coming through which is almost a direct line to the channel and would it be less of a safety hazard to come out 50 feet more with the front docks. Boyer stated with the north docks moving out 50 feet he did not perceive it to be a safety problem. The association bought a buoy and got permission to put it out in the channel to slow traffic down. As far as the proposed dock section projecting out in the channel that's not accurate. It does not protrude out any further then the other docks to the south of us. Brown stated if you move out 50 feet on the front docks if you got a variance that would put the back of the MOUND CITY COUNCIl. MINUTES- FEBRUARY 23, 1999 boats in a least 60 inches of water and give you at least 40 inches to come through. Hanus stated by his reading of this you would not have to go out 50 feet. You would only have to go out one slip depth which is about 24 or 26 feet. Boyer stated the council job tonight the way I see it is that the 40 slips to the north and south structures have already been approved what we are basically talking about is expanding the 12 docks to 16. As far as how this is regulated, it is the LMCD's jurisdiction and if we weren't going to change the configuration of the docks, then we would not be here. Hanus stated if you were leaving them the way that they were designed and approved last year that's right, we would not be here. It's the moving of it that causes it to come back to the council. Ahrens asked to clarify something because she understands it a little differently. She looked at the 1998 approved plan and all 40 of the docks are on the north end of the property. She also looked at the plan that was approved in October of 1994 and her understanding is that a 12 slip setup on the south side of the property was what was approved by the LMCD for temporally water relief and you need that emergency low water provision to kick in order to use those slips. Boyer stated the LMCD had every opportunity to say temporary low water relief or emergency low water relief but they did not do that at the time. There was a lot of discussion about the slips not being deep enough and they said for shallow water relief instead of moving them out further than 100 feet, we are going to give you 12 docks to the south. And in fact that was their proposal. Ahrens noted she has a copy of the public hearing notice from the LMCD and it states the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District will hold a public hearing to consider a new Multiple Dock License Application from Pelican Point Homeowner's Association. The proposed application is to consider relocating 16 Iow water slips at the north end of the existing dock to the south end of the property. I just don't want anyone to be misled thinking what were trying to do is we got approval of 12 slips on the south end of the property. If that was the case we would not have a site plan that looks like this that says 1998 with no docks on the south end. Boyer stated but we do have approval of the 12 shallow low water relief docks. That was approved and is part of our permit. Brown stated he understands that but feels there is a disagreement because what your considering shallow water is because you can't get your boat in where as LMCD has not classified the lake as shallow water like I believe it was 1991 when everyone went out with docks. I believe we have a disagreement with what we consider low water and I know in at least 40 inches of water with a inboard/outboard you can raise the prop and only draw in 16 inches of water. 10 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- FEBRUARY 23, 1999 Boyer stated we are not in 40 inches of water. It is 40 inches at the back of the slip but it is not the water you got to go through to get into the slip. The water you go through is half of 40 because your coming through the back side of the channel. The access into the slip is much shallower your coming in from the shallow to the deeper side to get into the back slips. Boyer stated the council needs to decide what they are approving weather this is low water relief or if this is an expansion of the dock which is already granted. Mayor Meisel asked if there were any more comments from people present? Trude Turnquist, 16061 Holdridge Road West. She is representing her mother who lives in unit 12 of Pelican Point. Her parents bought the first unit. They also have a long history with this property because they originally sold the property to Mr. Boyer. Having owned it and with growing up on this property, I have some historical perspective on the shallowness of the water and other things. It is my memory that the southside was the shallowest water anywhere on the property. There were many years when the water was low. We felt we could walk halfway to the small island. My concern is what if we have other years of extremely Iow water like Minnetonka is known to have. What will happen then when the new 16 docks 100 feet out will be too shallow to bring other boats in? Will they be given a permit to dredge the area? Ms. Turnquist stated I am not here in anyway against Mr. Boyer's project. I am very supportive of it. I am here to encourage him to keep the docks on the northside because we do feel it's a better long term solution. I would encourage the council and Mr. Boyer and support him in every trip to the LMCD that it would take to get a variance to add on to what already pre-exits on the northside. The people who live on the northside of this property moved into this property when the boat docks were already there. This was not something new and different that was added on later. They are high on a hill and already used to seeing the boat docks and they can see over the canopies. Mayor Meisel asked if anyone else was present that would like to voice an opinion. Brown asked Mr. Boyer if these are permanent structures or do you take them in and out every year? Mr. Boyer answered we take them in and out every year. Brown stated if this council could give you 50 more feet it does not matter where those docks go in now because they are not in so if you were to put them in this spring they could go out another 50 feet. Hanus asked when you first applied for the license for the docks you proposed the 1998 plan I was curious as to why you opted or maybe the LMCD opted for you why was it determined to put them all in one location and at this location and not somewhere else and why you did not split them before. Boyer explained it was a wait and see situation. We did not know what demand of the boats would be and we did not know what type of people were going to come in. I thought at least a third of the people would not need boats and the other third would have small fishing boats or something of that size. I was not sure we would need that ability to go to the southside. Keep in mind, I prefer to keep everything to the north 11 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- FEBRUARY 23, 19c~ side. But I also need to provide navigation to the residents. Five years later we are finding out the averag,. boat size is 18 to 20 foot inboard/outboards. The residents spent a lot of money for these homes and they all bought them on the understanding they could have a boat there. About 1/3 of our residents were already residents on the lake and are moving to Pelican Point to simplify the life without giving up their boat. Mayor Meisel asked if there were anymore comments from the citizens present. Jim Ostman, 2945 Island View Drive, stated he lives across the street from the development and voiced his concerns about the dock location on the southside and would like to keep everything on the northside. Mayor Meisel asked if there were anymore comments from the people present. The council discussed the plan and what the LMCD is looking for from the City of Mound on this issue and if they can make approvals and a recommendation. Ahrens read a memo she received that said the LMCD staff recommends approval of the proposed structure subject to the approval from the Minnesota DNR and the City of Mound. It does not state we can make changes to it. They are asking purely for an up or down. Brown asked if they denied this but would send a recommendation along that the City of Mound would like to see the LMCD allow Pelican Point to move out a additional 50 feet because of the shallowness of the water and better access. Ahrens said it goes back to what Hanus said that you probably only need the depth of a slip. I would rather try to work with the LMCD and table it for two weeks to see if we can come up with an alternative that keeps the 40 slips at the north end even if it does entail asking for a 24 foot variance to the dock length and would support the Pelican Point Association in that. Brown asked if we could table this with a recommendation to the LMCD that we would approve a variance with a maximum of 50 feet out. Hanus stated that is two different actions one is a table and the other is go forward with something and I don't think you can do both. City Attorney John Dean stated it appears the LMCD is planning to take action on this issue tomorrow night so I am not sure our tabling is going to mean to much to them. Ahrens stated it will mean something to them tomorrow night if there was not a recommendation that it get approved without the City of Mound. Dean stated maybe the council would like to look at something like sending a message to the LMCD that the city council is unable to grant its approval to the proposal because it's the City Council's belief that a more intensive use of the dock area to the north would be a more appropriate use of the water resource and that until such time as all the options for further use of the dock area to the north have been explored including 12 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- FEBRUARY 23, 1999 the granting of a variance; the City of Mound cannot grant its approval to the proposal to move 16 docks to the south. Ahrens stated she would make that motion, seconded by Brown. Hanus asked that a friendly amendment be added to the motion. In addition to what Dean stated, other findings should be included to be more conducive not only to the property owners in the Pelican Point area that would be affected by the move but as well as the property owners that live out of the subdivision to the south. Hanus stated, "Just a couple of thoughts I had on the procedure. The strongest is the denial because if the LMCD needs our approval, it forces them to look at another direction. If we just work with them a little bit that's a much weaker position to take and it forces the hand a little bit less. There are some alternatives. Just reconfiguring this dock of the sixteen docks without moving the dock out any further, I can find eight more slips which appear to be in deep enough water, which is half of the sixteen and even worst case if something had to be moved maybe you would have to move just eight, not sixteen. That's one thing I am not suggesting we do because I am all for keeping it north if we can. I just want to make sure we send the strongest signal possible to have to deal with it that way rather than giving them all kinds of outs." Ahrens stated that Hanus makes a good point in that a denial impedes the LMCD. Worst case scenario's Mr. Boyer sitting there with his 98 approved plan which is not going to work and that is not what I want to happen. Hanus stated he is not all opposed to getting the 40 docks in here somewhere but a denial again forces the LMCD hand a little bit. Ahrens asked if any harm would be done if the LMCD would give the council a couple more weeks to think about this matter and not be rushed into any decision and to keep it in a more confined setup. Brown suggested a denial, with City Attorney John Dean's recommendation to be the strongest thing we could send to the LMCD. Motion by Ahrens, seconded by Brown for denial with all of the language and finding from John Dean. Hanus commented that the motion have a strong recommendation that a variance be looked at as an alternative. Ahrens stated she needs to modify her motion to reflect denial with the f'mdings Mark mentioned afte John Dean's recommendations. Brown agreed to adding Mark's suggestion. RESOLUTION//99-19 RESOLUTION DENYING REQUEST FROM PELICAN POINT 13 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- FEBRUARY 23, 1999 HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION FOR A NEW MULTIPLE DOCK LICENSE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Boyer questioned if the LMCD denies him where does that leave him? Mayor Meisel stated back to reconfiguring. 1.10 ADD-ON ITEM: AREA CODE Hanus addressed concerns regarding the SRA handout on the area code issue. He mentioned that the east side of the cities has a new area code 651 and he stated they need to add another area code. What the PUC is recommending is that Minneapolis, Richfield and Fort Shelling retain a new area code of 952. Richfield and Minneapolis are batting that. Jim Strommen, who is the attorney of the SRA, is asking for some input. Mayor Meisel stated she does not care one way or the other. Ahrens stated she has no leanings either way. Weycker stated she would prefer to keep the 612. Brown stated it makes no difference to him one way or the other. Hanus stated the argument the SRA is making is that whoever is affected most should retain the old number. 1.11 ADD-ON ITEM: TRIAX CABLE BILL Ahrens stated she brought her cable bill and questioned the new line item on the billing statement of .84 cents per the franchise agreement with the City of Mound to fund public educational and governmental programming. She commented that the residents will claim Mound implemented a new tax and its all Mound's fault and it is not. City Manager, Ed Shukle stated the City of Mound gets a franchise fee of 5 % and has been that way since the 1980's. In our renegotiation with the franchise, the Cities of Chanhassen and Mound agreed to take over the operation of the public access studio and that is to become effective April 1, 1999. As a result of that in order for us to operate the studio we need to have funds in order to do it. 40 cents of that 84 cents is already being paid and it was in the base fee. The net increase is 54 cents. Ahrens questioned whose idea it was to do this. 14 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1999 Shukle explained that Triax is not interested in operating a studio. Cities do require, as a public service, that we do have public access. So in order for us to efficiently provide it and do a better job, it was in our best interests, as the cities, to take it over. The result is an increase of 54 cents. 1.12 1999 DEPARTMENT HEAD ANNUAL REPORTS: LEN HARRELL. POLICE CHIEF; JON SUTHERLAND, BUILDING OFFICIAL: JOEL KRUMM, LIQUOR STORE MANAGER, The following Department heads presented their 1998 annual reports to the City Council: Len Harrell, Police Chief; Jon Sutherland, Building Official; Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager; and Gino Businaro, Finance Director. Mayor Meisel stated she forgot an add-on that Ahrens wanted to add. 1.13 ADD-ON ITEM: LETTER FROM KEITH GRUMAN REGARDING THE COMMUNITY CENTER. Ahrens stated she tried to call Mr. Gruman today and tried a dozen times and the phone was always busy. She stated she hates when people write these kinds of letters and not get answers. Hanus stated the only thing we can do is try to educate them to what is really going on and there are times when there is nothing that will get through to them. Brown asked if the occupants at the school have been given a deadline on when to get out. Shukle stated May 1't for the community tenants and school district July 1" for the School District. Brown stated he has heard that someone is putting out information regarding the city council that is not correct. He asked if anything should be done stating that the council is not the reason they are out and the city is not doing anything for them. Mayor Meisel stated we need to continue with our course at the next Committee of the Whole Meeting. Brown addressed concerns about the need for identification badges for the City Council and Planning Commissioners. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. Preliminary Financial Report for the year ended December 31, 1999 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. 15 Ge MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- FEBRUARY 23, 1999 Memorandum from Jim Fackler, Parks Director, regarding the 1998 dock payment of Jim Albrecht, Devon Commons. E-mail from Jim Strommen, Kennedy and Graven, re: Right of Way issues at the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Jim staffs the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA), an organization in which we are a member. Economic Development Commission Minutes of January 21, 1999. Letter from Hennepin County Commissioners, announcing appointments to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Information from the Hennepin County Assessor that was requested at the February 16, 1999, Committee of the Whole Meeting Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 1999. REMINDER: March Committee 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. MOTION made by Brown, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn at 10:47 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk 16 MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING-JANUARY 19, 1999 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. Members present: Meisel, Hanus, Weycker, Brown and Ahrens (arrived 7:40 p.m.). Also Present: Ed Shukle, City Manager. City Council Seating Mayor Meisel requested that the seating arrangement at the Council table be changed. She indicated that she has received comments from citizens regarding consistent talking between Ahrens and Hanus during Council meetings. Ahrens indicated she did not want to move. She said if Hanus wants to move, that's fine. Mark asked if there were truly residents who have observed this. Meisel indicated again that there were. Mark indicated that he preferred to stay where he was because he liked being seated next to John Dean, City Attorney as he frequently will ask questions of the Attorney during the meeting. Brown: Being's we're on this, I had three people after the council meeting concerned, I'm not pointing fin~ers but twice or three times [addressing Leah Weycker] you ~ot up while things were going on you were handing notes to John [John Dean, City Attorney]. Weycker: No, I don't believe that. Brown: You want to look at the tape? Weycker: Sure. I've looked at it many times. I lot up once and handed a note to John. Brown: Twice. Weycker: No, once. Brown: And it was brought up to me by two people. You know, can we turn that off [referring to tape recorder and asking Ed Shukle, City Manager] for a minute? Shukle: No, you can't. It's a public meeting. Weycker: Absolutely not. It's a public meeting,. Brown: You...You get... Whenever somebody says anything to you, you immediately take it as a personal front or offense and you jump right back... Weycker: You know, Bob, the tone of that last meeting was very personal a~ainst me. Brown: I didn't say anythint,... Weycker: And I think I deserve a personal apology from Mark. COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 2 Brown: Excuse me, I think I had the floor. And I don't think I said it anything here. But I had the two people say 'What's the councilmember handing notes while we're talking' to John, twice,' they said. I didn't notice it. But it was brought up to me afterwards wanting to know what was going on our side. And I don't think I said it abruptly to you or anything like that. I brought it up just like they [Andrea and Mark] were brought up about their whispering. These are things that are happening and I was just making you aware of them. And immediately, you took it as a personal attack. I have nothing personal against anybody. Weycker: Bob, you said two or three times 'you got up.' I know, for a fact, I got up once and handed John a note. Brown: Weycker: Brown: Weycker: Brown: Weycker: Brown: Weycker: Brown: Weycker: Brown: So it gets bigger, it gets exaggerated. You get awful.., you get awful defensive and immediately take an attack position. Yes, I do. After the tone of the last meeting, I am very defensive. Very. And until I see the tone change, I will continue to be defensive. And you're going to be on the outside looking in. That's fine, Bob. If you want to play that game. You play that game. I'm not playing no games. I'm just saying... No, it is a game. It's nice.., it's not a game. I didn't have nothing to do with that last meeting, with you. I didn't say one thing bad about you or anything. And I did not say anything bad to... I didn't say you did. The tone of the whole meeting... Well, you just told me I was playing games, Leah. And I'm not playing games. I haven't said a word to you. I said it politely tonight. I was bringing something to a point, and immediately, you want to attack. And I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to let anybody attack me...for just being COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 3 Weycker: Nor will I. Brown: ... a comment. On trying to get together with somebody and pointing out something. If you don't like the way I point it out, then say, 'Bob, hey you're wrong.' Weycker: I didn't say that. Brown: And I may be wrong. Weycker: I said,'Bob, I got up once.' Would you like to know what was in the note I passed to John Dean? Brown: No. I don't care. I could care less. But citizens brought it up to me that we were doing things... Meiseh Notes. Notes. Brown: Hanus: Maybe, maybe, maybe collectively, we all have to be a little more cognizant of, of, of that. Let's just try and do that for a little while and see if we can't check that a bit. Meiseh One of the things, as I stated with the facilitator, we are not on the same page. It appears we aren't ~,oing to be working together well, and I don't want to start out that way. And some of it with the first meeting is I should have been stronger, and stopped some of it. So, I'm just as guilty. And the offset to it is I also think we need to hash it out or we're never going to get over it. Weycker: I... I totally agree, Pat. And I will tell all of you right now I will not sit on this Council if that kind of behavior continues. I think it is very unprofessional and inappropriate. And, I will not be here if that's the case. Meiseh I'm sorry if you felt attacked, Leah. I felt bad at the end of the meeting. But I also have the vote the way I did. But I didn't go home and call any citizens either so that I was getting calls at 8:30 in the morning. I usually go to the person directly if I don't like what happened. Weycker: I received calls from those citizens constantly for over a year asking to be informed about these issues, as well as these people [referring to Andrea and COW Minutes Jalluary 19, 1999 Page 4 Mark]. They know exactly what was going on. The fact that they were not informed of we vote on it, I had every right to call them. That's why... Meisel: I'm not telling you not to call them. What I'm telling you is, the attack that proceeded from it. And, that's fine, I can hold my ground. I don't have a problem with it. But, I also don't want to spend the next two years second ~uessin~, if I'm going to get calls from the residents because somebody scooted out of a council meeting immediately to make a telephone call. 'Do you know Pat did?' And that's the way it felt. Weycker: I think you're assuming that's what the conversation was. That wasn't the conversation. The conversation was your docks got moved at the city council meeting. Meisel: But did you go on to explain the why? Hanus: But, who did you tell that to? Weycker: The why? Meisel: As far as... I explained why I voted the way I did. And I think Mark explained why he made the motion for it, and we all went forward. And I re-explained where my intention was. Weycker: You know the whole issue... Meisel: Which went out the window. Weycker: ... is so much bigger, thou~,h, than Mark presented, I... I don't think it was presented properly. I think there was a lot of misleading things that Mark presented. My note to John Dean happened to be about Andrea who had been advised that if she talked about these issues or voted on them, was a direct conflict of interest. She broke the law sitting up there, according to me. Brown: But, see.., this is exactly what I am saying. Weycker: He said he had to check into it because he didn't know where the docks got moved. Ahrens: I have.., now... I...let's be fair. I have never stepped down from voting on any of those issues because I said I would be breaking the law. Never. You better COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 5 go back and check all the tapes. Because I've never said that. Weycker: I didn't say you did say that. Ahrens: I voluntarily removed myself from discussion. Weycker: I said you've been advised... Brown: See, this is a situation... Ahrens: I have been... Brown: Madame Mayor, this is a situation of what exactly I'm talkin[' about. And I feel, personally, that when you vote on something, or since just watching you lately, you're not voting for what's best. You're voting on an issue, and you're makin[' it a personal thing and you take it personally whether it's.., if it's defeated, it's not that, well, maybe I was wrong on this one, because it's 4-1, and I may have to rethink the way I'm going on this. Or, maybe I have to make a little stronger case on the next issue to show that maybe I'm right on this and they need to rethink their position. You take it personally and you [,et very upset and you go dog bite right at a person. You come right at them, you... you just get hostile and you just take it as a personal attack. And there was...maybe there was that ni['ht but, like toni['ht, there was no personal attack here, to you, when I said what I did. But, immediately, instead of sayin[' 'well, Bob, he may be wron[' on this,' you took it as a personal front and then you take it as a personal attack and you get really... Weycker: I do take it as a personal attack. Brown: That's not what were here for. Weycker: Like I said, the tone of the last meeting, I... I feel like I'm sitting in the same meeting right now. Brown: Whoa, we're here...for what's.., the five of us are here, well six of us, with Ed, we're here for one thin[', not personal gain or a personal issue. I have no issue, here, on this council. I don't have a dock, I don't have a house, I got an apartment, that I re... own. So you gotta be here for one thin['. What is best for my town? Weycker: Absolutely. Absolutely. COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 6 Brown: And, I don't feel you feel that way. I feel you lot an at, enda that you're on, whether, and I'm going to say it, personally, whether it's the school or docks, and you take those two issues. Anything else that we might say to you, you think I'm personally attacking you because you believe... I'm glad you believe that strong about the school. And I'm glad you believe that.., people should believe about something. There's nothing worse than somebody that's lukewarm. Somebody that doesn't believe one way or the other or they're lukewarm on something. But if you believe wholeheartedly in it, then go for it. But don't take it as a personal attack on you. I don't think anybody here wants to attack you because you sit on the end of the bench about how you feel. I don't. I'm here to work with Pat and this council to make this town the best it can be. And there are going to be times when I'm going to argue like crazy but at the end of the night, I'm going to walk out and say 'hey Mark, do you want to go out pet a beer?' Or, 'you want to go get a beer?' After it's over with, I've lost or whatever.., that's the end of it. I don't take it home with me. Weycker: Now, you've sat at this very table and called me a treehugger for sitting on the Park Commission. I was appointed that job. Brown: I call everybody a treehugger. Weycker: Well, I take offense to that. Brown: Well, I'm sorry, then. I would apologize to you. Weycker: . .. and the Park Commission as well. Brown: I'll apologize to you. Weycker: There is no personal issue with me and the schools. I don't even understand where that comment is coming from. Again, I sit on another commission called the WCCB and on the Building Committee that I was appointed to by this council. Had nothing to do with the schools. I had nothinf to do with the schools, before that. This is all in my job that this has come about. And yes, I sat in here, I made the decisions and I stronfly support that project. I... I have been working on it for the past two years. And I think I should, just like you said, I will strongly support it and I will stand by it. I'm not wishy washy at all on my opinions on things. And I don't find that you should criticize me for having.., having that opinion on things. And if you can't agree to argue the facts with me, I think that's what this council is all about, to debate the issues and discuss them, and if we're on different sides, to try and convince the other COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 7 side of what we're thinking, and if we can't, so be it and the vote comes down, one side wins, one side doesn't. And I have no problem with bein[, on the losing end of the vote. I have been for the past two years. It has nothing to do with a 4-1, it was a 2-3 last time. It doesn't matter that. I... I...and I didn't have a problem before that first meeting of this year. I didn't have a problem. Brown: But you say that... Weycker: That first meeting was very contentious and was personal. Brown: You say that and immediately when you say you don't mind that we should give the opinions but as soon as the opinions are given, you went right out and called the citizens and had somebody calling Pat. Weycker: Absolutely and I think that's my job and I would do the same thing again. Brown: That's... Weycker: They have called me several times. I got calls almost daily during the summer. Almost daily. Mr. Fackler was down there, almost daily this summer, I talked to those people. They have continually asked the city to be informed about these issues and here we are sitting up there as a council voting behind their back? I think that's reprehensible, to the public. I don't care if it had to do with docks or a building permit, or a school, what it had to do with. You don't do that behind the public's back. I do work for the public. I don't know who you're working for. Hanus: And...and...and... and...that opinion is fine. And that opinion is your opinion. And I don't for a minute believe we're voting behind the public's back. That was on the agenda. It's been on... it's been in the paper. And... and that issue, that dock location map, is done every year. And... and.., it's.., it's noticed every year. It's gone throut, h the commission, it's gone now to the council. Voting on it when its noticed in the paper is not voting behind people's backs. So, my position on that issue is completely different than yours. That's the way it is. Weycker: I will point out that these issues do go to our commissions first. The nei~,hbors called me when this came up at the dock commission. Said 'do I need to be there?' I said 'I would be there if I were you.' They all showed up to the dock commission meeting. What were they told? We had it in our notes. They were told these issues will not be decided without the neighborhood input. COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 8 They were told that at the dock commission meeting. What did we do? Hanus: We're giving, the neighborhood input. We're letting them make their decision. They're having... Weycker: Not a lot of incentive for the people to show up and even have this conversation with the neighborhood if they don't even show up, they still get exactly what they wanted. Ahrens: You know... I think... I think...that we could be on this one issue all ni~,ht. But I think one of the things that, uh, and.., and Leah touched on it and... and.., and I think you did too, Bob, we are t, oing to have different ideolo~,ies and different philosophies, and, you're right, we should argue the facts. I... I... I sat here for eight years on the short end of 4-1 votes for a lon~, time. So, I understand what it's like to be there. But, when you have a different ideology, and I think my ideology, and I think even Mark's ideology, on this whole issue is a little different than yours. And... and.., and... I think the point that has been.., that you refuse to listen to, just let me finish this point so I could at least say that you heard what I said. You refuse to listen to the fact that there are two dock locations and they are in front of one individual's house. And why Greg Knutson, four houses down or Gretchen Smith five houses down, or anybody who lives on Three Points is affected and should have a say in where those two locations in front of one individual's house should be, I don't know. I don't know why you think that. And you haven't explained that to me. Weycker: I can explain it if you would like me to explain it. Ahrens: Yeah, I would really love to hear a valid reason why they are affected. Weycker: Because this is just one little issue of an ont, oing thing that you keep, seem to keep bringing up to the neighborhood. Ahrens: It's not me. It's Mr. Smith. Weycker: No. First, Andrea, first it was you, you planned or the dock commission planned to putting this multiple dock in front of these people's houses. That's what got them mad in the first place. Ahrens: No. It was in front of the road, the fire lane. Weycker: A fifteen foot fire lane. But we are moving all the non-abutting, docks from in COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 9 Ahrens: Weycker: Ahrens: Weycker: Ahrens: Hanus: Weycker: Hanus: Weycker: Hanus: Brown: Hanus: Ahrens: Weycker: Ahrens: Weycker: Ahrens: front of... There used to be one dock there, Leah. Now tell all the facts correctly. No, that isn't correct, Andrea. Multiple with 20 slips. It was a strait, hr dock. It was a multiple with one... I don't think so. You were moving Casey's dock, Albrecht dock... It was a straight dock. It was a straight dock with 4 slips. With 4 slips. Okay... Four boats on one... Did Andrea say one dock? One dock with 4 boats on one. Leah, listen, listen. A straight dock with 4 boats on it. That's what it was. Ed, isn't this kind of the plan I brought to you? Two on each side. We have lots of docks like that have. I mean, my dock is like that. It has one dock and it has 4 boats. Do you think the people that were on either side of that area had a right to say they didn't want it? The... the one gentleman... Do you think that Mr. Smith has a right to say where the docks should be in front of his house? This isn't in front of your house, Leah. And that's the point I'm making. You said this is just.., this little issue. This isn't. This is one issue, then it's a next issue, then it's a next issue. It has nothing to do with that multiple anymore. COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 10 Weycker: Things keep coming up and the neighbors just don't trust what you guys are going to do with them. Because thin~,s keep getting, put little, little pieces at a time. Ahrens: O.k., well, finish your answer. What does Grey Knutson or somebody fifty houses down... Weycker: Nothing. I don't think they should have a say. Ahrens: ...on Three Points have to do with Mark Smith? Weycker: I don't think they should have a say. I don't think they should have a say in it. Ahrens: O.k. Thank you. That's all I wanted to know. Weycker: What I'm saying is you just keep pushing these little things in front of them dan~,ling in front of their nose, saying 'oh, now, we're going to do this, you you've told them to their faces 'just wait, I'll get you.' What do you think? Ahrens: Mr. Smith figured that if the multiple was down on the end of the fire lane, the issue about where his dock was went away. But when that didn't happen, he said 'I would like to move my location. I have plenty of frontage in front of my house to move my location. Can I please do this?' I don't have a reason to tell him why he shouldn't be able to do that. Maybe you do. Maybe because it's important that somebody who lives 10 houses down doesn't like it. Hanus: But nobody has said what that... Ahrens: But, I don't understand this. That's why I don't understand. Weycker: Part of that issue was the sandbar that we heard about a million times... Ahrens: But the sandbar is on the map... I should have brought the map tonit, ht. I knew this was going to be an issue. Weycker: Mark talked about that this only affecting two docks. It doesn't. Mack's are ~,oing to have to put in their dock in a different space. Maybe it doesn't affect their water area but they have always put it on the side of their water area because they say there is a sandbar. I don't know if there is a sandbar. COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 11 Ahrens: There is a sandbar and it is on the dock location map and it's a hundred feet from their house. Look on the map. Hanus: And their neighbors are even closer to that point where the sandbar is... How far down are they? They have a boat and a lift there and they operate just fine and they're right in the middle of what's supposed to be a sandbar. Ahrens: They are on a sandbar. Hanus: The Mack's are a hundred feet offofwhere that sandbar is supposed to be. The only reason they say there is a sandbar is because the dock location map identified one that goes all the way around that point. But that's notwhere there is a sandbar. If there is a sandbar, it's on the point. Not back in the cove. You don't have a sandbar in a cove. Weycker: You can say that. They disagree with you. Who am I supposed to believe? Staff Roes out there... Ahrens: It's marked on the map, it's marked on a map, with a legend, with a lq, end. Weycker: Mark said there isn't one there that's an issue. Ahrens: Not in Mack's location. Hanus: There's one the map, there isn't one in the water. Two different things. Brown: Something I can't understand. This dock issue. Gordy Swenson said never talk about dogs and docks, it will always get you in trouble. Meisel: That's one reason that we voted to push it so we could get it settled. And that was my whole intent. It's been around too long. What's the problem? Ahrens: Why did you even raise this issue? Were you trying to start... Brown: Commons dock issue... Ahrens: It's ridiculous...waste so much on time on this. Weycker: I agree. I agree. We spent all summer on this issue. And it was a huge waste of time. COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 12 Meisel: But that's the one reason I voted the way I did last Tuesday. To get it movink,. That's the reason I think you brought it up. Because when would we have heard? And from what Gref told me, we wouldn't have. Ahrens: He's never going to agree to this. And he's not affected. And that's what he needs to be told. It's none of your business, Mr. Knutson. It's five houses away from you. Get real. Weycker: Another issue...Andrea has continued to say you can't even cross the point in front of her house to even get to these other docks. So I'm sure that will be coming back up. So even all these docks down there are going to be a non-issue because you won't even be able to pass throuk, h there. That's the next plan. I know exactly where they are going with this... Brown: So what.., if that is an issue... Let me explain something to you, real quick. Weycker: I actually have the floor but go ahead. Brown: I'm sorry... Weycker: That's o.k. Brown: If this is becoming, such an issue that it causes this much heartburn, what's wronk,, and you mentioned it, and I said now that's not a bad thought and I've already brought this up to Ed. If every person who has a dock that wants a dock, gets a dock, and we come off from dead end streets and we come off of fire lanes where there are room, and you put out a strai~,ht dock out a hundred feet, with multiples so people ~,et their dock~ and then we take this commons dock and this is going to be an issue and I know I shouldn't bring it up. But.. Weycker: Those two people right there, I can guarantee you, are going to come in screaming,... Brown: Hold on, fine but the thing is that this. What does that person rather have? Some people coming out to a dead end dock walking straight out or does he want the people walking across his property to get to the next property, to get to the next property... Weycker: The person at that street end would say spread him out. Brown: But then, you're going to have the trash thrown on your property and the next COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 13 property and everything... If you come off from the end of fire lanes with multiple docks and you maintain them, you put them in by the city, maintains them, LeTurners dock company puts that dock in, they take it out, the people vet a dock, its maintained properly, it's everything you want for a dock, and we have what's called a police department here. O.k.? If Joe Smith, on this side of the dock, has got Tommy Jones down here in his 24 foot boat screaming and hollering at 2 a.m., he makes a phone call. The police come down, his dock permit is pulled. He no longer gets that dock or anything else. Weycker: They can do that today. Brown: Absolutely. So I don't understand, why when you say the people on both sides... Weycker: Of that street... Brown: On that street. They're going to have same amount of people crossing in front of their house to either side as they are walking straight out without any noise. And no hassle, and they're going to get a dock put out.., you don't know what this guy is going to put out in front of your house. He could put out junk which supposedly he can't but you never know. Why are we arguing about something? Weycker: It's sounds like a good plan, Bob, but you haven't sat here as long as I have and heard...when you propose thinfs like that, people come out of the woodwork, screaming and yelling. Brown: You have to make them understand that they are getting something better than what they have. Weycker: They don't know, see... I don't think necessarily they are. Why should they take the brunt of the four people where normally these other people go and disappear? They're not sitting out right in front of their houses. Brown: Let me ask you something. If you got a dock in front of your house and I'm the guy that's ~,ot that commons dock and I got my 28 foot boat and every Friday and Saturday night I pull up to my dock and I party, would you like that? Weycker: No, I'd call the police if it was after 10 p.m. Probably violating the noise ordinance or... you shouldn't be doing those things no matter where you are. Brown: Exactly. COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 14 Weycker: Even if you were on private lakeshore I'm sure your two neighbors on either side... Brown: This is what I'm saying. It's called being neighbors. Hanus: There is a bit of a difference between the two situations. If you are neighbors and you own lakeshore, you have to live next to each other. But someone who comes down into the neighborhood from across the street or up in the neighborhood somewhere, doesn't have to live in that neighborhood, and they don't have to work together. They can come in and do pretty much whatever they want. And it's a serious rub with some people in some areas that have to live there, have to clean up after them, have to maintain their area. I know that ordinances say that's not the way it's supposed to work but there are people who have to take care of other folks' area because they don't. And it's their backyard but they don't own it but let's face it, for all practicality, it's their backyard. If they want it to look decent for their own guests and their own family, they have to maintain it. So, I mean, that's a big rub. And, some people are not treated terribly well down there. And, on either side actually. It can happen both ways. There is a bit of a distinction between privately owned lakeshore, where you have to live with the person living next to you. Weycker: I don't disagree with you at all. I think one issue that came up in our neighborhood, I was accused of letting our boat float free which I found incredible, like I intentionally would have done that and I said that the neighbor across the street had called me and said one of the ties is off your boat, Leah, and you should come and get it. I came, I didn't even use the access, because she called, she said come right through my yard, I came down through the yard, I tied it. Well, Denny Flack went ballistic:'See you expect we are supposed to watch your boat.' Hanus: There's always extremes... Weycker: When the garat, e is on my side of the street, and I see someone breaking into their garage, I can guarantee I'm going to call them too. So, it does work both ways. And I in no way thought she was required to call me and tell me that my boat tie was loose... We were neighbors... Like you say, there are extremes. Denny Flack happens to be the extreme in my old neighborhood. Brown: Well, the bigt, est thing I could suggest tonight, and it would stop a lot of this tension, is that we should all agree that we can disagree. But, personally, we are going to go head to head on a lot of things. Like I said, with my ex-wife, COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 15 we used to joke about it, we got mad and I called her some things I was proud I thought of, and she called me some things I wrote down, but we still lived with each other. So, I don't think anybody is here to hurt anybody else or... Weycker: I hope not. Brown: Slap anybody else around... But, hey, I got four years of winning and losing. I'm not going to keep score. When I walk out of here, I hope to be friends with everybody still and not take it home. I get an ulcer doing, that. I've been there. Hanus: You do debate and you try and persuade people that aren't with you. I tried my hardest on the school...the WCCB... the community center deal to try and convince you of the positions that I argued and I didn't convince you. I don't know ifI feel that I failed or not...but I tried very hard because I suspected you were going to go the way you did. But, I mean, so we didn't agree so you vote your conscience and that's what we do. Meisel: That's what I would hope we all do, is vote the conscience because it is the one.., you know I don't know that you really... I found myself explaining why I was voting the way I was because I wanted people to understand where I was coming from. And, the same was true when you brought up the instance. I wasn't going to vote for the dock change. And, the more I thought about how lon~, this has been going on, what it's doing within the neighborhood, it was time to get it moving. Whether it was the correct way, I honestly can't tell you that but I still feel good about the way I voted because I wanted it to go forward. And I want it solved. And then I went back, I [,or the minutes and was doing my research on it to how we can it get it done, by March... Hanus: I think I heard there was a meeting scheduled on the 30th. Meisel: Yes. Hanus: So, a meeting is going to happen. I don't know who is going to attend if it's ~,oing to be everybody on the list or if it's gonna be the directly affected people or not. Ahrens: Do you see what I was saying, though? is that I think when you raised this issue at the last meeting, after I had seen the letter, with 12 residences on this letter, when the two dock locations are in front of one individual's house how you... I looked at this and I went, now, I'm not in outer space but knowing the personality things that are going on in the neighborhood, you are never going COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 16 to get... Hanus: Zero chance of success. Ahrens: I would bet my mortgage that you are never going, to get 12 people to agree to this. And it seems, in my mind, havin~, people who live down the street, having input into what is happening in front of my house, or somebody else's house, in my mind, doesn't make any sense. And until I hear what a good reason for me to be concerned about the docks in front ofsomebody's house on Three Points, I can't agree to that. I mean I just can't... I can't agree that we should send out a letter to 12 people. It doesn't make any sense. Hanus: If there is only two of them, there is a chance. Ahrens: Albeit 12, forget it. Hanus: But not with everybody. Brown: This thing is, it's as simple like I said. What we did, and I hope I can explain this.., we didn't do anything that can't be changed. What we did is we said we're ~,oink, to take this, we're telling the people~ hey, you got until next Council meeting to either resolve this or we're going to do it for you. Plain and simple. Weycker: No, that is not what was voted on. Ahrens: We resolved it and we said if you've got a better solution... Brown: If you don't want to do something... Weycker: If you come up with something different than we decided, what we decided stands. Brown: If you can come up with somethint, different, o.k., we'll hear it out. We'll figure it out. But, if you guys want to just art, ue and complain to each other, we've made a decision and the end of the next council meeting, this stands. You got a month, figure it out. You guys can't find somethint,, it's like two little kids arguing, if you can't come to a conclusion, we'll make a decision for you. Hanus: That is our role. COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 17 Brown: That's right. Weycker: Not when we sat and told those people that they... Brown: Seven months ... Weycker: No, you're wrong. You're wrong. This issue, this little issue of moving the docks, just came up recently. Like I said, this is just one of the little tiny issues that's been issued to death. So they know this isn't the real thing, they don't give a crap about those docks moving. That's not the issue. The issue is all of these little things built up. And we... Ahrens: Then I don't understand why they are complaining about it if they don't care. Wevcker: Because they know that's not the end. They know, they know that you will come up with another plan or another thing, like I said, blocking that access. They all know that's coming. I mean that started last year and I'm sure it will continue. The "cloud", I believe is the words that were used, the clouds, hanging over those dock sites. That's why. Mark acted like this guy just didn't bother putting his dock in. No, there was a cloud over the site, said by the City Council, by the city staff. That's why he couldn't put his dock in. He was willing to put a dock in, he wanted to put his dock in. Two abutters, Andrea and Smith, put theirs so close together, that he couldn't get that in. Brown: Time out. Weycker: That's what I mean. This is a much bigger issue than just moving those docks. Ahrens: You mean my dock was centered on my location. Brown: Hold on. Ahrens: My dock was centered on my location. Smith's was not. Hanus: And that was discovered for the first time in years. It's what it's always been. But it was... Weycker: No one had the right to that other site. Hanus: Right. COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 18 Ahrens: Hanus: Ahrens: B vow n: Meisel: Weycker: Ahrens: Weycker: Ahrens: Hanus: Shukle: Hanus: Weycker: Hanus: That's rit, ht. Now it was discovered there's a problem... Now it became a problem. You're actinf like we all conspired and tried to do this. But isn't that why we got a dock manager for? Yes. He is more than willing, to fo down there and do it. These ~,uys didn't like what his solution was. Whose solution? Fackler. He said I'll ~,o down there and make everyone center on their spots. And that wasn't food enough, either. It didn't work for Mr. Smith. And that's why he asked, ' five me a ~,ood reason why we can't chan~,e these.' And I'm still waitinf to hear the good reason. If there's a food reason why we can't move these docks... We proposed that people, we, I, you, I don't know who it was. One of us proposed last summer that the docks be centered and we ~,ot racked up one side and down the other by Jim Fackler and others, don't you dare.., no, Jim said, people can float within their water space. He fout, ht us tooth and nail on centering. One of us, proposed that we center them. No, that was no food. So when you say no, that was no food, that's comint, from somewhere other than here. I think that was an application for the entire system, too. If I could adopt it... Trees, etc., could be dead center on the docks. Obviously, you have to have a provision that allows for the use of your site. If that means shiftint, it because of... if that means because of topot, rahy or an obstruction that you have to move it to get to a space, obviously you have to COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 19 allow to do that... Brown: If this guy, Mr. Jones, Mr. Smith, if where his dock is was a large rock, just a large rock, and he wanted to move his dock six feet over which happens to lines up on his light pole, would you have a complaint with that? Weycker: No, that's the way the system works right now. Brown: If we make an exception for a rock beinr in the way, why can't the people, why can't they just agree that they're making a situation here, come up with a solution between the people it involves. And that's what I was saying. Why does the whole neighborhood have to get involved for two or three people that can't sit down and say, o.k... Weycker: Like I said earlier, that wasn't the issue. It is much bigger and ongoing from all.., this was just one little layer on top of the cake. Hanus: So the only real reason I'm hearing why it can't work, is because they figure there is going to be another step and another step. Can't we look at this and see does this make sense? That's what I've tried to do. Does this one thine make sense? Maybe they'll leave something after it, maybe they won't. But the point is, does this make sense? If it does, why not do it? The only reason that I'm hearine contest about it, is the fear that there is going to be something else? And something else and something else. Weycker: The reality that we know it's coming. Hanus: But does this make sense? You're shutting off, you're shutting off common sense and open ideas because of a fear of the unknown or something else that mi~,ht happen. Does this make sense or doesn't it? Weycker: I think it does makes sense. I have no problem with what happened. Hanus: Why don't we look for it? Weycker: Because we told them that they would be able to have input. Hanus: But they are going to have input. Weycker: No, they're not, Mark. COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 20 Hanus: Yes, they are. Weycker: You gave them a month... Hanus: Ahrens: Weycker: Hanlls~ Ahrens: Hanus: Ahrens: Weycker: Ahrens: Weycker: Brown: Meisel: Brown: Should we cancel the meeting that was set up? ... and they never would have come up with a solution. Should we keep havim, people coming to every meeting for the next two years? If they didn't come up with a solution, it was set by the Council, then, staff would come in and solve it. Which, Fackler said, I will have everyone centered on their spot. That's the way it came down from last summer. And that's what we said. We will allow you guys to work... And that was his solution and that's exactly why Smith requests... It couldn't work because the reason that Mr. Smith was asking to have the thing changed is because his electrical source wasn't anywhere close to his location. That puts him close him close to his lot line and puts the inland person near his light pole. I don't know how far away they would be from it... One is on either end.., it just didn't make any sense. If you want to argue the situation, you have to know all the facts. You absolutely have to know all the facts and I suggest that you get them... From when? Facts from when? Facts that go back to the 70s?.. Facts about the situation that you are trying to hear. Actually, Andrea had the docks moved back in the 70s. Now there moved back again. They just keep moving... Can I make a motion here? Yes. That we stop this discussion of this dock problem. This big of a deal, let's get together and re-discuss this issue. COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 21 Ahrens: Shukle: Ahrens: Brown: Meisel: Weycker: Meiseh Weycker: Meiseh Ahrens: Meiseh Ahrens: But we got a solution in case there's no solution at the meeting. So, it's like... I hate re-hashing the whole thing too. Just a clarification of rules here. We don't take motions on COW meetings. We can't take any formal action. You can suggest... I sug[,est that we don't bring this up and move on to another... Well, it's going to hit the fan again... It is... I also... I can guarantee that. Yeah. But I think it helps if we all know the facts. If we do all...if we're all working with the right set of facts, the right set of facts... Well, it goes back to being on the same page. Right. Following some discussion regarding the "tone" of the first meeting of the year and new term, the Council consensus was to keep the seating arrangement the same as it was for the January 12 meeting. Mayor Meisel was asked to monitor the frequency of conversations at the Council table between members and should the need arise, call for a change at a later date. Possible City Council/Staff Retreat Utilizing an Outside Facilitator Shukle asked if there was interest in having a city council/staff retreat using an outside facilitator for purposes of establishing goals and a strategic plan for the next 1-2 years. The Council was very interested and asked the city manager to contact some facilitators, review proposals and select a COW Minutes January 19, 1999 Page 22 person or firm. A date and location will be announced following the city manager's research. Meetings with Advisory Commissions to Establish Relationships, etc. Shukle indicated that this subject has been discussed before and asked if due to recent events, if the City Council would be interested in setting these meetings up with the various commissions. The Council thought this would be a good idea and suggested that such meetings be set once the retreat has occurred. In addition, material prepared by Councilmember Weycker for the Park and Open Space Commission in regards to their role as an advisory commission was briefly discussed. It was suggested that this material be customized to fit all of the advisory commissions. In addition, it was suggested that a review of the appointment/reappointment process regarding positions on the commissions be undertaken at a future COW meeting. Mound Visions Update Shukle reviewed the status of the Lost Lake Improvement Project, Auditor's Road Improvement Project and the Post Office Relocation and related development. Mayor Meisel stated her position related to her and her husband's involvement in the project. She indicated that she wanted to be up front and honest about what could possibly take place with regard to the Post Office development and related development that would be tied to Meisel's property on the west side of Commerce Blvd. She indicated that she and her husband may sell some property to a developer and remove themselves from the project or they may be partners in the project. Shukle explained the interest by the Post Office, TIF and related matters that the city would be getting involved in relating to the project. Meisel explained that she and her husband were in the process of interviewing prospective developers to find the right fit for the development. She further indicated that the developers that they had interviewed to that point seemed to be more interested in developing the property along the new Auditor's Road. Perhaps both areas will be within the same project but the first priority is to locate the new Post Office so that the Lost Lake Improvement Project can be completed within its time schedule. Report from 1/19/99 WCCB Meeting/Update on Westonka Community Center Meisel, Hanus, Weycker and Shukle reported on the discussions held on January 19, 1999 at the WCCB meeting. They indicated that a special meeting of the WCCB will be held on Monday, January 25, 1999, 7:30 p.m., Mound City Hall. Westonka School Board, City Council and Planning Commission will be present to review the existing renovation project, clarify issues and will identify the next steps to be taken with regard to this project. Minutes of the Committee of the Whole January 19, 1999 Page 23 Proposed Wara Development in Minnetrista - Southside of Saunders Lake Shukle indicated that this project is on hold by Minnetrista until the water connection issue with the City of Mound can be resolved. He also indicated that the previous City Council asked that the water and sewer connection issue be delayed until a resolution to the comPosting/recycling facility can be found. The Council consensus was to schedule a meeting with two representatives and related staff from Minnetrista and Mound. Meisel indicated she would serve in this capacity along with Councilmember Weycker. A meeting will be scheduled as soon as possible. Proposed Wara Development in Minnetrista - Northside of Saunders Lake Shukle reported on a concept plan being proposed to the City of Miunetrista by Wara Development. He indicated that a neighborhood meeting was scheduled for January 21, 1999. He further indicated that a resident had contacted him regarding this proposed development and had a number of concerns regarding access and egress, utilities and other related development issues. Shukle indicated that he will monitor the project as it progresses. Update on Minnetonka Boat Rental Shukle indicated that this matter is still ongoing. Appraisals are being conducted on adjacent properties for possible sale to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as well as the boat rental site. More information will be forwarded once the appraisals are completed. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Vacancies Shukle reported that two vacancies are being advertised for the MCWD. Malcolm Reid and Pamela Blixt are up for appointment/reappointment; both incumbents wish to be reappointed. Area cities have endorsed three other candidates for the two positions. It was the consensus to send a letter to Hennepin County endorsing Charles Scott Thomas, Minnetrista; Warren McNeil, Deephaven; and Robert Rascop, Shorewood. City Council Photograph Consensus was to wait until Fall, 1999 to have the photograph taken. Newly Elected Officials Conference Shukle indicated that the new councilmembers had expressed interest in attending. Both Meisel and Brown asked the City Manager to register them for the February 26-27 conference in Plymouth. Minutes of the Committee of the Whole January 19, 1999 Page 24 New Councilmember Issues Hanus: -Transition for existing businesses to stay in Mound while redevelopment is to take place. Suggested meeting with businesses now regarding potential redevelopment/relocation issues. -Status of Island Park Hall. Brown: -City Councilmembers need to be more visible. More articles in the Laker on what is going on in the City. -Invite businesses for coffee/donuts twice per year at 7 a.m. to sit with City Council to discuss issues of concern. -Review of wages for parks/docks staff. Ideas for Web Site Hanus indicated he would like to see some linkages to businesses in Mound. In addition, the ability to download forms would be important at some future date. Also, Hanus would like continued downtown redevelopment promotions used on the Web site. Other Issues There were none. It was noted that the next COW meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 16, 1999, 7:30 p.m., Mound City Hall. One item already scheduled for the agenda is a brief presentation from the Hennepin County Assessor's Office regarding property valuation increases and what to expect during the April 21-22 Open Book meetings. Upon motion by Brown, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.  ~tfully subm, itted, City ~anager MINUTES-COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MARCH 2, 1999 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Acting Mayor Hanus; Councilmembers: Ahrens, Brown and Weycker. Absent and Excused: Mayor Meisel. Also Present: Ed Shukle, City Manager. Other individuals present: Betty Strong, Dotty O'Brien, Harlan Drugstad, Marjorie Stutsman, Ellen Scholer, Carrie Gmman, Marion Poteets, Marilyn Byrnes, Leona Peterson, Elvera Johnson, Cathy Bailey, Mark Smith, Kiki Sonnen and Mary DeVinney. Community Center Ed Shukle provided background information about what has happened the past five years regarding this subject. He reviewed a copy of findings and recommendations developed by a task force in 1995 for a new "Chaska-like" community center. He also reviewed the Decision Resources survey performed in 1995 regarding a community center. Discussion then focused on temporary locations for community tenants. The Balboa property was discussed and Shukle indicated that he has been in contact with the leasing company for Balboa but has not received any definite information regarding availability and terms. Consensus was to have the City Manager continue looking at possible spaces around the city. In addition, he is to contact the School District regarding the community tenants remaining in the building and on what terms this could be accomplished. Discussion then proceeded to a new community center, how to fund it, what the center would have in it, location, etc. Consensus was to research other community centers to find out the following information: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Construction cost Size of building Uses in the building Method of construction funding Method of maintenance funding User fees or tenant contributions In addition, sites around the city are to be researched: 1) East side of Commerce Blvd. across from Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church and 2) Current Westonka Community Center site. The above information will be assembled for discussion at the April 20, 1999 COW meeting. Other Business The following issues were discussed: Rodrigo Plaza claim regarding storm damage cleanup COW Minutes March 2, 1999 Page 2 on public commons, method of survey for Devon Cormnon near Roanoke access, mis- communication issue regarding Council's participation at the Toby Lee Hockey Benefit held February 28 at the Pond Arena and Mound taking the lead on adopting an ordinance to become "bleacher" compliant relating to state and federal action being proposed at those levels presently. It was noted that the next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 20, 1999, 7:30 p.m. Upon motion by Brown, seconded by Ahrens and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ed Shukle City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 99- RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED, AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR TIIE NORWOOD LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the improvement of Norwood Lane __between Shoreline Dive (County Road 15) and the Bartlett Blvd. and the contract (bid) price for such improvement is $ 56.327.75 , and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of suc~ improvement amount to $16.972.25 so that the total cost of the improvement will be $ 73,:1~.00. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: The portion of the cost of such improvement to be paid by the city is hereby declared to be $ 12.300.00 and the portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $ 61,000.00 Assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 10 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 2000 , and shall bear interest at the rate of 8% percent per annum from the date of the adoption of the assessment resolution.' The city clerk, with the assistance of the city consulting engineer, shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and he shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in her office for public inspection. 4. The clerk shall upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the council thereof. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember ,and seconded by The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Councilmember Hanus was absent and excused. Mayor Attest: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 99- C~$g~J~"~X~ RESOLUTION SETTING THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF NORWOOD LANE WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the City Council on March 9., 1999_, the City Clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost of improving Norwood Lane between Shoreline Drive (County Road 15) and Bartlette Blvd.; and WHEREAS, the clerk has notified the council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in her office for public inspection, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: A hearing shall be held on the 13th day of April. 1999. in the City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 P.M. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. o The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and she shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. She shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment r°ll not less than two weeks prior to the hearings. ge The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of the assessment. He may at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15, 1999 or interest will be charged through December 31, 2000. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember ,and seconded by The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Councilmember Hanus was absent and excused. Mayor Attest: City Clerk · [] Engineering I · Planning I ! · Surveying March 2, 1999 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound Preliminary Assessment Roll Norwood Lane MFRA #8614 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Enclosed is a preliminary assessment roll prepared using the low bid of $56,327.75 received on Thursday, February 25, 1999. We have included the assessment section of the Preliminary Engineering Report prepared in July of 1998 with the proposed assessment numbers adjusted to reflect the actual bid prices. This attachment will show that the property proposed for development will be assessed 51% of the cost of the project after deducting the City share. The remaining 49% is proposed to be assessed on a per lot basis which calculates out to be $4,270 per lot. This is $190 more than was projected in the original report. We believe the proposed assessment to be fair and equable and recommend adoption as presented. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron, City Engineer JC:aam eSmain:\8614:\assess3 -2 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth. Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra, com I I ASSESSMENTS It has been the City's policy to assess most of the cost of any street improvement to the benefiting properties. When the large reconstruction projects were done in the late 70's and early 80's, the City contributed 1 mil, which calculated out to approximately 1.5 percent of the total cost of the project. In 1976, the City adopted a street improvement assessment policy under Resolution No. 76-77. A copy of this policy is included in this report. The City does not have a policy in-place which covers utility improvements. From what we can determine, there has not been any utility projects assessed since the original sanitary sewer was installed in the 60's. We are suggesting that this project be assessed to the benefiting properties as follows: o The City's share of the project is proposed to be $12,300, which is the additional cost to loop the watermain through to Bartlett Boulevard. Assess the developer of Lots 1 through 6, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit A 51 percent of the total project cost, less the City's share. This amount would be $15,845 for the utilities and $15,265 for the street improvement or a total proposed assessment of $31,110. The remaining amounts would be assessed to the vacant property on the east side, Lots 12 through 17, Block 2, Shirley Hills Unit A and Lot 7, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit A, which is on the west side. If the remaining 49 percent of each of the utility and street costs are assessed on a per lot basis, the charge could be $4,270/per lot. We are suggesting the per lot method to assess these vacant lots, rather then the adopted street assessment policy which uses area, unit and frontage for the following reasons: The storm sewer is already existing; therefore, the square footage charge for storm sewer is not applicable; and The lots are very similar in both size and front footage, thus a per lot assessment would be comparable. The following is a breakdown of how the total project cost was divided and the per lot charge calculated. SUGGESTED UTILITY ASSESSMENT Total Estimated Cost Less City Share Total Amount to be Assessed Amount Assessed to Developer (51%) Amount to be Assessed to Vacant Benefiting Property $ 35,200.00 + $ 4,130.00 * $ 31,070.00 * $ 15,845.00 * $ 15,225.00 * Per Lot Computations $15,225.00 + 7 lots = $2,175.00/lot * SUGGESTED STREET ASSESSMENT Total Estimated Cost Less City Share Total Amount to be Assessed Amount Assessed to Developer (51%) Amount to be Assessed to Vacant Benefiting Property $ 38,100.00 * $ 8,170.00 * $ 29,930.00 * $ 15,265.00 * $ 14,665.00 * Per Lot Computations $14,665.00 + 7 lots = $2,095.00/lot * TOTAL PROPOSED ASSESSMENT * Legal Description PID Utility Street Total Assessment Assessment Assessment Lots 1-6, Block 3 13-117-24 44 0032 $15,845.00 $15,265.00 $31,110.00 Lot 7, Block 3 13-117-24 44 0033 $ 2,175.00 $ 2,095.00 $ 4,270.00 Lot 12, Block 2 13-117-24 44 0026 $ 2,175.00 $ 2,095.00 $ 4,270.00 Lot 13, Block 2 13-117-24 44 0027 $ 2,175.00 $ 2,095.00 $ 4,270.00 Lots 14-17, Block 2 13-117-24 44 0091 $ 8,700.00 $ 8,380.00 $17,080.00 Totals $31,070.00 $29,930.00 $61,000.00 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is the opinion of the Engineer that the proposed project is feasible and can best be accomplished as described herein. + REMAINS UNCHANGED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. * REVISED AS PER BIDS. Two of the platted lots still create a unique situation. Lot 7, Block 3 is combined with Lots 8 and 9 as one tax parcel with an existing home located on it. It appears that Lot 7 could possibly be divided from the other two lots and become a buildable lot, meeting the City's zoning requirement. This being the case, we are proposing to assess this lot for both the street and utility improvements. One option that could be considered would be to defer the utility assessment ($2,175.00) until such time the parcel is divided. The street assessment, $2,095.00, should not be deferred because it is an immediate benefit. Lot 12, Block 2 is also a minor problem because it does not meet the City's minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet in a R-2 zoning district. At the present time it is also a separate tax parcel, but is owned by the same tax payer as owns Lot 13. Including the west half of the vacated alley on the east side of these lots, Lot 12 has 5,635 square feet and Lot 13 has 6,087 square feet. Combined together, they would still be short approximately 278 square feet from 2 - 6,000 square foot building sites. There has been some discussion about deferring all or part of the proposed assessments against the parcels along the east side of the proposed improvements. A suggestion would be to defer only the utility assessment until such time the parcels are subdivided or a building permit is requested. The street assessment could be levied immediately. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION FEBRUARY t 1, 1999 Present were: Commissioners Peter Meyer, Tom Casey, and Christina Cooper, and City Council Representative Leah Weycker. Also present was Park Director Jim Fackler. Absent: Commissioners Bev Botko and Norman Domholt Chair Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 1. MINUTES Motion made by Casey, seconded by Weycker to approve the minutes of the January 14, 1999 Park and Open Space Commission (POSC) meeting, as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 2. AGENDA CHANGES The agenda was approved as submitted with the following amendments: 1. Add 9A, REPORT ON COMMUNITY SKATING RINK 2. Add 9B, OTHER FUNDING SOURCES 3. Move to 9C, the FYI # F "Information for new members Park and Open Space" 3. INTERVIEW APPLICANT FOR PARK AND OPEN SPACE VACANCY Chair Meyer stated that Commissioner Botko has decided to stay on through the interviews for replacement of her chair, so the Commission is not short. Chair Meyer then introduced the two applicants present tonight: Mr. Eccles and Mr. Beise. Meyer explained the interview process, in which the applicants will be interviewed one at a time, the Commissioners will briefly discuss the applicants, and then cast their votes. The recommendation will go to the City Council for their appointment. Mr. John Eccles, 5038 Woodland Road, stated he has lived in Mound for over 40 years and would like to get involved in the actions of the City. Mr. Eccles stated he grew up on Three Points, has seen the changes, and would like to help keep the changes flowing smoothly. Chair Meyer asked Mr. Eccles for his vision for Three Points. Mr.' Eccles gave some ideas for new equipment and stated that he thinks the park needs no major changes. Council Member Weycker asked if Mr. Eccles was involved in the maintenance of the park years ago when his father maintained the park. Mr. Eccles stated he was not, he was too young at the time, but some of his fondest memories growing up in Mound take place in Three Points Park, including some of the fundraisers held there in past years. Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission February 11, 1999 Commissioner Casey pointed out the shortage of funds and asked Mr. Eccles if he had any ideas on raising funding for parks. Mr. Eccles suggested events such as a pancake breakfast, fish fry, raffles, things he recalls from years past. Commissioner Domholt asked if Mr. Eccles had ever tried to join the Park Commission in the past. Mr. Eccles stated he had not. Commissioner Cooper asked for Mr. Eccles' vision for walkways, green space, and park- related issues in the downtown redevelopment. Mr. Eccles stated he does not have any ideas at this time. Mr. Beise stated he wants to get involved in the City of Mound, and wants to be part of the changes, rather than being an observer. He is currently a Realtor in Mound, has lived in Mound all his life, and intends to stay. Mr. Beise stated he is a member of the Association of Realtors, the Westonka Chamber of Commerce, the Lions, and the Gun Club. Commissioner Casey asked Mr. Beise what his vision is for Mound. Mr. Beise stated he would like to bring more awareness regarding the number of parks in Mound and promote use of the parks by citizens. Council Member Weycker asked which park Mr. Beise considered his"neighborhood park." Mr. Beise replied "Mound Bay Park." Mr. Beise stated he is familiar with many parks in Mound, but not all of them. Commissioner Casey asked Mr. Beise for any ideas on funding for parks. Mr. Beise mentioned the Lions and their pull-tab money. Mr. Eccles then re-joined the meeting. It was indicated that the vote will be held at the end of the meeting and given to the City Council for their February 22, 1999 meeting. The new Commissioner will then be included in the March meeting. 4. DISCUSS: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN City Planner Loren Gordon was not in attendance but Chair Meyer was assured that he would be in attendance for the March meeting. Chair Meyer briefly explained to the public the goal of revising the Comprehensive Plan and asked for any public input. Commissioner Casey stated that according to Mr. Gordon's letter, the standards that are used by communities are not incorporated into the City's old Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gordon also states in his letter that the Metropolitan Council does not publish standards for parks, but there is a mention in the 1990 Comprehensive Plan that the Metropolitan 2 CITY OF MOUND DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1999 Present were: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners Frank Ahrens, Orvin Burma, Mark Goldberg, and Greg Eurich, and Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present were Park Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey and Secretary Kristine Kitzman. Absent: Commissioner Orvin Burma Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. 1. MINUTES Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Goldberg, to approve the minutes of the January 21, 1999 DCAC meeting as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 2. AGENDA CHANGES Agenda approved as presented. REVIEW: PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT Applicant: William Dahlen Location: 4555 Island View Drive Fackler reported on the application submitted by Mr. William Dahlen to remove/trim trees and Dock Site #41050, Devon Commons. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The Contractor must be licensed in the City to do the trimming and removal as required by the City Code Section 488:00. The work shall be supervised and coordinated by the Parks Director and the contractor shall give the Parks Director 24 hours notice in advance of scheduling or performing the work. In the event that compliance with the resolution has not been achieved within one year of the date of the resolution and the applicants associated to Dock License will not be issued or will be revoked until compliance has been achieved. Ahrens questioned condition number three, Fackler stated that this is a standard addition to all public lands permits issued. Ahrens then stated he does not agree with "holding a person's dock hostage" to an unrelated issue. Hanus asked if this condition serves any purpose in this case, as the project has to be supervised by the Parks Director anyway. Goldberg agreed that in this instance, the condition is not needed. Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission February 18, 1999 Funk pointed out that the Commission should, however, be consistent in their approach to granting permits. Fackler stated that this condition usually helps make sure people comply. In this case, it may help to make sure the applicant makes sure the project is supervised by the Parks Director, rather than going ahead and doing it on his own. Goldberg suggested applying this condition when needed, and dropping it when it is not necessary. Hanus stated that the Ordinance must be followed, and if this condition appeared in the Ordinance then it must be included. He noted that some time was spent looking into the Ordinance, but more research will have to be done to conclude if this condition is mandatory. Ahrens stated that in the past, rather than holding back the dock permit, anyone who altered public land without a permit was prosecuted, as this is a misdemeanor. Eurich stressed that the Commission must be consistent by adding the condition to all, or dropping it from all permits. Goldberg stated that it sounds very heavy-handed and he does not believe the Commission should take that position. However, he would like the Commission to retain the right to include the condition when needed since it gives leverage for compliance. However, he would like to see some less harsh penalties used first, working up to losing the dock license. Hanus questioned whether it may be illegal to withhold the dock license anyway. Goldberg asked if this leverage was needed and what other means of ensuring compliance are available. Fackler stated that this is the only statement that has been used to ensure compliance. Chair Funk directed Staff to clarify the Ordinance with respect to this and other penalties that exist. Hanus questioned whether the City should share some of the cost if the health of the trees is the reason for some of the trimming, as stated in the application. Fackler replied that the City only handles the cost when the tree is a hazard. Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Eurich, to approve the Public Lands Permit for Mr. William Dahlen, 4555 Island View Drive, to remove/trim trees, with Staff recommendations #1 and #2 as indicated above. Motion carried unanimously. 2 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: February 2, 1999 MEETING DATES: February 18,1999 Dock and Commons Commission (D&C) March 9,1999 City Council TO: FROM: Dock and Commons Commission, City Council, and Applicant Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ APPLICANT: William Dahlen 4555 Island View Drive LOCATION' DOCK SITE #41050, DEVON COMMONS SUBJECT: PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION TO REMOVE/TRIM TREES Background and Comments The applicant, William G. Dahlen, is seeking approval as described in the attached application in order to remove an elm tree (that is growing close to and under the large oak), and also to trim the existing large oak and maple tree. Also submitted with the application is the tree pruning standards from the contractor and photos of the trees. This area of Devon Commons is a relatively open, sloping, grassy area, with an assortment of trees. 1) Maple Tree Trimming: The applicant states the maple tree is to be trimmed, apparently this is to improve the view to the lake. COMMENT: The commission may view limited trimming of the maple tree as reasonable as long as the health of the tree is maintained. Improving the view to the lake is permitted by the Shoreland Management Ordinance (SMO) Section 350:1225. Subd.4.A. 2. B. (1), that is attached for your reference. Your Commons Classification and its impacts should be reviewed and discussed however I am not aware of any conflicts. 2) Oak Tree Trimming: The applicant is proposing to trim the Oak tree and states that the trimming is required as a result of the Storm Damage last summer. printed on recycled paper 4555 Island View Dr - Commons Page 2 COMMENT: The Oak tree was trimmed by the City after the storm, however, it appears that additional trimming could be done. 3) Removal of Elm trees: COMMENT: The applicant is seeking the removal of two small elm trees and if the commission may find this does not appear to be in conflict with the SMO. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Dock &Commons Commission recommend approval of the tree removal as proposed with the following conditions: 1) The Contractor must be licensed in the City to do the trimming and removal as required by the City Code Section 488:00. 2) The work shall be supervised and coordinated by the Parks Director and the contractor shall give the Parks Director 24 hours notice in advance of scheduling or performing the work. 3) In the event that Compliance with the resolution has not been achieved within one year of the date of the resolution the applicants associated Dock License will not be issued or will be revoked until compliance has been achieved. JS:kl Subd. 4. Shoreland Alterations. Alterations of vegetation and topography will be regulated to prevent erosion into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. A. Vegetation Alterations. Removal of vegetation necessary for the construction of structures and the construction of roads and parking areas regulated by Section 350:1225, Subd. 5 of this ordinance is exempt from the vegetation alteration standards that follow. Removal or alteration of vegetation, except for agricultural and forest management uses as regulated in Sections 350:1225, Subd. 7 B. and C., is allowed subject to the following standards: ao Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is prohibited. Intensive vegetation clearing for forest land conversion to another use outside of these areas is allowable as a conditional use if an erosion control and sedimentation plan is developed and approved by the soil and water conservation district in which the property is located. bo In shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes on private property, limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water-oriented accessory structures or facilities, provided that: (1) The screening of structures, vehicles, or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced. (2) The above provisions are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or branches that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards. Rev. 4/97 PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road. Mound, MN Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 55364 .&7_CDISTRIBUTION: BUILDING OFFICIAL PARKS DIRECTOR DNR i-=q~o.,-cF~MCWD [_~-C~PUBLIC WORKS DATE P CEIVED I-Oq -qq DOCK UEETING DATE CITY COUNCIL DATE (~ one): CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code Section 320, Subd. I). PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE - to allow an existing encroachment to remain in an "as is" condition (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). ,' _.~ LAND ALTERATION change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, fill, etc. (City Code Section 320, Subd. 4). The structure or work you are requesting is an activity on publicly owned lands. Structures like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc. are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the City to bring all these uses into conformance which means that those structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. All permits are granted for a limited time and are non-transferable. Stairway construction must meet the State Building Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new Address Phone (home) &/~- --q9~--- ~7(~0 (work) permit is applied for due to change in dock site holder. Applicant Abutting Address 4.~"-~-~'--- ~5~JA ~,}/~(,AJ ~__ Legal Lot ~ Block Description S ubd. , b ~V (~ ~ ~06~ ~%~ Public Name [~'~ ~ Property Dock Si[e ~ ~ ~~ Shoreline T~e Con trastor Name ~~'~ ~ [ Q~ ~ ~~ VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (~NCLUmNG L~OR & MATBmALS): ~ D SCmB QU ST PU OS : S Iq_ December 21, 1998 OS TVI6 TREE, INC. SINCE 1933 A Tradition of Excellence Bill Dahlen 4555 Islandview Dr. Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Darien: Below is a bid for tree work on your property for the winter of 1998/99. 1. Prune Maple near powerlines $ 225.00 Prune Maple near comer of house. Prune Oak on lakeside. Prune Elm under Oak. Prune Maple on lakeside. Remove small Elm on lakeside. Grind stump on lakeside. Total, please add sales tax. 225.00 240.00~' 45.0o 2~o.oo~ ~o.oo $1150.00 Our price for spraying your evergreens, doesn't come out until February 15, 1999. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact our office at 473-0534. Thank you, Troy Roberts Vice President TR/kr Suite 200 · 1421 E. Wayzata Blvd. ° Wayzata, MN 55391 Business: 473-0534 Residence: 479-3711 Fax: 4794018 A Family Owned Business For Three Generations PRUNING STANDARDS With the American National Standard for pruning. ANSI A300, specifications can be written in a virtual infinite number of combinations. The following information is designed to help you understand exactly what will be accomplished in a pruning operation. Branch Size A minimum or maximum diameter size of branches to be removed should be specified in all pruning operations. This establishes how much pruning is to be done. Pruning Objectives Pruning objectives should be established prior to beginning any pruning operation. A300 ..~ providc< two basic objectives. ~-azard Reduction Prunin.¢l'"~ I lazara reauction pruning (HRP) is recommended when the primary objective is to reduce the danger to a specific target caused by visibly defined hazards in a tree. For example, HRP may be the primary objective if a tree had many dead limbs over a park bench. ~"~intenance Pruning ~ Malnte~,afl~u p~ u,ing (MP) is recommended when the primary objective is to maintain or improve tree health and structure, and includes hazard reduction pruning. An example here might be to perform a MP operation on a front yard tree. Pruning Types Hazard reduction pruning and maintenance pruning should consist of one or more of the pruning types noted below. Crown cleaning .... Crown cleaning shall consist of the selective removal of one or more of the following items: dead, dying, or diseased branches, weak branches and watersprouts. Crown thinning .... Crown thinning shall consist of the selective removal of branches to increase light penetration, air movement, and reduce weight. Crown raising .... Crown raising shall consist of the removal of the lower branches of a tree to provide clearance. Crown Reduction, or Crown Shaping .... Crown Reduction decreases the height and/or spread of a tree. Consideration should be given to the ability of a species to sustain this type of pruning. Vista Pruning .... Vista Pruning is selective thinning of framework limbs or specific areas of the crown to allow a view of an object from a predetermined point. Crown Restoration .... Crown Restoration pruning should improve the structure, form and appearance of trees which have been severely headed, vandalized, or storm damaged. - over - Engineering · Planning · Surveying Associates, Inc. RECEIVED , .-~j'\ March 2, 1999 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound Auditors Road SAP 145-108-03 MFRA #9968 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Enclosed is a tabulation of the bids received on Thursday, February 25, 199 for the construction of the first phase of Auditors Road. There were 8 bids submitted. The low bid of $222,349.00 submitted by Kusske Construction Company, Inc., of Chaska is slightly higher then the Engineers estimate of $219,865.00 This project was bid last fall when only 3 bids were submitted with a low bid of $272,316.00. The bids were rejected and re-bid at a more favorable time of the year with the hope we could get better prices. As you will note, the present low bid is $50,000.00 below last falls bid. We have discussed the proposed project with Kusske Construction and investigated their work history with other municipalities. They are primarily a utility contractor and have successfully completed a number of projects in the southwest metro area. They will be doing the grading and utility work themselves and sub-contracting the remainder of the project. They have not as of yet determined who their street sub-contractor will be. Kusske Construction appears to be a reliable contractor and should be capable of performing the work; therefore we are recommending that they be awarded a contract in the amount of $222,349.00. 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra.com Honorable Mayor and Council Members March 2, 1999 Page 2 If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron, City Engineer JC:aam eSmain:LO9685kusske3-2 on~ Z oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo U.I Z Z On'~ ZZ LUZ >~ z<~ :o Z z ~ ........... = · .~ . .~5 . . .= . . .~ . . .~ Z Z z zz LUZ on'~ OF-[._ Z~ ~ O~ Z iiiiiii;iiiiiiiii ;i::::::::::: i ~~i.~ . .. .... ~ '~~~~ · IUD) ::D U.I ZZ U.IZ on,:~ ZZ I.UZ >~ .=.~ (D E · = .=~ o_~ ~tlJ zz uJz FEB 26 '99 12:35 FR UITAL LINKS RWRDS CTR612 844 4066 TO 94720620 SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION QUASI PUBLTC FUNCTION- PORTABLE SIGN City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: a,72-0600 FAX: 472-0620 Portable signs used for the purpose of directing the public used in conjunction with a governmental unit or quasi-public functions. The period of use shall not exceed ten (10) consecul:ive days and requires approval of the City Council. Signs shall be placed on the premises of the advertised event, and/or on such other premises as approved by the City Council when granting the permit. A permit is required, however is exempt from all fees. (If mom th,~n o.=, p|ea~e llst on sepam2 sh~ct of papc~) , ,,¢<4,,' 5 5~¢Y NUHB~R OF SIGNS: TYPE OF SIGN: SI~E OF SIGN= DATES OF USE= __.banner ___wall mount .~'~free standing temporary =~ permanent ~o ,_t_//£/PP.. /_ ~ ~ -,,'..~ 4 <~ ~ ~ '~Q. Z ' ,r/~ Z~9- ~ DESCRIBE SIGN (message, materials, is i= illuminated, etc. ~% ..... .~. t[ ~ 5J+b.~I ~:~-~/s ~ ~. 0),'~ (~ Applicant' s Signature 1/1/1//////1//////////////////////////H////////////////////////////////////// APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON: BILLS March 9, 1999 Batch 9021 97,114.40 Batch 9022 137,747.07 TOT.~L BILLS $ 234,861.47 U o ~ ! ! o oo 0 ~0 ZZ _J z z 0 0 Z 0 oo~o ~oo ooooo o Z ~J m,, Z X ~J C3Z oo oo oo ~ ~ ~o~ oo~ ,,. g°o oo g © Z o o 0 LIJ-3 0 0 3:: ~"U Z U ~ Z 0 Z ~U Z I b ~ oooo ooooo~o~ ~ uJ Z o o ° ,.g ° I Z~ ~J Z Z 0 0 oo gg g g 0 0 0 _J z o c> ~: :,, ,,,, , t ':5' ' ' ~ ooo.~o o~o o o oo~oo o o ~ Z o ~0 ,,-,¢ o I.~ r~,0 t.9 I ZZ 0 0 ! ~ ~ ~ ~ og gg g oo g ,,o~ ~ oooo oogg g gg g go oo g gg = ............. 44g .......... g4 ........ I 'f ' I':'] .... F--I ~ Z I o o ooo .... g o 0000000 ZZZZZ~Z uJ ~-._j '-1- -~ ~ ..... o ggoogggg g ,,~ gg .... o g ~. · gg ..... 2;~ ............... Z 0 ! LiJZ I.UZ tlJZ LiJ t¥'UJ I:Z: 133 "~ 113--3 Z U~ Z ~ t ~ Z UU UU ggg g o o g g g oo°°o~o oo ~Z i ! oo U Z 0 z Z I / I Z D 0 Z 0 ht o 0 Z O, z rY Z OU ~._J Z 0 Z la-'"'} o ,g g ,.g ,.g o o g ,~° ,.g ,g ", ~:, 9' T ?TT ~ T T T 9' ? ~ ~ ~ <~z ~ < ~ ~ = ................. g ............. 22 '' tL. W". ~ 0 ,0 fl::: q*' O' 0 LU 0', .,'fl 0 _J I Z c~ z 0 ~ U u Z ~ Ou ~,-" ..,I O..J 0,,_1 "r- n,.On,,,' on.' U oo Il-Il March 9, 1999 RESOLUTION g99- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR 1999 HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF SUBRECI]PIENT AGREEMIENTS WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY THIRD PARTY AGREEME~ WHEREAS, the City of Mound, Minnesota, through execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County is cooperating in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound, Minnesota, developed a proposal for the use of Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds made available to it, and held a public hearing on Tuesday, March 9, 1999, to obtain the views of citizens on local and Urban Hennepin County housing and community development needs and priorities of the City's proposed use of $64,646 from the 1998 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Grant. BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Mound, Minnesota approves the following projects for funding from the Urban Hennepin County Development Block Grant Program and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County for review and inclusion in the 1999 Urban Hennepin County Community Block Grant Program. PROJECT BUDGET Westonka Senior Center Operations Westonka Community Action Network (WECAN) Sojourner Community Action for Suburban Hennepin (CASH) Rehabilitation of private property $ 7,757 $ 2,715 $ 1,681 $ 776 $51,717 TOTAL $64,646 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and its City Manager to execute the Subrecipient Agreement and any required Third Party Agreements on behalf of the City to implement the 1999 CDBG Program. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM March 5, 1999 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: 1999 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM The City of Mound has been notified by Hennepin County that it will receive $64,646 in CDBG funding for 1999. Upon notice by Hennepin County, I notified the existing participants and indicated to them that their requests should be submitted. Public Service delivery programs (all of the programs typically funded by the City's CDBG program with the exception of the rehabilitation program) are subject to a 20% cap of the total allocation. This is the same role that has applied for the past several years on public service funding. The requests for funding for 1999 came above the 20% regulation and I have reviewed the previous year's allocation and have divided up the funds as follows: Westonka Senior Center Operations $7,757 Westonka Community Action Network 2,715 (WECAN) Sojourner 1,681 Community Action for Suburban 776 Hennepin (CASH) Rehabilitation of Private Property 51,717 TOTAL $64,646 Attached you will find information from each of the organizations regarding their requests. I am sure there will be representatives from these organizations attending the Council meeting Tuesday evening and will speak during the public hearing on this subject. Also enclosed is a resolution ~ prmted on recycled paper Memorandum to Mayor and City Council March 5, 1999 Page 2 approving the projected use of funds as I have recommended above. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 1999 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (CDBG) Notice is hereby given that the City of Mound, in cooperation with Hennepin County, pursuant to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, is holding a public hearing on Tuesday, March 9, 1999, at 7:30 p.m., in the Mound City Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN. The public hearing is on the housing and community development needs and priorities of the City and Urban Hennepin County and the city's proposed use of the 1999 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program proposed planning allocation of $64,646. In addition, during the July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 program year, it is estimated that no additional program income from locally funded CDBG activities will be available to the City. The City of Mound is proposing to undertake the following activities with 1999 Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds starting on or about July 1, 1999. ACTIVITY BUDGET Westonka Senior Center Operations Westonka Community Action Network (WeCan) Sojourner Community Action for Suburban Hennepin (CASH) Rehabilitation of Private Property $ 7,757 2,715 1,681 776 51,717 TOTAL $64,646 For additional information on the priorities, proposed activities, level of funding and program performance, contact the City of Mound at 472-0600 or the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development at 541-7080. The public hearing is being held pursuant to MS 471.59. Fran Clark, CMC City Clerk (Published in The Laker February 27, 1999). HOME Of THE WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZENS, INC. · 5600 1YNWOOD BOULEVARD · MOUND, MINNESOTA S5364 (612) 491-6084 WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER 1998 SERVICE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS Access Transportation Information/Referral Nutritional Meals Health Services 5. Volunteers/Leadership 6. Education 7. Recreational 8. Other Services 9. Senior Outreach 14, 356 one-way rides for shopping, medical, social, recreation, Sunday church service, visits to nursing homes, senior day care, etc (517 unduplicated residents) 11,000 requests handled by staff and volunteers 13,934 meals served (486 unduplicated seniors) 249 programs (health screenings, exercise, health and wellness programs, support groups, etc. 210 volunteers provided 21,227 hours of service 122 programs (speakers, crai~ classes, defensive driving, health etc. 120 events (fundraisers, parties, trips, other social events) Senior Tax Counselors (80 individuals served) and Health Counseling (487 seniors served through education and direct assistance with forms) Provided case management, counseling to over 100 individual seniors and their families in community During the 1998 year our Center touched the lives of 1,668 unduplicated seniors and their families. A Non-profit Organization Serving The Communities Of Mound · Orono · Spring Park · Minnetrista RECEiVE SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 10709 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 111, Minnetonka, MN 55305 Phone 541-101g BOARD of DIRECTORS January 28, 1999 Fax541-0841 Dwight Johnson President Laurie Lafontaine 1st vice President Dr. C. (Ike) Niaka 2nd Vice President Mayor Pat Meisel and Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Francis Hagen Treasurer Dear Mayor Meisel and Council Members: Mary Henning Secretary Kevin Krueger Past President Peter Coyle Member-at-Large Aiko Higuchi Member-at-Large Bob Bean Tim Bergstedt John Boeder ?earty Guritz Ioria Johnson ggy Kelly Kathleen Miller Senator Gen Olson Curtis Pearson Nell Peterson Mary Tambornino Leonard J. Thiel Tom Ticen Benjamin F. Withhart Executive Director & C.E.O. PROGRAMS · Community Senior Groups & Multi-purpose Senior Centers · H.O.M.E. · Senior Outreach Senior Community Services is requesting that the City of Mound allocate $12,929 for the 1999 - 2000 fiscal year from it's share of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Year XXV funds to support Westonka senior programs and services. This is 20% of the City's 1999 CDBG allocation and the maximum allowed for Mound to fund public services. A few years ago, because of limits placed on CDBG funding of public services, the City of Mound greatly reduced it's annual CDBG support of local senior services from over $24,000 to under $9,000. Today there are major changes on the immediate horizen for the Center and demands on our Senior Outreach workers is higher than ever with more seniors staying in their homes longer and needing more services to do so. CDBG support from other cities is limited to what can be obtained through the consolidated pool so it is critical that we ask Mound to increase it's support at this time. If there are any questions, or you would like to have our staff discuss any of our services, please let me know. On behalf of the many elderly who benefit, thank you for your support of the programs. We look forward to the continuing cooperation between the City of Mound and Senior Community Services. Sincer~ely, ~ Benjamin F. Withhart Executive Director cc: Ed Shukle Jr., City Manager 11999 Westonka Community Action Network ,,I0'~ ~] niver~ary~ · Emergency Assistance · Meals on Wheels · Human Services · Job Development & Placement 5600 Lynwood Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 (612) 472-0742 (612) 472-5589 (FAX) SERVICE AREA Greenfield Mound Independence Rockford Loretto St. Bonifacius Maple Plain Spdng Park Minnetonka Beach Tonka Bay Minnstrista Western 0reno OFFICERS Craig Andamon President St. Boni-Minnet#stre Police Chief Dorothy McQueen Vice President Community Volunteer Sandy Simlr ~ecmtary Head Start Manager Marvin Johnaon '[Muurer Mayor of Independence BOARD OF DIRECTORS Larry l)mctor of West Rear, pin Public Saf~y Miry DeVInney Westonka Foodshelf Coordinator Ro~,emarle Fabmga-Snyder Community Volunteer Lan Harmll Mound Polic~ Chief Irma KJfilghizal Community Volunteer Paula Lamon Business Owner I. arson P#nting Sharon McM®namy-Cook Norwest Bank Vice President Su~an Mwem Community Volunteer M,,rly~ Nallon Personal Banker Mound Mar~ueffe Sandy OIItad Parish Nurse Charlel Pugh Community Volunteer Ken Rlbe Pastor of First Presbytenan Church B~b Tomalka Commootly Volunteer Mahdi W~tt We~on~a Cham~,r-Adm. Asst, Mark Winter Crow River Bank Vice President ADMINISTRATION Klkl Sonnen Executive Oirector Koko Chltko Family ~vocate Audrey Ogland Adm/nislrative Assistant Meals on Wheels Coordinator Shlrt~y 'l~llbMg Career Counselor/Job De.loper January 28,1999 Mayor and Councilmembers of Mound 5341 Maywood Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, We write to you to request that the City of Mound renew your allocation to WeCAN from Community Development Block Grant funds again this year. We thank you for your support of $2,821 from 1998 CDBG funds. This year we are requesting $3,000. WeCAN is a community-based human service organization, dedicated to helping people achieve greater self-sufficiency and family stability. WeCAN provides a range of services to Iow-income residents in western Hennepin County. In 1998 WeCAN served 780 households, 352 of who are Mound families. WeCAN services include Emergency Services, Meals on Wheels, Job Placement, Food and Nutrition Education, Family Support Services, Public Assistance Intake services, and Family and Individual Mental Health Counseling. Other local cities, private individuals, businesses, churches and service organizations continue to support WeCAN very generously. For example, the other 11 cities in the WeCAN service area provided $10,000 in CDBG funds from the Hennepin County Consolidated Pool Community Fund in our last fiscal year. Contributions from the private sector last year totaled $51,300, with WeCAN fundraiser events raising an additional $8,500. We are looking forward to being at your upcoming public hearing to discuss our request in greater detail and to provide additional information about WeCAN services to Mound families. If you have any questions or concerns at any time, please feel free to call me at 472-0742. Sincerely, Kiki Sonnen WeCAN Executive Director Cc: Ed Shukle, City Manager Community A, ctio n== for Suburban Hennepin RECEtVE .' L 9 g99 Community Education Community Services Emergency Assistance Homeless Family Support Homelessness Prevention Volunteer Services Energy Assistance Tenant Hotline Tenant Organizing Home Buyer Education Homeowner Counseling Home Rehab Counseling 33-10th Avenue S. Suite 150 Hopkins, MN 55343 Business (612)933-9639 Tenant Hotline 933-0017 Energy Assist. 930-3541 Fax 933-8016 TDD 935-4011 Januaw 27,1999 Mr. Ed Shukle City of Mound 5341Maywood Rd Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle · This letter is to request funding in the amount of $1,000.00 from the city's Community Development Block Grant program. The funding will be used to support homeownership programs and tenant information and education services. I am enclosing data showing use by residents of Mound. As you can see, we are serving many Iow-and-moderate income people in your community. We appreciate your willingness to consider our request for support. If you have questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at 612-933-9639, extension 203. Very[truly yours,/1 Sharon A. Johnson Executive Director Enclosures Investing In People, Building Community Community Action for Suburban Hennepin Homeownership Programs Annual Report January 1, 1998 - December 31, 1998 Community Action for Suburban Hennepin, known as CASH, is a non-profit agency serving low-and-moderate income people in suburban Hennepin County through direct services, crisis intervention, community education and institutional change. CASH is recognized as an expert in the area of housing issues. In 1998, 791 households utilized homeownship services. Pre-Purchase Home Buyer Education and Counseling An eight hour workshop is offered monthly providing information on each step of the home buying process. The curriculum meets or exceeds FHA, MHFA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac guidelines. Individual homebuyer counseling is also available to help homebuyers in developing an action plan to overcome barriers to homeownership. 3 Mound households have participated in Home Buyer Education and Counseling. Home Maintenance, Repair and Rehab Programs Technical assistance is provided to homeowners in identifying needed repairs, writing specifications, finding qualified contractors, evaluating bids, and working with contractors through job completion. Information is also provided on loan and grant programs that will finance the cost of home repairs and rehab. In addition, workshops covering such topics as weatherization, small plumbing repairs, and basic home repairs are regularly offered. 13 Mound homeowners have received assistance from the Home Maintenance, Repair and Rehab Programs. Foreclosure Prevention Counseling Technical assistance and emergency loans are available to homeowners facing a distressed financial situation caused by circumstances beyond their control that may lead to the loss of their home. Since 1993, 82 Mound homeowners have requested foreclosure prevention assistance. Foreclosure was averted in approximately 87% of the cases. 67 Mound homes were saved. A total of $11,063 in financial assistance was obtained for Mound homeowners. Homeownership Programs Participant Demographics January 1, 1998- December 31, 1998 Approximately 80% of the homeowners and home buyers served by CASH's Homeownership Programs were low to moderate income households. 14% 32% 6% HOUSEHOLD INCOME 48% · Low - 50% of Median Income · Moderate - 50% - 80% of Median Income OHigh - 80% of Median Income [] Undisclosed There were minor children in 57% of the households served by CASH's Homeownership Programs. 23% 9% TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD 34% · Adults Only 1Single Parent Families [] Families with Children [] Seniors 34% 2 Homeownership Programs Participant Demographics January 1, 1998- December 31, 1998 (Continued) The main reasons for default related to the foreclosure program was reduction in income or unemployment. 140- 12( 100- 80- 60- 40- 20- 0 Main Reason for Default []Unemployrnent or Reduction in Income · Health or Health Care Costs [] Divorce/Separation [] Money Mismanagement · Unexpected Expense [] Not Affordable · Other Community Action HOME Line Information on calls Mound Number of calls by year I 4-2 3r7 0 19192 19194 19196 19198 1993 1995 1997 Mound Callers' Incomes 1/1/92-12/31/98 Low 70.8% ~ Moderate 25.4% '~'~'%"':~ [] Higher 3.8% for Suburban Hennepin's Renters' "Hotline" Mound during the years 1/1/92-12/31/98 Over the past seven years, a total of 270 Mound (unduplicated) renters have contacted HOME Line. This represents service to approximately 675 residents when all family members are counted. Through the help of HOME Line, Mound tenants have received $250.00 back from improperly withheld security deposits and $800.00 in rent abatements (refunds for substandard conditions.) A vast majority (over 95%) of Mound callers to HOME Line are Iow and moderate income. These income categories are those used by the U.S. Department of HUD: Low = incomes below 50% of the Metro median income; Moderate = incomes between 50 and 80% of the Metro median; Higher = incomes above 80% of the Metro median. Community Renters Education Program HOME Line's Community Renters Education Program provides education to high school students, (primarily seniors) presentations to tenants/staff of area agencies, information booths at community events and trainings to volunteers/staff from agencies and managers/property owners. High School Presentations Number of students (Number of presentations) 6 1) 2) 8) 6) 1) 3) (1) (7) (8) (1) (2) (2) (3) (1) (1) (4) I 9.97 85 (3 28 (1 55 (3 67 (3 246 (8 210 (7 23(1 83 (4) 0 5(1) 111 (5) 0 2O (1) 3O (1) 0 0 141 (5) 0 46 (2) 0 0 55 (2) 6O (2) 50(2) 1,199 (51) 1998 30 (1) The high school 0 presentation 67 (4) covers the rights and responsibilities 40 (3) of r,r~ers. ~e 276 (10) presentatio, can be tailoreri to fit 171 (6) any class size, any 0 class needs, and all class schedules. 144 (6) 0 8(1) 86 (4) 0 30 (1) 0 11 4 (4) 0 42 (2) 43 (2) 31 (1) 0 0 0 167 (6) 0 GRAND TOTAL 1,318 (56) 5324 (226) Name of School I 9 9 3 I 9 9 4 Academy Of Hoty Angels 0 0 Bloomington Jefferson 73 (3) 0 Bloomington Kennedy 90 (3) 0 Brooklyn Center 46 (2) 38 (2) Champlin Park 40 (2) 0 Coon Rapids 0 0 Crystal 0 0 Eden Prairie 46 (2) 48 (2) Edina 38 (2) 0 Excelsior 0 0 Hopkins 156 (6) 26 (2) Mahtomedi 0 0 Minnetonka 0 47 (2) Orono 0 0 Osseo 0 64 (2) OsseooPark Center 35 (3) 0 Richfield 60 (2) 47 (2) Robbinsdale-Armstrong 62 (2) 0 Robbmsdale-Cooper 56 (2) 59 (2) Rockford 0 0 St. Anthony 0 0 St. Louis Park 0 12 (1) Wayzata 24 (1) 38 (2) Westonka _0 _0 TOTAL 726 (30) 379 (17) 1995 199 0 0 0 22 30 (1) 24 44 (2) 0 82 (4) 219 52 (2) 178 0 17 76 (2) 86 0 0 0 10 82 (3) 110 3o (1) o 0 99 0 0 0 10 6O (2 0 58 (2 6O 25 (1 27 56 (2 55 0 8 15 (1 18 1 5 (1 86 0 0 0 663 (24) 1,039 (52) Presentations Association for Rental Management of Brooklyn Center Bloomington Managers and Ow~ers Coalition Business and Professional Women League of St. Louis Park Center for Asians, Minneapolis Community Resource Center, Brooklyn Park Creekside Community Center, Bloomington Crisis Connection. Minneapolis Crystal Managers Coalition Edina Community Center Hennepin County Home School, Bloomington, Crystal, Excelsior, Minnetonka Minnesota Multihousing Annual Convention New Hope, Robbinsdale, Crystal Managers Coalition Perspectives Transitional Housing. St. Louis Park Richf:old Apartment Managers' Association, Richfield Senior Linkage, Robbinsdale Thorson Family Resource Roon-. Crystal Won~ons Resource Network, Minn,::apolis Other Community Crystal Frolics Educational Mall of America, WCCO Booth Bandana Square, St. Paul Richfield Cattail Days St. Louis Park Knollwood Mall "Community Bazaar" St. Louis Park Party in the Park Events Activities Trainings American Indian Housing Corporation, Minneapolis Bill Kelly House, Minneapolis Bristol Place, Minneapolis Community Action Council, Apple Valley Community Case Corporation, Minneapolis Eden Women's Program, Minneapolis Hamline Coalition, St. Paul Heartland Community Action, Wilmar Hope Allianz, Minneapolis Itasca County Tenant Assistance Program, Grand Rapids Kooch-ltasca Action Council, Inc., Grand Rapids Maryland Park Tenants Association, St. Paul Metropolitan Center for Independent Living, Minnetonka Minnesota Multihousing Minnesota Fair Housing Center, Minneapolis NW Community Support Program, Crystal Overcoming Poverty Together, Mankato Person to Person, Minneapolis Perspectives Transitional Housing, St. Louis Park Pillsbury House, Minneapolis Pillsbury Neighborhood Services/Waite House, Minneapolis Property-owners, Bloomington, Minneapolis and Minnetonka Property Managers, Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Edina, Minneapolis, Plymouth, St. Louis Park, and St. Paul Richfield HRA, Richfield Salvation Army, Project Breakthrough, Minneapolis Scott/Carver/Dakota Community Action, Shakopee Simpson Housing, Minneapolis Sojourner Women's Shelter, Hopkins South Eastern MN Housing Network, Rochester South West Minnesota Housing Partnership, Slayton Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services, St. Paul St. Anne's Shelter, Minneapolis St. Paul Public Housing St. Paul Tenants Union St. Stephen's Shelter, Minneapolis Thorson Family Resource Room, Crystal Vail Place, Hopkins Vail Place, Minneapolis YWCA of St. Paul P.O. Box 272 Hopkins, MN 55343 S0-0URNER PR0-EC1 INC. Servin~ Battered Women and Their Children Business Shelter Communit~ Intervention 612-933-7433 612-933-7422 Advocac~ 612-935-7007 Voice/TDD 612-935-1004 February 26, 1999 RECEI\;Ei} :',-., 1 i§99 Ed Shukle City of Mound 5341 Maywood road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle, I apologize for the tardiness of this request. I appreciate this opportunity to present to you information about Sojourner Project Inc, and make a formal request for funds. I am enclosing some statistics about our work in Mound. We are very pleased to have been able to work with the city of Mound and look forward to continuing this relationship. We are requesting Community Block Grant funds for the City of Mound in the amount of $5000. I realize that this is a large increase in funds, but our services to Mound women and children have almost doubled in the past year. In addition, in relation to the amount of women and children that Sojourner advocates serve from the city of Mound, the current amount of funding is disproportionate. Our Intervention Program, for which we are seeking funding, has worked with Mound families in a variety of ways. Our Intervention Program advocates assisted 38 Mound women and their children in 1998, helping them navigate through the criminal justice system and providing them with financial, legal and economic advocacy. OUr program supplied several of these families with financial assistance for rent and damage deposits. In addition, Children's Program advocates worked with moms to assist them in addressing issues with their children. We are working with almost as many Mound families as we are families from Minnetonka, or the remaining 7 expansion cities combined. Each Mound woman and her children receive many hours of Sojourner personalized advocacy and care. Some women only require a few hours of our time, preferring to confront their issues on their own. Many women require much more time than this and our advocates work for months with these families. However, advocates spend an average of approximately 5 hours with every woman. These hours include time advocates spend in court, time they spend on the phone and in person with the Mound woman answering questions, time talking to Mound police and prosecutors about the needs of the particular women and her children and time tracking cases through the Hennepin County computer system. The total cost in 1998 for Mound women and children served was $11,400.00. The calculation for this number follows. Sojourner bills several of our contracted cities at the rate listed below. 38 women and their children X 5 hours a piece -- 190 total Sojourner staff hours 190 hours X $60 per hour = $11,400 United Way Clearly, Sojourner does not expect the City of Mound to pay over $10,000 for our services. But we are asking the city to fund just under half of our Mound related expenses. Residents of Mound benefit from various Sojourner services in addition to the Intervention Program. Sojourner operates a 24-hour crisis line, an emergency shelter and a Community Program. These programs are not funded through the CDBG grant, although they are accessible and utilized by Mound residents every year. Many Mound women do not choose to go to the shelter, although they do utilize the crisis line. Mound women are also utilizing our Community Program, which assists women in obtaining restraining orders and navigating through other civil court proceedings. Our Community advocates have assisted approximately Mound 10 women in obtaining a restraining order. This process involves several hours of advocate time in writing and filing the Order. In addition, it typically takes women 2-3 court hearings, accompanied by an advocate, to obtain a year-long restraining order. In addition, our Community Education Program is available to the City of Mound. The Community Education Program provides domestic violence education to schools, service groups, religious organizations, business and other groups. Battered women and their children from Mound benefit from receiving crisis intervention, individual support and advocacy services provided by Sojourner Project, Inc. When victims of domestic assault feel supported and their need for safety is getting addressed, victims are more willing to participate in prosecution, thus increasing the likelihood that prosecution be more successful. A vigorous criminal justice response can reduce the number of repeat police calls to a residence, which can be a quality of life issue for city residents. The community as a whole benefits from a coordinated response which addresses victim safety, perpetrator accountability and deterrence. It is the purpose of Sojourner's Intervention Project to promote this community response. We anticipated that we would respond to about 50 battered women from the eight expansion cities a year. In 1998, we worked with 38 women from Mound and 41 women from the remaining seven cities. The number of calls we receive from police departments and women have increased and far outnumber our original estimations. We expect, that as Sojourner continues to gain visibility in these communities, the request for our services will increase. Thank you for considering our request for funds. Without financial support from the City of Mound, it would be difficult to serve the women and children of Mound. We hope that you will consider our request for additional funding. I hope that I have explained our need, but if you wish to have further discussion, please call Leah at 253-9461. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions of concerns. Sincerely, Denise Eng Community Programs Manager Executive Director The City of Mound A Grant Proposal from Sojourner Project, Inc. Date proposal submitted: February 26, 1999 Name of Applicant organization: Sojourner Project, Inc. Popular name of Organization: Sojourner Name and title of Chief Executive officer: Tend Taylor, Executive Director Phone number of Chief Executive officer: 253-9460 Name and title of Contact Person: Leah Hebert, Development Associate Phone number of contact person: 253-9461 Date of organization's fiscal year end: December 31 Request Amount: $5,000 Purpose of request: CDBG support for the Sojourner Intervention Project 1999 Budget for Sojourner Project Intervention: $165,246 Federal Tax Identification Number 41-1363580 I-- Z W Z Z LU m > LU > U.I W 0 0 CD 0 0 ¢~ 0 ¢~) 0 0 CD ~'~ 0 0 ~ ~~~ ooo 0o~000~ 0o0 000000000000 00~000~ 000 0~~0~ 000 IL/ 0 0 0 ,,~ ,,~ LM n n n i~l W iJJ n n n ~o UJ z uJ ri UJ .J 0 I-- ci '. { Rem: ~nber their names and act" i:al Report 1997 Remember Their Names and Act For the past twenty years, the staff and board of Sojourner Project has been dedicated to providing the best possible services to battered women and their children. Sojourner Project, Inc. began as Hopkins Project in 1977 when two Hopkins residents documented the need for services to battered women and their children in the Western suburbs of the Twin Cities. Sojourner Shelter began providing emergency safe housing to women and children in 1979. In the following years, the program expanded to include our many components. Together, these programs have offered a myriad of services supporting and assisting women and their families as they seek protection, empowerment and resources to escape domestic violence. The goals of Sojourner Project, Inc. are: To provide intervention, shelter and support services to victims of domestic violence. To defend and advocate for the rights of battered women and their children within established systems and institutions, and to work for changes in these systems and institutions when they deny or ignore the rights of victims of domestic violence. · To educate, intervene and organize the community toward a nonviolent society, particularly nonviolence towards women and children. · To confront the roots of domestic violence through education and action agendas Our Mission Sojourner Project, :[nc. is a community based organization of women and men committed to the abolition of all forms and manifestations of violence against women and children. We believe that violence against women and their children is an expression of domination and control used to oppress women and children, and maintain their inferior status accorded them by society. :[n our efforts to empower women and children, we serve as agents of social change, working toward elimination of all aspects of discrimination and exploitation in our culture. We promote the vision of a nonviolent society which does not oppress people on the basis of sex, race, religion, class, disability, age or sexual preference. Every year, thousands of women and children across the country are murdered due to domestic violence. :[n 1997, 24 women and children were killed in Minnesota by people that they loved and trusted. We remember their names as we advocate for all battered women and their children. We remember that each and every name represents a loss that will forever affect the victims' families, friends and communities. We cannot forget that it takes all of us to make a difference in the lives of battered women and of children living in violent homes. We must not only remember the names of women and children who died in the fight to end domestic violence, but act in their memory. :[t takes each and every one of us to create a world in which domestic violence is not tolerated and safety for families is a priority and a norm. From the Board Chair Dear Friends and Supporters of 5ojourner Project. Inc., In the Fall of 1999, our organization will be marking 20 years of providing services. The agency has grown from the efforts of two Hopkins women in the late seventies, who responded to the needs of battered women in the western suburbs of the Twin Cities. Those far-sighted and determined founders succeeded in opening a shelter in Hopkins in 1979, and our programs have grown in stages since that time. We now include programs offering Community Advocacy and Intervention Services to help women and their families in the community heal from domestic violence. In addition, we offer Community Education to businesses, community groups, schools and faith communities to educate the public about domestic violence. An important part of the opportunity to honor this history of 5ojourner Project is the process of recognition. We recognize and honor our namesake, Sojourner Truth, for it was her work and spirit that really inspired our journey. We recognize the women and children who have had their lives taken from them in the fight against domestic violence. Finally, we recognize the efforts of the many volunteers and contributors who support our work every step of the way. We invite all of you to join the current board and staff, as well os former board members in documenting and honoring our history. We need you to accompany us into 2000, as we work to achieve the mission envisioned by our foremothers. Thank you oil for your generous support in 1997. We hope you will all continue to be a part of 5ojourner Project in the future. Sincerely, Libby Siegel, President Board of Directors Current Board of Directors ~bby Siegel President M~cia McDaniel Vice President Pat Lind Secretary Evelyn Beck Treasurer Jackie Stevenson Gloria Morrow McKenzie Arlene Nystuen Janet Morgan Sarah Silver Gloria Smith Cynthia Booker Mary Lyon Connie Fanning Gackstetter Mary Alice Cross Janel Wonsewicz, 26, beaten and killed by her bo5' fl'iend...Catina Henning, 24, shot and killed by her boyfriend...Jamie 1997 Program Services 175 Women and 132 children stayed at the shelter Average length of stay was 17 days Advocates answered over 6000 crisis calls 52 support groups were held at the shelter 33 Parenting groups were held at the shelter 32 Children's groups were held in the shelter 264 Arrest cases were responded to by our Intervention Project 225 new women were served by our Community pr°grams 91 Support and Information groups were held in the Community 85 Children's groups were held in the Community Advocates wrote 230 Orders For Protection There are 1500 battered women's shelters and 3800 animal shelters in the U.S. (Schneider, 1990) A protection order issued by one U.S. State or Indian Tribe is valid and enforceable in any other U.S. State or Tribe. (Violence Against Women Act of 1994, 18 USC 2265) Sawatsky, 20, shot and killed by her boyfi'iend...Nancy Hart, :34, shot and killed by her ex-husband...Dorothy Sandberg, 61, Sojourner Shelter is an emergency short-term residence for women and their children seeking safety from domestic abuse. The shelter houses a Women's Program, where women receive support, resources and advocacy 24 hours a day. The residence is a protected building with a security system and a trained staff. Individual and group support help women to heal emotionally from the battering they have experienced. In addition, Sojourner Shelter houses a Children's &'ogram, which is designed to provide children with support, safety and information about violence. Children's Advocates provide programming and ac- tivities for children, as well as a parenting program for mothers and children. 22% to 35% of women's visits to emergency rooms are a result of domestic violence. (1998 Women's Consortium) Sojourner Shelter Provides: · Safe housing · 24 hour crisis line support · Supportgroupsformoms and children · Parenting resources, support groups and advocacy · ~dvocacy, information/ referrals The Sojourner Intervention Program provides effective, supportive responses to victims of battering in western Hennepin county who have contact with the criminal justice system. Advocates work with law enforcement and the criminal court system to ensure a community response to domestic violence. Sojourner has strong relationships with the surrounding cities, and works with the police to give immediate services to victims following police intervention. Sojourner Intervention Advocates support the victim tl'troughout the entire court process, acting as a liaison between the victim and court personnel. Sojourner staff act as 'advocates for systems change to ensure an effective response to domestic violence, to increase victim safety and abuser accountability. Sojourner advocates also provide training to criminal justice system personnel and law enforcement regarding domestic violence. Advocates with the Sojourner Community Advocacy Program assist community women not staying in the shelter with a variety of issues including Orders For Protection and other legal advocacy. Women receive referrals for economic, medical, housing and other needs. Advocates also provide informational and support groups for women. The Community Children's/Youth Program provides child advocacy, support groups for children, and increased understanding of safety and other issues. allegedly killed by her ex-husband...Linda Lambert, 30, stabbed to death by her boyfriend...Brenda Lang, 35, shot and killed Sojourner Volunteer Program offers opportunities for individuals to do volunteer work within our agency. Volunteer opportunities include work at the shelter, within the Children's Programs, office support and intervention advocacy. Group volunteer opportunities are also available. The Sojourner Communi~ Education Program is active in the western suburbs and Minneapolis providing professional trainings and presentations around the issues of domestic violence and oppression issues to schools, businesses, religious and civic groups. Women of all backgrounds, cultures and affectional preferences are welcome in all of our programs. Terri Taylor Executive Director Denise Eng Community Programs Coordinator Teresa Lewis Shelter Coordinator Leah Hebert Developm en t Associate Gita Mehrotra Volunteer/Community Outreach Coordinator Mary Pat Rice Children's Program Coordinator Shannon Smith Women's Advocate Debby New Women's Advocate Lisa Williams Women's Advocate Aleane Washington Women's Advocate Rachel Ratner Intervention Advocate Staff Holly Jacobsen Community Advocate Yvonne Nimbar Community Advocate Annette Duescherl Community Children's Advocate/Intervention Advocate Cincere Burns Administrative Assistant Relief Staff Simyou Scott IJarlein Cloutier Dorian Eder Sheri Liggins Katherine Luke Igassandra Johnson Klm Milbrath Judy Nelson Oludol Ogunjemilusi 70% of intimate homicide victims are female. (Bureau of Justice, 1994) by her bo3qriend...Carla Dunn, 28, stabbed and killed by her bo3-friend...Tina Si~nmons, 20, stabbed to death by her ex- 7 '1997 CONTRIBUTORS We appreciate ail of our donors very much. Without your generosity, we would be unable to do the work we do. P/ease accept our sincere apologies if we have mistakenly omitted your name from this list. Let us know and we will correct our records irnrnediate/y. INDIVIDUAL DONORS Jane Abts Beatrice Acton Rebecca Aidoo Mrs. Howard Alton Jr. Karen Anderson Marie Ankeny Evelyn Beck Betty Benjamin Linda Berdahl William Berggren Stephan Blessing Carol Bracke Karen Brady Marney Brooks Lynn Brown Carol Buesgens Dena Calmes Sharon Carisch Joseph Carrol Dagmar Caruson Ervin Cheney Lois Clynes Harriet Conkey .iudith Corson Ken and Betty Dahlberg Julie Daugherty Hugh Edmondson Jr. Sally Egge Lenore Engstrom Karen Erickson Bettie Farace Mary Faulkner Jennifer Fitzsimmons Rita Flugaur Ruth Fuller Yvonne Game Inez Gantz John and Norma Glasgow Dorlyn Goedderz Fances Gonyea Mr. And Mrs. Gutierrez Linda Haigh William and Betty Hardacker Donna Hauer Mary Heilman LaVonne Heinen Lorena Hooyman Arthur Horowitz Tracy Hurley Stephanie Huseby Patricia Isaak Craig Johnson and Susan Lesuer Janet .lohnson Lucilie Johnson Elizabeth Jones James Justus Thomas Keyes Nicki Kratoska Karen Lattery Ellen Lavin Anne Lee Janis Lee The LeJuene Family ]on and Helen Liss Mad Lowe Donald Lucas Arleen Madison Berteil Mahoney Michael Marcogliese Marcia McDaniel Sue Ellen Midness James and Carol Moenke The J.A. Moorhead Jr. Family Marilyn Murray Lowell Naley Donna Ness Deborah Newhall Beverly Nilsson Robert North and Carol Gray Elinor Ogden David Ohman Mary Ortiz Barbara Paterson Lisa Paterson Deanna Perchyshyn Clareen Perkins ' Patricia Peterson Donna Pickard Sally Plank Sally Polk Richard Proctor Patricia Provost Marni Radcliffe Barbara Ratner Alpha Reed boyfriend... Rhonda Overall, 23, shot and killed by her ex-boyfriend... Nirmala Sing:h, 19, shot and killed by her James Rendack Karen Robideau Susan Sano Susan Sanger Martin Segal Nancy Sheibe Shirley Schmit Toni Schwartz .lohn Shimota Libby and Dick Siegel Allie Skoro Ruth Spatz Sharron Steinfeldt Jackie Stevenson Theresa Stewart Carol Stoops Alice Wall Zelda Walder Victoria Walton Virginia Warre Barbara Weingarden Dana Wells .lanet Wells Mary Welsh Lyle and Dorothy Williams Elizabeth Wingate Sue Winship Helen Wynkoop Peter Yackel Marilyn Zwack FOUNDATIONS Fort Snelling Foundation Headwaters Fund Hennepin County Bar Foundation Honeywell Foundation Kopp Family Foundation McKnight Foundation McVay Foundation NSP Foundation Open Your Heart Foundation Rahr Foundation Super Value Foundation Thorpe Foundation Tennant Foundation Wallin Foundation Williams Foundation BUSINESSES/ CORPORATIONS Aloha Studio of Polynesian Dance Bemis Dain Bosworth Film Tech First Bank System Health Partners West MACtac Engineered Products Malt-o-Meal Menasha Corporation Norwest Bank Pentair Piper ]affray Santa House Target Stores Thermotech Upper Midwest Industries COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS/ RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES Aldersgate United Methodist Church All Saints Lutheran Church Calvin Presbyterian Church Family of Christ Lutheran Church First Presbyterian Church Gethsemane Lutheran Church Good Samaritan United Methodist Church ]ewish Women International Minnetonka Lutheran Church Oak Knoll Lutheran Church Peace Presbyterian Church Rotary Club of Hopkins/ Minnetonka Schwartz's Homeroom Class St. Andrew Lutheran Church St. Luke Presbyterian Church Tanglen School PTA United Church of Christ United Methodist Church Welcome Wagon of the Northwest Suburbs Women's Fellowship of Chapel Hills Zion Lutheran Church 40-60% of men who abuse women also abuse children. (American Psych. Association 1996) 8 ex-boyfriend... Linda Boykins, 39, run over and killed by her boyfriend.., lika Mondane, 48, shot and killed by her A special thanks to Jewish Women International for hosting a fundraiser for the Sojourner Shelter Toy Store. The Golf Tournament raised several thousand dollars for the children of Sojourner. The families and staff of Sojourner are very grateful for all the hard work that went into this very successful event. As a re- sult of this fundraiser, Jewish Women International will be buying toys for the toy room and making sure that it is stocked. The Sojourner Toy Store is a successful part of the Sojourner Children's Program. The Store is filled with toys and activities that the children at Sojourner can "buy' with dollars earned by reading or other activities. This kind of dedication to Sojourner and the families that we help is very much appreciated. Without supporters like Jewish Women's International, we couldn't do the work we do. Only about 1/7 of all domestic assaults come to the attention of the police. (florida Governor's Task Force, 1997) · All of the people who have taken the time to volunteer within our programs. Thank you for the many hours on the phone, with the children, and helping women. · All of the h-kind donors. Thank you to all who bring clothing, household supplies, toys for the chidlren and other items to the shelter directly. ex-husband... Deonna Jones, 17, shot and killed by her ex-boyfriend... Theresa Carpenter, 19, shot and 'killed by her Statements of Activities 997 10 Support & Revenue 1997 1996 Grants/Contributions Government Grants General Assistance (Gov~) Interest Income TOTAL SUPPORT AND REVENUE Expenses $140,06S $270,852 $465,0S4 $4,150 $883,184 1997 $129,721 $282,856 $404,240 $4,530 $S21,347 1996 Shelter Community Program Intervention Program Management/General Fund raising TOTAl, EXPENSES $545,713 $102,179 $70,345 $113,934 $48,011 $SS0,191 $554,881 $95,718 $71,538 $120,660 $36,423 $879,220 Change in Net Assets Net Assets at Beginnin~ of Year Net Assets at End of Year $2,993 $437,30S $440,301 ( $57,s73 ) $495,1S1 $437,308 One assault costs taxpayers $22,000. One homicide costs taxpayers $2.4 million. (Minnesota Women's Consortium, 1998) ex-boyfriend... Sharla Konske, shot and killed by' her boyfriend... Jane Rhodes, 35, drm~ned and killed by her husband. SOJOURNER TRUTH Sojourner Truth was born in 1797 as Isabella Baumfree. She was one of 13 children born to enslaved parents, and spoke only Dutch until she was sold from her parents around the age of 11. She was sold several times and suffered cruel treatment, but her mother had endowed her with a deep unwavering Christian faith that carried her through her life. After being mated to another slave by her master, Isabella gave birth to thirteen children, most of whom were taken from her and sold to other slave owners. When slaves were emancipated in 1827, Isabella ran to New York City with her infant son. In 1843, Isabella was inspired by a spiri- tual revelation that would forever change her life. Isabella Baumfree changed her name to Sojourner Truth, saying she had been told to do so by God. Her name means "seeking truth", and that is how she spent the rest of her life. She fought injustice wherever she found it, as an abolitionist, a women's rights activist and a preacher. Armed with a deep voice, a commanding presence, quick wit and unwavering courage, she became a famous orator. She was spat upon, stoned and beaten as she traveled, but her compelling words were moving and influential as she preached against injustice. An excerpt from her most famous speech, delivered in 1851 at the Women's Convention in Akron, Ohio, follows. Ain't I A Woman? That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helped me into carriages, or over mud- puddles, or gives me the best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have plowed and planted and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man-when I could get it- and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have born thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when ! cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman? Sojourner Project, Inc. has the immense honor to be named after this incredible women. It is in her spirit, with the passion and dedication that she possessed, that we too seek the truth. 1997 Annual Report by Leah H~bert Marctt 9, 1999 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #99- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A HARDCOVER VARIANCE AND VACATE A UTILITY EASEMENT IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION TO CONVERT A 1 ~?z STORY DWELLING INTO A 2 STORY AND ADD AN ADDITION WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE, AT 4844 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 1 & 2, BLOCK 5, DEVON PIDS 25-117-24 11 0047 & 25-117-24 11 0046, P & Z CASE g99-03 WHEREAS, the applicant, Jori Ayaz, has made application to vacate a utility easement on l/: of unimproved Drummond Road. This would allow additional hardcover associated with the construction to convert a ! 1/5 story dwelling into a 2 story and add an addition with an attached garage at 4844 Island View Drive, and: WHEREAS, the property is a comer lot that fronts on three streets, Island View Drive, Amhurst Road, and unimproved Drummond Road, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-IA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, 40 feet of lot frontage, a front yard setback of 20 feet, and rear yard setback is 15 feet, and; WHEREAS, the subject property was granted front and rear yard variances with the approved resolution #98-43, and; WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the request and recommended the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the request with the following conditions: Hardcover be limited to 40 percent as stated in Resolution #98-43. Vacate the south i/~ of Drummond Road right-of-way adjacent to Lots 1 and 2, Block 15, Devon, retaining a permanent easement for utility and drainage purposes. Vacate the north 10 feet of the easement as originally described in document #890740. March 9, 1999 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 ~A unvacated Drummond Road. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the following: 2. 3. 4. The vacation request of the south ~A of Drummond Road be denied. Allow up to a total of 3712 square feet of impervious surface. Vacate the north 10 feet of the easement as originally described in document #890740. 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 ~A unvacated Drummond Road. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does herby grant a hard cover variance and utility easement vacation with the following conditions: a. Allow up toa total of 3712 square feet of impervious surface. b. Vacate the north 10 feet of the easement as originally described in document #890740. 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 ~A unvacated Drummond Road. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the structures described in paragraph number one above 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: Converting a 1 IA story to a 2 story dwelling including an addition with an attached garage. This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: PID 25-117-24 11 01~46: LOT 1, BLOCK 15, DEVON, SUBJECT TO ROAD. PID 25-117-24 11 0047: LOT 2, BLOCK 15, DEVON 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. March 9, 1999 The property owner shall have the respomibility 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. March 9, 1999 PROPOSED RESOLUTION b'99- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A HARDCOVER VARIANCE AND VACATE A UTILITY EASEMENT IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION TO CONVERT A 1% STORY DWELLING INTO A 2 STORY AND ADD AN ADDITION WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE, AT 4844 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 1 & 2, BLOCK 5, DEVON PIDS 25-117-24 11 0047 & 25-117-24 11 0046, P & Z CASE//99-03 WHEREAS, the applicant, Jorj Ayaz, has made application to vacate a utility easement on % of unimproved Drummond Road. This would allow additional hardcover associated with the construction to convert a 1 ~,6 story dwelling into a 2 story and add an addition with an attached garage at 4844 Island View Drive, and: WHEREAS, the property is a comer lot that fronts on three streets, Island View Drive, Amhurst Road, and unimproved Drummond Road, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, 40 feet of lot frontage, a front yard setback of 20 feet, and rear yard setback is 15 feet, and; WHEREAS, the subject property was granted front and rear yard variances with the approved resolution//98-43, and; WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the request and recommended the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the request with the following conditions: March 9, 1999 Hardcover be limited to 40 percent as stated in Resolution//9843. Vacate the south % of Drummond Road right-of-way adjacent to Lots 1 and 2, Block 15, Devon, retaining a permanent easement for utility and drainage purposes. Vacate the north 10 feet of the easement as originally described in document #890740. 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 1/2 unvacated Drummond Road. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the following: The vacation request of the south 1/2 of Drummond Road be denied. Allow a total of 3712 square feet on impervious surface. Vacate the north 10 feet of the easement as originally described in document #890740. 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 1/2 unvacated Drummond Road. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does herby grant a hard cover variance and utility easement vacation with the following conditions: a. Hardcover be limited to 40 percent as stated in Resolution//98-43. Vacate the south 1~6 of Drummond Road right-of-way adjacent to Lots 1 and 2, Block 15, Devon, retaining a permanent easement for utility and drainage purposes. Co Vacate the north 10 feet of the easement as originally described in document #890740. 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 ~ unvacated Drummond Road. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of March 9, 1999 Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following improvements: Converting a 1% story to a 2 story dwelling including an addition with an attached garage. This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: PID 25-117-24 11 0046: LOT 1, BLOCK 15, DEVON, SUBJECT TO ROAD. PID 25-117-24 11 0047: LOT 2, BLOCK 15, DEVON 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: PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #99-03: STREET AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO THE DWELLING AT 4844 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, JORJ AYAZ, LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 15, DEVON, PID # 25-117-24 11 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 Ddve. 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. Mound Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1999 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. 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. Mound Planning Commission Minutes Februa~ 8, 1999 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. Suthedand 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. 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 Headng. 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. 3 Mound Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1999 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 Mueiler 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 feet x 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. 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 Mound Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 1999 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. 5 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1667 (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. 40___~.y/_4~.,40'>40 ~ 40'..40/ .... ".'(~-v~ ~.--~ ~1 '~',Io t~ ~ , 12 14 ~ ~ ~_~')1~(64}~1~ ~6~(~Z8) ~e. ~0 40 40 40 40 ~~ 40 40 40 40 40 40 ' d0 40 40-] ,O I~ 40 40 40 40 40 40 ~o (40) ~}(~) ~ 8 (~)(~)(~) ~(~5) (41) 40 - 40J 40,, 40 40 40 40 4~ All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this ~ / K~qost~ing Spcretary Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on February 23, 1999 Published in the Laker, February 27, 1999 printed on recycled paper PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: February 8, 1998 SUBJECT: Street Vacation Request OWNER: Jori Ayaz - 4844 Island View Drive CASE NUMBER: 99-03 I-IKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5c LOCATION: 4844 Island View Drive ZONING: Residential District R-lA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND/COMMENTS: Jori Ayaz property owner at 4844 Island View Drive has submitted a request for the following: 1. Vacate ½ of Drummond Road adjacent to the property. 2. Vacate a utility easement area along the front of the property as contained in Doc. # 779757. Currently Drummond Road is a paper street that has water and sanitary sewer lines within in it. Between Dexter Lane and Amhurst Lane, Drummond runs in the rear of homes located on the block. All homes on the block front on Island View Drive or Hanover Road. As there are no homes that "front" on Drummond or and detached garages that could utilize it as an alley, it does not seem useful to the public for access purposes. The City Engineer's report dated February 1, 1999, details the utility and easement issues on the property. Recommendations from this report are included in the following recommendation. As you will remember, the applicant submitted a request last year for front and side yard variances to remodel the existing residence. The request to vacate that part of Drummond Road is primarily related to the need to comply with the hardcover conditions stipulated in the approved resolution #98-43. The resolution states that hardcover for the property is limited to 40 percent. As proposed, the property would be over the allowable amount by 412 square feet. With the incorporation of ½ of a vacated Drummond Road, the total property area would be 10,000 sq. ft. 123 North Third Street, Suite I00, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #99-03.4yaz Vacation Request January 8, 1999 which would allow for 4,000 sq. ft. of hardcover. The site plan and hardcover calculations submitted with last year's variance request show a total of 3932 sq. ft. of impervious surface. The new survey dated January 26, 1999, is the same as last year's survey, except that the driveway has a notch on the north side and is about 5 feet wider. This new site plan would add approximately 432 sq. ft. of hardcover bringing the total hardcover after incorporation of the vacated street to 4364 sq. ff. An overage of 364 sq. ft. Even with street vacation, the January 26th site plan could not be approved. To move this request along there are a couple of options: 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. 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 Y2. Total allowable hardcover would be 4,480 sq. ft. 3. The third option would be to modify the previously approved resolution to allow the extra driveway hardcover as shown. This would be a hardcover variance of 364 sq. ft. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends 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. 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 No. 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. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 FRA Engineedng · Planning ° Surveying RECEIVED FEB - 2 1999 ~OUND PLANNING & tNSP. MEMORANDUM DATE: February 1,1999 TO: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer SUBJECT: City of Mound Vacation Request-4844Island View Dr. Case No. 99-03 MFRA#12002 As requested, we have reviewed the application for street and easement vacation and have the following comments and recommendations. The application requests vacation of the south one half of Drummond Road adjacent to the applicant's property, Lots 1 and 2, Block 15, Devon. This half of the right-of-way has a sewer service for Lot 19, Block 16, Devon running thought it. There is a City watermain located in the north one half of the ROW. Attached is a copy from the City's record plans, which shows both lines. It does not appear that the Drummond Road right-of-way will ever be needed for street purposes; therefore we see no public interest in retaining this right-of-way for street purposes, but utility and drainage easements must be retained. 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mai/: mfra@mfra.con The application also requests vacation of the easement contained in d0eument No. 779757 which covers the south 20 feet of Lot 2, Block 15, Devon. The existing garage is located within this easement, however in 1986 the north 10 feet was vacated, we assume because of the garage. The south 10 feet was retained as a utility easement because a City watermain runs through this portion of the lot. This 10 foot easement must still be retained; therefore nothing needs to be done with the easements on the south end of Lot 2. Attached is a copy of document No. 779757, the original easement and documents No. 1789599 and No. 1798024 containing Resolution 86-117 vacating the north 10 feet of the 20 foot easement. For some reason, this resolution was recorded twice. Lot one, Block 15, Devon also has a utility easement across the south 20 feet and is recorded as document No. 890740. It was originally dedicated for both the watermain and sanitary sewer main. The addition to the existing house as proposed by the applicant will extend over the city sanitary sewer main and manhole. This short section of sanitary sewer only serves this property; therefore arrangements have been made with Public Works to allow removal of the manhole and a section of the City sewer main when the addition is constructed. With removal of the city sanitary sewer main, the size of the easement can be reduced from 20 feet to 10 feet. Attached is a copy of document No. 890740 There is one last document No. 1466491 which is for a triangular easement at the southeast coruer of Lot 1 for the curb radius. The proposed construction will not affect this easement, thus it can be left in place. Attached is a copy of document No. 1466491. In summary the following is my recommendation regarding the proposed street and easement vacations. The utility issues have been coordinated with Greg Skinner of Public Works and he concurs with these recommendations. 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. 2. Vacate the north 10 feet of the easement as originally described in Document No. 890740. 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. e:Xmain:\misc:\sutherland 1-28 April 28, 1998 RESOLUTION S98-43 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK AND REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCES IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION TO CONVERT A 1 1/2 STORY DWELLING INTO A 2 STORY AND ADD AN ADDITION WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE, AT 4844 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 1 & 2, BLOCK 15, DEVON PIDS 25-117-24 11 0047 & 25-117-24 11 0046, P & Z CASE/198-15 WHEREAS, the applicant, Jorj Ayaz, has applied for a front and rear yard setback variances and a variance to impervious surface in order to allow construction to convert a 1 V2 story dwelling into a 2 story and add an addition with an attached garage at 4844 Island View Drive, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-IA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, 40 feet of lot frontage, a front yard setback of 20 feet, and rear yard setback is 15 feet, and; WHEREAS, the existing dwelling is setback is 10 feet from the front yard facing Island View Drive resulting in a front yard setback variance of 10 feet would be required, and the setback is 15 feet from the rear yard setback; WHEREAS, currently the property consists of two PID's and this would require a combination, and; WHEREAS, the property is a comer lot that fronts on three streets, Island View Drive, Amhurst Road, and unimproved Drummond Road, and; WHEREAS, the existing setback from Island View Ddve is similar to many of the adjacent properties, and; April 28, 1998 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and reconunended 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 10 foot front yard setback to Island View Drive and a 9 foot rear yard setback variances to convert a I 1/2 story into a 2 story dwelling and to construct an addition with an attached garage with the following conditions: The property meet the 40 pement hardcover requirements. The applicant identify existing easements, vacate unnecessary easements and add new easements as deemed necessary. The applicant shall obtain an entrance permit and be granted the right to remove a portion of the City's retaining wall for driveway access to Amhurst Lane. The City will allow the applicant to use those removed bricks to build a retaining wall on the driveway apron. The City will retain responsibility for that portion of the wall within the right-of-way and the applicant will retain responsibility for that portion located on said property. During the removal and reconstruction of the wall the Public Works Department will review and inspect the wall within the right-of-way. Lots 1 and 2 represented by PID #'s 25-117-24 11 0047 and 25-117-24 11 0046 be combined. Satisfying any request of the City Engineer in regards t'o utility and easement issues. The City Engineer and Building Official review and approve drainage plans and building permits. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the structures described in paragraph number one above 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: Converting a 1 V2 story to a 2 story dwelling including an addition with an attached garage. This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: PID 25-117-24 11 0046: LOT 1, BLOCK 15, DEVON, SUBJECT TO ROAD. PID 25-117-24 11 0047: LOT 2, BLOCK 15, DEVON 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. April 25, I~$ The property owner shall have the respo~bility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Weycker and seconded by CouncilmemberJe nsen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Alu'em, Hanus, Jensen, Polston and Weycker. The following Councilmembevs voted in the negative: none. SS/BOB POLSTON Mayor Attest: City Clerk 3 A temporary construction easement 25 feet' in':~i~%h?.and a perpetual' easement 20 feet in width for public So~e~-, ,~z'te~,"~n,l Other .utility Purposes including the right, to °p~n, lay' o~t;" C0n~t~'~t.'ahd' maintain the same, mhd the righ~ over, under and across Lot 2 in Biock';'15 of. Dev°'~]'a~d0rdiDg to~"th®. plat thereof on filemnd of: record i'~ the-b'ffid$~ 'df :~h~.ReKis~l'~r -of TitLes ~n ~nd for said county and sta~e, the' S~U'~h..lt~o of,].both ,.,:.,: o t.pcon, uor~noct..,ma r~place arain'eiala.'. He~ldce .%map ai4.' e~a~t~vor ~.' tt,~lo bel~nsin~ or in an.~lse a. Pmerlnlnl,[, ~o thz ~aid, party O/th~ ~oM~l ba, rt, its Suceessoi's 'and ~n ~e~iima~p ~:rcot, T;.o ,agg parties, of tl~e ~6 par~ h~..~.~... ~rounfo ~et....,.~h~.~ ....... 7ta~l~.. t. he doy a,d year first above w~'ltten. ', Kant O. Kiag and Frieda F. K~ng, husband, and. t,~ ,. ; [c,tmU~ tO t~: ~[l~, p~.rso~. $ .............. rle..s,~ri[~c,[ in, an*! who e'~l~¢CNtOd fhn foro~oin.~ instrrt, mcut. 1 STATE OF ~.[INNESOTA COU~;Tr OF !{ENN~IN 89(}740 0£C. 1 1998 PLANNING & INSP. DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Village of Mound, a municipal corporation, Petitioner, ) Maude L. Goetz, Henry D. Andresen, ) Maz~y Charlotte Andresen, husband ) and wife, Nancy l.~y Andreson, also ) known as Nancy May !Ierbst and John ) Peter Horbst, her husband, ELiza- ) beth May Andresen, Antoinette ) Marston C-%se and Clyde Case, her ) husband, IAllian Sch~ltz and John ) $~. Sohmi~z, husband and %~fe, ) A., ~~ 'i;~'r h;~%'~nd, ~"i- ...... ) Anderson and Margaret ;nm Andersen,) husbm~d and wife, Jerome W. Sulli-') van and Grace F. Sullivan, husband ) and wife, and Lewis H. Schwartz, ) R~spondent s. ) JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN THE ~5%TTER OF THE COND~INATION OF CERTAIN' LANDS FOR MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM AND MUNIC!.PAL WATER SYST~24A~D STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY Upon the certification of Raymond C. Ploetz, one of the attorneys for petitioner herein, whicJ~ certification is duly filed herein$ upon Motion of Grathwol, Ploetz & Oberhauser by Raymond C. Ploetz, Attorneys of petitioner hereinl upon authority of ~t[nnesota Statute 117.17, and it appearing to the Court tkat all proceedings for tho taking of the lands described herein have been cc:.,ple~d, that ~oro have been no appeals therefrom, that due serviee of the notice has been made, and mor~ than thirty (~0) days have expire~ sines said service, and the petitioner has made payment of all damages and interest allowed by the commissioners; IT IS ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Village of Mound o~stnde£easible perpetual easement ~8 the lands doseribe~ below, the ~ight to eonstruet and 805 municipal water mains and other municipal utilities and appurtenances thereont includinm, the right to ru~ovo tree.~, brush, soil, and fill ~herefrom! Parcel 5 A temp~.?ary easement 25 feet in width and a perpetual easement 20 feet in wider for public sewer and other utility purposes over, under and across Lot i in Block 15, Devont Southerl¥11ne o£both easements being thc Southerly line of said lot. IT IS FURTHER ADJUDGED AND DECREED that a certified copy hereof be filed for record with the Registrar of Titles in and for Hennepim County as evi- donco and notice of tho title and rights of tho said petitioner herein, ~ upon such filing that the notices of lis pendens filed in connection with this pro- ceeding and upon said parcels~ be, and hereby are, ¥ charged.~ -JUdg of ~s~ict Co~r~ BY THE COURT: GERALD R. NELSON Clerk of Dlr. trict Court OFFICE OF REGISTRAR OF TITLES STATE OF MINNESOTA CDUNTY OF HENN~pII'I I ~ore~y cerl;ly ~h:t ~he wi~,~in instru~en~ ' By ,KC5 ";~. ' 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 I & 2, DEVON PIDS # 25-117-24 11 0161 P & Z 99-03 NOTICE IS HEREBy GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, February 8, 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. ~ ~ 129 ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ,J u · ' ~ ~m') (64)-- ~6 [128) ~,' ~ (23) ~ . 49,]~,~16 ~ 40 'I040 40 40 40 ~ ~40 40 ~ 40 40 40 40 40 40 .... y////Z --- 4~,1~ I~ ~'~ ~0~'~' ~0~ 405 40 ~. ~,~.~: ~.~,. ~ .~'~:~4~.~'~'"' ~ 40 4040 ~°~4° ~0 ~40 40 40 J~l~ 40 40 40 40 40 40 ~540 ,,~ o ,' 6 .~0 (4~) ~2~(~) 2 ~(~)(~)(~) 2(35) 5.~-(34)' ''40- 4~ All persons appearing at said hearing with refereqce to ~above will be given the opportunity to be heard at th~~~ ~ ~m ~u,~~~ 5~r~ary Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on January 27, 1999 Published in the Laker, January 30, 1999 printed on recycled paper Rev. 1/$0/97 Application for STREET / EASEMENT VACATION City of Mound 3341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Case No. Application Fee: DiStribution: /v~,2/'-~7~ City Engineer /~.~/-~/~ Public Works /:J/:y¢ .i=egasco /-~/- ~ Police Dept. /%~/-~ Fire Dept. Other Please tT'Pe or print the following information: APPLICANT Name JO Address q ~A.i N /~/.. ,~J.~ U/'~ ~, Phone (H) ~/2 ADJACENT PROPERTY Name of Business (APPL,CANT'S PROPERTY) Lot ~ Block Subdivision ZONING Circle: R-1 DISTRICT OF STRfiET TO BE ~ PP&~ R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 REASON FOR REQUEST {M) FOR THIS LAND? Print Applicant's Name ApP '~nt's~/~ Date 1 Print Applicant's Name Applicant's Signature Date From: .lorj Ayaz 4844 Tsland View Drive Mound, MN 55364 To: City of Mound Council members Date: 3anuary 25, 1999 Re: Vacation of Drummond Road Dear council members; ! have applied for vacation of the Drummond Road and the vacation of the easement on the southwest corner of the property. I am interested in the portion of Drummond that abuts the North boundary line of my property. The reason for my application is for the sole purpose of being able to have a moderate size driveway. Consequently, ! must have more square footage in my property for my hard cover calculations so that ! will be allowed to have such pavement. ! would have no objections to have this additional piece of land to be recorded as easement on the property for the benefit of the city usage and utilities etc., since there will be no structure built on it. ! have outlined on the updated survey the portion that ! am interested in. Also outlined my proposed building, driveway and retaining walls that will be necessary to have. As an additional comment, due to the sloping topography of this land there would be very minimal use for any kind of project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, ../) / ~. Jor~az.~///~)/ RECEIVED JAN 2 5 Rev. 1/30/97 Application for STREET / EASEMENT VACATION City of Mound 52}41 Maywood Road, Mound, M~ 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Case No. Application Fee: 'JAN 2 1 1999 C:.--.'-~. ..... .; . $250 /~/-~Minnegasco /-~/-~Police Dept. Fire Dept. ~lease type or print ~he following information: ADJACENT PROPER~ Name of Business (APPLICANT'S PROPERS) Lot ~ Block ZONING DISTRICT OF STREET REASON FOR REQUEST P,O" 25-1/'7- Sq /) PUBLIC NEED LAND? Print Applicant's Name Date Minnegasco has no facilities within the above described area and has no objection to its vacation. Thank you for the advance notice, Steven Yon Bargen Right-of-Way Administrator Minnegasco RECFIVED JAN 2 7 1999 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. ,,. PROPOSED ROAD VACATION EXHIBIT ' O ,0 , ....S89'21 80.00 FO 0 ~ " ' 0 ~,· ...... N892119 W ' 8000 .... : o I I ~~1. '~ ,, ~ SCA~ JO J AYAZ PROPERTY ADDRESS: 4B44 Island ~ew Drive, Mound, Minnesota. PROPOSED VACA~ON DESCRIPTION: ~at par~ of Drummond Road, as dedicated in ~he Recorded plat of "Devon", ~i~uate in Hennepin County, Minnesota I~ng east of the northerly extension of the west line of Lot 2, Block 15, of ~aid plat, and west of the northerly extension of the east line of Lot ~, Block 15. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this exhibit was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surve~r under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Dated this 26th day of January, 1999. k RECEIVED b~ f~ JAH 2 6 ~99 Bolke NOTES: Minnesoto License No. 20281 ~'~UUf{~ PLAN~tN~ ~ I~SP. 1. The orientation of this bearing s~tem is based on the south line of Lot 1, Block 15, Devon which is assumed to have o bearing of West. 2. No title work wes provided for the preparation of this survey to verify the legol description', ownership, or the existence of any easements or encumbrances. ~. Areo of the proposed vocation described hereon is 2,400 square feet or 0.0550 acres. 4. The property is subject to on easement for street purposes over the southeast corner of the property os shown on available County Section Maps. EGAN, FIELD & NOWAK INC. 7.1~ woy~oto Minneapolis, MN 55426 ~4~-~; SURVEYORS Tele: (612) 546-68~7 PRONT PRO~r SURVEYONFILE? YES '~NO ) ' ' ' ~0FIECOR~[Y~ I~ NO HOUS~ ....... *..' ~S E W N S ECW~ .seW' N $ E W TOP OF BLUFF ZONING DISTRICT. LOT SIZE/WID'IH: f~R~ tn nnol~n B~ 9,5oo/o LA 6,000/40 )g2 20,000/80 'R4 6,000/40 B3 20,000/60 R2 14,aOO/SO R3 SBB Oit~. ZZ 30,000/100 JEXISTING/PROPOSED 10' OR 30' LOT OEFlfl: YAitiANC~ GARAGE, SIIED ..... FROI'rT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUF'~ DETACHED BUILDINC,$ N $ E W N 5 E W N S E W 4'OR6' N S E W 4'OR6' N S E W 4' N S E W 10' OR 30' HARDCOVER 30% OR 40~ CONFORMING'7 YF.S , NO O il{Y: {DATED:. Information Sheet only sumnmfizc~ a pardon of ~e requirements mitlin~l in *he City of Mound Zonin~ Ordinance. For f~t~h~r Info.nation. contact ~e ~t~ of Mound Plarming Depmrm~m at 4~2.0600. i~-~ ~,"~~'~,'- :-' , , · ' "/,I:?,,:,'""' """'"'"'"" ' · I'1 113' I Ii~tl ,'~ (9*)~~ .~. ~ ~.,;'~ ~_',= -5'-'-'-~:~'''~'', ~ -- ~,..~'u"~"'rvr ..... :'-,'.t ~' -' .:~*.,~ * ..~- ~Y. ,,~ ,,',,v.~= ~ ~,~ ,,,~!~',,~ E{~,,~,.~ ~'{3 = - ~1,2. ' moo, ~ ~--~- ' (72, ' ..... · . { .... ,y.... ...... O ~ R R0 ~ " la,s ~l,~,.~_W{i.-,~, I 5 'a )~ ~a'- ~Z[~, :~'~ ,~o~ ~z~,l < (aTX~} (,~' ~(L~ -~g- m S ~:''F~~ ~1~)~,) Si~s~ I .-'J~ 'm ' ~ ~ e,s s.."t~ .-- ~ ~., ~ ,,- ,se,,g ~ I ~ ~ ORU~O RO .~' ~-' . · ' ' · , ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~~~~- ,k~' ~ ~ ~ :. ,..,~ .~_:_....: .... . ..... ~ ~ .i,~,:-. ..... Date: Thursday, March 04, 1999 1:12 PM Subject: Area Code This an update on the area code proceedings. It has recently come to my attention (and perhaps to yours) that US West ("USW") has used somewhat misleading letters to business customers urging them to support the overlay system advocated by USW. In a February 25, 1999 letter USW suggests that the current plan of the PUC (Mpls-Richfield-Ft. Shelling new 952 area code) could result in "potential loss of business" if your old 612 number is changed to 952 and you are not able to receive all your calls. It further states that the current PUC plan requires a "change in their telephone number." That is not true. Only the area code would change. I plan to comment on behalf of the SRA regarding the misleading nature of these letters. You are already aware that Mpls has mounted a campaign to keep the 612 area code if there is a geographic split. I have spoken with the analyst at the DPS who tells me that it may recommend a Mpls-Richfield-Ft. Snelling-wireless phone keeping of 612 and the suburbs getting the 952. He says that there is a better balance that results from such a split. Otherwise, for example, a suburbs-wireless keeping the 612 would result in the need for another 612 split within two years because of the early exhaust. I will pursue this issue further. The responses I have received thus far from SPA cities regarding the 612 v. 952 have tended to be neutral, with only some cities advocating the 612 retention. The key has been the municipal boundaries and most SRA cities responding see that as the priority. It is likely that the 612-952 assignment will be driven by the better exhaust balance. If wireless keeps 612 that may result in Mpls. keeping 612 also. The SRA's issue is whether it wants to take a more "what is the best public policy?" approach and let the chips fall where they may, or whether it should take a stand on behalf of the obvious choice of its residents and businesses and try to keep the 612. I'm interested in your feedback on that. Finally, it appears that even the municipal boundaries split may be attacked again. USW may seek legislation to allow it to bill customers for the cost of a municipal split. The municipal split is one reason USW is so heavily lobbying for the overlay. Bear in mind that if the western suburbs gets the new 952 number and the prospect of another geographic split is only a few years down the road, the overlay may appeal to many people. Apparently there have been some problems for telemarketers resulting from the municipal split. That is probably a good thing. Please discuss and respond. The PUC will be deciding this issue on March 22. Thank you. CITY OF MOUND MEMORANDUM 5341 MAY/NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: March 3, 1999 City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official FEBRUARY 1999 MONTHLY REPORT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY There were 18 building permits issued in February for a construction value of $909,878. We issued 16 plumbing, mechanical, and miscellaneous permits for a total of 34 permits this month, and 72 permits year-to-date. Total valuation now stands at $ 995,004. There was one (1) permit issued due to the storm from May 15, 1998. PLANNING & ZONING The Planning Commission reviewed Three (3) cases and sent Two (2) Variance cases and One (1) Street & Utility Easement Vacation case to the City Council. INSPECTION ACTIVITY There were 69 various inspections completed in February including building, plumbing, mechanical, variance/zoning, and zoning code enforcement. One (1) case of an exterior storage violation was resolved with the assistance of the City Attorney. Several cases of zoning code violations were initiated for prosecution. printed on recycled paper INFORMATIONAL REPORTING OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENT DUTIES The Building Official is responsible for the enforcement of the cities floodplain regulations. The regulations are mandated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) City Code (Sec. 300:15) and State Building Code (Chapter 1335: Flood Proofing Regulations). It may surprise you to know that various communities around Lake Minnetonka do not have uniform floodplain regulations. For example, Mound's minimum building elevation is 933 and for the City of Orono it is 931. This is an issue that should be uniform. Kris Linquist conducted approximately 40 zoning classifications and 10 floodplain verifications for mortgage companies in February. Floodplain verifications are done by our department free of charge as a public service. Verifications are needed by residents when refinancing or purchasing a new home. (Note: the attached example of a typical floodplain report, title: FLOOD INSURANCE COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST, that is completed by the Building Official when a site inspection is necessary. It also lists the minimum building elevations as set by the City Code.) If a residence is located in the floodplain, flood insurance is not necessarily required but is advisable. The objective of the regulations is to protect life and property. We occasionally work with floodplain regulations with our variance cases. If a home is in the floodplain, the property is non-conforming. If the house is in the floodplain, cumulative improvements are limited to 50% of the assessor's market value of the structure unless or until the house is raised to an elevation where it is no longer subject to flooding. I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have regarding these regulations. kl 2 MONTH: RESIDENTIAL !NEW CONSTRUCTION SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (CONDOS) TWO FAMILY / DUPLEX MULTIPLE FAMILY (3 OR MORE UNITS) TRANSIENT HSG. (HOTELS / MOTELS) SUBTOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL NEW CONSTRUCTION COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC / SCHOOLS SUBTOTAL ESlDENTIAL DDITIONS / ALTERATIONS ADDITIONS TO PRINCIPAL BUILDING DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS DECKS SWIMMING POOLS REMODEL - MISC. RESIDENTIAL REMODEL - MULTIPLE DWELLINGS SUBTOTAL ON-RESIDENTIAL DDITIONS / ALTERATIONS COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC / SCHOOLS DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS SUBTOTAL IDEMOLITIONS RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS NON-RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS TOTAL DEMOLITIONS TOTAL IPERMIT COUNT * BUILDING FENCES & RETAINING WALLS SIGNS PLUMBING MECHANICAL GRADING S & W, STREET EXCAV., FIRE, ETC. ITOTAL CITY OF MOUND BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT FEBRUARY YEAR: THIS MONTH 2 2 323,000 2 2 360,000 1999 YEAR TO DATE # UNITS II VALUATION 2 323,000 2 360,000 4 4 683,000 4 683,000 0 VALUATION I~ PERMITS I VALUATIONI 23,500 2 58,500 13 I~ PERMITS 203,378 17 213,978 1 500 226,878 20 272,978 1 39,026 0 I~PERMITs I 39,026 I VALUAT,ON PERMITS I VALUATION I # PERMITS # UNITS 18 4 THIS MONTH IYEAR'TO'IDATE I 18 25 0 0 2 2 10 29 2 14 0 0 2 2 I 34 I 72 I 0 # UNITS VALUATION # PERMITS VALUATION 4 909,878 25 995,004 z 0 LU 0 0 LU UJ .J o 0 ~ o ~ 0000 0000 w ~~ 0 zz~ ~w ZZZ ~ 0 mw _ O~ 0 www m ~z MONTH YR DAY PERMIT FEB 99 1 4197 FEB 99 2 4198 FEB 99 5 4199 FEB 99 8 4200 FEB 99 9 4201 FEB 99 9 4202 FEB 99 9 4203 FEB 99 10 4204 FEB 99 17 4205 FEB 99 17 4206 FEB 99 18 4207 FEB 99 23 4208 FEB 99 23 4209 FEB 99 24 4210 GENERAL PERMIT REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 1999 ADDRESS CONTRACTOR PERMIT TYPE 5065 WINDSOR RD COPPIN S & W S & W 2117 FERN LN SUPERIOR PLUMB & HEAT PLUMB 4837 LANARK RD DEMARS HEATING & AC MECH 4920 BRUNSWICK RD ALAN BONDHUS PLUMB 2025 ARBOR LN GENERAL P & H PLUMB 1672 BLUEBIRD LN MARl SVOBODA MECH 3038 PELICAN POINT CIR STEINKRAUS PLUMBING PLUMB 6000 ASPEN RD WESTONKA MECHANICAL SEWER 5777 SUNSET RD CULLIGAN WATER COND PLUMB 4660 BEDFORD RD TIM'S QUALITY PLUMBING PLUMB 4837 LANARK RD ST PLUMBING & HEATING PLUMB 5005 EDGEWATER DR MCGUIRE & SONS PLUMB 4956 THREE POINTS BLVD CUSTOM PLUMBING PLUMB 1601 MAPLE MANORS CT GENERAL P & H PLUMB 0 0 m 0 I- I-- I,l.I I-- 1.1.1 6/21/93 CITY OF MOUND FLOOD INSURANCE COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 {612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 __ This property is not located in a flood plain area as determined by our Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panel Number 270176 0005 B, dated 9-29-78. This property is located in ZONE . This property is located in a flood plain area as determined by available Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panel Number 270176 0005 B. A portion of this property is located in a flood plain, however, the dwelling is not. At this time we are unable to determine if the dwelling is located in a flood plain. A surveyor must verify the elevation of the lowest floor to make this determination. The City of Mound does participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact the Planning & Inspections Department at 472-0600. The above sta~ is made, using the best information available. Byl~~A~ r~.--- ) ' Dated: 5~~ Lake Minnetonka Dutch Lake Lake Langdon Federal Regional Regulatory Ordinary Flood Protection High Water Elevation Elevation* 929.4 931 933 939.2 940 942 932.1 935 937 *Minimum Basement/Floor Elevation for all structures. printed on recycled paper CITY OF UOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT Jan. 1999 8.33% 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 Jan. 1~9~ BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE 73,000 11,391 11,391 4,000 0 0 1,500 0 0 196,900 15,961 15,961 3,150 0 0 64,800 1 176,020 10,702 10,702 27,550 5,865 5,865 103,480 0 0 1,048,010 77,340 77,340 4,960 653 653 224,370 8,014 8,014 472,050 59,205 59,205 82,690 5,238 5,238 170,950 8,766 8,766 38,410 0 0 20,000 23 23 181.740 15,14.5 15,145 VARIANCE 61. 609 4 000 I 500 180 939 3 150 64 799 165 318 21 685 103,480 970,670 4,307 216,356 412,845 77,452 162,t 84 38,410 t9,977 166,595 EXPENDED 15.60% 0.00% 0.00% 8.11% 0.00% 0.OO% 6.08% 21.29% 0.00% 7.38% 13.17% 3.57% 12.54% 6.33% 5.13% 0.00% 0.12% 8.33% GENERAL FUND TOTAL ~,893,580 218,304 718,304 7,675~76 7.54% Area Fire Service Fund 409,680 23,860 23,860 385,820 5.82% Recycling Fund 126,780 7,441 7,441 119,339 5.87% Liquor Fund 227,890 17,447 17,447 210,443 7.66% Water Fund 429,150 28,776 28,776 400,374 6.71% Sewer Fund 903,390 102,334 102,334 80t,056 11.33% Cemetery Fund 6,970 0 0 6,970 0.00% Dock Fund 92,710 1,415 1,415 91,295 1.53% Exp-98 03/05/1999 G.B. TO: FROM: RE: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR FEBRUARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT Investment Activity Bought: Money Market 4M Plus 4,013 Money Market US Bank 69,298 CP Salomon Smith Barney 4.926% 710,144 CP US Bank 4.895 293,164 Matured: Money Market US Bank (39,164) Money Market Salomon Smith Barney (144) Money Market 4M Plus (420,000) CP Salomon Smith Barney 5.405% (700,560) CP US Bank 5.552% (250,495) Audit of the Year 1998 January was, as usual, a very busy month for the Finance Department. During this month we continued to work on getting the books ready for the audit. The annual written report of the department, submitted to you on the 23rd, reflected preliminary amounts. Adjustments will be needed to meet the national reporting requirements set by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, which is the board that sets what is referred to as GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principals) for governmental entities. Recycling Seminar Conference (As reported by Joyce Nelson) The Best Laid Plans of Mice and Men: Planning the aftermath of a Natural Disaster. The topic was the tornado in St. Peter and Comfrey. At first all the houses were checked three times and the roads were opened. Then, there was the cleanup. Debris had to be sorted into trees and brushes, household demolition material, appliances, and hazardous waste. It was suggested that it is essential to have a plan in place, to follow it through and to document everything. They gave us many tips on how to keep people informed on what goes on. I hope that we never have to go through something like that. I imagine it to be like our Spring Cleanup, but only a thousand times worse. Lost Lake Project Please, visit our web page at www.tranweb.comlcityofmound. You will find a number of pictures of the work that has been done to open up the channel. To find them, from the main page, go to News and Lost Lake Pictures. Save the address under your favorite sites and visit us often. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT Jan. 1999 8.33% 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 Jan. 1999 YTD BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE 1,253,280 0 0 4,550 194 194 114,000 3,018 3,018 960,560 0 0 59,700 907 907 100,000 0 0 63,500 75 75 133,560 0 0 12.000 920 920 VARIANCE (1,253,280) (4,356) (110,982) (960,560) (58,793) (lOO,OOO) (63,425) (133,560) (11.o8o) PERCENT RECEIVED 0.00% 4.26% 2.65% 0.00% 1.52% 0.00% 0.12% 0.00% 7.67% TOTAL REVENUE FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCK FUND 2,701,150 5.114 5.114 409,680 51,225 51,225 127,600 6,277 6,277 1,650,000 118,070 118,070 451,000 33,445 33,445 924,000 79,446 79,446 5,100 0 0 79,800 16,313 16,313 (2,696,036) (358,455) (121,323) (1,531,930) (417,555) (844,554) (5,100) (63,487) 0.19% 12.50% 4.92% 7.16% 7.42% 8.60% 0.00% 20.44% 03/05/1999 rev98 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT Jan. 1999 8.33% 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 Jan. 1999 YTD BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE 73,000 11,391 11,391 61,609 4,000 0 0 4,000 1,500 0 0 1,500 196,900 15,961 15,961 180,939 3,150 0 0 3,150 64,800 I 1 64,799 176,020 10,702 10,702 165,318 27,550 5,865 5,865 21,685 103,480 0 0 103,480 1,048,010 77,340 77,340 970,670 4,960 653 653 4,307 224,370 8,014 8,014 216,356 472,050 59,205 59,205 412,845 82,690 5,238 5,238 77,452 170,950 8,766 8,766 162,184 38,410 0 0 38,410 20,000 23 23 19,977 t 81.740 15.145 15,145 166.595 PERCENT EXPENDED 15.60% 0.00% 0.00% 8.11% 0.00% 0.00% 6.08% 21.29% 0.00% 7.38% 13.17% 3.57% 12.54% 6.33% 5.13% 0.00% 0.t2% 8.33% GENERAL FUND TOTAL ~,893,580 718,304 918,304 ;,675,~76 7,54% Area Fire Service Fund 409,680 23,860 23,860 385,820 5.82% Recycling Fund 126,780 7,441 7,441 119,339 5.87% Liquor Fund 227,890 17,447 17,447 210,443 7.66% Water Fund 429,150 28,776 28,776 400,374 6.71% Sewer Fund 903,390 102,334 102,334 801,056 11.33% Cemetery Fund 6,970 0 0 6,970 0.00% Dock Fund 92,710 1,415 1,415 91,295 1.53% Exp-98 03/05/1999 G.B. City of Mound Monthly Report Utilities Month of: February 1999 Residential Commercial No. of Customers: Water Sewer Water Used: (in 1,000 gallons) Billing: Water Sewer Recycle Payments: Water Sewer Recycle 03/03/1999 Utility-99 Total 1,163 126 1,289 1,165 126 1,291 t7,75t 2,666 Total 20,417 $30,463 $5,481 $35,944 $70,552 $15,769 $86,321 $7,109 $142 $7,251 $108.124 $21.392 $129.516 $34,613 $5,391 $40,004 $75,599 $14,359 $89,958 $6.821 $104 $6.925 $117.033 $19.854 $136.887 Total CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 To: Mayor, City Council and City Manager From: Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager Date: March 3, 1999 Re: February 1999, Monthly Report Traditionally February is the slowest month of the year. Obviously it has the fewest days but it also lacks any special events. Ground Hog's Day, President's Day and Valentines Day are not huge revenue producers for us. There are days when it's been so boring that I thought a person could go bowling in here, or count the ceiling tiles, or watch spiders weave their webs. Even though February was slow, sales have improved considerably since I arrived here 15 years ago. For example; let's look at what happened in February ten years ago in 1989. Sales for the month were $58,493. Our customer base for the month was 6,195. Now ten years later gross sales were $114,735. and our customer count was 7,743. Quite a difference. Oh, I should also inform you that again, we were up over last year when in February gross sales were $107,948. So far for the year we are $14,194.00 ahead of last years pace to date. Not a bad start to what I hope is another year of growth. printed on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 March 2, 1999 February Report PubIic Works What a difference one month makes. Last month there was not a spare minute. This month we were able to follow the plan that Ne set. All of the christmas decoration, banners, and lites were removed and put away. Ne cleaned and repaired the storm sewer on Tuxedo and Brighton Commons. Ne will hayed cleaned the sidewalks on Shoreline and Commerce and start the sweeping these roads the first week of March. Road restrictions will be in effect on March 8, i999. Ne plowed snow twice this month and sanded 4 times. There were 3 water main breaks this month, and one sewer back-up. Staff attended a safte¥ class on ear protection and fire extinquisher operations. printed on recycled paper LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ed Shukle Chief Len Harrell Monthly Report for February, 1999 I. STATISTICS The police department responded to 855 calls for service during the month of February. There were 13 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included 1 criminal sexual conduct, 3 burglaries, 8 larcenies, and 1 vehicle theft. There were 33 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 3 child abuse/neglect, 5 NSF/Forgery, 5 damage to property, 1 liquor law violations, 1 DUI's, 1 simple assault, 7 domestics (2 with assaults), 4 harassment, and 6 other offenses. The patrol division issued 94 adult and 11 juvenile citations. Parking violations accounted for an additional 51 tickets. Warnings were issued to 111 individuals for a variety of violations. There were 3 adults and 2 juveniles arrested for felonies. There were 5 adults and 3 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were 2 felony and 3 additional misdemeanor warrant arrests. The department assisted in 3 vehicle accidents, 1 with injuries. There were 28 medical emergencies and 46 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 20 occasions in February and requested assistance 5 times. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - February, 1999 III. IV. INVESTIGATIONS The investigators worked on 2 criminal sexual conduct case and 8 child protection issues accounting for 79 hours in February. Other cases included assault, burglary, damage to property, forgery, NSF checks, theft, and harassment. Formal complaints were issued for 3rd degree assault, violation of an order for protection, criminal damage to property, exterior storage, derelict auto, gross misdemeanor DWI, and harassing calls. Personnel/Staffing The department used approximately 26.5 hours of overtime during the month of February. Officers used 23.5 hours of comp-time, 108 hours of vacation, 39 hours of sick time, and 13 holidays. Officers earned 50 hours of comp time and 26 hours at double time. There were 4 standby hours used. TRAINING Officer Swensen continued to attend the Wilson Supervisory Leadership course and attended the Juvenile Officers Conference. The department had our defensive tactics training and officers attended PTAC mandatory training courses and a two day course on gangs. V. COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICERS Reserve Mike Bruckner has been hired as a temporary until the hiring has been completed. VI. RESERVES The reserves donated 134 hours of community service in the month of February. The unit currently has eight members. MOUND POLICF. D~.PARTMF. NT FEB RUbbeRY 1RgR REPORt"ED %~FOL~D~D ~ AP.~EST ADULT JUV FART I CRIMES Homicide Criminal Sexual Conduct Robbery Aggravated Assault Burglary Larceny Vehicle Theft Arson 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PART II CRIMES Child Abuse/Neglect Forgery/NSF Checks Criminal Damage to Property Weapons Narcotic Laws Liquor Laws DWI Simple Assault Domestic Assault Domestic (No Assault) Harassment Juvenile Status Offenses Public Peace Trespassing Ail Other Offenses 13 I 2 3 3 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 1 0 TOTAL 33 2 4 6 5 3 PART II & PART IV Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Medicals Animal Complaints Mutual Aid Other General Investigations TOTAL 2 1 0 28 46 18 710 8O5 HCCP Inspections TOTAL 855 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIPfE ACTIVITY PdEPORT FEBRUA/~Y 1999 GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY Hazardous Citations Non-Hazardous Citations Hazardous Warnings Non-Hazardous Warnings Verbal Warnings Parking Citations DWI Over .10 Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Adult Felony Arrests Adult Misdemeanor Arrests Juvenile Felony Arrests Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests Part I Offenses Part II Offenses Medicals Animal Complaints Ordinance Violations Other Public Contacts THIS YEAR TO LAST YEAR MONTH DATE TO DATE 70 86 108 33 64 113 16 21 39 59 100 117 69 147 156 51 79 77 1 4 10 1 3 6 2 13 21 1 3 4 0 0 0 5 6 3 8 25 55 2 2 6 3 6 21 13 22 34 33 54 103 28 56 63 46 62 88 0 4 55 710 1,182 1,816 TOTAL 1,151 1,939 2,895 Assists 54 91 132 Follow-Ups 19 39 159 HCCP 4 8 11 Mutual Aid Given 20 34 34 Mutal Aid Requested 5 11 8 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT FEEBRUARY 1999 CITATIONS DWI More Than .10% BAC Careless/Reckless Driving Driving After Susp. or Rev. Open Bottle Speeding No DL or Expired DL Restriction on DL Improper, Expired or No Plates Stop Arm Violations Stop Sign Violations Failure to Yield Equipment Violations H&R Leaving the Scene No Insurance Illegal or Unsafe Turn Over the Centerline Parking Violations Crosswalk Dog Ordinances Code Enforcement Seat Belt Overweight Vehicles Miscellaneous Tags TOTAL 1 1 0 3 0 51 3 0 10 1 4 0 4 0 7 0 0 51 0 3 0 1 0 145 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT FI~BRUARY 1999 W~RNINGS Insurance Traffic Equipment Crosswalk Animals Trash/Derelict Autos Seat Belt Trespassing Window Tint Miscellaneous TOTAL WARRANT ARRESTS Felony Misdemeanor 36 32 15 0 4 0 0 0 0 12 99 2 3 Juveniles 5 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 Run: 2-Mar-99 13:26 PR003 Primary ISN°s 0nly: No Da~eported range: 01/26/99 - 02/15/99 m  tivity codes: All --Property Status: Ail Property Types: All Property Descs: All Brands: Ail Models: All Officers/Badges: All Prop Prop Inc no ISN Pr Prop Date Rptd Stolen Tp Desc SN Stat Stolen Value Prop type Totals: Prop type Totals: Prop type Totals: Prop type Totals: Prop type Totals: Prop type Totals: Prop type Totals: Report Totals: MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT ~fors Property Report STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED Date Recov'd Quantity Act Recov'd Value Code 3,000 0 1.000 1 1 1.000 100 0 1.000 3,735 0 2.000 160 160 1.000 5 0 1.000 36 36 4.000 7,037 197 11.000 Brand Model Page Off-1 Off-2 Assnd Assnd Run: 2-Mar-99 10:42 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Date ReDorted range: 01/26/99 - 02/2S/99 each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: Ail Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS 9000 9001 9002 9003 9008 9014 9018 9023 9034 9038 9040 9100 9140 9200 9210 9220 9240 9253 SPEEDING 51 J-SPEEDING 7 NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L 3 J-NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L 1 ILLEGAL PASSING 1 STOP SIGN 4 J-STOP SIGN 1 EQUIPMENT VIOLATION 4 J-EX]{IBITION DRIVING 2 STOP ARM VIOLATION 1 ALL OTHER TRAFFIC 1 NO SEATBELT 1 PARKING/ALL OTHER 9 NO PARKING/WINTER HOURS 42 DAS/DAR/DAC 3 PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED 10 NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF 7 CHANGE OF DOMICILE 3 STOP ARM VIOLATION/NO TICKET 1 LOST ARTICLES/OTHER 1 FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS 1 FOUND PROPERTY 4 9312 9313 Page Run: 2-Mar-99 10:42 CFS08 Page 2 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 01/26/99 - 02/25/99 each clay: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: Ail Officers/Badges: All Grids: Ail Patrol Areas: ;%11 Days of the week: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYRI2 BY ACTIVITY CODE ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS 9430 PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS 9450 PROPER~"f DAMAGE ACCIDENTS 9561 DOG BITE 9564 DOG BARKING 9566 ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS 9730 MEDIC;tLS MEDICALS/CI 9800 ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED 9801 DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT 9802 PUBLIC ASSIST 9810 LOITERING/LURKING 9900 A3~LHCCP CA~ES 9904 OPEN DOOR/ALARMS 9930 HANDGUN APPLICATION 9932 0FP VIO. CRIME CONTROL & LAW ~ ACT OF '94 9933 RESTRAINING ORDER ON FILE 9945 9950 9980 SUSPICIOUS PERSON INFO/INT WARRANTS MUTUAL AID/8100 MUTUAL AID/6500 MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER 1 2 1 1 3 27 1 2 1 1 4 1 7 5 1 1 1 5 9 4 5 9993 9994 R~n: 2-Mar-99 10:42 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 01/26/99 - 02/25/99 each clay: 00:00 - 23:59 HOW Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: Ail officers/Badges: Ail Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION A5350 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT A'~-r~PTS HRM-HANDS-UNK RELAT AK352 ASLT-DOMESTIC-GM-INFLT BODLY HI~M-HNDS-ADLT-ACQ AL351 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-AD-FAM AL352 ASLT-DOMESTIC-MS-INFLT BODLY HRM-HNDS-ADLT-AC AL451 DOM ASLT-MS-FEAR BODILY HARM-HANDS-AD-FAM B3790 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT BURG 4-UNOCC NRES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT B4990 BURG {-AT FRC P. ES-U-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT C32E1 FORGERY-MS-UTT-POSS-PLC-C~IK 200 OR LESS-PC-PER 13060 C'RIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD [3069 CRM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT CHLD-OTHER [3079 CRM AGNST FAM-MS-MA~IC PUNISH-OTHER J3501 TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE J3E01 TRAF-ACC-MS-A/~ 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV L1577 CSC i-PER INJRY FRC COER-ACQUAINT-18 OLDER-F M5350 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY N3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HA~SING COMMUNICATIONS N3990 DIST PEACE- MS - PR I V- C0~4 - OTHER- UNKNOWN P3110 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE~UNK INTENT TRESPASS-MS- PRIVATE-UNK INTENT P3630 LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-COM-BUSINES Q3299 STLN PROP-MS-POSSESS-OTH PROP-200 OR LESS MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 Page Run: 2-Mar-99 10:42 CPS08 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Primary ISN's only: NO Date Reported range: 01/26/99 - 02/25/99 each day: 00:00 o 2]:59 How Received: ;%11 Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: ;%11 Days of the week: Ail Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COD~ ACTIVITY CODE NI~4BEROF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS TG029 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-BUILDING-OTH PROP TG059 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-YARDS-O~"~IR PROP I TG159 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-OTHER 1 Ul192 COMPUTER CRIM-FE-THFT-HRDWAR-2501-19999 U1552 FRAUD-FE-FIN-TRAN-CARD-NO-CNSENT-2501-19000 U2027 THEFT-GM-ISSUE WORTHLESS C!{ECK-201-500 THEFT-MS-ISSUE WORTHLESS CHECK-200 OR LESS U3288 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS 2 VA029 VEH-MORE %~AN 2500-FE-~%IEFT-BOAT-~IT{I X2200 CRIM AGNST ADM JUST-GM-GIVE FLSE NAM-POL Report Totals: 292 Page Run: 2-Mar-99 10:29 OFF01 Primary ISN'8 only: No Date Reported range: 01/26/99 - 02/25/99 each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: All Activity codes: Ail Officers/Badges: All Grids: Ail MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors O~fense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page 1 ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED POUNDED OFFENSES PENDING A5350 AK352 ;%L351 AL352 B3790 B4790 ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED B4990 BURG 4-AT FRC RES-U-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT FORGERY-MS-UTT-POSS-PLC-CHK 200 OR LESS-PC-PER 13060 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD I3069 CRM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT CI{LD-OTHER I3079 CRM AGNST FAM-MS-M;tLIC PUNISH-OTHER J3501 TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE J3E01 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UI~ INJ-MV L1577 CSC 1-PER INJRY FRC COER-ACQUAINT-18 OLDER-F M5350 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY N3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-I~SSING CO[~fGNIC. ATIONS N3990 DIST PEAC'E - MS - PR I V - COMM - OTI{ER - UNqfNOWN P3110 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PI{IVATE-UNK INTENT P3310 TRES PAS S - MS- PRIVATE- UNK INTENT P3630 LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-COM-BUSINES STLN PROP-MS-POSSESS-O~7{ PROP-200 OR LESS T0029 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-BUILDING-OTH PROP TG059 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-YAR/)S-OTHR PROP ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-UI~ RELAT ASLT-DOMESTIC-C4W-INFLT BODLY HRM-HI~DS-ADLT-ACQ DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-AD-FAM ASLT-DOMESTIC-MS-INFLT BODLY HRM-HNDS-ADLT-AC BURG 3-UNOCC N'RES FRC-U-UNK WF2%P-UNK ACT BURG 4-UNOCC NRES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT 0.0 100.0 50.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 50.0 100.0 Run: 2-Mar-99 10:29 OFF01 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Page Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 01/26/99 - 02/25/99 each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: All Activity codes: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS ..... OFFENSES CLEARED ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED TG159 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-OTHER 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 Ul192 COMPUTER CRIM-FE-THFT-}~IDWAR-2501-19999 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0,0 U1552 FRAUD-FE-FIN-TRAN-CARD-NO-CNSE~'T-2501-19000 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 U2027 THEFT-GM-ISSUE WORTHLESS CHECK-201-500 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 U3028 THEFT-MS-ISSUE WORTHLESS CHECK-200 OR LESS 3 0 3 2 0 0 1 1 33.3 U3288 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 50.0 VA029 VEH-MORE THAN 2500-FE-THEFT-BOAT-MTRI 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 CRIM AGNST ADM JUST-GM-GIVE FLSE NAM-POL 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 Report Totals: 42 3 39 24 7 2 6 15 38.4 STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF GOVERNOR JESSE VENTURA lg0 State Capitol · 75 Constitution Avenue · Saint Paul, MN 55155 TO: FROM: All Metro Area Legislators, Clerks, City and County Administrators Deb Tomczy~ordinator of Appointments to Boards and Commissions DATE: February 26, 1999 Information Regarding Application to tie Metropolitan Council This letter provides written notification of the vacancies to the governing bodies of all counties, cities, towns and townships for each of the 16 Metropolitan Council districts. Qualified persons who are knowledgeable about urban and metropolitan affairs may obtain an application for appointment to the Council by contacting the Secretary of State's Office. The application deadline is March 5, 1999. Only applications received by the Secretary of State's Office by 4:30 p.m. on March 5 will be considered. A nominating committee composed of seven metropolitan citizens, including four who are local elected officials, has been created as required by state statute. The nominating committee will review all applications prior to the public meetings. Those applicants selected by the committee as potential nominees will be notified by March 12 of the need to be present at the appropriate public meetings scheduled for the district where the applicant resides. The committee will conduct public meetings to accept statements from or on behalf of persons who have been nominated or applied and to secure the advice and endorsement of the district's public as well as the local elected officials. The public meetings will be held at the locations and times described on the attached schedule. Following the public meetings, the nominating committee will submit a list of final nominees to the Governor for the appointments. The Governor is not required to appoint from the list of nominees. Appointments are subject to the advice and consent of the Senate as provided in Minnesota statute section 15.066. Questions may be directed to Governor Ventura's Office at (651)-296-0094. Voice: (651) 296-339l or (800) 657-3717 , Fax: (651) 296-2089 , TDD: (651) 296-0075 or (800) 657-3598 Web site: http://ww~v, governor, state.mn.us ~ An Equal Opportunity Employer CITY OF MOUND DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1999 Present were:. Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners Frank Ahrens, Orvin Burma, Mark Goldberg, and Greg Eurich, and Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present were Park Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey and Secretary Kristine Kitzman. Absent: Commissioner Orvin Burma Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. 1. MINUTES Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Goldberg, to approve the minutes of the January 2t, 1999 DCAC meeting as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 2. AGENDA CHANGES Agenda approved as presented. REVIEW: PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT Applicant: William Dahlen Location:' 4555 Island View Drive Fackler reported on the application submitted by Mr. William Dahlen to remove/trim trees and Dock Site #41050, Devon Commons. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The Contractor must be licensed in the City to do the trimming and removal as required by the City Code Section 488:00. The work shall be supervised and coordinated by the Parks Director and the contractor shall give the Parks Director 24 hours notice in advance of scheduling or performing the work. In the event that compliance with the resolution has not been achieved within one year of the date of the resolution and the applicants associated to Dock License will not be issued or will be revoked until compliance has been achieved. Ahrens questioned condition number three, Fackler stated that this is a standard addition to all public lands permits issued. Ahrens then stated he does not agree with "holding a person's dock hostage" to an unrelated issue. Hanus asked if this condition serves any purpose in this case, as the project has to be supervised by the Parks Director anyway. Goldberg agreed that in this instance, the condition is not needed. Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission February 18, 1999 Funk pointed out that the Commission should, however, be consistent in their approach to granting permits. Fackler stated that this condition usually helps make sure people comply. In this case, it may help to make sure the applicant makes sure the project is supervised by the Parks Director, rather than going ahead and doing it on his own. Goldberg suggested applying this condition when needed, and dropping it when it is not necessary. Hanus stated that the Ordinance must be followed, and if this condition appeared in the Ordinance then it must be included. He noted that some time was spent looking into the Ordinance, but more research will have to be done to conclude if this condition is mandatory. Ahrens stated that in the past, rather than holding back the dock permit, anyone who altered public land without a permit was prosecuted, as this is a misdemeanor. Eurich stressed that the Commission must be consistent by adding the condition to all, or dropping it from all permits. Goldberg stated that it sounds very heavy-handed and he does not believe the Commission should take that position. However, he would like the Commission to retain the right to include the condition when needed since it gives leverage for compliance. However, he would like to see some less harsh penalties used first, working up to losing the dock license. Hanus questioned whether it may be illegal to withhold the dock license anyway. Goldberg asked if this leverage was needed and what other means of ensuring compliance are available. Fackler stated that this is the only statement that has been used to ensure compliance. Chair Funk directed Staff to clarify the Ordinance with respect to this and other penalties that exist. Hanus questioned whether the City should share some of the cost if the health of the trees is the reason for some of the trimming, as stated in the application. Fackler replied that the City only handles the cost when the tree is a hazard. Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Eurich, to approve the Public Lands Permit for Mr. William Dahlen, 4555 Island View Drive, to remove/trim trees, with Staff recommendations #1 and #2 as indicated above. Motion carried unanimously. Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission February 18, 1999 4. REVIEW: ENCROACHMENT ORDINANCE FEE Jon Sutherland was not in attendance. Goldberg stated that permit applications have been on hold and they need to be acted upon. He suggested sending a letter to applicants giving a date and time for a meeting, and requesting their presence. He also suggested including copies of the Ordinance with the letter. Fackler stated that an inventory is needed of the encroachment permits involved. No renewals have been done since 1997. Hanus asked what kind of repairs can be done by the dock holder. Fackler pointed out that this issue is addressed under Exhibit J, stating that minor maintenance can be done. Chair Funk asked that the Building Official check on the most current revision of Exhibit J, as the revision 127-94 is not the most current. Ahrens requested the 1998 Exhibit J update and an update of the flowchart for the next meeting from the Building Official. Chair Funk requested an inventory for the next meeting of which encroachments are to be addressed and copies of the letter that is to be sent by the Building Official be provided along with the Ordinance. Fackler asked about the renewal process. Goldberg stated that this information is needed before any renewal process can be considered. 5. DISCUSS: DOCK LOCATIONS THAT REQUIRE LMCD SETBACKS Fackler reported on his conversation with Greg Nybeck that setbacks can all be different, not all the same. He stated that Staff needs to meet with Nybeck to make some standards for Mound. Goldberg asked if there is a grandfather clause for any of the docks in Mound. Fackler stated that he does not believe so and LMCD setbacks will apply to all. Hanus asked if the docks program was in place before May 3, 1978. If so, he asked if they would be subject to doubling of the setback for all multiple docks. He noted the Code is not written clearly and there is some confusion about which docks are subject to which setbacks. Fackler stated that the goal is trying to maintain an acceptable setback. The LMCD rules were written for a marina and the City of Mound is not a marina. Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission February 18, 1999 Hanus stated that this then opens up all the language to interpretation. He noted that Greg Nybeck needs to be available to answer questions, but having him present may create other problems. Goldberg suggested rather than inviting him, the Commissioners put their questions in writing and have Fackler meet with Nybeck to discuss them. McCaffrey suggested drafting the questions so the interpretation indicates the answer Mound wants. Then changes will 'have to be explained, rather than Mound arguing its case. Fackler stated he will schedule some time with Greg Nybeck to meet with one or two Commissioners to address some of their questions. 6. REVIEW: DOCK LOCATION SURVEY Ahrens recapped the changes that were discussed at the last meeting and provided an updated revision with these changes. These drafts were discussed and Ahrens will make the suggested changes and add an opening statement. Ahrens stated he will E-mail the final draft to Fackler. Fackler indicated he will supply the mailing list for the Commissioners approval. Each survey will be labeled to identify the area from which it comes. 7. DISCUSS: ADDITIONAL MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK LOCATION Fackler presented information on the existing docks at Kenmore Common, Highland End Park, and Carlson Park. Fackler stated he will need to meet with the LMCD to design dock configurations for each site which will meet the setback requirements. This information will be available for the March meeting. Ahrens requested a plat map and dock list for the areas to help visualize changes and improvements. Hanus questioned whether the seasonal removal of docks would add any financial constraints to the City. Fackler stated it would not, as the City can remove and store the docks with little or no extra cost. 8. REVIEW: WORK RULES Hanus stated that he had not made any changes and the changes he did find were not substantial anyway. Motion made by Eurich, seconded by Ahrens, to accept the Work Rules as written. Motion carried unanimously. 4 Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission February 18, 1999 10. 11. 12. DISCUSS: MARCH DCAC AGENDA Add: Add: Add: Add: Review information from Jon Suthedand Review Dock Locations and Maps (requested this meeting) Review LMCD Setback Information FYh A Final Copy of the Survey FYI A) LMCD INFORMATION B) POSC MINUTES C) REVISED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1999 D) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 26, 1999 E) COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES F) RESOLUTION NO. 99-9 G) MONTHLY EVENTS CALENDAR REPORTS A) CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE No report at this time. B) PARK DIRECTOR Fackler reported that Rod Plaza has not spoken to the City as yet. C) DOCK INSPECTOR No report at this time. ADJOURN Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Goldberg, to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION FEBRUARY '1'1, '1999 Present were: Commissioners Peter Meyer, Tom Casey, and Christina Cooper, and City Council Representative Leah Weycker. Also present was Park Director Jim Fackler. Absent: Commissioners Bev Botko and Norman Domholt Chair Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 1. MINUTES Motion made by Casey, seconded by Weycker to approve the minutes of the January '14, '1999 Park and Open Space Commission (POSC) meeting, as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 2. AGENDA CHANGES The agenda was approved as submitted with the following amendments: 1. Add 9A, REPORT ON COMMUNITY SKATING RINK 2. Add 9B, OTHER FUNDING SOURCES 3. Move to 9C, the FYI # F "Information for new members Park and Open Space" 3. INTERVIEW APPLICANT FOR PARK AND OPEN SPACE VACANCY Chair Meyer stated that Commissioner Botko has decided to stay on through the interviews for replacement of her chair, so the Commission is not short. Chair Meyer then introduced the two applicants present tonight: Mr. Eccles and Mr. Beise. Meyer explained the interview process, in which the applicants will be interviewed one at a time, the Commissioners will briefly discuss the applicants, and then cast their votes. The recommendation will go to the City Council for their appointment. Mr. John Eccles, 5038 Woodland Road, stated he has lived in Mound for over 40 years and would like to get involved in the actions of the City. Mr. Eccles stated he grew up on Three Points, has seen the changes, and would like to help keep the changes flowing smoothly. Chair Meyer asked Mr. Eccles for his vision for Three Points. Mr. Eccles gave some ideas for new equipment and stated that he thinks the park needs no major changes. Council Member Weycker asked if Mr. Eccles was involved in the maintenance of the park years ago when his father maintained the park. Mr. Eccles stated he was not, he was too young at the time, but some of his fondest memories growing up in Mound take place in Three Points Park, including some of the fundraisers held there in past years. Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission February 11, 1999 Commissioner Casey pointed out the shortage of funds and asked Mr. Eccles if he had any ideas on raising funding for parks. Mr. Eccles suggested events such as a pancake breakfast, fish fry, raffles, things he recalls from years past. Commissioner Domholt asked if Mr. Eccles had ever tried to join the Park Commission in the past. Mr. Eccles stated he had not. Commissioner Cooper asked for Mr. Eccles' vision for walkways, green space, and park- related issues in the downtown redevelopment. Mr. Eccles stated he does not have any ideas at this time. Mr. Beise stated he wants to get involved in the City of Mound, and wants to be part of the changes, rather than being an observer. He is currently a Realtor in Mound, has lived in Mound all his life, and intends to stay. Mr. Beise stated he is a member of the Association of Realtors, the Westonka Chamber of Commerce, the Lions, and the Gun Club. Commissioner Casey asked Mr. Beise what his vision is for Mound. Mr. Beise stated he would like to bring more awareness regarding the number of parks in Mound and promote use of the parks by citizens. Council Member Weycker asked which park Mr. Beise considered his "neighborhood park." Mr. Beise replied "Mound Bay Park." Mr. Beise stated he is familiar with many parks in Mound, but not all of them. Commissioner Casey asked Mr. Beise for any ideas on funding for parks. Mr. Beise mentioned the Lions and their pull-tab money. Mr. Eccles then re-joined the meeting. It was indicated that the vote will be held at the end of the meeting and given to the City Council for their February 22, 1999 meeting. The new Commissioner will then be included in the March meeting. 4. DISCUSS: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN City Planner Loren Gordon was not in attendance but Chair Meyer was assured that he would be in attendance for the March meeting. Chair Meyer briefly explained to the public the goal of revising the Comprehensive Plan and asked for any public input. Commissioner Casey stated that according to Mr. Gordon's letter, the standards that are used by communities are not incorporated into the City's old Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gordon also states in his letter that the Metropolitan Council does not publish standards for parks, but there is a mention in the 1990 Comprehensive Plan that the Metropolitan 2 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission February 11, 1999 Council does have some standards. Casey stated he feels that it would be hard to move forward without input from Mr. Gordon on these and other issues. Chair Meyer quoted from an article he had read, stating that the Metropolitan Council encourages cities to provide a minimum of 7 to 14 acres of parkland per 1000 residents. A survey of a random area then showed that most metro communities meet or exceed these standards. Commissioner Casey asked if Mr. Gordon was conducting an inventory of the parkland and open space in Mound. Mr. Fackler stated that he is not sure if Mr. Gordon is aware of all the private lands that exist and does not know how to proceed to inventory these private lands. A better definition of these private lands is also needed, as any undeveloped land is quite a broad definition. Council Member Weycker stated she has been continually frustrated with this issue, since it has been two meetings, and still no progress has been made. If the information that the Commission is asking for is not, or will not be available, this needs to be made clear before the next meeting so that an attempt can be made to come to a conclusion with the information that is available. A citizen described a situation in which her grandmother had passed away and her mother had wanted to establish a park to honor her. She wrote to the local paper about this desire and the end result was that private land owners who did not want their "extra" land developed, donated land for a park. Council Member Weycker stated that the problem with Mound is that there is not much land left to be developed, or turned into park land. Commissioner Casey pointed out that the citizens can keep the land and donate the development rights creating a conservation easement, which comes with tax benefits. Chair Meyer asked if Mr. Gordon has specifically updated Mound parks or green space figures, or if he is going by what was in the Comprehensive Plan in 1990. Commissioner Casey then quoted a passage from the C.O.W. Meeting Minutes: "...having a City Council staff retreat using an outside facilitator for the purpose of establishing goals and a strategic plan for the next one to two years. The Council was very interested and asked the City Manager to contact some facilitators and review proposals and select a person or firm." Casey questioned how this affects the POSC Comprehensive Plan Process, and if the POSC should do the same concurrently. Council Member Weycker stated the one to two year plan was not really referring to the Comprehensive Plan, more of a "can we get along" plan. She also stated that there is no direction to go with this subject without more direct information from Mr. Gordon. Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission February 11, 1999 Commissioner Casey directed Mr. Fackler to make sure the new Commissioner gets not only a copy of handouts from this month, but also the 1990 Comprehensive Plan, Recreation Section. Council Member Weycker suggested calling the Metropolitan Council to see what ideas they have for cities to work with their Comprehensive Plan. It was noted that a citizen is going to provide Mr. Fackler with the name of a contact in the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Fackler will forward that name to Council Member Weycker and she will contact the individual for information. 5. REVISED 1999 AGENDA CALENDAR Council Member Weycker noted that Discussing the Comprehensive Plan moves into next month. Commissioner Casey stated that this should be the priority, and anything else for March that does not get done should be moved into April. Council Member Weycker then suggested shifting Tim Peipkorn into April. All concurred. 6. REVIEW: DEPOT USE REPORT Chair Meyer referred to the revised handout from Mr. Fackler regarding the uses for the Island Park Hall and the Mound Depot. The number of people and dates were well reported, but the actual uses are still somewhat unclear. Suggestions would be welcome on how to study this area. Council Member Weycker asked why this information is needed. She noted that the Depot is a success and the amount of use is known. Chair Meyer stated that he has heard from various people about some suggestions, such as the kitchen being too small, too little parking. He noted that more input of this type may help to know how to proceed with any improvements. Council Member Weycker suggested doing a survey right away, when the renter picks up the key to the Depot, and returning the completed survey when they return the key. Council Member Weycker stated she will draft a survey for discussion at the next meeting and asked for ideas. Chair Meyer suggested an open format, asking for suggestions for improvement, and any problems encountered. 4 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission February 11, 1999 7. DISCUSS: MARCH FOR PARKS Chair Meyer presented information on the March For Parks event that has taken place in years past. The March raises awareness of parks and possibly funds. Last year was the first year Mound participated, in conjunction with Orono and Long Lake. Members solicit pledges for the March to raise funds for the parks. Pledges are split up by City, and any funds collected go to the specific City. Meyer also pointed out that if the same type of march is held, most of the work is already done from last year. Chair Meyer indicated he is in favor of participating in the March For Parks again this year. Council Member Weycker indicated she is also in favor of participating with more advertising starting earlier this year. Commissioner Casey suggested supplying a reason to march, such as music in the parks. He felt that if given a specific direction for the funds, more citizens may participate. Chair Meyer asked for any ideas as to where the funds raised could be used. Commissioner Casey stated many trees were lost due to storm damage last year and the funds could be used to replace some of them. Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Casey to participate in the March For Parks, with the same route as last year. Motion carried unanimously. Motion made by Casey, seconded by Cooper to dedicate the funds received from the March For Parks for native trees indigenous to the City of Mound. Motion carried unanimously. 8. DISCUSS: ISLAND PARK HALL IMPROVEMENTS Mr. Fackler reported that Council Member Brown had received some estimates on Island Park Hall Improvements and $2,500.00 has been set aside to put together a plan for the improvements. Chair Meyer stated that with an improvement plan, or engineer's report, the Commission can then look into various State funding. Three estimates were received last summer and Chair Meyer suggested going back to these three companies, giving them the figure of $2,500, and asking what improvements can be done for that amount. Mr. Fackler stated that the budgeting for the plans could be considered in the year 2000 and the project would be ready to move forward in the year 2001. Chair Meyer stated that this was similar to the time line the Commission had anticipated. However, if a matching grant can be obtained sooner, perhaps the City Council would take action sooner. Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission February 11, 1999 Motion was made by Weycker, seconded by Casey to direct staff to approach the three companies who have submitted estimates, and find out what planning can be done with the funds now available. Motion carried unanimously. 9. DISCUSS: PARK AND OPEN SPACE 2000 CAPITAL OUTLAY REQUEST Chair Meyer presented the recommendations by the POSC from last year, which Mr. Fackler then copied to all Commissioners. Chair Meyer suggested a public hearing, advertised in The Laker, asking the public for any suggestions or concerns for any of their area parks. This has been done in the past, and some very good information has come from the public. Commissioner Casey suggested approaching area Realtors, himself included, about sponsoring larger, more noticeable ads regarding the public hearings for the parks in Mound. Commissioner Casey recommended asking Bill Darling to help prioritize the list. Chair Meyer agreed, when that point is reached, that is the best way to prioritize. Last year the public meeting was in May. Meyer stated he would like to see it take place in March to give the Commissioners time to study the information. Mr. Fackler stated he would prefer the document be ready in May. Chair Meyer stated the public meeting will be put on the agenda for March, time permitting. After the public meeting, a work session will probably be scheduled to prioritize the list of projects. 9a. REPORT ON COMMUNITY SKATING RINK Chair Meyer reported on the community skating rink and the work put into this project by the community, including the volunteer attendance time. The Park Commission donated approximately 200 hours this year, approximately $160.00 for first aid kits, shingles for the warming house, and various miscellaneous equipment. The City Council also donated some equipment, such as shovels. Chair Meyer stated that the volunteers and the community learned a lot. This will likely help the community skating rink run even more smoothly next year, and help to provide any procedure or budgeting information on this type of project if the City Council is interested. Meyer also pointed out that there was no vandalism or behavioral problems. 9b. OTHER FUNDING SOURCES Chair Meyer stated the main groups to be contacted are: the Legion, the Lions, the VFW, and the Jaycees. At the last work session it was decided to contact these groups and find 6 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission February 11, 1999 out how their process works for donating funds, and if there is any specific direction they would like for their donations. Council Member Weycker volunteered to contact the Jaycees. Commissioner Cooper volunteered to contact the Lions. Commissioner Casey volunteered to contact the VFW. Chair Meyer volunteered to contact the Legion. 9c. INFORMATION FOR NEW MEMBERS PARK AND OPEN SPACE Council Member Weycker stated that there will be meetings with the City Council. She asked Commissioner Cooper if she had any other ideas. Commissioner Cooper stated this information is very valuable and she would like to see a more current update of what the Commissions are working on. Mr. Fackler suggested providing last years' minutes to provide the most current and complete package of information. 10:00 p.m. Motion made by Casey, seconded by Weycker to extend the meeting for 15 minutes. Motion carried unanimously. 10. MARCH POSC AGENDA Items and changes include: 1. Discuss Parks Tour 2. Comprehensive Plan 3. Year 2000 Improvements and Capital Outlay FOR APRIL: Public Hearing on Park Improvements Parks and Beach Program *moved from March Community Service *moved from March MID APRIL: Work session to prioritize the list of park improvements FIRST OF MAY: Complete document of Park Improvements 7 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission February 11, 1999 11. FOR YOUR INFORMATION: a) City Council Minutes (revised January 12, 1999) b) City Council Minutes January 26, 1999 c) DCAC Minutes d) Planning Commission Minutes e) Meeting Procedures f) Monthly Events Calendar g) Information for new members Park and Open Space h) Resolution Appointing and Reappointing I) LMCD Information j) Committee of the Whole Minutes 12. REPORTS a) City Council Representative Weycker reported that the Community Center Project was stopped on a 4/1 vote. At the Committee of the Whole Meeting there will be discussion on what the Council now wants to do regarding a Community Center, if anything. Commissioner Casey questioned why the Council stopped the project. Weycker reported that operating expenses was a large part of the decision. Weycker also stated that the School District is not willing to get involved in another project with the City of Mound. b) Park Director Fackler had nothing to report at this time. Chair Meyer reminded the Commissioners to have their calendars at the meetings for ease of scheduling. Meyer also reminded Commissioners to contact the City if they are unable to attend a scheduled meeting. Meyer also handed out an article from The Lakeshore News about the LMCD regarding water quality in Lake Minnetonka, and the fact that the quality is decreasing. Meyer indicated he had a conversation with a citizen who wondered if there would be any public education regarding fertilizers and other chemicals that end up in the lake. Chair Meyer thanked the applicants for attending the meeting and expressed a desire to be able to have both applicants on the Commission if there were enough openings. Fackler then tallied the votes and stated that the final count was six votes for Mr. Eccles, and six votes for Mr. Beise. Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission February 11, 1999 10:15 Motion made by Casey, seconded by Weycker to extend the meeting for another 5 minutes for discussion of the applicants, and to cast a second ballot. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Meyer asked for discussion of pros and cons of each applicant. Commissioner Cooper stated that the decision is a tough one and both applicants would be extremely valuable to the Commission. A second vote was taken, and the results were five votes for Mr. Eccles and seven votes for Mr. Beise. Motion made by Meyer, seconded by Casey to recommend the appoint of Mr. Beise first, Mr. Eccles second, to the Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission. Motion carried unanimously. 13. ADJOURN Motion made by Casey, seconded by Cooper to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 9 RECF.]',iE 2 4 199§ Febmary15,1999 To the Minnetrista Council: I am submitting this letter as requested in order that I may speak to the points outlined in regard to the WARA Company proposal for development in the Sanders Lake area. Rather than a lengthy discussion, I submit this in the form of talking points. Three areas of concern are as follows: Water: · · Tie in to Mound is not ultimately necessary to Mound furore plans Water pressure for Mound residents along County Road 110 is not poor as stated by WARA Traffic: · County Roads 110 and 44 intersection is poor Halstead Lane and County Road 110 equally poor · Halstead Lane damage with increased traffic Halstead Lane speed limit is too high Halstead Lane parking will be a problem · Rail. Road trestle is hazardous · Intersection of Westedge Road and County Highway 15 is poor · Emergency Vehicle access Concept Plan: Number of units is too high } Land terrain } Water drainage · Inadequate address of park dedicated trails · Connecting dock walk-way blocks 19 Mound residents to greater Sander' s Lake · Future access and proposed use of Sander's Lake must be better specified, as WARA owns the lake bottom. All of these issues make at best a difficult development to conceptualize. However, the sticking point would appear to be the Rail Road Trestle bridge. I do not see why further money should be spent by WARA nor time by the Minnetrista and Mound councils until this one issue is resolved. I thank you for your consideration of these points and my time to present them Sincerely Jay B. Petersen 2667 Halstead Lane Mound, MN February23,1999 To the Mound City Council: I write this in regard to the WARA Land Company's proposed development south and north of Sanders Lake. I wish these ideas be known and expressed at the upcoming meeting with the Minnetrista City Council representatives. There are many ways in which the development will have a negative impact on Mound residents. Many traffic concerns are potentially dangerous along Halstead Lane and Westedge Blvd. There is no significant benefit to Mound which outweighs these concerns unless all are fully rectified. WARA has promoted the idea that Mounds water systems lacks adequate pressure along County Highway 110 and could benefit by a connecting loop through the development. This is simply not true and can be verified by local residents and our own Public Works director. Further, our own needs can be tied to development currently under consideration in the Dutch Lake area. Rex Alwin is in the planning stages of developing his property. This would be a perfect area for a new well and holding tank. The most significant traffic problem regarding the development is the railroad trestle on Westedge Blvd. This is a single lane, low bridge with a blind approach fiom both sides. Minnetrista has indicated to the developer that no plan on the north side of the lake will be approved unless this trestle is widened and raised. As it is, it would be a danger to drivers, an impediment to emergency vehicles, and would force increased traffic onto Halstead Lane and Westedge Blvd., adding to the dangers there. I feel that it is important that no connecting link fi'om Mound water be routed through the north property until complete and adequate improvement is made to this trestle. It would be inappropriate for Mound to go ahead on a promise of no development that a future Minnetrista council could not be held to. We could find ourselves in a position we do not relish. I trust you to do the right thing. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely 2667 Halstead Lane. Mound, MN 55364 472-6585 February 26, 1999 Mr. Bob Polston, Mayor Mound City Hall 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 212 15TH AVE. NE SUITE 2010 WASECA, MN 56093 PHONE (507) 8~35-8g~0 FAX (507] BSD-7~)77 TRIAX CABLEVlSION Dear Mr. Polston: If your constituents have had the opportunity to contact us lately, they were greeted by a friendly customer service representative saying, "Thank your for calling Triax Cablevision. NeW Spirit, New Attitude, How may I help you?" Our 1998 investments in improving customer service have proven to be effective. Our customers are telling us that we are moving in the right direction, and we are excited about the products and services we are offering as we move toward the year 2000! "New Spirit..." Like all cable television operators, Triax Cablevision faces growing competition from direct satellite providers. We know we must provide our customers with quality programming and excellent customer service to be successful. "New Attitude..." This is perhaps the most exciting time in telecommunications. New and innovative products are making their way to the marketplace each day. Triax makes improvements to its equipment and electronics constantly in order to make sure our customers receive the most reliable quality programming available. "And New Value" This year, our goal is to increase the value of our service to you by adding more quality family programming choices where possible, ending charges for additional outlets in your home, and reducing processing fees. We also continue to be an important part of your community either through franchise fees paid up to your city, government and public access support, or by supporting young people through educational programs like Cable in the Classroom. Our major competitor, direct dish providers are not regulated at the local level, making cable television an important part of your community. The attached notification, which will appear in our customer's April bills, outlines channel additions and rate adjustments for 1999. If you have any questions concerning upcoming service charges, please contact Tom Bordwell, our Government Relations Representative, at 1-612-440- 9680 ext. 226. Thank you for the opportunity to provide your city's cable television service! Sincerely, Ric Hanson Director of Operations, Western Region Lorecto lgO6-41 ~mpl¢ Plain 1806.38 Mound 1 go(~-3 ~ is ~o~g the follo~g Addifi~al outl~ will ~ av~labl~ Your c~t e~d ha~e r~ ~1 ~ a~ed ~ $1 $ .09 to $17~0, md ~e Hom~ W~ Main~n~ce ~lm ill in~as~ $.15 ~ ~ A~I bill~g ~t, L~k CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM March 5, 1999 TO: FROM: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: SURVEY OF DEVON COMMON AT ROANOKE ACCESS At the Committee of the Whole meeting Tuesday, March 2, I was asked about the survey performed by McCombs Frank Roos and Associates (MFRA) at the above location. There was a concern regarding the detail of the survey and the method by which the MFRA survey crew went about the project. First, the lack of communication in advising the homeowners in the area as to what they were doing was an error by the MFRA crew. They should have attempted to contact people before they started so the residents knew what they were doing and that they were going to have to traverse on private property to get their work done. I spoke to John Cameron about this and he agreed and will be discussing the matter with the survey department head at MFRA. Second, the level of detail sought was necessary to avoid continually going to the area to measure and identify property lines, dock site centers, etc. Hopefully, we have enough information now that will address issues and concerns as they arise. Third, the number of hours spent on this project was a result of the detail requested. The cost of the survey should not exceed $1,000. Finally, MFRA was also asked to survey the property of Greg Knutson by Mr. Knutson. This was a separate agreement between MFRA and Mr. Knutson. This could have added to the number of hours spent by the crew in that area. printed on recycled paper March 4, 1999 The Cities of Minnetrista and Mound would like to invite the neighboring property owners of the mobile home park to a neighborhood meeting, to be held at the Minnetrista City Hall. The meeting will take place on Thursday, March 18, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. A neighborhood meeting is part of the formal process of an application for a planned unit development within the City of Minnetrista. Since the proposal affects residents in both communities, notice is being provided to both Minnetrista and Mound residents. The applicants are: Remington Development, applicant, Roy O'donnell, owner, and Steve Coddon, owner. The sketch/concept plan has been revised since the neighbors were invited to a meeting with the developers in February. The revised plan is available to be reviewed at the Minnetrista City Hall. The concept plan provides for 16 twinhomes on the northeastern portion of property (where the existing mobile home park is located) and 7 single family homes bordering on Halstead Avenue. The purpose of the meeting is for residents to ask questions and provide input about the proposed residential development. All persons interested in gaining more information about the sketch/concept plan or in providing input to the planning process are invited to attend. If you have questions about the application or the meeting, you may contact: Minnetrista City Hall 7701 County Road 110 West Minnetrista MN 55364 Phone (612) 446-1660 Fax 446-1311 Mound City Hall 5341 Maywood Road Mound MN $$364 (612)4;'2-0600 Fax 472-0620 Mound and Minnetrista will also be holding a joint Planning Commission Meeting on Monday, March 29, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. at the Minnetrista City Hall. League of Minnesota Cities 1999 Legislative Conference Sheraton Midway Hotel, St. Paul Thursday, March 25, 1999 Attend the event that gives you up-to-the-minute analysis of legislative issues that affect your dty. Hear from the legislators making the derisions. Conference agenda 8:30 a.m. 9:00 a.m. 9:15 a.m. 9:45 a.m. 10:30 a.m. 10:45 a.m. 11:15 a.m. Registration Noon 1:00 p.m. 1:30 p.m. 2:00 p.m. 2:30 p.m. Welcome Transportation Legislative Outlook for l~eform of Property Taxes and Local Government Aids Break Lunch Ventura Administration Proposal for Property Tax Reform Study Commission Various Issues from the Local Government Committees Including: · Y2k Life after Sunset of the Municipal Board Metropolitan Government Reorganization Role of the State Auditor in TIF Oversight and Reporting Water Quality Initiatives Legislative Potpourri City Day on the Hill C F~ C S~ S~ C c? C Mound Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1999 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland. Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, City Council Member: Andrea Ahrens; and Secretary Deb Hawkinson. Absent: Orv Burma Absent and excused: Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss. Public Present: None Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 8, 1999 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Mueller to approve the Minutes of the February 8, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting as written. Motion carried 6-0. WORKSHOP ITEMS: DISCUSSION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: MARCH 9, 1999 The City of Mound is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan reviewed City Planner Gordon. The State statute requires a mandatory Comprehensive Plan update every ten years. The plan will provide the guide for public policy for the next decade. The input of the Planning Commission members is integral to the planning decisions of the community and thus, important in this process. The current schedule is behind one month. This is the first of four scheduled meetings to review the following: · Goals · Policies · Socio-economic trends · Land Use After bringing the Commission up to date on the task at hand, City Planner Gordon indicated his desire to look at the first two objectives listed above and opened the floor for comments and questions from the Commissioners. Mound Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 Weiland stated that while (last paragraph, page 15) "The Metropolitan Council drafted the "Regional Blueprint" in December, 1996 to fulfill this requirement and to provide local units of government with direction on how to plan for growth, transportation, aviation and water resource management .... required local governments ... to amend local comprehensive plans so that they are consistent with the goals and policies established for the region." is a good statement, why does Mound have to agree with the Regional plan since the City has its own unique differences from the region. Gordon answered that this was a broad statement and provides a checklist for cities to follow. A standard format is desired and it is tough to get anything approved by the Metropolitan Council that does not meet this requirement. Several Commissioners asked where a copy of the "1996 Regional Blueprint" was and felt they needed to review this before they could draft one for Mound. Gordon indicated that he was sure he could get at least one set of books, but he wasn't sure if he could get nine complete sets. There are six books to the set: one general book; two books on transportation; one on water resources; one on aviation; and one other he could not readily identify. Commissioners indicated the books they really needed were the general one and the one on water resources as far as for each member to review. Otherwise, one set should be sufficient for the City. Gordon will see what he can do. Brown asked if the study included "light rail." "Yes", stated Gordon, "but it is broad." Gordon did not see any problems with meeting the Metropolitan Council's plan. Their blueprint planned the new growth in the Metro area for the next 1- 20 and 40 years out in very broad terms. Mueller asked how much changing the old (1990) plan would require to meet the Metropolitan Council's approval. Gordon indicated that while that plan passed local government commissions, it did not meet the Metropolitan Council's approval. Mueller cited that indeed, Mound did not have a "proliferation of affordable housing" in the city boundaries. On another note, he indicated that there wasn't construction removal permits for homes built prior to 1939 and have since been torn down. He stated this in reference to the charts on page 22 of the Meeting Packet. He felt it would be nice to have that data to look and see what the trend was on this item. Weiland also asked if this chad referred to Mound. Gordon indicated that yes, it was specific to Mound. Mueller went on to say that the data to update this chart was needed as part of the Comprehensive Plan process. Brown, in reference to the statement on page 27, item #2, "Discourage new residential development from encroaching upon vital natural resources. ", asked if the Planning Commission would be getting more authority on Wetland regulation and other natural lands as a result of this Comprehensive Plan update. Gordon 2 Mound Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 answered that there is protection for Wetlands provided for in the Zoning Code. However, there are other things we can do to help protect these areas such as setbacks. Planners may want to develop these as part of the Plan and Zoning Ordinances to help protect these areas. Page 24, item #4, states "...such that they create hazards to the property or adjacent property." Is this really what is meant he asked, or should it read "...does not create...". Gordon stated he took this information straight from the 1990 Comprehensive Plan. Mueller also feels that this needs rewording. Gordon will work on the wording and bring suggested changes to the next meeting. Also page 24, item #7, needs attention according to Mueller. This doesn't say provide setbacks, or protect. It says "Acquire, through public means, wetland areas when opportunities arise." If this is what we mean, the City hasn't bought any wetlands in the seven years Mueller has been on the Planning Commission. He wanted to know why not and if that is the intention, let's do it. Land use, in general was discussed and the need for such issues to be presented before the Planning Commission first to make recommendations to the City Council. In particular, the Beckers' issue was addressed. Many Commissioners felt this should have come before the Planning Commission first. Staff determined that there were wetlands on this property, however, they were not designated as such on the map. The Wetland Ordinances do not apply then. None-the-less, the Wetland Conservation Act does. The owners, do not think wetlands exist and have appealed Staff's ruling. City Building Official Sutherland explained what happened in this situation is that the Beckers do not believe the land to be wetlands and appealed the ruling. The statute states that in the case of appeal, the appealing party should go to the "governing authority." Staff's interpretation of this was the City Council. Thus, this issue went to the City Council. In Mueller's opinion, however, the "governing authority" should have been the Planning Commission first. Wetlands are part of the Zoning Code and the Planning Commission has authority on land use. Mueller believes something needs to be changed so it is apparent that the Planning Commission should be consulted first in items regarding land usage. Council Member Ahrens echoed what Sutherland had stated that the City Council was the appropriate body for this issue to come before and this is the procedure that Staff should have followed. Mueller continued to disagree and indicated he wants to know what can be addressed to change this process. Gordon asked if item # 9 on page 25 would be appropriate for including language for Planning Commission to review first or if item #7, page 25 is where Mueller would like this put. The latter specifically relates to wetlands. Mueller responded that the initial thrust is to "buy" lands. Mound is not doing that. 3 Mound Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 Brown asked if the City could remove a piece of land from sale under certain conditions such as eminent domain, etc. Also, he related there is a fund set up for purchase of public lands, although he doesn't know how much is in the fund. Ahrens pointed out the wetlands acquisition as a result of the Teal Point subdivision. Mueller pointed out that it did cost the City since the applicant's fees were waived on other items. Brown stated that lots of times private land becomes very expensive when owners know the City is interested in it. Mueller stated that it is incorrect to allow people to build right up to the wetlands (and referenced a project on Idlewood Road), and some setbacks should be established and included in the Zoning Code. Gordon stated that on wetland delineation, Hennepin County is surveying wetlands community by community and they will eventually get to Mound. Mueller wanted to know if the City used the Federal guidelines for wetland delineation. Brown wanted to know if in the case of the Beckers, the Planning Commission could walk the land. He believes that where they drilled wells to test the water level is not in the lowest portion of the property. He wanted to know if the Planning Commission should recommend to the City Council that Staff/Planning Commission walk the property and measure water table levels. Sutherland felt it would be a valid discussion item for a Council Member to ask the City Council to bring an update on the Becker situation to the Planning Commission as a courtesy. On item #6, on page 28, Mueller pointed out that connected trail systems have not been developed and he doesn't feel it is possible to develop them on remaining plots available for development. Thus, the item should be removed from the Comprehensive Plan or the language "all developments" should be removed. Staff commented about the proposed trails included in the Mound Visions Project. Mueller and the Commissioners discussed the existing trail systems and where the are now. Continuing on item # 8, page 28, "providing access locations are consistent with the Mound land use plan and do not diminish the function of local park facilities.' If this is accurate, then the Planning Commission needs to take a long hard look at Chester Park. Mueller pointed out part of the Comprehensive Plan should include some form of Communication Processes. For example, all applications (such as building 4 Mound Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 permit, variances, waivers, etc.) should be on a WEB page for Mound for telecommuting, use of the Internet for job posting, etc. Glister added that the minutes of the various commissions and councils could also be on the WEB. Sutherland stated that he had just gave a copy of some information to Gino Businaro for possible inclusion on the City's WEB page for Mound. Additional information will be provided. With the above in mind, Brown asked if the plans for telecommunication towers, antennas, etc. should be in the Comprehensive Plan. Gordon stated that this should be covered in a broader manner such as "new land use trends." Coming back to the 1990 Comprehensive Plan, Mueller asked about item #7, page 25, which deals with entertainment ventures. He believes that the Comprehensive Plan should deal with obtaining/constructing a Community Center for Mound and/or the surrounding communities. Gordon indicated that item #3 on page 27 could be expanded to include this. Discussion on where to place a community center ensued. Brown stated that seniors wanted to be able to walk to this type of place, thus it needed to be closer, such as downtown. Both Mueller and Ahrens indicated that if done right, people would come regardless of whether it was downtown or not. By adding a new item after page 27 called "recreation," Glister pointed out that they could avoid limiting this to Mound per say. Gordon indicated he wants to maintain focus on the CBD, but not limit it to downtown so, perhaps, it would be better to say "CBD and immediate periphery." Brown stated that on April 9th, letters are going out to all businesses in Mound to come downtown and share a cup of coffee and donuts to learn about plans for downtown. Gordon indicated that he wanted to spend part of the next three or four meetings on the Comprehensive Plan. The Commissioners indicated again their desire to obtain copies of the Blueprint, in particular, the General and Water Resource sections. Mueller wanted to know if there were still meetings with the Metropolitan Council that were training in nature. Gordon was not aware of this thrust now. They were concentrating on the comprehensive planning process. However, he receives information for training of planning commissioners and so does Sutherland. They will pass that information along. 5 Mound Planning Commission Minutes February 22. 1999 DISCUSSION: TRELLIS/FENCES CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: MARCH 9, 1999 City Planner Gordon brought to the Planning Commission an item brought to the City Council last November by a citizen complaint. Included in the packet for this meeting are pictures (page 33) of a trellis located at 4673 Island View Drive. He explained an anonymous resident filed the complaint claiming that it should be regulated as a fence under the definition of fence in the Zoning Code. Staff investigated the case and determined that this trellis did meet the definition of a fence and should be regulated under the Zoning Code and that because the trellis is in a shore land impact area, it would not be allowed. Rather than acting on the complaint at the meeting, the City Council felt it appropriate to send the issue to the Planning Commission after the first of the year for review. City Planner Gordon suggested considering the things that could be located in a yard and if the Commission feels they should be regulated. Current accessory building/structures that are regulated are those that exceed 120 square feet, detached decks/patios, lock boxes, and fences. Many typical things found in yards such as lawn ornaments, benches, bird feeders, planter boxes, basketball hoops, etc. are not regulated under the Code. As Staff has found, there are many types of trellis structures around the town. Those that may lean up against the wall of a house or garage probably wouldn't be regulated. An arched trellis over a sidewalk probably wouldn't either. Staff would like to avoid regulating, as much as possible, any item on residential property unless it doesn't have a residential character or is an obstruction. He stated it seems the approach to this issue is to revisit the definition of a fence to see if it needs to be modified. The definition reads: Fence: A fence is defined for the purpose of this Ordinance as any partition structure, wall, or gate erected as a dividing marker, barrier, or enclosure and located along the boundary, or within the required yard. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a fence as, "1. An enclosure, barrier, or boundary made of posts, boards, wire, stakes, or rails." and a trellis as, "An open lattice work used for training climbing plants. Discussion at the November 24, 1999 City Council meeting included the following highlights: The City Manager reported that there have been several recent cases relative to interpretation of what a fence is versus some other type of structure and what is covered under the fence ordinance. The Staff desires 6 Mound Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 that this item be sent on to the Plannin§ Commission for review and study to give a clearer definition and interpretation of what a fence really is. The City Planner submitted pictures of some problem areas that many people call trellises, but what appear to be fences for lack of definition in the Zoning Ordinance to clearly define it as something other than a fence. Council Member Hanus asked that another item to be looked at in the Zoning Code is acceptable materials for fencing which are specifically listed as wood and chain link. With those items in mind, wrought iron fencing, and PCV fencing would be excluded. It the City agrees with the Staff's interpretation, building permits would have to be issued for all trellises, arbors, archways, etc. and if these structures are within 20 or 30 feet of the street, or within 50 feet of the Lake, they are nonconforming which would then require variances. · The Council also discussed the size of a fence or trellis that could also be a problem if it becomes a barrier. A motion was made, seconded and approved to have the Planning Commission study, and redefine the fences versus the trellis in the Zoning Code. DISCUSSION: Weiland wanted to know what the difference was between a trellis or a fence. He suggested limiting the height in front and back and calling them the same. Glister put together a group of pages from a Time Life Book - The Big Book of Garden Design. In this collection of data, she had definitions of both fences and trellis, and the differences. The information included a list of common fence styles and trellis was one of those styles if it was on the boundary between properties. Gordon also indicated that the ordinances on fencing were fairly inclusive. A fence is a barrier or an enclosure as opposed to decoration or ornamental purposes. Glister referred to her information indicating a fence can serve as a trellis. Mueller asked if it would still be considered a fence if it was plant material or only on one side. He feels that the Planning Commission is over regulating things. Different ways of approaching this were discussed among staff and Commissioners. Brown suggested that sometimes this becomes an issue because people like to use it as "ammunition" against their neighbors. It becomes a control issue for some. Mueller suggested that rather than regulate fences, the Planning Commission should regulate "line of sight" issues instead. This would eliminate the need to be conclusive about "what is a fence and what isn't a fence." Sutherland pointed out that a few variance requests for inheight in the front yard have been denied. 7 Mound Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999 Ahrens stated she has a trellis and the packet has some pictures, She commented that the ordinances concerning fences make this a fence. She has four trellises separated by several feet but they are not a line of sight issue because of the slope of the street. However, according to some, it is a fence per the ordinances. Ahrens wants to know where in the ordinances is she prohibited from having a trellis, which is what she sees it as, not a fence. She stated there needs to be some logic in the City's approach to planning and she likes the "line of sight" concept. Hasse feels there should be nothing but grass within 50 feet of the lake. Per Mueller, Spring Park, Minnetrista, and Orono all have "line of sight" ordinances. Ahrens feels the Planning Commission should get copies of these ordinances, take the best from them, and be as creative as necessary. Weiland pointed out that fences could ruin a beautiful city and particular site. As an example, he cited some fences around Andrews Park in Champlin. He discussed perhaps taking the height and making sure that there was a separation equal to this height in the placement of trellis. Brown noted that often it is an issue of "neighborly vendettas." Mueller feels it is a good idea to seek out other communities' ordinances and be creative with one for Mound using "line of sight." Sutherland distributed a handout about Building Permit Exemptions with respect to this topic. Gordon will get copies of the different communities' ordinances to work from. Glister asked about tennis courts and how high the fences should be. Gordon advised it is ten feet to prevent the ball from going over the wall but she doesn't believe that is high enough from her experience of getting several tennis balls in her yard and would like it higher. INFORMATION A. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 9, 1999 Brown asked the Commissioners if anyone had heard anything about the name badges. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Glister for the Planning Commission meeting to adjourn at 9:00 p.m. Motion carried: 6-0. 8 HAR"TERED 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (6l 2) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www, kennedy-graven.com Joan B. DEAN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9207 cmail: jdean~kennedy-graven.com March 4, 1999 Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 Re: Reply to Bob Schmidt Letter Dear Ed: At its February 9, 1999 meeting, the Mound City Council directed that I respond to an issue which was raised in Bob Schmidt's letter of January 19, 1999. I am directing my response to you for delivery to the council and to Mr. Schrnidt. By way of general background, the city council considered and approved the 1999 Dock Location Map at its January 12, 1999 meeting. The approved map was a combination of the recommended map proposed to the council by the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission ("DCAC") and modifications to the recommended map that were made by the council at the January 12 meeting. By his letter, Mr. Schmidt questions the propriety of that action. In particular, Mr. Schmidt cites the following portion of section 437:10, subd.2 of the Mound City Code: Final approval of the dock location map and the number of private dock licenses to be permitted shall be recommended by the Dock Inspector, reviewed by the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission and approved by the City Council. (Emphasis supplied by Mr. SchmidO Mr. Schmidt views this language as precluding the City Council or the DCAC from approving any form of dock location map which is different than the one that is presented to it by the Dock Inspector. That interpretation, if accurate, would put direct regulatory control in the hands of a city employee and would not allow the DCAC or City Council the authority to change it. If you notice it says that the dock inspector recommends rather than dictates. Of course, if Mr. Ed Shukle March 4, 1999 Page 2 of 2 Schmidt's interpretation were correct, meaningful input from city commissions and the city council would not be allowed. The Dock Inspector recommends; the DCAC reviews and recommends approval with or without changes and the City Council approves with or without changes. This interpretation is supported elsewhere in the same subdivision. The Dock and Commons Advisory Commission shall review the dock location map between September 1 and December 31 before each new boating season so that their recommended changes may be referred to and considered by the City Council on or before January 15. (Emphasis added) Moreover, the strongest support for this interpretation is found in the section of the Mound City Code that establishes the DCAC and defines its duties. Section 256:20. Reports to be Advisory. The Commission reports and re- commendations shall be made to the Council, Manager, and Park Director as may be requested, or any or all of them as the Commission deems appropriate in the light of the matter under consideration. Its reports, conclusions and recommendations are purely advisory, and the final determination and responsibility shall be with the Council. (Emphasis supplied) Not only is it clear that the Council's intent, as expressed throughout the Ordinance Code, is that advisory commissions are to make recommendations which the Council can use as it deems appropriate, it is also likely that the Council lacks the power to delegate the final decision making responsibility to a subordinate entity. In light of the foregoing, it is my opinion that the City Council acted within the scope of its authority when, on January 12. 1999, it adopted a 1999 Dock Location Map which included matters which were not part of the dock location map proposed to it by the DCAC. I have been informed that there are further statements in Mr. Schmidt's letter that utilize incorrect numbers and that there are quotes taken out of context. While I have not independently verified those assertions, it should be understood that I am not, by silence, agreeing to the statements contained in the Schmidt letter. Respectfully yours, JBD-158010 MU220-6 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, March 10, 1999 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock READING OF MINUTES - 2/24/99 LMCD Regular Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) PUBLIC HEARING · Paradise Charter Cruises, Consideration of new on-sale Intoxicating Liquor License applications for the charter boats Paradise Destiny, Paradise Grand, and Paradise Princess II; 1. LAKE USE & RECREATION 2. WATER STRUCTURES A) Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance relating to boat storage density and multiple dock facilities on Lake Minnetonka; amending LMCD Code Sections 2.02 and 2.03; B) 1999 Multiple Dock/District Mooring Area (DMA) Licenses, staff recommends approval of 1999 multiple dock/DMA license applications as outlined in 3/4/99 staff memo; C) Additional Business; 3. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE 4. FINANCIAL A) Audit of vouchers for payment (3/1/99 - 3/15/99); B) January financial summary and balance sheet; C) Additional Business; 5. ADMINISTRATION A) Consideration of staff recommendation for compensation adjustment for pert-time Administrative Clerk, Jan Briner; DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:00 PM, Wednesday, February 24, 1999 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Foster called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Members present: Bert Foster, Deephaven; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Greg Kitchak, Minnetonka; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Lili McMillan, Orono; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Andrea Ahems, Mound; Sheldon Weft, Greenwood. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Gregory Nybeck, Executive Director; Roger Winberg, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Bob Rascop, Shorewood. CHAIR ANNOUNCEIVIENTS, Vice Chair Foster There were no announcements. READING OF MINUTES - 2/10/99 LMCD Regular Board Meeting MOTION: Gilman moved, Ambrose seconded to approve the minutes of the 2/10/99 Regular Board meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes (8), Abstained (2, Ambrose and Wert); 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 HEARINGS · Pelican Point Homeowners' Association, Consideration of a new multiple dock license application to relocate 16 low water slips at the north end of the existing dock to the south end of the property. Foster opened the public heating at 7:03 p.m. He asked the applicant if they had any comments or would like to provide background at this time. Mr. John Boyer, President of the Pelican Point Homeowners' Association, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He made the following comments: Lake ~linnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 24, 1999 Page 2 Pelican Point HOA was originally granted a 40 BSU multiple dock facility in the northern area of the site in 1994. He noted a 12 BSU emergency plan on the southern area of the site was also approved for low water periods. · Pelican Point HOA is proposing the relocation of the 16 inner BSU's from the north end of the property to the south end on a permanent basis because of inadequate water depths. · The City of Mound reviewed this proposed change at its 2/23/99 city council meeting and expressed concern in relocating the dock structure to the south because it is currently undeveloped. He suggested Pelican Point HOA would prefer to relocate it elsewhere; however, they are out of options. · He noted based on suggestions from the City of Mound and nearby residents, Pelican Point HOA would like to consider amending their request to extend the northern dock structure out an additional 50' beyond the currently approved 100' length. He entertained questions from the Board. McMillan arrived at 7:05 p.m. Nybeck stated the staff memo in the Board packet addressed the proposed relocation of the 16 inner BSU's to the southern end of the property. He noted in 1994, an emergency plan for low water conditions was approved to the south because the Board at that time did not want the multiple dock facility to extend beyond 100' from the 929.4' lake elevation. He added the Board needs to decide whether to maintain the Boards direction in 1994 or to consider a dock length variance for the northern dock structure. Boyer reviewed the multiple dock structure to the north, Lakewinds Association, in relation to the proposed multiple dock facility with a 50' dock length variance, if granted. Wert asked why the City of Mound has reservations about relocating part of the dock facility to the south end of the property. Boyer stated the City of Mound would prefer to preserve the unaltered shoreline along the south end of the property. He noted there currently is no dock structure placed out from the south shoreline. Nybeck provided some background on the proposed application to relocate 16 inner BSU's from the north end of the property to the south. He noted staff received input from Pelican Point HOA that they were having low water concerns with their inner slips and they questioned what triggered the low water emergency plan. He added after discussing this with Chair Babcock and LeFevere, it was determined that the low water emergency plan would be triggered when a low water emergency was declared by the District, or 928.0'. He noted staff suggested if Pelican Point HOA is looking for permanent relief from low water conditions, they might want to relocate the inner BSU's to the south on a permanent basis. Wert asked how the docks are assigned. Jim Reynolds, Chair of the Pelican Point HOA Boat Committee, stated all 40 BSU's are assigned to residents only. He added they are assigned on a seniority basis for a combination of 24' and 36' long BSU'so Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 24, 1999 Page 3 Gilman asked the applicant if they submit a dock length variance application for 50', what would the water depth be. He questioned whether they need the full additional 50' in length. Boyer stated he believed it would be better to go out 50' to allow for better maneuvering for the inner 16 slips. Ahrens pointed out if the original plan was approved to move the inner 16 BSU's to the south, it would impact an additional 256' of shoreline. Ambrose questioned whether water depths on the south end of the property would be a problem if the proposed plan was approved. Boyer stated water depth measurements are identified on the proposed site plan. Gilman asked staff for an update on applications that would be needed to consider a dock length variance. Nybeck stated if the Board believes a dock length variance would be favorably reviewed, the public hearing should either be closed or continued to allow the applicant to submit the proper application, fee, and attachments. He added staff would need to publish a new public hearing notice, which would result in 3/24/99 being the first meeting the Board could consider this application. Boyer stated one additional change being proposed by Pelican Point HOA is the conversion of seven 24' long slips to 32' in length. He noted these seven BSIJ's are currently approved at the 32' length in the Iow water emergency plan. Foster asked the audience if they had comments. Rick Swanson, 2998 Pelican Point Circle, stated he was allocated an inner slip in 1998. He noted he could not navigate his boat to the dock because of low water problems and outlined three options for the Board to consider. They were: 1) move the dock out 50 feet, 2) split the dock in two, or 3) use part of the island for dockage. Trudy Turnquist stated her parents previously owned the property and that she was quite familiar with it. She reviewed a wide variety of factors why the docking should be left on the north side of the property and not relocated to the south. These factors included the historical beauty of the southern part of the property, the ecological impacts to the southern part of the property if the docks are relocated, and public safety from storms. She stated that she wanted to leave the south property as is and backed the concept of moving the existing dock out an additional 50'. Jim Reynolds, 3018 Pelican Point Circle, stated he believed the amended proposal to lengthen the existing 40 slips out an additional 50' along the northern shoreline of the property is a practical solution. He stated he believed it is less intrusive if all 40 slips are located to the north. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 24, 1999 Page 4 Ron Johnson, 4416 Dorchester Road, stated he abuts the site on the south end. He supported maintaininl all the dockage to the north because weeds are limited in that location and because the bluffs buffer the dockage itself. There being no further comments, Foster closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. He suggested the Board needs to carefully consider the 100' length restriction defined in the Code. He noted this can be changed with a variance; however, a physical hardship needs to be defined if a dock length variance is to be approved. He noted one possible hardship in this docking facility might be the concave shoreline, which makes it difficult for the applicant to use the total dock use area within 100'. He suggested the Board discuss a dock length variance although an application has not been received. Gilman stated he was generally in favor of a dock length variance to preserve the south end of the prope . Suerth stated he was generally favorable for the dock length variance; however, he had concerns with increasing 24' long slips to 32' in length. Wert stated he believed if a dock length variance is approved, the emergency plan for the south end of the property should be ceased. Foster asked for clarification on why there is a need for 32' long slips rather than 24'. Reynolds stated when the facility was originally approved in 1994, the mix of 24' and 32' long slips was unknown. He added this has evolved and they have a better idea of the mix today. He stated the additional 32' long slips are a request from the residents of the association. LeFevere stated there appears to be a fair amount of sentiment in favor of a dock length variance although an application has not been received. He noted it would be difficult for the Board to impose length limitations on the multiple dock facility because it is conforming to Code. He added it becomes more relevant with a dock length variance application with the possibility of restricting boat lengths as a condition of it. Partyka asked if the applicant has considered dredging the area within 100'. Boyer stated that option is expensive and he doubted he could obtain the necessary permits from MCWD and the MN DNR. Gilman stated he believed the dock length variance appears to be practical and makes the most sense. He suggested the discussion be tabled to allow for the application to be submitted and for staff to make recommendations. He noted the Board needs to seriously consider not expanding boat capacity at the facility by approving longer slips. Ambrose stated he is undecided on the issue of larger slips but likes the practical solution of a dock lengtt' variance. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February :14, 1999 Page 5 Partyka encouraged the applicant to demonstrate a physical hardship to justify a dock length variance out to 150' from the shoreline. MOTION: Gilman moved, Weft seconded to table further discussion on this issue indefinitely. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. · Excel Marina, Consideration of a new multiple dock license to re. configure a non-conforming structure under LMCD Code Section 2.015. Foster opened the public heating at 7:55 p.m. He asked the applicant if they had any comments or would like to provide background at this time. Vern Larsen, Excel Marina General Manager, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He made the following comments: · He noted the marina facility is currently approved for 84 BSU's on St. Albans Bay. · He stated they would like to reconfigure the six slips, S-1 through S-6, on the southern shoreline of St. Albans Bay. He added the proposed changes would benefit the maneuvering of boats in this area of the multiple dock facility. · He stated he believed the proposed changes are relatively straight forward with the exception of square footage calculations for slip S-6. He submitted an amended site plan with slip S-6 that is completely 29.5' in length. He entertained questions from the Board. Wert asked for recommendation from staff because an ulxlated site plan has been submitted. Nybeck stated the one criteria the applicant did not comply with in the original proposal was that the cumulative square footage associated with the 84 BSU's increased. He noted this has been properly addressed with the amended site plan. He added the proposed application would comply with other Code restrictions including dock length and side setbacks. He stated he concurred with feedback from the City of Excelsior that boat storage needs to be restricted to authorized BSU locations. Foster asked if there have been any violations relating to this in the past. Nybeck stated staff has observed a few violations at the north end of the main structure where boats are being moored for the service department. He added he has discussed this with the applicant and they have agreed to park them in authorized locations or to take them out of the water. LeFevere suggested the Board table discussion to allow staff to confirm that the proposed changes comply with a variance previously granted for an adjacent fire lane. He noted the proposed drawing is not to scale and the details of the Variance Order should be reviewed by staff. There being no further comments, Foster closed the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 24, 1999 Page 6 Foster stated he concurred with LeFevere that staff should examine the proposed application with respect to the variance previously approved for the adjacent f'rre lane. MOTION: Gilman moved, Weft seconded to table further discussion of the issue until a future meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 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. MOTION: Partyka moved, McMillan seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Order for approval of new multiple dock license and variance applications to approve a dock length and width variance at d,' :k si 8 and 9. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 1999 Multiple Dock/District Mooring Area fi}MA) Licenses, staff recommends approval of 1999 multiple dock/DMA license applications as outlined in 2/18/99 staff memo. MOTION: Dahlen moved, Wert seconded to approve the 1999 multiple dock/DMA applications as outlined in the 2/18/99 staff memo. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE A. Staff update on draft 1999 Zebra Mussel Work Plan Foster asked for an update from Suerth on this agenda item Suerth stated staff, in addition to Gilman and McMillan, recently met with representatives from Carmichael Lynch to discuss a zebra mussel work plan for 1999 and the future. He thanked Gilman for arranging this meeting and asked for a brief update. Nybeck stated Jay Rendall was also in attendance at the meeting with Carmichael Lynch. He stated he believed the meeting was productive and that a proposal on a short and long-term basis should be received by mid-March. He noted based on this meetin? the main focus of a zebra mussel campaign should be on awareness and urgency. He conch; .~d the proposal would be forwarded to the Board after it has been received. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting F bruary 24, 1999 Page 7 e ® MeMillan and Gilman both stated they believed it was a productive meeting. Foster complimented the efforts made to date. B. Additional Business There was no additional business. LAKE USE AND RECREATION There was no business. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers for payment (2/15/99-2/28/99) Nybeck reviewed the audit of vouchers for payment as submitted. MOTION: Gilman moved, Weft seconded to approve the audit of vouchers as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Additional Business There was no additional business. ADMINISTRATION There was no discussion. SAVE THE LAKE There was no discussion. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Nybeck updated the Board on the coordination of a meeting to discuss the use of Sonar in Carsons Bay. He stated he had made contact with the majority of those who would attend this meeting including Tom Pokonosky, SePro, Hennepin Parks, and the MN DNR. He noted staff is targeting this discussion for the 3/24/99 Board meeting and that staff would prepare a packet of background information for the Board to review prior to this meeting. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. Lake B4innetonk~ Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 24, 1999 9. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 10. AD, IOURNM~2~NT There being no further business, Vice Chair Foster adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Bert Foster, Vice Chair Page 8 Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary RECEIVED ',,2, ii 1999 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE AGENDA 8:30 A.M., Friday, March 12, 1999 LMCD Office 18338 Minnetonka Blvd., Deephaven 1. Introductions and Welcome; 2. Review of Minutes from the 1/8/99 meeting; 3. Update on ideas being considered for 1999 Zebra Mussel Work Plan; 4. Agency Reports: 5. Area wide lake association reports; 6. Old business; 7. New business; 8. Adjournment; EWM/EXO~CS TASK FORCE, 118199, PAGE 3 Discussion of plans for 1999 to address preventing the introduction of zebra mussels in Lake Minnetonka The Task Force discussed the draft ordinance relating to introduction of zebra mussels into Lake Minnetonka and the 30-day required drying period required in the ordinance unless a MN DNR representative has inspected it. There was no consensus of how long of a drying period is appropriate. The Task Force turned their attention to education of the public on zebra mussels. McMillan stated although them might be merit to adopt an ordinance, she believed focus of the District should be on education. She added that she would like to let the public know that the District can assist in the spraydown of watercraft suspected of containing zebra mussels and that the spraydown would be free. Suerth concurred with McMillan and stated he also would like to see emphasis placed on public education. He added he would support the hiring of someone to coordinate a public awareness program. McMillan stated she would encourage posters at marinas along with packets of information. She also suggested that a request be placed with MN DNR for an informational packet on zebra mussels. Suerth stated he would bring up the request for a part-time employee to assist in establishing and implementing a zebra mussel public awareness and educational plan. Area wide lake association reports Them were no area wide lake association reports. Old business There was no old business. New business There was no additional new business. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 a.m. Respect.fully Submitted, Gregory S. Nybcck ,' Executive Director DRAFT RECEf\: ....... LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE 8:30 A.M., Friday, January 8, 1999 LMCD Office, 18338 Mtka Blvd., Deephaven, MN Present: lierb Sucrth, LMCD Board; Lili McMillan, LMCD Board; Wendy Crowell, MN DNR; John Barten, Hennepin Parks; Don Germanson, LMA; Tom Pokonosky, Carsons Bay HOA; Rod Boltjes, Carsons Bay HOA; Bob Woodbum, Carsons Bay HOA; Greg Nybeck, LMCD Executive Director; Roger Winberg, LMCD Administrative Technician. Minutes The Task Force reviewed the minutes from thc 11/13/98 EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting. Nybeck noted a change needs to be made in the fifth paragraph on page two relating to McMillan's comments. He stated the last sentence of the paragraph should read ``to educate the public before they are introduced", not "to educate the public ff they are introduced." The Task Force accepted the minutes with this amendment. New business Pokonosky spoke on behalf of the Carsons Bay HOA. He reported that: The homeowners' association is located in the southwest section of Carsons Bay. He noted the water depth in the area is generally in the five-foot range and that there are 88 littoral acres in the bay. · The homeowners' association has a grandfathered permit with the MN DNR for treatment of Eurasian watermilfoil with 2, 4-D herbicide. He noted they have treated the area in question for many years with this herbicide but are not totally satisfied with the results. He stated by late July or early August, they are having troubles navigating boats from their docks and swimming in this area of the bay. · The homeowners' association is considering making an application to the MN DNR to treat the area in question with Sonar (flufidone). lie noted they had been in contact with the manufacturer of the product, SePRO Corporation, and stated he believed the chemical is safe and would have the least impact on the environment because of its application rate. · The homeowners' association has met with Chip Welling of the MN DNR to discuss the possible use of Sonar. lie noted the MN DNR has stated they have a policy to preserve all aquatic plants in Lake Minnetonka and that Welling expressed some reservations. · lie asked for feedback and thoughts from the Task Force on the use of Sonar and asked for support on the project from the District. · He concluded if the homeowners' association submits an application, they would like the support of the LMCD. Crowell stated if an application for the use of Sonar was submitted to the MN DNR, it would be reviewed by the Metro Fisheries Office. She added that Carsons Bay HOA is grandfathered in at EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE, 1/8/99, PAGE 2 treating 20% of 88 total acres, thus a maximum treatment area of 18. She stated she has some reservations with Sonar because it requires a much longer contact time, it requires high..~ concentrations in the area being treated, and that it would eliminate all aquatic plants iii the area being treated, in addition to Eurasian watermilfoil. She concluded the remaining ?0 littoral acres of Carsons Bay might have low concentrations of Sonar because of leaching. Nybeck asked for feedback from the Task Force on whether it is appropriate for the District to support such applications. He stated he believed the District has generally relied on the expertise of the MN DNR in these situations and that it might set a precedent not in th. ', best interest of the District. Suerth and McMi!lan expressed concern in supporting an application for herbicide treatment that would kill all aquatic life. They added they concurred the District has historically relied on the expertise of the MN DNR and that the homeowners' association needs to work with the MN DNR on a possible application. Nybeck stated that the LMCD could provide a late season harvest of Eurasian watermilfoil of channels in the area for boat traffic. This would augment the application of 2,4-D herbicide if the homeowners association continues to do that. Pokonosky responded that he would like to see Sonar used at least on an experimental basis. Batten stated he had a liminology background and that the homeowners' association might not be satisfied with the results of Sonar. He noted when Lake Zumbra was treated with fluridone, there were mixed results. He added although all aquatic plant life was killed by the herbicide, the water quality was greatly decreased due to a non-functioning ecosystem. He cOncluded over time, the Eurasian watermilfoil has reappeared in Lake Zumbra at a denser rate that existed prior to the application of Sonar. Suerth asked if the Task Force had any other comments on the agenda item. He thanked the representatives from the Carsons Bay HOA for their presentation. Agency Reports Barten reported that Hennepin Parks recently has received a successful grant two purchase to RUSS units to be place in Lake Minnetonka. He noted these units would be placed on Halsted's Bay and the Upper Lake in the vicinity of the Lake Minnetonka Regional Park. Crowell reported the MN DNR should complete the 1998 annual report by the end of January. She noted it would be forwarded once it has been completed. Update on the maintenance of LMCD harvesting equipment Nybeck circulated a detailed breakdown of work performed and related costs on the overhaul of the District harvesting equipment. He noted it would be discussed at the 1/13/99 LMCD Board of Directors' meeting. He concluded he would answer any questions that Task Force members have. / 2/4/99 TO: FROM: Board ofD~rectors ' f Introduction: The spread potential for Zebra Mussel is expected to be serious for 1999. Growing Zebra Mussel colonies in the St. Louis Bay of Lake Superior, St. Louis River, and portions of the Mississippi River signal the need for an all out spread prevention campaign. Sea Grant staff' in Duluth and the MN DNR in St. Paul have been targeting Zebra Mussel spread prevention methods for several years. LMCD's recent adoption of a spread prevention ordinance, narrowing the focus of existing state legislation, recognizes the priority of keeping the Zebra Mussel infestation out ofLake Minnetonka. This proposal narrows the focus and provides detail for a public education campaign which will expand Zebra Mussel spread prevention for Lake Minnetonka as well as benefit surrounding lakes. The following objective states the need. The goals have been prioritized by Exotic Committee Chair Herb Suerth, and staff, to represent responsibilities which may be undertaken by existing staff Funding estimates will not be complete at this time, but are expected to fall within the existing budget set for 1999. "Save the Lake" resources could serve to support the program as determined by the board as the program is further defined. Objective: Create a broad public awareness of the Zebra Mussel (ZM) threat to Lake Minnetonka and surrounding lakes by: 1. Encouraging voluntary cooperation in cleansing boats which have been in ZM infested waters, of all adult and larvae contamination, utilizing cleaning and inspection stations provided by the LMCD, cooperating agencies and marinas. 2. Intensifying the spread prevention message in a variety of public communications outlets. Goals: Print materials to be developed utilizing existing material, and develop new material where needed: a. Brochure - existing piece developed by LMCD in 1998 to be modified to incorporate the 1999 objective and goals; b. Pocket card- utilize existing Sea Grant ZM illustrated card; c. Boat windshield sticker - identifying the boater as supporting the ZM spread prevention campaign. (1) Offer incentive awards to persons displaying the sticker. Restaurant certificates purchased by LMCD at a negotiated generous discount (30% to 50% off?.) in exchange for publicity identification. Board members issue restaurant incentive awards to Zebrl Mussel Public Education Campaign, 2/4/99, Page 2 "~ "" boat operators displaying the sticker on basis of two per week, 5/15 through 9/6 (2) Add a year-end grand prize drawing of $500 for all boaters completing a registration card accompanying the boat sticker. (3) Introduce the windshield sticker at the April Crappie Tournament, with assistance by the event sponsor's Boy Scouts accompanied by an adult. (Opportunity here for board me,~ers to participate.) (4) Distribute at public accesses sta:xing with the fishing opener on 5/15/99. (Another opportunity for board members to participate). (5) Distribute stickers through LMCD, city offices and marinas, including marina slip, service and gas customers. (6) Cost of stickers and registration card will vary depending upon final quantity, 5,000 a likely number in the $700 range. (7) Registration could serve to identify areas from which boaters are entering the lake via public access, which are lakeshore residents and what are the communities in which slip customers live. Bounty,4ward- for boaters submitting their boat for inspection if it is known to have been in ZM infested waters. The bounty will encourage boat owners/operators to accept the inconvenience of bringing their boat in for an official inspection and ZM removal. Bounty Award program details include: a. Promote award through newspaper and radio public service news; b. Promote through marina sales & service outlets on Lake Minnetonka as well as select marinas on the Mississippi River in vicinity of ZM. c. Update the LMCD ZM brochure to include the bounty award plan; d. Invite marinas at strategic locations to provide inspection and boat wash after receiving LMCD/DNR training. Initially approach marinas to provide the hot water boat wash equipment as their investment in keeping ZM out of the lake. LMCD could reimburse marinas for boats inspected and washed. e. Negotiate the bounty award from marinas by purchasing $25.00 gas certificates on a reduced basis, thereby directing boat traffic to the cooperating marinas. f_ Boats responding to campaign are estimated at average of 20/month for the five months of May through September, total of 100 awards. g. Boat owners bringing boats in for bounty award inspection are to complete a registration form stating where and when a boat was in ZM infested waters, signed as to owner/operator and address. h. Boats participating in Special Events are not eligible for the bounty award. Special event sponsors are responsible to provide inspection/wash down in ca,es where boats have been in ZM infested waters. LMCD assist sponsors by usc of LMCD boat wash equipment. 3. Slosan - to ac, eompany ZM prevention efforts: "Let's Be Zebra Mussel Free" 4. Marina Operators Task Force -to create initiatives in support of preventing ZM introduction into Lake Minnetonka: a. Invite to an initial organizational meeting by mid-March; b. Ask marina operators for their input on how to strengthen the resolve to prevent introduction 0fZM into the l ke. (1) Include EM prevention messages in their own advertising and customer communication bulletins. /'~ (2) Cooperate in the Bounty Award program, including being a partner in the boat inspection and spray wash. ,.j .... ~'. in distributing boat windshield sticker to all slip customers, boats sold, and boats brought in for service. (4)Distribute ZM literature, flyers. (5) Pos1 prevention notices on docks, at launch area, service and sales counters. c. Meet monthly, March through August, quarterly in fall/winter. Citizens Advisory Task Force - serve as a focus group to recommend boater and homeowner concerns for ZM impact on recreation, lakes shore property use ~nd property values: a. Invite citizens from the 14 Lake Minnetonka communities, one regular and one alternate to encourage a full attendance at all meetings. Accept persons expressing interest from outside the 14 lake communities. b. Meet monthly, May through September, and quarterly in fall/winter months. c. Committee select a chairperson, vice chair and secretary to take minutes. Staff provide meeting notices, distribute minutes. 6. Inter-Agency Coordination - continue priority emphasis through the active involvement of agencies through the LMCD Exotics Task Force. Board Members -- serve as spokespersons to convey the ZM spread prevention message among civic organizations, cities, schools and marinas: a. Staff arrange appointments upon advance interest of board members. 8. News Release Campaign - prepare timely news releases to maintain a flow of information on the many aspects, progress and condition of ZM in area waters. 9. Outdoor Advertising - independent program or in cooperation with ~ DNR l 0. Lake MJnnctonka Association - engage the LMA in cooperative cffons to communicate ZM alert to all Lake Minnetonka homeowners. HOME OF THE WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZENS, INC. · 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD o MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 491-8084 WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER 1998 SERVICE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS Access Transportation Information/Referral Nutritional Meals Health Services 5. Volunteers/Leadership 6. Education 7. Recreational 8. Other Services 9. Senior Outreach 14, 356 one-way rides for shopping, medical, social, recreation, Sunday church service, visits to nursing homes, senior day care, etc (517 unduplicated residents) 11,000 requests handled by staff and volunteers 13,934 meals served (486 unduplicated seniors) 249 programs (health screenings, exercise, health and wellness programs, support groups, etc. 210 volunteers provided 21,227 hours of service 122 programs (speakers, craR classes, defensive driving, health etc. 120 events (fundraisers, parties, trips, other social events) Senior Tax Counselors (80 individuals served) and Health Counseling (487 seniors served through education and direct assistance with forms) Provided case management, counseling to over 100 individual seniors and their families in community During the 1998 year our Center touched the lives of 1,668 unduplicated seniors and their families. A Non-profit Organization Serving The Communities Of Mound · Orono · Spring Park · Minnetrista HOME OF THE WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZENS, INC. · 5600 LYNWOOD E~OULEVARD . MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 491-8084 WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER 1998 SERVICE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS Access Transportation Information/Referral Nutritional Meals Health Services 5. Volunteers/Leadership 6. Education 7. Recreational 8. Other Services 9. Senior Outreach 14, 356 one-way rides for shopping, medical, social, recreation, Sunday church service, visits to nursing homes, senior day care, etc (517 unduplicated residents) 11,000 requests handled by staff and volunteers 13,934 meals served (486 unduplicated seniors) 249 programs (health screenings, exercise, health and wellness programs, support groups, etc. 210 volunteers provided 21,227 hours of service 122 programs (speakers, craft classes, defensive driving, health etc. 120 events (fundraisers, parties, trips, other social events) Senior Tax Counselors (80 individuals served) and Health Counseling (487 seniors served through education and direct assistance with forms) Provided case management, counseling to over 100 individual seniors and their families in community During the 1998 year our Center touched the lives of 1,668 unduplicated seniors and their families. A Non-profit Organization Serving The Communities Of Mound · Orono · Spring Park · Minnetrista